Category Archives: Fisheries

Salmon Politics and the Egg Trade

January 24, 2012Fisheries, Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, cohen commission, ISA virus, Ray Grigg, Salmon, Shades of GreenRay Grigg

The source of the infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAv) now being found in BC’s wild salmon is almost certainly from imported Atlantic salmon eggs, the international trade that has provided coastal salmon farms with most of their stock. The salmon farming industry, of course, is still denying that ISAv is here, although evidence given at the Cohen Commission’s extraordinary three days of hearings on December 15th, 16th and 19th essentially obliterates that defence.

Of four labs testing for ISAv in wild fish samples, the only one seemingly unable to find it is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s facility in Moncton, New Brunswick, a lab whose detection capability is known by experts to be notoriously insensitive and inconsistent – an inaccuracy compounded by attempting to use degraded tissue samples. Research tests by a reputable lab in 2004 found 100 percent infection in Cultus Lake sockeye – inexplicably never pursued by federal agencies responsible for the health of wild salmon. Testimony from Dr. Kristi Miller showing genomic markers in archaic samples of BC wild salmon indicates that ISAv has been here since 1986.

Documents presented at the Cohen Commission suggest that the arrival of ISAv coincides with the early importation of Atlantic salmon eggs to West Coast salmon farms. Supporting this connection is a recorded litany of warnings from experts in BC’s Ministry of Environment (MOE) and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), all alarmed about the inherent danger of importing exotic diseases to the West Coast ecology through Atlantic salmon eggs. This evidence is worth noting.

1982: representatives of Canada’s government meet with Norwegian and Canadian business interests to consider “alternative approaches to inspection and certification of salmon culture facilities” for the importation of Atlantic salmon material from Norway.

1984: Canada’s DFO approves limited importation of Atlantic salmon material, an event that is not announced publicly.

1985: 300,000 eggs are imported, subject to a “Draft Importation of Salmonids Policy” requiring a 12 month quarantine. But Dave Narver of MOE expresses concern to his Assistant Deputy Minister about the policy. “I am getting increasingly anxious about our importing of Atlantic eggs,” he writes. “My concern is shared by many of my colleagues in both provincial and federal agencies. The fish health measures agreed to jointly by DFO and ourselves in the fall of 1984 are not foolproof. They are based on statistical sampling, so we are taking a risk when it comes to the introductions of virus. That means a risk to the nearly one-billion-dollar wild salmonid fisheries of British Columbia.” An additional 130,000 Atlantic salmon eggs are imported from Scotland.

1986: Narver reiterates his concerns to Pacific Aqua Foods about an unsigned and non-public policy. “We are deeply concerned with the fact that the risk of exotic diseases is dependent on both the number of imports and their size. Government has made a commitment to support aquaculture, but surely not at the risk of a nearly $1 billion resource in the wild salmon fisheries of British Columbia. The direction the aquaculture industry wants us to go will insure that we import unwanted diseases that can impact on government hatcheries and wild stocks.” Narver sends a similar letter of concern to Stolt Sea Farm Canada Inc. “To start with a general comment, I am disappointed with what appears to be the prevailing attitude of a number of companies, that fish health regulations to protect wild stocks are great, but if we continue the way the aquaculture industry seems to dictate, we can expect to introduce new diseases.” 1,144,000 eggs are imported from Scotland.

1987: Federal-Provincial Policy for the Importation of Live Salmonids is signed, but quarantine time is reduced to 4 months to reduce the industry’s cost of dealing with waste water. Pat Chamut of DFO expresses a trade concern. “If challenged in court over denial of any imports, what is the legal likelihood we would be successful in denying imports?” 1,281,000 eggs are imported from Scotland and Washington State.

1990: Salmon farmers in the US claim Canada’s import restrictions are a trade barrier. Chamut reiterates his concerns to the Policy Division of Pacific Rim and Trade. “Continued large-scale introductions from areas of the world including Washington State, Scotland, Norway and even eastern Canada would eventually result in the introduction of exotic disease agents of which the potential impact on both cultured and wild salmonids in BC could be both biologically damaging to the resource and economically devastating to its user groups.”

1991: Numerous warnings are written by DFO and MOE officials, all concerning the dangers of importing diseases from foreign salmon eggs – a danger compounded by trade agreements allowing the salmon farming industry to import larger numbers of eggs. Narver’s letter from MOE to DFO is typical for 1991. “The proposed revisions not only open the window indefinitely but essentially allow for unlimited numbers of eggs. I know your Department argues that this has to done to avoid a Free Trade ruling.” Subsequent to these warnings comes a 1991 letter from BC Packers’ Director of Aquaculture to DFO. “As we have no other disease-free source available [other than Iceland] anywhere in the world, I am requesting that you reconsider your position, particularly in the light of the expected change in the DFO regulations.” Regulations are duly relaxed and from 1991 to 2010 at least 23 million eggs are imported into BC waters, mostly from sources other than Iceland.

This evidence from the Cohen Commission confirms that international sources of eggs were known to be rife with disease and that the aquaculture industry was perfectly willing to import these eggs, despite known risks and repeated warnings. Given trade agreements and the political leverage of the salmon farming industry to reduce precautionary regulations – the direction it “seems to dictate”, in Dave Narver’s damning words – the arrival of ISAv and other exotic diseases in BC’s marine ecology was inevitable.

Vancouver Sun Op-ed: Fraser Sockeye Dying of Politics

January 3, 2012Canada, Fisheries, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, cohen commission, Politics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this op-ed in The Vancouver Sun by Dr. Craig Orr and Stan Proboszcz of Watershed Watch, which provides a compelling summary in the wake of the Cohen Commission of the political dynamics threatening Fraser River sockeye. (Dec 27, 2011)

Sockeye are plagued by a lack of food, lax pollution standards, ineffective habitat protection efforts, archaic water laws, harmful hydro impacts, unjustified riverbed mining, a “modernized” Fisheries Act, illegal fishing, subpar catch monitoring, and debilitating climate change. Unlucky Oncorhynchus nerka must also swim a gauntlet of non-selective nets, predators, toxic algae blooms, and pathogen-bearing fish farms — all for an increasingly slim chance to spawn and die.

