Fisheries Committee on Feb. 25th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to continue its study of marine and coastal protections.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I would like to ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. Measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants but particularly interpreters.

Pursuant to our motions, I can advise the committee that all witnesses appearing virtually have completed the required technical testing.

I have a few comments for the benefits of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function.

With that, I would like to welcome our witnesses today.

From the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, we have Kathy Graham, director general, marine planning and conservation; Amy Amos, regional director general, Arctic region, participating by video conference; Anna Classen, regional director general, Pacific region, participating by video conference; Doug Wentzell, regional director general, Maritimes region, participating by video conference; and Brett Gilchrist, director, national programs, fisheries and harbour management.

From the Department of the Environment, we have Marie-Eve Neron, director general, protected areas directorate.

From the Parks Canada Agency, we have David Millar, vice-president, protected areas establishment and conservation; and Lori Macadam, director, national marine conservation area establishment.

Welcome to everybody.

We'll start with witnesses' opening statements for five minutes or less, starting with Ms. Graham.

[Kathy Graham, Director General, Marine Planning and Conservation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to this committee once again.

I want to acknowledge that I am joining you from the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin people.

Since my last appearance, my colleagues and I have listened carefully to the compelling testimonies from the witnesses called before this committee. I have since met with several partners and stakeholders from across the country. We hear the fishing industry loud and clear. We need to strengthen trust in our process and more closely work together to better understand and address potential economic impacts. We've heard fish harvesters express these concerns, while also reaffirming their commitment to protecting fish stocks so that future generations can continue this way of life.

Fishing is a vital part of Canada's history, identity and economy, and it will remain central to our future. We look forward to continuing to work with all partners and stakeholders to find the best path forward, one that supports conservation goals alongside sustainable, prosperous fisheries. I look forward to guidance from this committee on how best to advance this goal, and I thank you, Mr. Chair, for bringing all of our voices to the table.

Today, I want to touch on the importance of relationships with partners and stakeholders, assessing and considering economic impacts, and the role conservation plays in maintaining healthy ecosystems while supporting sustainable fisheries.

First, as noted by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development, strong relationships drive successful outcomes. The support of all partners and stakeholders, such as the fishing industry, was instrumental in conserving over 15% of Canada's oceans. We know advancing meaningful marine conservation requires time and ongoing dialogue, including working through scenarios together. While we offer many opportunities for input throughout the establishment process, we recognize the need to do better to ensure that fishers are heard, respected and included. Their practical knowledge is invaluable, as is the research and monitoring work we do together. Continuing to strengthen all of these relationships remains a priority for Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Second, we recognize that our decisions directly affect the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities. We are taking community and industry concerns about the potential economic impacts very seriously. Decisions will continue to be based on science, indigenous and local knowledge, robust socio-economic analysis and extensive consultation. We continue to carefully consider potential economic impacts from the outset, working closely with industry to develop new baseline data to better inform boundary adjustments and zoning to minimize impacts while achieving site-specific conservation goals. To date, 10 of Canada's 14 Oceans Act marine protected areas have resulted in minimal impact on existing fisheries, and most allow some form of sustainable fishing.

Third, I wish to emphasize that according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, healthy marine ecosystems are vital for ocean nations, like Canada, aiming to maintain and grow a prosperous and sustainable ocean economy. Investments in marine protected areas help achieve these objectives by supporting, for instance, sustainable fish stocks. There is global scientific evidence that supports marine protected areas as an effective conservation tool. Marine protected areas safeguard ecosystems from a wide variety of human pressures, including risks that fisheries management alone cannot address.

The choice we make is not protection or prosperity; rather, protection is how we secure long-term prosperity. As stated by several witnesses, marine protected areas generate both direct and indirect economic benefits. By providing safe havens where species can grow and reproduce, they can support long-term stock recovery and stability. We have seen this in the Eastport marine protected area here in Canada. Further, marine protected areas also support tourism, research and innovation, cultural activities and indigenous reconciliation. Public support remains consistently strong. Canadians expect their government to maintain healthy oceans.

Let me conclude with one final note. Marine conservation and fishing can absolutely coexist. Through renewed dialogue, we can achieve necessary protections and ensure a sustainable fishing industry that supports strong coastal communities.

Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Marie-Eve Neron for five minutes or less.

[Marie-Eve Neron, Director General, Protected Areas Directorate, Department of the Environment]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Let me begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation, who have a relationship with this land stretching back at least 10,000 years.

The mission of the Canadian wildlife service is to achieve nature conservation outcomes for wildlife, habitats and the ecosystems of which they are a part, with a particular focus on migratory birds and species at risk. This includes establishing and managing protected areas in marine and coastal areas across Canada's three oceans. Coastal areas and offshore islands provide important nesting habitats, while ocean waters provide crucial foraging habitat for marine birds.

The Canadian wildlife service manages just over 150,000 square kilometres of land, coastline and water with high biodiversity value. Our marine network includes one wholly marine national wildlife area, 10 national wildlife areas and 44 migratory bird sanctuaries that have both coastal and marine components. Currently, Environment and Climate Change Canada contributes 0.54% towards Canada's marine conservation targets.

