Tag Archives: Salmon

Sobeys Pulls Farmed Salmon, Reviews Handling Procedures Due to Sea Lice Discovery in Stores

Share

Read this story from the Chronicle Herald on the decision by popular Canadian grocery chain Sobeys to pull farmed salmon from its Maritime shelves this past week over the discovery of whole fish with sea lice. (Oct. 23, 2012)

Sobeys found sea lice on about a dozen whole Atlantic salmon removed from store shelves last week and is reviewing quality control with the supplier, a grocery chain spokeswoman said Monday.

Whole Atlantic salmon have not yet been returned to the shelves.

“We pulled whole Atlantic salmon from Maritime store shelves after having the issue brought to our attention through social media,” Cynthia Thompson, with Sobeys Inc. in Stellarton, said in an interview.

“This amounted to about 80 fish, and staff who conducted the inspections found sea lice in some of these fish.”

Thompson said she understood sea lice were found on fewer than a dozen of the fish removed from the shelves.

The fish were removed from stores and inspected after a consumer posted a photo on Facebook of some sea lice on a whole Atlantic salmon allegedly purchased in Truro.

“We’re currently reviewing all the related quality-control issues with the wholesaler and expect to have whole Atlantic salmon back on the shelves in the not-to-distant future,” said Thompson.

“We, of course, urge any consumer experiencing any sort of quality control issue with any product in any of our stores to contact us as soon as possible.”

Sobeys sells few whole Atlantic salmon and more of the regular retail cuts and fillets of salmon, which were were not affected by Thursday’s product removal.

Sea lice affects farmed and wild salmon and is typically removed before the fish find their way into the retail distribution system, said Nell Halse, spokeswoman with Cooke Aquaculture Inc. in Blacks Harbour, N.B.

Halse said the whole Atlantic salmon involved in the clearance of the product from Sobeys shelves last week did not come from a Cooke Aquaculture farm.

The fish were from a different supplier who was using a Cooke-owned distribution company, she said.

“We can track each of our fish from the egg to the plate,” Halse said of the company’s quality-control system.

The source of the fish has not been identified.

Read more: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/152522-sobeys-reviews-salmon-handling-because-of-sea-lice?utm_source=website&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=most_read

Share
BC's Klinaklini River

Navigable Waters Protection Act under attack…again

Share

The Harper Government plans to further roll back the historic Navigable Waters Protection Act in this year’s omnibus budget bill. The new proposed changes to the Act follow serious cuts made in the 2009 budget, which included eliminating most environmental assessments based on navigable waters triggers and setting up a two-tier system separating waterways deemed worthy of protection from the vast majority which are not.

These new changes go even further. Based on the amendments included in this year’s 443-page budget bill, just 62 rivers and 97 lakes would enjoy the protection of the newly named Navigation Protection Act.

The Government isn’t hiding its intention with these changes, as Minister of Transportation Denis Lebel noted yesterday they could eliminate red tape for companies seeking to build mining and energy projects.

On CBC’s Power and Politics yesterday, Conservative pundit Tom Flanagan argued the new changes revert to the original spirit of the Act at its inception in 1882, namely to protect commercial navigation in major waterways, such as the St. Lawrence Seaway. But the principles upon which the Canadian Navigable Waters Protection Act were founded date back much further, to the Maga Carta and even Roman laws.

The Act historically balanced the right of navigation with rights to obstruct navigation through projects like bridges, pipelines, mines and other industrial impacts – but the process involved an environmental assessment which applied to any navigable watercourse. The 2009 amendments to the Act set up the principle of different classes of navigable waters and cut out the environmental assessment process, leaving the decision squarely in the hands of the transport minister. This latest gutting of the Act reduces the list of protected watercourses even further.

Environmental critics have been quick to attack the proposed changes. Keith Stewart of Greenpeace noted, “There are a lot of rivers not on the list that are used by Canadians and need to be protected.”

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May connected the changes to the Act to the long list of cuts to environmental protections and regulatory processes included Harper’s last omnibus budget bill. “The destruction of the Navigable Waters Protection Act and renaming it the Navigation Act is part of a consistent pattern of Stephen Harper trying to remove federal constitutional authorities for the environment.”

