Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the members of the committee for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Dwan Street. I am the president of the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, FFAW-Unifor. We represent thousands of fish harvesters, processing workers and coastal residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, whose livelihoods and communities depend directly on continued access to marine resources and the long-term health of the ocean.
I appreciate the committee's focus on marine and coastal protections and the opportunity to speak to how these measures have affected fishing communities, how conservation success is being measured and whether the stated objectives are actually being achieved.
Let me be clear at the outset: FFAW members support conservation. No one has a greater stake in healthy oceans than fish harvesters. Our members work on the water every day, and they depend on sustainable ecosystems, not only for today's income but for the long-term survival of their communities. That said, our experience over the past decade shows that while the intent behind marine and coastal protections may be well-meaning, the way these measures have been implemented has had serious and lasting consequences for fishing-dependent communities, while raising legitimate questions about fairness, consistency and effectiveness.
Since 2015, the federal government has significantly expanded marine protected areas and marine refuges. For coastal communities, these decisions are not abstract. They directly determine whether people can continue to make a living from the sea. When a fishing area is closed, the impact is immediate. More importantly, it is often permanent. Lost access represents a direct economic loss that extends across generations.
Fishing enterprises are built around access to specific grounds. Once that access is removed, it is rarely restored. Over time, closures reduce the viability of owner-operator enterprises and limit opportunities for young people to enter the fishery. They weaken processing capacity and, moreover, contribute to population decline in coastal communities. These impacts are compounded by the cumulative effect of multiple closures layered on top of one another, often without a full accounting of long-term socio-economic consequences. While conservation benefits are frequently framed at a national or global level, the costs are borne locally by fishing-dependent communities with few alternative economic options.
The FFAW is also deeply concerned about clear imbalances in how different ocean users are treated within marine refuges established in the name of conservation. In several cases, fishing activity is categorically prohibited, even where it may pose little to no risk for conservation objectives. For example, in areas such as the Funk Island Deep, fishing methods like longline fishing, which have minimal contact with the seabed, are not permitted. At the same time, in other areas, including the northeast marine slope refuge, oil and gas exploration and development activities are allowed to proceed.
What is particularly troubling is the process applied to these decisions. Oil and gas proponents are given the opportunity to demonstrate, through various tests and monitoring, that their activities will not cause significant harm to conservation. Fisheries are not given the opportunity. Fishing activity is simply excluded outright, without an equivalent evidence-based assessment or a chance to demonstrate compatibility with conservation goals. From the perspective of fish harvesters, this represents a clear double standard. Industrial activities are permitted subject to conditions, while fishing—a renewable, highly regulated activity that sustains coastal communities—is shut out entirely.
This imbalance is compounded by the lack of transparency around how the government measures whether conservation objectives are being achieved once protected areas are established. Monitoring and evaluation are inconsistent, long-term outcomes are often unclear, and results are not always publicly reported. Fishing activity is heavily monitored, controlled and enforced. It is reasonable to expect the same level of rigour and accountability in demonstrating that marine refuges and protected areas are delivering the environmental benefits that justified their creation.
Designation alone does not guarantee conservation success. If the objectives are biodiversity, protection, habitat conservation or stock recovery, those outcomes must be clearly demonstrated. Where evidence shows that objectives are not being met, management measures must be reviewed and adapted. Fish harvester knowledge must be central to that process. Our members possess generations of experience and understanding of marine ecosystems. That knowledge should not end at the designation stage. It must be part of ongoing monitoring, evaluation and decision-making.
In closing, marine and coastal protections must be effective, evidence-based and fair. When fishing access is removed, economic loss to coastal communities is often permanent and can last for generations. Canadians deserve clear evidence that such sacrifices are producing real environmental benefits. The FFAW believes conservation and sustainable fisheries are inseparable goals. Achieving both requires transparency, accountability, adaptive management and equal treatment of all ocean users.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.