Good afternoon, honourable Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Michael Barron, and I am president of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association. I'm here not as an academic or a policy expert but as a commercial fisherman from Nova Scotia, someone whose livelihood and whose community's future depends on healthy oceans and fair, workable management.
No one in the fishing industry is opposed to conservation. In fact, our livelihoods depend on it; if the resource fails, so do we. Since 2015, however, marine coastal protection in Canada has changed rapidly. While some of that change has been necessary, much of it has left fishers wondering whether conservation is being measured in ways that actually reflect what is happening on the water.
In 2015, less than 1% of Canada's marine waters were protected. Since then, DFO moved quickly to meet an international target of 10% by 2020, but by 2019 that was actually exceeded at 13.8%.
On the water, the picture is more complicated. From a fisherman's perspective, success has been measured mostly by how many square kilometres are drawn on a map, not whether fish stocks are rebuilding, habitats are improving or fishing communities are more secure. The gap between policy and reality is where a lot of frustration comes from.
In Nova Scotia, there are two areas that stand out: St. Anns Bank and the Eastern Canyons.
St. Anns Bank has supported commercial fishing for generations. It's a working area, not a pristine one, but productive, and it matters to the people who fish there. Since its designation as a conservation area, fishers have been left with uncertainty. Some activities are still allowed but others aren't, and many of us still don't know what success looks like in DFO's eyes. We don't know what baseline is being used, what's being monitored or what would trigger changes—either more restrictions or fewer. From where we sit, it feels like we're being asked to accept limits without being shown clear evidence of what those limits are achieving.
The Eastern Canyons marine refuge raised similar concerns. No one disputes the importance of protecting deep-sea corals. Fishers understand sensitive habitat better than most, but this refuge also highlights a bigger issue: Very large areas are being counted towards conservation targets while much of the activity continues as before. At the same time, there's little public reporting to show whether the habitat is actually improving.
The question for fishers becomes simple: Are these measures about real protection or are they about meeting international targets as quickly as possible?
For commercial fishers, especially in the inshore owner-operator fleets, these designations have real consequences. We deal with increasing spatial restrictions, uncertainty about future access and layers of regulation that keep piling up. Meanwhile, consultation often feels like it happens after decisions are mostly made.
We're told what's coming, not asked what will work. That erodes trust, and without trust, conservation becomes harder, not easier.
Enforcement and monitoring are other concerns. We're told areas are protected, but many of us don't see consistent monitoring or enforcement on the water. There is limited baseline data and even less long-term reporting that shows whether these areas are healthier today than they were before protection. Fishers are being asked to shoulder responsibility without being shown results.
Climate change is also changing everything we know. Fish are moving, water temperatures are rising and productivity is shifting, yet most protected areas have fixed boundaries that don't move with the ecosystem. From a fishing perspective, that raises a real concern that we're locking in management decisions that won't make sense 10 to 20 years from now.
Finally, there's an issue with coordination. Offshore protection is federal, but what happens along the coast—habitat loss, shoreline development, pollution—often undermines what we are trying to protect. Fishers see that disconnect clearly, even when policy doesn't.
In closing, fishers want healthy oceans—we always have—but conservation has to be more than lines on a map. It has to be measured by real ecological results, clear rules, meaningful involvement of people who work on the water and management that can adapt as conditions change. Right now, too many fishers feel that marine protection is something being done to us, not with us. If DFO wants conservation to succeed in places like Nova Scotia, that needs to change.
Thank you for listening. I look forward to your questions.