First Nations leaders also voiced their concerns. Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, in the midst of the Alberta Tar Sands, had this to say: “I am seriously concerned this is an indication of corruption in our current government. We hope there will be a public outcry that echoes our sentiment. After all, we all share the responsibility to protect mother earth.”

Share

Norwegian Salmon Farming Giant Appeals Loss in Defamation Case Against Activist Don Staniford

Share

Read this story from CBC.ca on the decision by Mainstream Canada – BC-based subsidiary of Norwegian Government-owned Cermaq – to appeal anti-salmon farming activist Don Staniford’s recent victory over the defamation suit they brought against him at the BC Supreme Court. (Oct. 16, 2012)

The defamation case between a British Columbia salmon-farming company and an outspoken critic appears to be far from over.

Mainstream Canada said Monday that it would appeal a September decision by a B.C. Supreme Court justice to dismiss a defamation case against Don Staniford, but only hours later the British-born activist responded, saying he’d fight the appeal.

At issue is a 2011 Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture campaign that included images of cigarette-like packages and statements such as “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking.”

Justice Elaine Adair dismissed the case in September in favour of Staniford’s defence of fair comment, saying while his statements were defamatory and he was motivated by malice, the activist honestly believed in what he was saying and animosity wasn’t his dominant purpose.

“While it is disappointing that she ruled against us on a technical legal issue, we will pursue this vigorously in the court of appeal,” said David Wotherspoon, the company’s lawyer in a statement.

The company also said that Adair’s decision, if it stands, could compromise healthy debate on matters of public policy, and those debates should be based on fact, and critics should be accountable for their comments.

“Mainstream Canada and their parent company Cermaq have once again ignored the first rule of PR: when in a hole stop digging,” said Staniford, in response to Mainstream’s announcement Monday night.

“Cermaq’s knee-jerk reaction to appeal is yet another case of this multi-million dollar company shooting itself in the foot. Common sense is clearly not a currency this Norwegian-owned multinational is used to dealing in.”

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/10/16/bc-salmon-farm-defamation.html

Share

Rafe Mair’s landmark free speech case credited in salmon activist Staniford’s victory

Share

I was delighted to learn recently that my good friend and colleague, leading salmon farming critic Don Staniford, won a major victory in the BC Supreme Court over the aquaculture industry – in large part thanks to an important legal precedent established by another good friend and colleague, Rafe Mair.

According to an opinion piece by Andrew Gage of West Coast Environmental Law, it was Rafe’s landmark victory at the Supreme Court of Canada a decade ago that formed the basis of Don’s victory in a defamation case brought against him last year by Mainstream Canada (the local arm of Norwegian global aquaculture giant Cermaq). At issue was a campaign the globetrotting British activist Staniford created comparing the salmon farming industry with Big Tobacco.

In his analysis of the case and judge’s ruling in favour of Staniford, announced two weeks ago, environmental law expert Andrew Gage explains how the precedent set by Mair’s victory in an unrelated defamation suit from his days on the radio at CKNW helped get Don off the hook today:

Don won because the Supreme Court of Canada has recently expanded the “defence of fair comment” in a case known as WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson. That case was a defamation suit against BC’s own Rafe Mair for comments that he made comparing a speech made by Kari Simpson on homosexuality to speeches made by Hitler and U.S. segregation era politicians. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed Rafe’s appeal, and in doing so, said that individuals who express honestly held opinions – as long as they are clearly opinions and not claims of fact – cannot be found guilty of defamation. The Supreme Court says that the defence applies where:

(a) the comment must be on a matter of public interest;

(b) the comment must be based on fact;

(c) the comment, though it can include inferences of fact, must be recognisable as comment;

(d) the comment must satisfy the following objective test: could any [person] honestly express that opinion on the proved facts?

(e) even though the comment satisfies the objective test the defence can be defeated if the plaintiff proves that the defendant was [subjectively] actuated by express malice.

Don’s case is the first defamation case that we’re aware of involving defamation by an environmental activist since the Supreme Court’s decision in WIC Radio, and Adair J. found that Don’s cigarette packages satisfied all of these criteria. In doing so, she made a couple of findings which will protect environmentalists and others seeking to comment on high profile public issues.