If these stresses weren’t troubling enough, the federal review of Fraser sockeye woes recently reopened to testimony about positive tests for the infectious salmon anemia virus (ISAv) in wild and farmed salmon. Indeed, despite vigorous government assurances to the contrary, compelling evidence suggests this virus has been here for some time. Governments’ reaction to the news — and to leaks that they had known of a possible virus for nearly a decade — prompts one to fear that wild salmon ranked disturbingly low on their list of priorities.

Reaction to reports of a virus associated with salmon farms predictably meant strident denial among Canada’s regulators, followed by something more insidious. Governments seemed less inclined to act on disease and public concerns, and more intent on firing back at the scientists who reported ISAv positives. Judge Bruce Cohen was told scientists felt “intimidated,” “attacked,” and “alienated.” Samples were seized, methods publicly questioned, labs audited. Fisheries ministers unleashed media releases chastising highly accredited academics for “reckless behaviour” and “unsound science.”

Beyond Cohen: Salmon issue must follow path of oil tanker resistance – uniting First Nations, conservationists, citizens

December 27, 2011First Nations, Fisheries, Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureDamien Gillis

It wasn’t until the final hours of the final day of the Cohen Commission into declining Fraser River sockeye, last Monday, that it truly became clear to me. After all the hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and thousands of hours of testimony made public by the Inquiry; after all the back and forth in the media about what has been happening to our wild fish – the whole issue will likely come down to how well First Nations, concerned conservationists and citizens work together to force real change on the Harper Government and that sorry, malfunctioning institution know as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

It was at this point that the appalling ignorance and disrespect at DFO and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency with regards to First Nations were lain bare before the Inquiry (articulated in this strongly-worded rebuttal from the Assembly of First Nations). Nicole Schabus, counsel for the Sto:lo Tribal Council and Cheam Indian Band – whose traditional territories encompass much of the Lower Fraser Basin – was grilling DFO’s Simon Jones about his lab’s discovery of an alarming number of Cultus Lake sockeye with indications ISA virus in the early 2000s. Jones’ post-doctoral student at the time, Dr. Molly Kibenge, had tested 64 out of 64 sockeye from the endangered Cultus stock positive for the virus.

The finding was later questioned in an email between Kibenge and Jones made public by Canada’s Counsel in the waning moments of the Inquiry – suggesting there may have been a problem with the test itself – but that would seem to argue for a fresh round of tests at the time, not the offhand dismissal of the troubling result, which is what in fact happened. Dr. Jones declined to publish Kibenge’s paper back in 2004 and furthermore neglected to pursue any follow-up tests – or even to disclose his lab’s findings to the Inquiry when it scheduled extra hearings to deal specifically with ISAv. Dr. Jones also failed to disclose these findings to Ms. Schabus’ client – despite the fact DFO took fish from their traditional territory for testing; and the fact the First Nation had been desperately searching for answers to the collapse of the Cultus stock and working hard to rebuild it.

But while DFO didn’t see fit to disclose its findings to the Stol:lo, it did notify representatives of the aquaculture industry at the time, the Inquiry learned – yet another slap in the face to First Nations.

Under questioning from the Sto:lo’s lawyer, DFO senior manager Stephen Stephen fell back on his default defence throughout his appearance at the Inquiry: “I want to reiterate, we do not report unconfirmed results.” Dr. Kim Klotins of the CFIA, seated next to him chimed in, “We did not involve the Stol:lo Nation – I didn’t realize there was an agreement with them.” Ms. Schabus fired back, “Not an agreement – an obligation!” (emphasis added).

Later, Krista Robertson, counsel for the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council (the Broughton Archipelago First Nations), asked Dr. Klotins whether the CFIA had consulted First Nations in the development of its “surveillance plan”, which will only begin to sample and test a few hundred fish for ISAv this Spring (they have yet to conduct a single sample and test of their own!). After much hemming and hawing, Dr. Klotins conceded, “We have not yet engaged in discussion with First Nations. We’re just putting that plan together and information will be put out in the New Year.”

Robertson continued, “Did you have communication with the First Nations in Rivers Inlet [where the ISA positives in Oct 2011 were reported]?” “No,” replied Dr. Klotins. Clearly, the CFIA could use a tutorial about its constitutional requirements in dealing with First Nations in BC. Judging by Dr. Klotins’ performance on the stand, it is as though they’ve never even heard of title and rights – nor would it appear have many of DFO’s higher-ups.

The Inquiry also saw an email communication between a First Nations fisheries officer asking a DFO representative whether his organization could offer any help in sampling wild sockeye to test for ISAv this Fall following the discovery of the virus in wild BC salmon. The DFO officer replied simply, “At this point in time we do not feel that more sampling for ISAv is warranted.”

Earlier on, under questioning from Leah Pence, counsel for the First Nations Coalition, Stephen Stephen had acknowledged DFO has not been communicating at all with First Nations with respect to ISAv. When Ms. Pence showed evidence that the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association’s chief flack Mary-Ellen Walling had been included in a technical briefing regarding ISAv on November 10, 2011, Dr. Klotins had nothing but empty stammering to offer in response.

In the brief time the three lawyers representing First Nations had with the witnesses on this final day of the Commission, a clear pattern emerged, wherein fish farmers enjoy far more inside access and special privileges with regards to ISAv and other important matters to do with wild salmon than do First Nations with constitutionally enshrined legal rights. And no one among the DFO and CFIA representatives on the stand had a remotely plausible explanation for this discrepancy.

Much has been made over the years by the likes of BC Conservative Party Leader John Cummins – who was unquestionably instrumental in making the Commission happen in the first place, in his former career as a federal Conservative MP – about abuses of the Food, Social and Ceremonial (FSC) fisheries by First Nations. The representative for the Fisheries Survival Coalition at the Inquiry, Phil Eidsvik, drew plenty of media attention when he questioned Ernie Crey, fisheries advisor to the Sto:lo Tribal Council, on the subject this past summer.

Mr. Eidsvik pressed Mr. Crey about a Globe and Mail article in which DFO alleged a “black market” has sprung up around the FSC fishery, whereby salmon for food and cultural practices, to which First Nations have a legal right, are being improperly sold for profit. Mr. Crey downplayed the allegation on the stand. “When we do sell fish that we catch, we do so under agreements with Fisheries and Oceans Canada. We also have food social and ceremonial fisheries. Those fish are intended for just what it’s described as,” Crey told the Inquiry. Mr. Eidsvik pressed on, asking whether the Sto:lo ever suffered from a lack of fish specifically due to these sales. “Not that I’m aware of,” Mr. Crey replied.

