The House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans studied marine and coastal protections, hearing from six witnesses: Jim McIsaac of the BC Shrimp Trawlers’ Association, Michael Barron of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, Diana Barkley of the Little Campbell Hatchery Society, Professor Mark Carr from the University of California, Santa Cruz, Fraser MacDonald from the University of British Columbia, and Keith Sullivan of the Newfoundland Aquaculture Industry Association.
Jim McIsaac argued that Canada’s 2023 MPA standards unfairly ban all trawling, including by small-scale shrimp boats, and that MPA planning is one-dimensional, ignoring social and economic objectives. He said that in the Northern Shelf Bioregion network, indigenous fisheries are exempt while small-scale non-indigenous harvesters are not, and that trust has been eroded because fishermen’s knowledge was used against them after they shared it in good faith. He recommended that MPAs have measurable targets, apply closures to all users, and be embedded in broader ocean planning.
Michael Barron said that MPAs like St. Anns Bank and the Eastern Canyons have left fishers uncertain about what success looks like, with little monitoring or public reporting to show whether habitats are improving. He stressed that conservation must be measured by ecological results, not just square kilometres on a map, and that consultation often feels like decisions are already made. He called for meaningful, real-time involvement of fishers and clear communication to rebuild trust.
Diana Barkley described the Little Campbell Hatchery’s 40-year partnership with DFO, releasing about 100,000 salmon annually and conducting tours for thousands of visitors. She said that MPAs help safeguard estuaries and nearshore habitats critical for juvenile salmon survival, and that her hatchery’s success depends on healthy coastal waters. She urged the committee to consider bringing back the BC Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund to support salmon recovery and replace aging hatchery infrastructure.
Mark Carr explained that California’s MPA network has robust ecological monitoring but insufficient attention to socio-economic consequences, and that the Great Bear Sea process aims to be more inclusive. He noted that MPAs can help distinguish climate-driven changes from fishing effects, benefiting fisheries, and that trade-offs between conservation and fishing can be balanced, as demonstrated in California where no fisheries were lost. He emphasized the importance of engaging stakeholders in designing socio-economic evaluations.
Fraser MacDonald said that Canada already has extensive fisheries management and that static MPAs should be used only for static benthic ecosystems, while fishing effort should be managed through integrated fisheries management plans. He argued that the uncertainty from the MPA process is driving young people out of the industry, as they cannot risk investing in boats and licences that may lose value. He called for a made-in-Canada approach where industry advice is actually incorporated into outcomes, not just heard.
Keith Sullivan stated that Canada has taken a terrestrial model of protection and applied it to marine areas, ignoring that many threats come from global warming and land-based pollution. He criticized Parks Canada’s consultation on the proposed south coast NMCA in Newfoundland, which refused to conduct a socio-economic review and left communities distrustful. He recommended completing independent socio-economic impact reviews early, revamping consultation to include provinces and industry, allowing responsible aquaculture within MPAs, and having one federal department lead marine spatial planning.
The committee heard no procedural debate, motions, or votes during this meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.