As Gage alludes to above, the campaign created by Staniford that led to Mainstream’s suit involved a series of cigarette package graphics – disseminated through his website, social media and print materials – containing images of the salmon farming industry and statements comparing it to the tobacco business. The essence of the comparison was more with regards to the industry’s PR tactics and corporate behaviour than medical matters, though many of the graphics raised specific health impacts for marine life and humans from its operations and products.

Staniford and his lawyer David Sutherland characterized Mainstream’s legal strategy as a SLAPP suit (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) – designed to shackle criticism of the company through the threat and reality of unwieldy legal costs. While Sutherland, acknowledged as one of the country’s top media and free speech lawyers, worked pro bono or at a reduced rate for much of the case, Don’s cause drew an outpouring of public support. In the end he raised $50,000 for his legal fund online, mostly through small donations, plus several other larger contributions from salmon fishermen’s unions, Norwegian anti-aquaculture groups and NGOs like West Coast Environmental Law.

I’ve had the privilege of working alongside both Don and Rafe for a number of years, doing battle with the Norwegian aquaculture giants around the world – and am proud of their significant contributions both to this cause and to the protection of free speech.

My assessment of Cermaq/Mainstream’s tactics in this case – apart from the legal dimensions, which are not my province – is that this Norwegian-Canadian Goliath allowed its own pride and bullying attitude to draw it into a battle it should never have waged.

Don had some valid points and he wasn’t the first to make them – in fact, the genesis of his campaign concept was a comment made by mutual ally and aquaculture critic Otto Langer in a documentary Don and I produced together a few years ago, called “Farmed Salmon Exposed”. In that film, the retired DFO senior scientist and manager equates the industry’s choice to deny steadfastly the growing body of evidence of its environmental impacts with Big Tobacco’s denial of health effects. But rather than agree to disagree with Don’s campaign, rebutting it through their own PR machine (which they did in abundance), they had to go one step further and bully him through the courts.

They saw Don was financially vulnerable and decided to attack him with a vengeance.

But Don had many assets on his side they failed to see: overwhelming public goodwill stemming from years of frustration with the industry – which translated into tens of thousands of dollars for Don’s legal fund – a skilled lawyer with a point to prove, and that little case won years ago at the Supreme Court by Rafe Mair.

In choosing to take this beef into the courts, Mainstream gambled and lost big time. Not only will they have to repay some of Staniford and Sutherland’s legals costs as part of the court’s judgement, but they suffered yet another black eye in the media.

As Andrew Gage asserts in his insightful post-mortem, Staniford’s case is a “victory for free speech” and “give[s] environmentalists some comfort that they won’t be held liable for any controversial statement made about corporations.” Yet it also underscores how heavily the legal process has become weighed toward corporations – and should prompt renewed discussion about tilting the balance more in the direction of free speech and social activism:

…the decision does nothing to address the broader problem of allowing large corporations with extremely deep pockets to drag their political opponents into court. The costs of going to court (and defamation cases are particularly expensive) are prohibitive for activists, but are a tax deductible expense for big companies. The result is an unequal playing field where those who speak out against environmental destruction risk being sued by deep-pocketed opponents.

Gage and Sutherland both offer solutions, including legislative changes to ban corporate lawsuits in defamation and specifically restricting SLAPP suits. Clearly, Don’s case brings these concerns to the fore again and it’s high time we had this discussion at the political level, instead of relying on costly courtroom battles to decide these matters one precedent at a time.

For the moment, though, I offer a pat on the back to my two friends and colleagues, Don and Rafe, for their ongoing commitment to the environment and free speech. Both have the balls to take on Goliath and the skill to land one between the eyes every now and then.