The national wildlife areas are managed through the wildlife area regulations under the Canada Wildlife Act. The migratory bird sanctuaries are managed through the migratory bird sanctuary regulations under the Migratory Birds Convention Act.

Canada's first marine national wildlife area, Scott Islands marine national wildlife area, was established in 2018 and consists of over 11,000 square kilometres of exclusively marine waters off the northwest coast of Vancouver Island. It supports the highest concentration of breeding seabirds on Canada's Pacific coast. Site-specific regulations are in place year-round to prohibit activities that may threaten the conservation objectives of the site.

The process to establish protected areas can be lengthy and complex. The Scott Islands marine national wildlife area took over 20 years to establish from conception. A terrestrial example is the Edéhzhíe national wildlife area and Dehcho protected area in the Northwest Territories, which took over 25 years to establish.

Consultation and engagement are at the core of Environment and Climate Change Canada's establishment process. Our department considers both ecological and socio-economic factors as well as obligations under treaties or land claim agreements when establishing protected areas. We work in collaboration with indigenous partners, stakeholders and other federal departments and levels of governments, as well as communities and non-government organizations.

Currently, Environment and Climate Change Canada is working in partnership with the Council of the Haida Nation to establish a proposed marine national wildlife area on Haida Gwaii in British Columbia. This is an ecologically rich and culturally significant place with important habitats for marine birds, fish, marine mammals, species at risk and other wildlife.

Nearshore Haida Gwaii was identified as an area for protection through the northern shelf bioregion marine protected area network action plan. The plan describes the approach to establishing new marine protected areas in the northern shelf bioregion, which is also called the Great Bear Sea. The plan was collaboratively developed and endorsed by 17 first nations, the Government of Canada and the Province of British Columbia.

ECCC is currently in the feasibility assessment phase for the proposed nearshore Haida Gwaii marine NWA. Building on the initial information included in the action plan, research and planning are under way to better study the area's environment, wildlife and human activities.

There are opportunities for broad input through the advisory committee, co-chaired by the department and the Council of the Haida Nation. Membership consists of stakeholders from across a variety of sectors, including government, industry, commercial fishing, recreational fishing, tourism and local ENGOs.

The advisory committee is currently reviewing the ecosystem overview report and a non-renewable resource assessment, which will contribute to the development of a socio-economic overview this fall. In future meetings, the committee will provide input on proposed boundaries, conservation objectives and proposed protection measures.

After the development of and consultation on a draft regulatory strategy, a site-specific regulation will be drafted and consulted on broadly via publication in Canada Gazette, part I. A regulatory impact analysis statement that includes a cost-benefit analysis will be published at the same time. Environment and Climate Change Canada is currently targeting prepublication in the Canada Gazette, part I, in 2028.

In Atlantic Canada, there are two key biodiversity areas where CWS, other government departments, rights holders and partners have invested in working towards marine national wildlife area—

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Ms. Neron, I'm afraid we're over time. Wrap it up very quickly if you could.

[Marie-Eve Neron]

I just want to thank you for your time. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much. Of course, there will be time, once we get into the rounds of questions, to get into that further.

We are now going to conclude with opening remarks from David Millar for five minutes or less.

[David Millar, Vice-President, Protected Areas Establishment and Conservation, Parks Canada Agency]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to discuss the contribution of Parks Canada's national marine conservation areas program to marine and coastal protections in Canada.

National marine conservation areas, or NMCAs, are one of several of Parks Canada's protected area programs focused on the conservation, management and visitor use of nationally significant examples of lands, waters and ice. We're a coastal nation, and Canadians take great pride in these natural environments.

NMCAs specifically play a vital role in conserving biodiversity and culturally significant places. In addition to supporting sustainable fisheries and industry, they create opportunities for tourism and recreation and bring economic diversity through new investment and economic activity to coastal communities. They allow Canadians to connect with oceans and places that are cornerstones of this country.

Parks Canada’s sites help diversify and invest in the economy of rural, northern and urban communities by creating approximately 40,000 jobs across Canada. The 24 million visitors to these places spend approximately $4.5 billion annually in surrounding communities—as an example, visitors to Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park brought approximately $125 million to the Province of Quebec in 2023.

NMCAs are designed and managed based on input from partners and stakeholders to ensure these ecological and economic benefits materialize. As my colleague from DFO mentioned, we recognize the need to learn from past experiences and input from stakeholders in order to ensure that our consultation processes are robust and that those who make their livelihoods from the oceans are involved early and often throughout the process. We will be continuing to work to improve our processes.

While oil, gas, mineral and aggregate exploration is prohibited throughout the totality of an NMCA, an NMCA is not a no-take zone or closed area. Many activities, such as commercial and recreational fisheries, marine transportation, tourism and recreation, can continue in NMCAs.

Parks Canada has listened attentively to the witnesses who have presented to this committee, as well as through all of the stakeholder engagements undertaken to date. We aim to continuously improve upon our processes by listening to and acting upon the input we have heard. We've heard that marine conservation remains an important objective for all and that we all must work better together to achieve it.