I don’t intend to wade into the complex legal debate about First Nations’ rights or lack thereof to sell FSC fish. Moreover, I’d be prepared to wager there are in fact abuses that occur within aboriginal fisheries – just as there are amongst commercial and sports fisheries. How many sporties sneak a barbed treble hook on the end of their line when they’re beyond the watchful gaze of fisheries officers – or stuff an extra Chinook or two in their cooler at the end of the day?

But those who choose to hang the whole mystery of disappearing Fraser sockeye on abuses within different fisheries are misguided in doing so; more importantly, they’re missing a golden opportunity presented by the Cohen Commission to deal with a much larger problem confronting our precious sockeye: namely, salmon farms. For never has there been a better window to clear the migratory routes of our Fraser sockeye of these virus and parasite breeding factories than now.

But it won’t happen with Justice Cohen’s non-binding recommendations, due out this summer (I’ll be surprised if the Commissioner can meet this revised deadline, especially in view of all the new eye-opening material and testimony entered into the record during the final three days of the Inquiry – dealing specifically with ISA virus). No matter how strong Justice Cohen’s report turns out to be, Stephen Harper can hardly be expected to implement it in full – nor, specifically, to take decisive remedial steps against the impacts of fish farms without the full force of media and public pressure.

The most instructive models to inform the path forward for dealing with open cage feedlots come from the campaigns currently being waged against the proposed Prosperity Mine and the Enbridge pipeline from the Alberta Tar Sands to Kitimat. Both have been – I would suggest – highly successful thus far; both involve squaring off against unsympathetic provincial and federal majority governments and large, wealthy resource corporations. Both have one more crucial thing in common: the unification of First Nations – holding constitutionally entrenched legal rights to their ancestral lands, waters and traditional ways of life – with environmental groups and non-aborigial citizens.

In the case of Taseko Mines’ proposed Prosperity Mine – in the Tsilhqot’in Plateau, west of Williams Lake – the project’s first iteration was rejected by none other than the Harper Government’s Ministry of Environment, following a strong opposition campaign led by the local First Nations, but supported by nearly every major environmental group in BC and legions of non-aboriginal citizens. When the company tried recently to begin work on a modified version of the mine – after being granted premature permits by the trigger-happy provincial Clark Government – it again ran smack into a wall. This time it came in the form of an injunction obtained by the Tsilhqot’in peoples at the BC Supreme Court, once again demonstrating the power of First Nations’ legal rights, backed up by vocal, committed non-First Nations supporters.

Of course, the Enbridge saga is far from over, but the historic banding together of 131 First Nations across Alberta and BC – again, backed by a large coalition of conservation groups, wilderness tourism operators and tens of thousands of highly mobilized citizens – will prove to be an insurmountable barrier for the pipeline, I would argue. The specific structure of this Enbridge opposition campaign – namely the “Save the Fraser Declaration“, a pledge to protect the waters, salmon, and traditional way of life of these communities and territories from the threat of an oil spill – could be easily adapted, or repeated in some form, to address the impacts of salmon farms.

The coalition is there already; its power has been demonstrated. All it would take would be for many of the same First Nations in the Fraser and Skeena watersheds to unite in opposition to salmon farms – with the full support of conservation groups, wilderness tourism operators and citizens, just as they have done with the Enbridge issue – and the Norwegian aquaculture behemoths would be facing a very comparable challenge to that which Enbridge now faces.

There is of course one major challenge to such a coalition – deeply embedded in the political protocols of First Nations. That is, First Nations don’t believe they should tell their neighbouring nations how to conduct themselves within their own territories. So while many First Nations are squarely opposed to the salmon farming industry, there are a few – around Campbell River, near Port Hardy, in Clayoquot Sound and near the village of Klemtu on the central coast, for instance – which have working relationships with the industry. But much like a pipeline or tanker traffic, what happens with fish farms within a given territory has effects which ripple beyond that nation’s borders.

And so, there is room – even a strong need – for diplomacy here. Such are the revelations of government cover-ups, the insulting special treatment of fish farmers and the severity of new viruses that have emanated from the Cohen Commission that no longer can these matters be left unspoken. It is time for the nations of the Fraser and Skeena basins to engage in a frank discussion with their neighbours who inhabit the migratory pathways of sockeye on the coast in order to ensure that wild salmon are adequately protected for the benefit of all First Nations and non-aboriginal peoples.

The highlight of the big rally for wild salmon in Victoria, led by Alexandra Morton in the Spring of 2010, was the coming together of First Nations and other fisheries groups who’ve long been at loggerheads over the sort of petty divisions alluded to earlier here. At this historic event were longtime rivals John Cummins and Ernie Crey, who crossed the Salish Sea together on the same ship, guiding a canoe filled with diverse supporters of wild salmon who had just paddled down the Fraser River – hosted by the Sto:lo and other First Nations along the way – to make their way to the provincial capital.

There was Hereditary Chief Frank Nelson of the Musgamagw peoples of the Broughton standing alongside old Billy Proctor – a veteran commercial pink salmon fisherman from the same region. Billy declared, “There’s been some divisions over the years, but it’s great to see us all getting together at last,” inspiring one of the day’s biggest cheers. Nelson followed, telling the crowd of over 5,000, “We’ve always been told that our drums beat like a heartbeat amongst our First Nations people. But I’ve heard all of us beating together on the drum today. We shall move forward to make every effort that Alexandra has done to ensure there is a place for our children.”

They all spoke of putting the past behind them and uniting in a common cause to rid our waters of fish farms.

That was less than two years ago, but so much has changed in that time. It is now clear from the Cohen Commission that we have more viruses affecting our wild fish than we’d even imagined. It is obvious that the DFO and CFIA see themselves far more are protectors and promoters of the salmon farming industry than as guardians of our wild fish and the public interest. It is also obvious that neither department, nor the salmon farming industry, views First Nations with anything less than complete and utter disrespect. And it is plain to see that our wild fish are dying more of greed and politics than they are of any natural cause.

So now is the time for First Nations – with their undeniable legal strengths – and all concerned conservation groups, businesses that depend on the health of our wild salmon and the ecosystems the support, and the citizens of British Columbia to come together as one and force the Harper Government to make good on the promise of the Cohen Commission and to take decisive action to rid our coastal waters of Norwegian fish farms.