Share

Peter Ladner in Business in Vancouver: Recalculating the Costs of Salmon Farms in BC

Share

Read this story by Peter Ladner from Business in Vancouver, which details the author’s own recent conversion to a skeptic of the open net pen salmon aquaculture industry in BC. (Aug. 14, 2012)

I used to be keenly interested in fish farming. I toured fish farms, processing plants and hatcheries. I once spoke at the national meeting of the Canadian aquaculture industry in Ottawa to say that opposition to fish farms was overblown and misguided. I earned that trip through a series of columns in BIV defending the industry from ridiculous claims such as fears that escaped Atlantic salmon would outmuscle the native Pacific salmon and take over local streams. Today, I’m not so sure about the industry. I’ve followed anti-fish farm crusader Alexandra Morton’s campaigns with interest, believing that “crusading scientist” is an oxymoron (notwithstanding Morton’s honorary degree from SFU) and refusing to believe that all the problems of B.C.’s wild salmon fisheries could be pinned on lice, disease or antibiotics from fish farms. I’ve listened to my friends in the aquaculture industry insist that “90% of what she’s saying is not true.” According to one, who wouldn’t speak for attribution, “They have never found a disease in [farmed] Atlantic salmon that is not already present in [wild] Pacific salmon.”

Then I accepted an invitation to hear Morton speak July 16 at the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club. About 200 people were there on short notice to help her raise funds for disease testing at the Salmon Coast Field Station (www.salmoncoast.org, www.deptwildsalmon.org) and for her advocacy group, the Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society. There was money in the room.

Introduced by SFU professor of statistics Rick Routledge as one of the most competent scientists he had ever worked with, Morton launched into an impassioned and highly persuasive diatribe against an industry-government coverup of the spread of harmful European viruses from farmed salmon to B.C.’s beleaguered wild salmon stocks.

“Salmon farms amplify disease to levels wild salmon are not equipped to survive,” she concluded. Morton has taken it upon herself to finance tests of wild salmon to confirm her data showing that B.C. farm salmon are testing positive for European farm salmon diseases, among them the lethal infectious salmon anemia (ISA) virus that has devastated fish farms in other countries.

Morton says the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has been hiding ISA-positive results from Fraser River sockeye stock and in salmon farms in Clayoquot Sound. DFO scientist Kristi Miller, otherwise forbidden to speak to the media, told the Cohen commission she was prohibited from testing further for ISA, even though she had found it in two Clayoquot Sound salmon farms.

“No ISA virus has ever been found on farmed fish in B.C.,” declared Mary Ellen Walling, executive director of the BC Salmon Farmers Association (BCSFA). She says 7,000 fish have been tested by several government labs. “We would be very concerned if we found it on farmed fish.”

With good reason.

B.C. Agriculture Minister Don McRae said in March that Asian and U.S. markets were threatening to close their borders if the ISA virus was confirmed here.

That threatens an industry that is B.C.’s biggest agriculture exporter, provides some 6,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributes $800 million annually to the provincial economy, according to the BCSFA.

With all that at stake, it’s not surprising that government would bend and sway to protect the industry. But it’s inexcusable. That’s a view shared by John Fraser, former MP and fisheries minister, as he used the SOB epithet three times in his fiery closing remarks at the dinner, concluding, “if we don’t solve this [fish farm disease] problem, we’re not going to have any fish.”

For that to happen, publicly funded scientists have to be allowed to work to protect wild fish, not the fish farming industry.

Read original story: http://www.biv.com/article/20120814/BIV0319/308149943/-1/biv14/recalculating-the-costs-and-consequences-of-fish-farms-in-bc

 

Share

Salmon Activist Don Staniford Wins Big Victory in Defamation Case Over Norwegian Aquaculture Giant

Share

Read this story from CBC.ca on anti-salmon farming activist Don Staniford’s recent victory in the BC Supreme Court in a defamation case brought against him by Norwegian salmon farming giant Cermaq-Mainstream for a controversial campaign that equated the industry’s practices with Big Tobacco. (Sept. 28, 2012)

An anti-salmon-farming activist has won another victory against the global aquaculture industry, but also has been harshly criticized by a B.C. Supreme Court justice

Justice Elaine Adair has dismissed a defamation case launched by the salmon-farming company Mainstream Canada against Don Staniford over a 2011 campaign that included images of cigarette-like packages and statements such as “Salmon Farming Kills Like Smoking.”

In her ruling published Friday, Adair said while the statements were defamatory and Staniford was motivated by malice, the activist honestly believed in what he was saying and animosity wasn’t his dominant purpose.

