Fisheries Committee on Feb. 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Can you say it very quickly? We are out of time.

[Kathy Graham]

Yes, absolutely.

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Klassen.

Mr. Simard, you now have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Graham, what I have previously seen in other areas is that in a consultation process, there's usually some form of specifications. Those specifications cover the various criteria, the targeted groups, the length of the consultation and the methodology for interpreting the data.

Do you have any kind of specifications for the consultations that you conduct? Do you have a model that you use all the time?

[Kathy Graham]

Most of the consultations are carried out by each of our regions, with the representatives who are closest to community members, among others. There's definitely some variation in terms of approach, for example. However, I would say that the regulatory process very clearly outlines the steps that have to be taken.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Do you have some kind of format? Don't you have a format that you refer to for the various entities you have, a format that says you have to respect certain dimensions and that you have to hold consultations on certain types of issues? Is that not the case?

[Kathy Graham]

It's very specific for each of the sites.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Okay.

However, you must have something. There's no pro forma that resembles what you're doing as consultation. Is that correct?

[Kathy Graham]

The regulatory process is very clearly defined, as well as the steps that have to be taken to carry out the consultation.

I could submit some information on that to the committee.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

If you have any documents along those lines that would help the fishers who will be consulted understand how your methodology works, I think it would be appropriate to table those with the committee. My understanding is that fishers regularly feel that their opinions aren't being taken into account.

I assume you break down the information you collect in one way or another. There has to be some overlap. Some people probably say the same thing about a number of issues that raise the same type of concern. When these people eventually read the report and see that their point of view isn't represented, I understand that there's a disconnect. If the goal is for fishers to agree to establishing marine protected areas, they have to feel that their point of view has been taken into consideration.

Is there a way for them to see that you have taken their specific demands or concerns into account?

[Kathy Graham]

Thank you for the question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but the speaking time is already up. I know that two and a half minutes is very short, but if you could send a written response to the committee, we would appreciate it.

With that, we are going to Mr. Arnold for five minutes.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll start off by asking the clerk or the parliamentary secretary whether we've heard back on the third request we sent to the minister to appear at this committee. Has there been any response?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'll just turn to the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Maxime Ricard]

I have not received a response to our latest request.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

I'm sorry. My mic was on, so I didn't hear that. What was that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

The answer was no.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

There's been no response to our third request.

It's frustrating for this committee to hear officials paying lip service to the profound harm that Liberal policies have inflicted on Canadians. In 2018, this committee studied the process the Liberals were using to crush Canadians' livelihoods to achieve a political ideology. In 2018, this committee provided the Liberal government with 24 recommendations. Many of them were laser-focused on increasing co-operation with Canadians.

Now, eight years later, here we are once again examining the process, objectives and measurables for establishing marine protected areas and conservation areas. Why? I would say it's because the Liberal government chooses not to listen to Canadians whose lives, jobs, businesses, communities and futures have been damaged by Liberal ideological policies. Perhaps this is why the fisheries minister refuses to appear or even respond to this committee's request to appear on this study.

The Carney government is just as bad as the Trudeau days. Three times we've asked for the minister to appear on this important issue, and she won't show up. I want the officials to know that members reflect the frustration of Canadians who have come to this committee to testify and our own frustration that our efforts to work for Canadians are being stonewalled by the minister.

I hear you today saying that you're going to change. Your words, I believe, were that you heard “compelling testimonies” during this study. Why weren't you listening prior to that? It has been eight years since the last time we studied this.

Ms. Graham, can you tell us why you're listening now when you haven't been previously?

[Kathy Graham]

We're diligently working to engage with the fishing industry and to hear feedback and collect information from it on site design, because that moment is the most critical for genuinely understanding the proposed conservation measures and how they may create or generate an economic impact. That dialogue is the opportunity for us—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

I'll stop you there, because that leads to my next question, which is for Mr. Gilchrist.

You said that you identify objectives and present those objectives to see if they're workable. When we heard from representatives who were involved in the northern shelf bioregion consultations, we heard that after the initial objectives were provided, the industry came back with proposals that would have reduced the financial and socio-economic impacts and still met the conservation objectives, and the second version came back even worse.

How are Canadians and harvesters whose livelihoods are so dependent on this supposed to believe you or this government?

[Brett Gilchrist]

There are multiple examples of protected areas where boundaries were actually modified—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

I'm talking about the northern shelf bioregion process.

[Brett Gilchrist]

I would ask a colleague to speak to that.

[Kathy Graham]

Anna Classen is online and can speak to that.