It is only by our collective success or failure to bring about this result that we will be able to judge the true value of the Cohen Commission – and our own commitment to saving our treasured wild fish.

Fraser Riverkeeper Scores Victory for Regulation of Sewage From Vancouver’s Iona Treatment Facility

December 16, 2011FisheriesHealth and Environment, pollution, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this media advisory from Fraser Riverkeeper regarding the announcement today that the Commission on Environmental Co-operation – an international regulatory body set-up under NAFTA – will conduct an investigation in possible failure of Canada to enforce environmental laws with regards to the Iona Sewage Treatment Facility in the mouth of the Fraser River.

The Commission, set up under the North American Free Trade Agreement, has authority to investigate wherever a member nation is failing to live up to its own environmental laws. Fraser Riverkeeper and the David Suzuki Foundation, working with Waterkeeper Alliance groups throughout North America, filed a complaint with the Commission in April, 2010, based on Canada’s failure to enforce the Fisheries Act against the Iona Sewage Treatment Facility in the Fraser River.

“The Iona facility continues to this day to fail its toxicity tests,” said Doug Chapman, Fraser Riverkeeper. “That means that the discharge from the plant kills fish: the very Fraser River sockeye stocks whose alarmingly low numbers are currently the subject of the Cohen Commission hearings in Vancouver.” (Dec. 16, 2011)

Harper Government Laying Off Another 400 Staff at DFO

December 15, 2011Canada, Fisheries, PoliticsPolitics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this report from the Ottawa Citizen on another round of massive lay-offs at Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

About 400 Fisheries and Oceans employees across Canada are to receive
letters from managers today informing them their jobs will be affected
as the department rolls out reductions from last year’s strategic
review.

The written notices are going to employees who work in the
seven regions where the department operates. More than 200 of those
receiving notices are biologists and other scientists and the vast
majority work outside the capital in areas of ocean management, fish
habitat management, hydrography and aquaculture. Another 39 positions
are being cut from the Coast Guard following a re-organization…

…Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public
Service of Canada, said he’s disappointed that the timing comes so close
to Christmas, but fears these cuts are just the beginning.

“The
cuts are going to be followed shortly by more cuts after the budget.
Tell me how a science-based department survives with a cut of a couple
of hundred scientists. How can the department continue to do what it is
supposed to do? It has to give somewhere. You can’t keep cutting,
cutting, cutting.” (Dec. 12, 2011)

BREAKING: Leaked Report Reveals DFO Cover-Up of 2004 ISA Virus Discovery in BC

November 30, 2011Fisheries, Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, ISA virus, SalmonDamien Gillis

Read this bombshell story from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on a recently leaked Department of Fisheries and Oceans report which shows ISA virus was found in several species of BC and Alaskan wild salmon in 2004. The report was deliberately covered up by DFO and is only now coming to light, years later.

“A 2004 draft manuscript, leaked out of Canada’s Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, indicates that the deadly infectious salmon anemia
virus was identified eight years ago in coho, pink and sockeye salmon
taken from southern British Columbia, Southeast Alaska and Bering
Sea waters. Testing done in 2002 and 2003 ‘lead us to conclude that an
asymptomatic form of infectious salmon anemia occurs among some species
of wild Pacific salmon in the north Pacific,’ said the manuscript. But a senior official at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
recently rejected a request to submit the manuscript for publication.” (Nov. 29, 2011)

Read article: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/A-smoking-salmon-report-Was-deadly-fish-virus-2309866.php

Prominent Fish Biologist Questions Port Metro’s Expansion Plans

November 23, 2011Farmland and Food Security, Fisheries, Food, Urban & TransportDeltaport, Food Security, Salmon, Transportation and Urban PlanningOtto Langer

The following is a letter from retired senior Department of Fisheries and Oceans biologist and manager Otto Langer to Port Metro Vancouver’s Sustainability Director:

Dear Mr. Desjardin – Sustainability Director – Port Metro Vancouver:

As someone that has spent 42 years of my life protecting the Fraser River Estuary I find the Port Metro Vancouver’s latest phase of its upgrading of the Roberts Bank Port facilities including the transportation infrastructure to be of great concern and is again another setback in protecting this globally significant estuary. Continued development in the Roberts Bank area and on the bank itself will reduce options for future generations to benefit from our natural environment and will again degrade the habitats of vast populations of fish, wildlife and harm public recreation and livability. Further much of the new development is dependent on encroachment on some of the best farmland in Canada and that is yet another nail in the coffin in our ability to protect our base to grow food near this large metropolitan area.

The original development of the Roberts Bank Facility in the late 1960’s was one of the greatest impacts that the Fraser River Estuary has ever suffered since the construction of the many dykes around the estuary in earlier times and after the 1948 flood. That dyke building destroyed vast habitat areas and cut off much of the estuary from what was a large and extremely productive ecosystem.

We are only now protecting a small part of the original estuary and any new development will have an incrementally larger toll on estuary health and survival. Expansion of the port facility a few years to increase coal exports and then container facilities has allowed this port facility to extend across this unique and highly productive mudflat and marsh estuarine complex like a cancer. This present proposal is not a major development but it helps set the stage for major new expansion just over the horizon.

For the concerned public to now have to face and comment on yet another round of industrial expansion is truly unfortunate especially when one considers the a state of world economic uncertainties and a present myopic drive to increase an overly exploitative phase of resource development and the export of as many raw resources as possible and then import most of our manufactured goods. The port planning seems to see no limits to future development and that should be of concern to anyone concerned about our future and quality of life.

It appears the port authority has not learned much from our history and is ignoring all signs that indicate that we must pay more attention to the issues of sustainability and respond to global warming and generally our over exploitation of the earth’s resources. I see none of that thinking in this new phase of development at Roberts Bank. The PMV seems to show little insight as related to the global picture of over development as it relates to our sustainable future as dependent on a clean and healthy environment and the protection of the limited but extremely valuable farmlands we find in this area. The Port again seems to be driven by a development at any cost agenda and again the overall development by PMV in the estuary has to be put into its proper temporal and estuarine ecosystem context. This project is just one small impact as supported or promoted by PMV.