The ruling left officials at Mainstream Canada, a subsidiary of the Norwegian company Cermaq, disappointed.

But the British-born Staniford, who was removed from Canada this past February for overstaying a visitor’s permit, was in a celebratory mood.

“I am over the proverbial moon and feel extremely vindicated,” he said during a phone interview from Spain. “All along I knew that Cermaq [was] whistling in the dark.”

“This is a victory not just for Don Staniford against Mainstream Canada. This is a victory for environmental campaigners, social-justice campaigners across the world.”

Laurie Jensen, a spokeswoman for Mainstream Canada, said the company will be reviewing the ruling, noting it’s too early to say if it will appeal, and she defended the court action, saying it was the right thing to do.

“What we’re seeing is a character of a person,” she said. “And because, you know, he’s not found legally responsible doesn’t mean that, you know, he’s getting away with things.”

She said Adair’s ruling supports many of the company’s allegations, but she’s disappointed the judge dismissed the court action over fair comment, a ruling she called “outrageous.”

The court action was not the first faced by Staniford.

His first legal threat came from a Scottish salmon-farming company in 2001 but that never went to trial. He also won a new trial that has yet to happen after appealing a defamation victory by B.C.’s Creative Salmon Company in 2007.

The latest defamation case was launched by Mainstream Canada based on a Jan. 31, 2011 Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture campaign.

Court documents state a news release sent to media included four mock-cigarette packages, all modelled after the Marlboro brand, containing statements like, “Salmon Farming Kills,” “Salmon Farming is Poison,” “Salmon Farming is Toxic,” and “Salmon Farming Seriously Damages Health.”

Images also appeared on the global alliance’s website.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/09/28/bc-anti-salmon-farming-activist-ruling.html

Share

Commercial, Recreational Sockeye Fisheries Likely Closed for 2012

Share

Read this story from CBC.ca, reporting that the commercial and recreational sockeye fisheries likely won’t open in 2012, due to low returns on the Fraser River. (Aug. 16, 2012)

British Columbia’s lucrative commercial and recreational sockeye salmon fishery is not likely to open this year, as Fisheries and Oceans Canada says there are simply not enough fish coming back.

Although there has been enough returning fish to fill the spawning grounds and open an aboriginal fishery, numbers have actually started to decrease.

In order for a commercial fishery to operate, the number of summer run sockeye salmon would have had to be roughly double last week’s count.

“Returns to some of the populations this year have been fairly good,” said Barry Rosenberger, co-chair of the Pacific Salmon Commission’s Fraser River Panel.

“But overall, we haven’t achieved a total abundance that would allow us to commercially fish.”

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2012/08/15/bc-sockeye-salmon-fishery.html

 

Share
Members of the Heiltsuk First Nation arrive at the recent Enbridge JRP hearings in Shearwater

The Rigamarole of ‘Public’ Environmental Hearings in BC: A Cameraman’s Perspective

Share

I recently attended the one-day hearing for the Joint Review Panel into the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline in the small community of Shearwater – the umpteenth meeting of this sort I’ve documented over the past 6 years covering environmental politics in BC. At the end of the meeting, throughout which I recorded the continued disrespect of the public and Heiltsuk First Nations people – in whose traditional territory the meeting took place – by the National Energy Board panel running the show, I was assaulted by panel staff. But we’ll get to that in a moment.

Listen to exclusive audio from the July 27 Enbridge hearing and Damien’s interview with Rae Kornberger of CHLY 101.7 FM in Nanaimo on the Bella Bella and Shearwater hearings:

First, a little background. The July 27 meeting was a make-up for the lost day of hearings in nearby Bella Bella this past April, which I also documented thoroughly in these pages and through the national mainstream media. I was, in fact, essentially the only media in attendance at that hearing. I helped, along with a small team of terrific people from the Heiltsuk Nation, to correct the record when the panel attempted to cancel the whole week of scheduled testimony over bogus insinuations that a peaceful greeting at the airport, largely by schoolchildren, First Nations chiefs and elders in regalia, turned violent.

Representatives of the panel implied the group was an unruly mob that threatened the very safety of the panel. As our footage clearly displayed on everything from CBC’s The National to Global TV and CTV, the reality was nothing of the sort.