As Gwaii Haanas National Marine Conservation Area and Haida Heritage Site and Tallurutiup Imanga clearly demonstrate, by bringing various perspectives together early and consistently, we can and have designed NMCAs that balance conservation with socio-economic interests. Working in this way takes time, but it is the right and only way to proceed.

NMCAs are about ensuring a future in which healthy oceans create the conditions for both thriving ecosystems and vibrant indigenous and coastal communities. That future is only possible when all partners sit at the table, shape the vision and help turn it into reality, and that is our intention moving forward.

I look forward to your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

Thank you very much, Mr. Millar.

That concludes our opening remarks.

We're going right into the first round of questioning, the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses back. It's been a while, but it's great to see you back.

In November, we heard some interesting testimony from our panel here. Since then, we've heard a lot of testimony throughout this study from advocates of the Liberal-supported United Nations 30 by 30 initiative to stop or restrict economic access to resource industries like the fishing industry, aquaculture, and oil and gas, and to shut down 30% of that access by 2030. The vast majority of that testimony gave reasons other than climate change for enacting these closures, yet when Ms. Graham and others were all here on November 26, climate change was mentioned 14 times and was singled out as the main reason to close down these areas.

Numerous scientific, peer-reviewed studies don't agree with that theory. How do you quantify the reduction in atmospheric carbon that 30 by 30 will bring when so many experts say there's no means to do so?

[Kathy Graham]

With respect to the relationship between marine protected areas and climate change, marine protected areas actually buffer against climate change in a way that reduces vulnerability. Well-designed protected and conserved areas can provide refuge for species and habitat by reducing cumulative stresses, making them better able to adapt to changing climate conditions.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

In Atlantic Canada, marine-based industries are governed by 27 federal and provincial acts to protect those waters. Do you have a lack of faith in Canada's regulatory system, Ms. Graham?

[Kathy Graham]

The Oceans Act offers the opportunity for the government to address other human activities that are posing risks to the ocean as a whole. It's meant to complement the Fisheries Act, as an example, because the Fisheries Act on its own is unable to address certain risks that exist for the ocean.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Millar, 48,000 square kilometres of maritime waters alone are scheduled to be protected under the Liberal-blessed United Nations 30 by 30 initiative. That's eight times the size of Prince Edward Island. With these waters being protected by 27 acts of provincial governments or federal governments, why are you guys trying to take away the provinces' jurisdiction over the regulation of their industries and coastal waters?

[David Millar]

As my colleague mentioned, marine protected areas are intended to complement sector-specific regulations to ensure the conservation of biodiversity and other outcomes, including the conservation of culture. We work in close partnership with provinces and territories when we engage in these processes to come up with solutions that everyone supports in moving forward.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Once upon a time, Canada had a fisheries ambassador to represent the Canadian fishing industry at the United Nations and other high-level bilateral and multilateral meetings. In 2015, when this government was elected, the position of the fisheries ambassador was eliminated. Since then, this government has been sending members of ENGOs, such as Oceans North, to represent Canada's fishing interests.

Ms. Graham, why is your government sending foreign-funded activists who want to simply reduce fishing instead of an advocate who will support our fishing industry to the world?

[Kathy Graham]

My participation at the last UNOC, the United Nations conference for oceans, included representation from several ENGOs but also the fishing industry and indigenous communities.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Who would represent us from the fishing industry?

[Kathy Graham]

I recall Mr. Jim McIsaac being at UNOC in Portugal. That's one name I recall.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Would you agree that producing seafood in Canada is an important aspect of maintaining Canada's national food security?

[Kathy Graham]

Yes.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

There's a risk in setting up these protected areas. Outcomes can't be proven. Peer-reviewed studies say that the positive impact to surrounding areas by closing areas to fishing simply can't be proven. These are people in very high-level positions—academics and whatnot—who you'd never think would think that way. If there's a risk that the path we're on may not work out, is that an acceptable risk to take against Canada's food security?

[The Chair, Liberal, Patrick Weiler]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid I have to jump in. We're well over time.

If the witness would like to provide that answer in writing, it would be much appreciated.

With that, we will move on to our next questioner.

Mr. Cormier, you have six minutes.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

The committee has heard from many stakeholders and fishers as part of its study. As we know, the primary industry in my riding is fishing. Fishers are afraid, and rightly so, because it's difficult for them to understand this process. Sometimes when they arrive at a meeting, they are presented with a fait accompli. For example, they are shown maps of the marine conservation areas where they will no longer be able to fish for what they want. There's also a great deal of unpredictability, and they wonder what will happen if they can no longer fish in that area.

Earlier, I believe Ms. Graham said that some areas already in place had a minor impact on these people's incomes. I would like to ask the witnesses what constitutes a minor impact on the income and licence of a fisher who makes their living in this industry?

[Kathy Graham]

For our part, in terms of the stages of the socio-economic study, documents are available online that deal with socio-economic impact assessment and a summary of the regulatory impact analysis statement. They contain detailed information on the potential or anticipated impact of conservation areas. For most of them, the impact is defined as negligible; the amount is so small that it's not quantified. For a few, the amounts have been defined.

My colleague Mr. Gilchrist could give you more details on this.