The above statement is not made without any foundation. The recent comments by the PMV CEO ( Mr. Silvester) in BC Business hi-lites the indifference and insensitivity and the total lack of understanding of the value of the natural environment and our agricultural land in the Lower Fraser Valley. My response to Mr. Silvester’s recent comments are attached. It is unfortunate that his comments seem to symbolize what PMV stands for and that is definitely not for future sustainability. It is indeed rather odd that Port Metro Vancouver would even have a position on staff that they call Director of ‘Sustainable Development’. Maybe that has to be defined because the Port concept of sustainability seems to leave out many aspects of the social and environmental legs of the sustainability stool. Maybe it is sustained industrial development that PMV is dedicated to.

What is most disturbing about any development at Roberts Bank is the disjointed approach PMV is taking in this new development phase at that site and indeed in the entire estuary. To make matters worse, why in earth would the Federal Government have delegated any environmental review / screening delegation under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) to a port agency that is the developer that will gain financially from this development i.e. why and how can we get a proper unbiased environmental assessment when it is abundantly clear that PMV’s pro-development stance and mandate puts the Port in a total conflict of interest?

As part of the above and key to this review is the PMV ambush style of public consultation. I am informed that a few months ago Nature Vancouver invited PMV to appear at their October meeting to outline PMV expansion plans at Roberts Bank. PMV spokesperson agreed to appear some three months ago but two weeks before the event PMV backed out of the event saying their plans were not ready for public discussion. However, at about the same time the Port then listed this project for public comments and have given the public only two weeks time to respond to the planned development.

This approach should be embarrassing to any Port staff that have environmental, social sustainability or public consultation responsibilities. This is totally unacceptable and it appears that PMV have not learned from the less than stellar environmental review PMV is conducting in harmony with the BC Environmental Assessment Office in the VAFFC Jet Fuel Delivery Proposal to ship jet fuel into the Fraser River Estuary. In that review the PMV joint review only allowed the public 2 minutes of speaker time at the ‘public hearing’ last spring and limited written public input to a very short time period.

After protests by the public and local government, the comment period was expanded another two weeks. Despite an expedited process that was to be done about now, the public is left in the dark as to what has happened and above all doubt the sincerity and adequacy of that partnership review. Also in that project the Port is conducting the review with a more junior level of government. This is not proper when the issues related to the port, airport, fishery, navigation, wildlife, shipping, etc are all federal responsibilities. How can we trust a PMV environment assessment of any sort?

I do not know how PMV can with any degree of conscience believe they can conduct an impartial environmental review / screening process. The public and certain local governments including the City of Richmond have strongly stated that PMV cannot do environmental assessments when they benefit from the approval of the project. Accordingly a group that is examining the joint BC EAO and PMV review of the VAFFC Jet Fuel Delivery Project has launched a petition to the Environmental Commissioner of the OAG of Canada to raise the issue of PMV’s obvious conflict of interest (attachment). This jet fuel project is very relevant in that that the conflict of interest noted in that project also is relevant here. The PMV is the wolf in charge of the sheep and that can mean the continued environmental degradation and eventual destruction of the Roberts Bank and other parts of the Fraser River Estuary.

The container and transport project now being screened is just the tip of the ice berg as related to Roberts Band port expansion. To review this part of the project in isolation of any work on the bank proper (Terminal 2) is akin to getting your foot in the door – again. This is not an acceptable review procedure in that it is obviously piecemeal and does not address the cumulative impacts of all development planned at this port facility, including the Gateway Highway Project, as is required by the intent and spirit of the cumulative impacts provisions of CEAA. Further an environmental ‘screening’ is the lowest level of CEAA review and considering that the future of what is left of Roberts Bank natural environment and considering the impacts on the adjacent communities a higher level review (i.e. a full Public Panel Review) is necessary.

I strongly recommend that PMV go back to square one and develop a complete proposal and an objective business case for significant expansion at this time in the face of port tonnage handled in the recent past, a realistic projection of increased port needs and relate that to the significant port development at Prince Rupert that will compete with this port. Also an objective review of the conservation future of this part of the estuary is long overdue. Once these issues have been addressed, only then can the Federal Government, through a higher level FEARO Public Panel Review, do an objective environmental assessment that we can trust.

To date PMV has caused catastrophic damage to Roberts Bank habitats and fish and wildlife populations. Many of these populations are global in nature and truly unique and are under great pressure from past development. Further PMV has not shown that it has significantly mitigated the impacts from past development on Roberts Bank including the massive loss of habitat due to massive filling, fuel and coal dust spills, killing of wildlife by inappropriate power lines over the water directly in the paths of migratory bird populations and in the blocking of natural ocean currents, sediment transport and fish movements by the causeway.

To propose more development when past impacts have not been addressed is a way of saying that we will continue to develop regardless of environmental or agricultural or resident concerns and as we do more damage to new areas we will promise to mitigate the damage of the past. This is wishful thinking and a line must be drawn on the map because what has taken place in past development is well beyond the concept of what is sustainable development at that key estuarine habitat area.

In summary:

The Roberts Bank Port development as started in the late 1960s has caused catastrophic impacts on Roberts Bank natural processes, habitat and fish and wildlife populations. To date, these impacts have not been properly mitigated.

This environmental screening review of improved transport infrastructure at Roberts Bank Port Terminal is out of context with what is next planned and a proper review of what is planned for this area must be addressed as a comprehensive review of a complete package.

A proper review that can best address the intent of CEAA must be much
more comprehensive and done at a higher level (i.e. Public Panel Review)
and include all planned development at Roberts Bank Port to address
perceived needs up to 2030. Anything less than this is a piecemeal short
term review and undermines the cumulative impacts intent of CEAA and
the public trust.

The stated opinions of the Port CEO in the press are bound to affect the
thinking of all working staff at PMV including those on any
environmental assessments conducted by PMV. Allowing an agency with a
gross insensitivity to farmland and natural world values is bound to be
not trusted by an informed public and that is not in the interest of the
estuary, its life and federal responsibilities.

PMV is in an obvious conflict of interest due to their gain if the
project is approved and this undermines an objective and unbiased review
and greatly lowers public trust and the possibility of maintaining
natural values on the remaining and undeveloped portions of Roberts
Bank and its backup lands.