The RCMP, who were supervising the whole thing, later put out a statement affirming it was indeed a “peaceful demonstration and there were no incidents to report.” Yet within a few hours of Sunday’s greeting at the airport, the panel had sent an email to the band’s chief, Marilyn Slett, informing her they were cancelling the week’s hearings.

By Monday afternoon, however, following a barrage of provincial and national media stories which scoffed at the panel’s story, the hearings were back on. No apology, of course, and the story had changed – now it was simply a matter of “logistical difficulties”, a bold-faced lie given the email they sent to the chief, which stated:

The panel cannot be in a situation where it is unsure whether the crowd will be peaceful…Based on our experiences this afternoon, the panel is concerned that a meaningful hearing cannot be achieved.

The Heiltsuk went on to acquit themselves brilliantly at the reinstated hearings, in spite of the atmosphere of disrespect they were forced to operate within in their own territory – producing speech after speech of powerful material for the panel to consider, such as the testimony of young William Housty or this compilation of statements.

That brings us to July 27 – a day of testimony to make up for the lost hearings the last time around. Only, this meeting was held in the largely non-aboriginal community of Shearwater, across the water from Bella Bella, in a hall not nearly big enough to accommodate the community that wished to attend. Nor was it easy for media to reach – only myself, Kai Nagata of The Tyee, and perhaps one print journalist managed to make it.

None of this was surprising, based on my experiences with the panel to date, nor was their lack of contrition for their appalling behaviour in April, or their continued rudeness and adherence to invented, stifling protocols.

At one point, panel member Kenneth Bateman cut off Ingmar Lee of Shearwater, mid-testimony, issuing the following lecture:

This is not an opportunity to provide a personal political statement or to make disparaging remarks of any party. We want this to be respectful of all parties. It also needs to relate directly to the project and not to Canadian affairs at broad…I will stop you if you continue in the vein that you have because it is not consistent with the respectful approach that we have taken and have require from all parties.

Listen to the back-and-forth between presenter Ingmar Lee and panel member Kenneth Bateman:

Just how respectfully does this bunch conduct itself? At meeting’s conclusion, the panelists leapt from their seats and darted out the back door. When I pursued them with my camera to capture their escape, I was immediately physically obstructed by two unidentified panel staff, knocking the microphone off my camera in the process. I was told by a woman who refused to identify herself to me but whom I was later informed provided “secretarial services to the panel” that I had “crossed the line” – evidently an invisible one somewhere near the front of the room, of which I was never informed.

We can argue about who crossed what line.

I chose not to take any action, even though the incident occurred in full view of the audience and a local citizen journalist with another camera and despite the platoon of police officers stationed outside the venue – I have more important things to focus my energies on. I did, however, take the opportunity to speak to the panel’s facilitator, Ruth Mills, telling her that in all my years of documenting these sorts of processes, this panel has conducted itself with less class than any I’ve witnessed. 

The whole Enbridge JRP process has been a farce, especially given Prime Minister Harper’s position that he will push the pipeline through even if the panel rules against it.

Yet in spite of the obvious futility of the process, I’ve had the great privilege to witness and document moving testimony from British Columbians and First Nations, which has given me a whole new appreciation for this land and its people – and a much deeper understanding of the history of our province and nation. And for that, it has proven an immensely rewarding experience.

I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that I’ve documented more environmental assessment meetings, judicial inquiries, and “public” open houses relating to industrial projects throughout this province over the past five or six years than anyone – so these Enbridge hearings call to mind a number of similarly negative experiences. I will relate just a select few below. 

To borrow a line from my colleague Rafe Mair, “I’d rather have a root canal without anaesthetic than attend another one of these things.” But I believe someone needs to do it.

The Cohen Inquiry into Disappearing Fraser Sockeye

At the Cohen Commission last year, I, along with all other media, was forbidden from bringing a camera into the proceedings. On some days, there was one camera permitted to a gentleman working on a documentary – that being connected to a video feed in a separate media room. I was initially granted access to this room by the the Inquiry’s media liaison, Carla Shore, but told I couldn’t patch into the video feed because the 30-year old beta deck had been rented by the CBC and I did not have their permission to use it. I gladly offered to: A. pay for my use of the machine; B. provide my own machine; C. contact the CBC and obtain permission from them to use their equipment. None of these was acceptable to her.

