The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met to study marine and coastal protections, hearing from eight witnesses including academics, industry representatives, and conservation experts.
Dr. Alex Caveen, a lecturer from the University of Hull, described the UK's experience with marine conservation zones (MCZs), noting that a target-driven process led to sites being designated without clear evidence of vulnerability to human disturbance. He stated that only 10% of UK MPAs have monitoring in place, and that a 2025 consultation on offshore MCZs was criticized for offering a binary choice of doing nothing or banning bottom trawling, ignoring industry calls for a pragmatic zonal approach. He recommended that MPAs be placed within a wider marine spatial planning framework and that stakeholder consultation happen early enough to influence final decisions, citing the Lyme Bay MPA as a successful example of industry-conservation collaboration.
Grant Dovey, Vice-President of the BC Seafood Alliance, argued that the greatest threat to commercial fishing in BC is the loss of access to fishing grounds from MPA implementation, particularly the Northern Shelf bioregion (NSB) draft zoning. He stated that the draft would cut access to key fisheries by 20% to 50%, with no updated comprehensive socio-economic impact analysis since 2020, and that the NSB would contribute less than 0.3% to national 30 by 30 targets. He contrasted this with the collaborative Gwaii Haanas process, where industry advice was incorporated, and noted that the marine planning team's 2020 recommendations to meet ecological targets while reducing fishing impacts by 75% have been ignored.
Katelyn Lindsay, a commercial fisheries representative with the BC Seafood Alliance, emphasized that fishing families support conservation but are facing uncertainty from MPA proposals that has driven fifth-generation fishermen out of the industry and deterred young people from entering. She stated that BC fisheries are world-class sustainable operations with rigorous management and $9.5 million in annual industry-funded science, and that the uncertainty from the NSB process has been ongoing for seven years without meaningful incorporation of industry advice.
Professor Ray Hilborn from the University of Washington argued that marine ecosystems are best protected by addressing specific threats, and that no-take areas are far less effective than good fisheries management, especially in countries like Canada where overfishing is not a problem. He stated that closing areas simply moves fishing pressure elsewhere, and that a 10-year review of California's MPA network found no increase in biodiversity or climate resilience. He recommended that resources be redirected to better fisheries management, including scientific surveys, stock assessments, and enforcement, and described the 30 by 30 movement as ideologically rather than scientifically driven.
Dr. Evan Edinger, a professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland, focused on deep-sea corals as vulnerable marine ecosystem indicators, noting that they grow slowly, live for centuries, and are highly sensitive to all bottom-contact fishing gear. He stated that the first pass of a trawl does the most damage, and that we often do not know where corals occur until they are encountered by fishing gear. He cited the Gilbert Bay MPA as an example where scientific recommendations to expand the area to protect a cod subpopulation were not implemented, and recommended using vessel monitoring systems and the fisheries observer program for enforcement.
Stephen Woodley, Vice-Chair for Science at the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, argued that the 30 by 30 target is science-based, not political, and that protected areas work when well designed, effectively managed, and equitably governed. He stated that no-take areas are the most effective and that spillover from them can increase fish catches outside boundaries, and he disagreed with Professor Hilborn, asserting that MPAs are an essential part of ocean management, not a substitute for fisheries management. He recommended that Canada implement the full suite of CBD targets, including sustainable fisheries management, and noted that the qualitative aspects of target three—location and management—are more important than the numerical target.
Ian MacPherson, Executive Director of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, stated that marine refuges around PEI were successful because harvesters chose the areas and methods of protection, but that these refuges lack management and conservation plans, leading to inconsistent rules where destructive activities like dredging are permitted while fishing is restricted. He recommended that conservation objectives be set collaboratively with fishers, that socio-economic impact analysis be prioritized, and that flexibility be built into the process to allow areas to be moved or reopened if climatic conditions change. He noted that the majority of MPAs in the region were established to protect soft corals, but confirmation of benefits to other species is limited.
Melanie Giffin, a marine biologist with the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, added that fishers are more likely to support and enforce MPAs when they are involved in choosing the areas and protections, and that DFO science often lags behind what harvesters observe on the water. She stated that MPAs are only effective with good management and enforcement, and that fishers should be involved at every stage, including any changes to existing areas.
The committee adopted a budget for the study without debate.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.