The Federal and BC environmental agencies must draw a line on the map as
to what government is willing and must protect in this valuable and
essential part of the Fraser River Estuary. Continued piecemeal losses
associated with an improvement of infrastructure such as this project
must be put into context of what PMV has planned for this port site.

The environmental screening as applied to this project by PMV as per
CEAA is inadequate especially as related to how the public was informed
and the extremely short time given to evaluate and comment on what is
indeed taking place and about what is to next take place considering
known PMV expansion plans and attitudes stated for natural values in the
Roberts Bank area.

PMV does not seem to appreciate that the Fraser River Estuary, including
the Roberts Bank area, is an estuary of international significance and
is one of handful of estuaries of global significance on the West Coast
of the Americas. This alone requires an attitude of greater insight into
how that legacy must be protected.

The PMV should withdraw from a leading any environmental review when
they are the primary developer and beneficiary of the approved project.
The Federal Government must re-evaluate why and how this terrible
arrangement was ever allowed under CEAA. This bad precedent is now
taking place in several projects in the Fraser River Estuary and it now
appears that the estuary is simply treated as a port that is
unfortunately entering a new era of industrialization. This will
incrementally harm a very rare and unique Pacific Coast natural
environment and promote the continued loss of some of our best
farmlands.

Sincerely yours,

Otto E. Langer MSc

Fishery Biologist and Aquatic Ecologist

Richmond, BC.

From Gustafsen Lake to Fish Lake: No Place for Violent Stand-Offs in Era of Youtube and Facebook

November 17, 2011Canada, Fisheries, Mining, Politics, Western CanadaFish Lake/Teztan Biny, Mining, Politics, Taseko, Tsilquot'inDamien Gillis

Picture this: It’s 2012 and you live half way around the world – let’s say, Sydney, Australia. You open up your Facebook page to find a new viral youtube video out of BC, shared on your wall just moments ago by a friend in Canada. With a click of the mouse you find yourself watching footage of heavily armed mounties in riot gear advancing on a dirt road blockade – made up of indigenous peoples and a varied band of supporters.

The video tells you it’s somewhere in Tsilhqot’in Territory, west of Williams Lake, BC. It might as well be Timbuktu – it’s the people, the situation, the deeply human experience that you, like millions of others around the world, are tuning into.

An iPhone camera documenting the scene pans over to a First Nations elder – a grandmother of the Xeni Gwet’in people of the Tsilhqot’in, firmly planted in her wheelchair, staring down the police and trucks carrying mining equipment parked behind them. Shutters snap thousands of hi-res images of the unfolding drama. One of the policemen bellows orders from a megaphone, something about a final warning, lost in the chants of the protestors – which go something like, “The world is watching!”

Then, the moment of truth: A gang of jack boot and baton-clad officers emerges through a fog of freshly deployed tear gas, descending on the protestors, who have formed a human chain around this grandmother…

I’ll leave the rest to your imagination.

Within the hour this clip, from one of many cameras documenting the confrontation, has been uploaded to youtube and shared through facebook, twitter, email chains, etc. The footage is so graphic, so viscerally archetypal in nature – a classic David-vs-Goliath scene – so perfectly capturing the injustice of the situation, that it’s hard not to react to it. Activists and independent media in BC forward it furiously to their Canadian and International contacts – including media.

Soon, producers at major international outlets like the BBC are downloading HD quality images and preparing news stories – which are as much about the viral video clip that’s shocking the world as the violence itself over a mine in BC.

The eloquent chief of the First Nation whose territory the mine would invade, Marilyn Baptiste, is fielding calls from everyone from Amy Goodman to Anderson Cooper. Within days, the governments of BC and Canada, the mining company, the already severely embattled RCMP have been indelibly connected by tens of millions of people around the world to the violent oppression of environmental protestors, among them aboriginal grannies in wheelchairs.

And by the time these parties realize what hit them, it’s too late – they have lost all control of the story. It’s now an international spectacle. And guess what? Forget about that mine. It’s done like dinner.

A little far-fetched, you say? Allow me to explain.

I raise this hypothetical scenario not to shock or scare, and certainly not to incite the type of situation I describe – quite the opposite. I present it because this is exactly where things are headed at this very moment – based on our present trajectory. My colleague Rafe Mair has been prophesying this unfortunate conclusion for years now – in these pages and before that – and, sadly, I too have come to envisage the same inexorable results from the bad decisions being made by our politicians, on this issue and many others.

As for Fish Lake/Prosperity Mine, it’s mostly the fault of the BC Government, first under Gordon Campbell, now under Christy Clark – who continues to astonish by out-doing even her predecessor in the contest to be the premier with the worst environmental record in BC, perhaps Canadian, history (she’s probably neck and neck with Ralph Klein at this stage, but Christy’s just getting warmed up). Let’s review the Campbell/Clark Government’s record on the issue with a brief timeline:

First, the BC Government quickly and painlessly approved Taseko Mines’ plan to destroy Fish Lake for its “Prosperity Mine”, only to be embarrassed in late 2010 when the Harper Government rejected the same proposal following its far more extensive Federal Panel Review (the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Federal Environment Ministry and dozens of expert interveners and First Nations were all strongly opposed to the project).

Then, a full six weeks before the Harper Government decided to grant Taseko a second shot at an environmental review early last week, based on an amended plan that doesn’t directly destroy Fish Lake (but is, nevertheless, as bad or worse ecologically than its predecessor, according to the First Nations), the Clark Government quietly issued work permits to the company to begin building roads and doing heavy-duty exploratory drilling. This was a breathtakingly provocative and inflammatory move by Premier Clark, amid an already highly charged atmosphere. Unbelievable, really – flouting the Feds, First Nations, and the people of BC in one fell swoop.

Upon discovering this, last week, the First Nations filed a petition in the BC Supreme Court to suspend or cancel those permits while the project is still under federal review (a no-brainer, it would seem)

This past Saturday, Chief Baptiste personally (and alone, I’m told, by solid sources) confronted Taseko’s trucks that had just moved into the territory to begin work. Having been informed by the chief that they were trespassing, the truck drivers turned around and left.

Now this week, Taseko Mines has filed for an injunction against the Tsilhqot’in, seeking to bar the First Nations from preventing the company’s workers from entering their territory! At the same time, The First Nations have filed for a counter-injunction against the company. As you can see, things are escalating at lightning speed – with more hearings scheduled for tomorrow. It remains to be seen how the courts will rule – lord knows they’ve been put in a hell of a spot by the Province.