Fed up with this runaround, I plugged a video recorder into the deck, thus unleashing the fury of Ms. Shore. Little did she know, the recorder for the livestream audio feed, due to technical issues, had been placed directly in front of a small speaker inside the media room which was playing the audio from the hearings. That meant the microphone would pick up any noise in the room and stream it live on the Commission’s website, along with the testimony inside.

I was later told by a number of people who were listening to the livestream that they figured a riot had broken out right in the midst of the Cohen Inquiry.

Listen to Damien’s run-in with media liaison Carla Shore at the Cohen Commission last September:

Having later discovered the whole thing had been inadvertently captured, Ms. Shore sheepishly apologized to me for the incident and revoked the ban she had since instated on my use of the media room.

In the end, it emerged through our conversations that the reason she was so obstructive towards me was that she’d read my editorial earlier that morning and deemed me to be too opinionated, thus disqualifying me as a journalist.

I reminded her that my publication had produced a significant amount of well-read coverage on the Cohen Inquiry, that my colleague Rafe Mair was in the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Hall of Fame and had won every major journalistic award in the country, and that together we had likely done more to document the salmon farming industry and salmon issues in general than any media team in BC over the past decade…and yet, somehow, this one woman’s arbitrary opinion as to the worthiness of my credentials impeded my ability to report on a “public” Judicial Inquiry of enormous import.

Private River Power Environmental Assessment Hearings

Rafe and I have had far too many run-ins with the “run of river” assessment people over the years to mention. Suffice it to say, the entire process has been an affront to the public interest. Not one meeting is designed to hear whether citizens want these projects, and when a speaker goes there, they are promptly ruled out of order. The companies clearly control the process, choosing the most out-of-the-way, inconvenient locations and times for the meetings.

On several occasions, this blew up in their face – such as the famous Pitt River meeting where so many people crammed into a tiny room the proponent had booked that the fire marshal had to be called and the meeting rescheduled to a much larger venue. This was again packed – this time with 1,400 people – and the day after, the project was essentially killed.

The same thing happened in the tiny town of Kaslo (pop. 1,000), where 1,100 people turned out to oppose the Glacier-Howser projects in the Kootenays. They had to take over the meeting from the proponent – who was intent on wasting everyone’s time with a half-hour, glossy powerpoint – and one-by-one they delivered the message that this thing was not going to happen.

But my most heated private power run-ins involved GE’s proposed Bute Inlet mega-project, particularly with the head of the Canadian Environmental Assessment team there, Ms. Kathy Eichenburger. Needless to say, Kathy and I got off to a rocky start when she insisted I not film the first round of proceedings in Powell River. I held my ground after 4 or 5 attempts by different staff to convince me to stow my camera. Rafe got in trouble once or twice too for his less-than-diplomatic language, as I recall.

Then, in Campbell River, Ms. Eichenburger continued to overlook me as a speaker, as I waited to voice my concerns about the project. In a side bar, she told me that since I’d spoken already in Powell River, I wouldn’t be getting a turn tonight. I informed her that Campbell River was my hometown, that I’d traveled a whole day to be there and I was bloody well going to say my piece, even if that meant grabbing the microphone off its stand. To which she threatened she would call the police on me. To which I quoted Clint Eastwood.

Needless to say, I got my turn at the microphone and also fully documented both hearings, produced a short documentary on the project and continued to work with Rafe and many others to see it shelved, where it thankfully remains (though not certainly forevermore).

This is just a small sampling of the many colourful experiences I’ve had with these “public” meetings deciding the fate of our public resources.

Neither Rafe nor I are reporters; and we are only “journalists” if you accept Mike Smyth or Vaughn Palmer or Barbara Yaffe or any other editorialist as a journalist. We are in the business of expressing ourselves and the views of others, where it regards the environment and public interest in Canada, and particularly BC. We strive, above all, to get to the bottom of and speak the truth about these largely destructive projects.

In the course of our work around these meetings, we have found ourselves deeply frustrated by the process, for the above reasons. But these events are scarcely a waste of time – on the contrary, they have proven to be a focal point in the battle over our precious resources, even our very democracy. And so Rafe and I go to them – and we will not be told what to report on, how to go about it, nor how to express or not express ourselves at the microphone.

In all my days of witnessing these farcical stage-plays that masquerade as “public” hearings, The Enbridge JRP takes the cake. As I told the panel’s facilitator after my run-in with her team, the harder you try to impede the public will, the ruder you are to the citizens and First Nations of this province, the more you help their cause.

So, by all means, keep it up.

And remember, you’re on candid camera.

Share

Deadly IHN Salmon Virus Turns up at Fish Farm on Sunshine Coast

Share

Watch this CTV video news report on the discovery of IHN virus, known to cause the deadly Heart and Skeletal Muscular Inflammation disease in farmed fish, a yet another fish farm – this time in Jervis Inlet on the Sunshine Coast. (Aug. 3, 2012)

Another salmon farm in British Columbia is dealing with an outbreak of IHN, a fatal virus that can devastate fish populations.

Greig Seafood says its farm on Culloden Point, in Jervis Inlet on the Sunshine Coast, north of Vancouver, has produced preliminary positive results for IHN, or infectious haematopoietic necrosis virus.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing more tests and final confirmation is expected over the weekend. In the meantime, the company has voluntarily quarantined the facility.

IHN was also detected on Monday at a Mainstream Canada facility north of Tofino, in Millar Channel. Mainstream has also isolated the site to try to limit the spread of the virus. It says there have been no mass fish die-offs at the farm since the discovery.

In May, the virus was detected at another Mainstream Canada farm in Tofino, this time at a fish farm in Dixon Bay. The company says that given the length of time between the cases, it doesn’t think the virus at Millar Channel came from the Dixon Bay farm.

“Migrating wild salmon, natural carriers of the virus, are a more likely source,” the company said in a news release.

IHN is a virus that causes fish bellies to swell and can quickly lead to death, especially in younger fish. The virus is considered endemic to the Pacific Coast and is transmitted in the water through infected fish feces, urine and external mucous.

It’s often fatal in farmed Atlantic salmon, because the fish are not native to the Pacific Ocean and do not have any natural resistance.

Share

Salmon Virus Detected at Yet Another Norwegian Fish Farm in Clayoquot Sound

Share

Read this story from Tofino’s Westerly News on the discovery of IHN virus – known to cause fatal heart and skeletal muscular disease – in another of Norwegian company Cermaq-Mainstream’s farms in the Clayoquot Sound region on west Vancouver Island this past Friday. The announcement comes as the same company is pushing to open a new salmon farm at nearby Plover Point. (July 31, 2012)

The Infectious Haematopoietic Necrosis virus (IHN) was detected at Mainstream Canada’s Millar Channel farm, near Tofino, on July 27.

The company was made aware of the detection on Friday evening by the provincial animal health lab.

Mainstream has stepped up monitoring efforts at its Clayoqout farm sites since an IHN outbreak occurred at the company’s Dixon Bay location in May.

As was reported in the Westerly News May 24, the IHN outbreak at Dixon lead to the culling of the farm’s population-about 550,000 fish.

Millar is Mainstream’s closest site to Dixon with about 6.5 kilometres between the two farms. Despite this proximity, Mainstream is confident the Millar virus did not originate from Dixon and cites the length of time between the two cases, as well as the company’s following of strict biosecurity measures, as reasons for this confidence.

Mainstream is pointing at migrating wild salmon as a more likely source of the virus because, according to the company’s media release, wild salmon carry the IHN virus naturally.

Millar is now isolated and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is set to conduct an investigation at the site to determine the fate of its fish population.

Millar’s fish are smallish weighing in at an approximate average of 400 grams each. “Unfortunately, our Millar Channel farm has tested positive in qPCR tests for the IHN

Virus…We are waiting for results from confirmatory tests,” the Mainstream’s managing director Fernando Villarroel says.

Mainstream Canada operates 17 farms in the Tofino area.

Read original article: http://www2.canada.com/westerly/story.html?id=b80e88ef-bef0-4b4d-b814-222aa0f9dee8

Share