So it is at the feet of one Premier Christy Clark that the lion’s share of the blame lies – and will lie, if things get even more out of hand. But knowing how vehemently opposed the First Nations are to this project on their territory; knowing the litany of new problems with the alternate proposal – which has already been presented publicly through the original Federal Panel Review – the Harper Government should never have sent this project back for a second review. So both of these governments are complicit on some level in forcing the all-too-real hypothetical situation I’ve described here.

I say all these things now, knowing that at least some people within the Clark and Harper administrations will read this (and please help ensure they do, by forwarding this article to your MLA and MP). It is to them I’m speaking.

I implore Mr. Harper and Ms. Clark to recognize how the world has changed since the 1990’s-era Gustafsen Lake, Oka, and other relatively recent violent stand-offs between indigenous peoples and the RCMP and Sûreté du Quebec, still seared in our national consciousness.

Today, we live in the post-Dziekanski era – where one false move by law enforcement and governments is instantly on the public record for millions to see. The Surveillance State works both ways, you see; police can bring their cameras to intimidate protestors, but it is they who are really on candid camera now. (Though, I want to be clear: the police are mere pawns in this game – it is the politicians who drive the situation; and yet, the RCMP’s image is at an all-time low, which will likely make the media and public more ready to blame the police if things go sideways here).

Granted, there may be some instances where the public is divided on the rough handling of protestors by police – some instances, even, like Vancouver’s recent Stanley Cup Riot, where they collectively wish law enforcement took a harder line.

But this is a mine, after all – with undeniably severe ecological impacts; a mine which has already been rejected by the federal government; a mine which prompted an RCMP investigation into insider trading when millions of shares were dumped weeks in advance of the federal government’s rejection of it; a mine which First Nations, with very real and powerful legal rights, vehemently oppose; a mine which a significant majority of BC citizens also oppose. So the prevailing sympathy will be with the mine’s opponents if the conflict descends into violence.

If the Tsilhqot’in people and their supporters are smart – and they are, I believe – they will be preparing right now for the aforementioned scenario. They will take donations to purchase some affordable yet highly effective camcorders. They will train their membership in how to film, edit and upload footage to youtube; how to circulate it through email and social media. They will continue developing information trees, local and international media contacts (they’ve been extraordinarily effective at garnering media interest up to this point, party thanks to their impressive chiefs Marilyn Baptiste and Joe Alphonse). If they are smart, they will do the above – and they will wait.

They will wait and pray that our courts do the right thing and force Taseko to stand down – at least until the federal government has completed its environmental review of the company’s amended proposal. They will wait and hope the Clark and Harper governments come to their senses. But they will be prepared for the worst-case scenario.

With words bearing the full force of their conviction, the Tsilhqot’in have repeatedly demonstrated the resolve to stand on that blockade – even give their lives to protect their sacred land and water – and many supporters have already vowed to stand by their side.

But in addition to that, they will have the cameras ready to roll, the iPhones and laptops set to upload to the world the reality of the injustice being perpetrated upon them. And in the era of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the social media-fueled Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, Keystone XL and Enbridge protests, the world simply has no stomach for watching cops beat up good people standing up for the right values.

So to our provincial and federal governments – and particularly to Ms. Clark – I say, think long and hard before you venture any further down this road. It can only end badly – not just for the brave souls who will inevitably suffer through the sacrifices they make standing up for what they believe in – but for you, your government and your very legacy…not to mention Canada’s reputation in the eyes of the world.

For all our sakes, let us hope cooler heads prevail.

Precautionary Principle Missing in Protecting Wild Salmon

September 5, 2011Fisheries, Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, cohen commission, SalmonRafe Mair

Alexandra Morton and her small team have had the daunting task of searching through 500,000 documents for the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser sockeye – most of which had only been released after the Provincial Government and salmon farmers did everything possible to keep them secret.

This government, of all governments, tried to say that releasing the disease audits of the farms would betray privacy and I’m sure they were right – the privacy of the government departments and Norwegian fish farm companies that should have made these documents available long ago. Many of these documents may implicate fish farms in the loss of sockeye and were from the days when the provincial government carried that portfolio.

I’m sure this question has occurred to you: What right have the governments to withhold documents from the public they are elected to serve? Where the hell was Premier Photo-Op? Why didn’t she simply order that these be released (that is, before she felt compelled to do an about face at the last minute, under pressure from the media covering the Inquiry)? Same question for Prime Minister Harper who, after all, set up the Cohen Commission.

The answer is that the entire question has been and I suspect continues to be one massive government cover-up.

The federal government has made it impossible for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to do their job because that job conflicts with another they hold – they are mandated to look after our wild salmon while at the same time pushing aquaculture (including fish farms) for all they’re worth. Fisheries ministers attend Fish Farm conventions trying to induce fish farmers to come to our coast while their scientists are supposed to be protecting wild salmon from the ravaging lice from fish cages, and, even worse, deadly disease!

There is a bigger picture here and I hope this is a nettle Commissioner Cohen grasps – the precautionary principle, which simply states, “if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.”

This is a huge matter, for the onus of proving the unsafeness of fish farms does not rest upon Alexandra Morton; rather, the onus of proving its safeness rests upon industry and the government departments in question which have massively failed that basic obligation entrusted to them.

This isn’t some niggling matter. Fish farmers, without that onus, are scarcely going to cooperate, nor will governments who are supposed to hold their feet to the fire. It has rested upon those who, by far, can least afford it to find out the truth.

I’ve watched this develop from the very time the tireless lady from the Broughton Archipelago began her fight nearly a decade ago. She has been impeded by government the entire way and was even threatened with jail by the DFO. Every step was blocked; every truth she put forward was met with lies.

Scientific proof of the danger to wild salmon from fish cages was denied in the name of science that didn’t exist or was so faulty as to call into question the researcher’s integrity. How Alex has put up with this massive cover-up is beyond me and those who have been at her side.

In a long life I have never seen courage as I’ve seen in Alexandra Morton.

The plain fact of the matter is that DFO and the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands have wrongfully abused their mandate by refusing to force the industry to demonstrate the safety of their corrosive intervention into the environment and we must all shudder to think what would have happened if a very brave, knowledgeable and, thank God, stubborn woman had not fallen in love with BC and vowed to protect it from the most powerful interests in the world – rapacious industry protected by corrupt government.

Alexandra Morton takes the stand at the Cohen Commission this Wednesday and Thursday (Sept 7-8) – the hearing will be live streamed on Rabble.ca.

Morton Sees Answer to Fraser Sockeye Collapse…And She’s Finally Free to Share It

August 30, 2011Fisheries, Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, cohen commission, SalmonDamien Gillis

In a blog posting yesterday, following a series of major developments at the Cohen Commission, biologist Alexandra Morton suggests she now has enough pieces of the puzzle to pin much of the blame for collapsing Fraser sockeye stocks on salmon farms.

Morton and her team have reviewed over 500,000 documents submitted to the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser sockeye over the past year and she would have presented her conclusions to the public sooner, were it not for a confidentiality undertaking she and other Inquiry participants were forced to sign. But as of this week, much of the key evidence upon which Morton is basing her allegations has been officially entered into the record at the Commission and is thus now public.

The final piece fell into place when counsel representing the Clark Government backed down from its opposition to allowing a batch of fish farm disease databases from being entered into the record. The Province’s lawyer had made the argument that concealing information from the public was somehow actually in the public interest. But Monday, following a wave of public protest and negative media, Premier Christy Clark backed down and the records became public.

Morton writes in her blog, “In 1992, the salmon farms were placed on the Fraser sockeye migration route, and the Fraser sockeye went into steep decline…The only sockeye runs that declined were the ones that migrate through water used by salmon farms.” (emphasis added)

For instance, the Harrison sockeye run, which migrates out to sea via the Strait of Juan de Fuca – around the Southern tip of Vancouver Island, thus avoiding all the fish farms – is the one Fraser run that has been experiencing above average returns throughout the past two decades, while all other stocks have plummeted.

As Fraser sockeye nosedived throughout the 1990s and 2000s, DFO apparently became so concerned it asked Dr. Kristi Miller – head of Molecular Genetics at the Department’s Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo – to investigate. Miller applied revolutionary genomics research to the mystery and came up with some startling findings – the subject of great curiosity of late amongst the media and public, heightened by the Harper Government’s refusal to let her speak publicly about her work.

Miller discovered a “genomic signature” (a sort of genetic fingerprint) in sockeye that were dying in the river before they had a chance to spawn. Upon closer study of the fish and their symptoms, she concluded whatever disease was killing them and leaving its signature was strikingly similar to a virus that was ravaging farmed Chinook salmon in the late 80s and early 90s. This disease was being studied by one Dr. Michael Kent, who appeared as an expert scientist at the Cohen Commission last week just prior to Dr. Miller.

Kent labelled this mystery disease “Plasmycytoid Leukemia” at the time, while the fish farm industry called it “marine anemia”. Recently, Kent has been backing away from his work on the subject, which has complicated things for Miller.

But several key things jump out of this newly public data for Morton – the first being the fact these Chinook farms were located on the narrow Fraser sockeye migratory route through a maze of islands near Campbell River.

Another key issue is timing. In 2008 (the out-migration year for the phenomenal 2010 Fraser sockeye returns), the industry pulled all its Chinook farms along this corridor as it learned of Dr. Miller’s progressing research. Of course, we know those stocks rebounded dramatically. But in 2007, while the disastrous runs that would return in 2009 were swimming past these then-active farms, this mystery disease was peaking.

The Inquiry heard this week that research by the BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (the Provincial body with jurisdiction over fish farms at the time), was finding the disease in farmed fish. Morton writes:

What Miller did not know came out today and this is why I think salmon farms are killing the Fraser sockeye.

Four times a year the Province of BC goes out to the salmon farms, picks up approximately five dead farm salmon and does autopsies on them. There are approximately 600,000 farm salmon/farm so this is a very small sample.

While the BCMAL vet apparently does not “believe” in marine anemia, he frequently records the symptoms of this disease in the provincial farm salmon disease database he even notes:

“In Chinook salmon, this lesion is often associated with the clinical diagnosis of “Marine anemia”.

According to Dr. Kent’s studies, this Plasmacytoid Leukemia/marine anemia virus affects farmed Chinook much more so than farmed Atlantics. He did, however, find it can infect wild sockeye.

Morton writes, “Most important to us Kent found it could spread to sockeye. And DFO did nothing. The salmon farms remained on the Fraser sockeye migration route.”

But in addition to this disease, Morton believes another virus, Infectious Salmon Anemia, has also been wearing down Fraser sockeye (unlike marine anemia, farmed Atlantic salmon are highly susceptible to ISAv):

While the province of BC, the salmon farming industry, the Minister of Fisheries, MPs etc., have all been saying infectious salmon anemia is not here the province of BC has recorded the symptoms of this disease over 1,100 times in their database which only a very few people have ever seen. Disturbingly, ISAv symptoms are spiking just after marine anemia symptoms in three different years. Marine anemia is an immune suppressor. This graph looks only data from salmon farms on the Fraser sockeye migration route. The dates 2009, 2010, 2011 refer to the dates those sockeye returns went to sea. For example the sockeye that crashed in 2009, went to sea in the spring of 2007.

The adjacent graph depicts a scary double-barrel viral assault on Fraser sockeye that Morton believes – combined with other stresses in the marine environment that can compound the effects of diseases – is the key to solving the mystery of collapsing Fraser sockeye.

It remains to be seen how Morton’s hypothesis and this flood of new, publicly available data impacts the final months of the Cohen Commission – or public opinion on salmon farms. The Inquiry also learned last week of the lengths Dr. Miller’s own DFO colleagues, the aquaculture lobby, and even the Harper Privy Council Office have gone to to keep Miller from pursuing and publicly discussing her groundbreaking work. Miller even told the Commission – to muffled gasps throughout the court room – that the future funding of her work is in serious question, thanks to policy changes from the Harper Budget Office.

But in light of the seriousness of these allegations and starkness of some of this data now coming to light for the first time, it’s clear that if we have any genuine desire to stem the decline of Fraser sockeye, these diseases need to be taken seriously and studied further with all the necessary resources and departmental and political support they merit.

If the Cohen Commission cannot deliver at least that much, then it will have failed its most basic objective.

The Common Sense Canadian

Critical discussion of key issues shaping our economy and environment.