Category Archives: Oceans

Salmon Activist Don Staniford Squares Off With Norwegian Fish Farmer in Court

January 9, 2012Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, SalmonDamien Gillis

Read this story from The Canadian Press on anti-salmon farm activist Don Staniford’s legal battle with Norwegian Government-owned Cermaq, which operates in BC as Mainstream Canada. (Jan. 7, 2011)

His outspoken criticism has earned him an appearance at the Supreme Court of B.C. on Jan. 16 where he must defend himself against allegations from Mainstream Canada, the province’s second largest salmon farming company, that he defamed the organization.

The case could cost him $125,000 if he loses.

The defamation case is the second Staniford has faced in the province since 2005 and the third major legal fight of his 18-year international campaigning career.

“It’s definitely a stressful situation,” said Staniford, who is a native of Merseyside, England, near Liverpool.

“It’s obviously gearing up for a fight. It’s not a physical fight but it’s a mental fight.”

According to court documents, the case focuses on anti-salmon farming campaigns Staniford initiated on or about Jan. 31, 2011.

In those documents, Mainstream Canada’s lawyer David Wotherspoon alleges Staniford disseminated and published defamatory and false statements about the company under three titles: “The Salmon Farming Kills Campaign”, the “Silent Spring of the Sea,” and “Smoke on the Water, Cancer on the Coast.”

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.”

Rafe Reflects on Common Sense Canadian – And Why 2012 is Make-or-Break Year for BC

December 29, 2011Canada, Energy and Resources, Mining, Oceans, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, WATER, Western CanadaAquaculture, BC Oil Pipelines and Supertankers, Fish Lake/Teztan Biny, ipp, Mining, Politics, private river power, Salmon, Taseko, Water and EnergyRafe Mair

It’s customary at this time of the year too look back, comment, and look to the New Year. Why should The Common Sense Canadian (CSC) be any different?

We’ve been going for about a year and a half so my comments may take us a little earlier than last January but let me start by saying that both Damien Gillis and I are pretty proud of our progress.

Neither of us believes in some commonwealth of environmental people and groups. That’s not practical as we all have issues we feel more strongly about than others. We do, however, like to feel that we can bring a vehicle into being that helps all environmentalists and groups find a place to air their feelings. As one would expect, the particular passions of Damien and me will stand out in the work we do but we also support many other groups. Because of the history we bring to the CSC, we tend to look most in four areas, in no particular order: fish farms, private power, pipelines and oil tankers – the latter two being bound together but still two separate issues; but you can’t have one without the other.

What we’ve seen happen in the past year or so is a sense of all environmentalists feeling part of the same general battle – and battle it is.

Let me expand on that last thought a bit. All of us, whether trying to save forests, or a river, or a coastline or whatever are met with the cry “aren’t they in favour of anything?” If they’re not hugging trees they’re against jobs for the young and prosperity for communities. These and similar questions have been raised since the first day someone declared that there were other issues than just monetary ones. To show you how ridiculous this gets, supporters of the proposed “Prosperity” Mine allege that this mine will give employment to 71,000 people! Why not 710,000 if you’re going to be ridiculous?

What we try to do is challenge people to make a value judgment on what is done and place the environmental issues securely on the table. The main reason we do that is that damage to the environment is permanent while the economics diminish as time goes by, leaving only the scars.

Let’s look at a so-called “run-of-river” project. We’re told that these are necessary to create jobs yet when the deed is done there are only a bare handful of caretakers left behind while the river, and the ecology that depend upon it, are permanently and seriously impaired.

Now we are democrats. If the public, fully informed, wish to create permanent environmental damage, that is their right. What happens, however, is that the public, if they are informed at all, only see the glitzy ads by the company and the smooth assurances of the politicians.

Public hearings are, frankly, bullshit. The decision has been made and, like a trial in the old Soviet Union, a “show” trial must take place.

Let me give you a recent example: when President Obama refused to authorize the Keystone XL project which would take “gunk” from the Tar Sands to Texas, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty instantly responded and said that we would have to put the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, BC, on “the front burner”! Before the National Energy Board hearings even get off the ground the Finance Minister is assuming the result! Yet, he’s right to do so because the “fix” is well and truly in.

This takes me to the meat of the matter for, in the past couple of years there has been an astonishing cooperation of environmental organizations to fight these things together.

I’ve been all around the province making speeches and often the stage has been shared with COPE union spokespersons, the Wilderness Committee, Alexandra Morton and her Raincoast Research Society, the redoubtable Donna Passmore and her work on highways and farmland issues, CoalWatch Comox Valley regarding the proposed Raven coal mine, citizen groups fighting local issues like overhead transmission lines and numerous grassroots organizations in the Kootenays in Northern BC, on the Sunshine Coast – and the list goes on.

Of enormous consequence has been the work all the different environmental groups have done with First Nations on the issues I have mentioned. One of the most touching moments in my Roast of November 24 last were the speeches given by Grand Chief Stewart Philip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Marilyn Baptiste; and I tell you truly that I wept when they spoke and sang and considered how far down the road to true understanding of their concerns I had come – something, I might add, Chief Philip commented upon with a twinkle in his eye to match my tears.

Let me pause here to note that I have left out many people and organizations that have every right to stand out in front as those I have mentioned and I deeply hope that I haven’t offended any of them.

Let me speak out clearly on political matters. The Campbell/Clark government are enemies of the public at large. The destruction they have caused, and which will happen because of their policies, beggars description. Not unnaturally, the NDP have been the beneficiaries, often accidentally, from this public disgust with the government. I can tell you that at my “Roast” were people I knew from my old Socred days – people who a year ago would have preferred to be found in a house of ill repute than be seen with the CSC helping us in our fundraiser.

I must say this: the NDP gets no easy ride from us. It’s simple to jump on a bandwagon but we demand commitments from them – not airy, fairy crap that passes for commitment in political jargon.

I’m going to end now with this look ahead. 2012 will be the year that decides where we go in BC.

Will we have more rivers destroyed for private profit? Will we see our province, my homeland and yours, turned over to the 100% certain destruction by pipelines? And to the 100% certainty of catastrophic oil spills on our coast and in Burrard Inlet? Will we continue to allow fish farmers to annihilate our sacred Pacific Salmon? Will we watch idly as Fish Lake is destroyed to set the precedent of more of the same?

Will we do nothing as we lose more and more farmland? Will money promised and jobs pledged suck the wind out of our ability to see what’s really happening to us, our children, our grandchildren and for some of us great-grandchildren?

That is the advantage, you see, of old age – right before your eyes are the people we hold BC in trust for. The wisdom of the ages, in the soul of our First Nations, is the wisdom we must listen to and apply if we want to save our province from those who would convert it into cash for private use, leaving us with nothing but the scars to remind us what damned fools we’ve been.

The Common Sense Canadian will be in this fight in 2012 and in the years to come and, along with those we march alongside, do not intend to lose the battles nor the war.

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.

Series of must-watch clips from the Cohen Commission

December 22, 2011Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, cohen commission, ISA virus, Salmon, VideoDamien Gillis

Watch this series of clips by independent filmmaker Craig Delahunt from the Cohen Commission, including a key hour of testimony from the final day of ISAv hearings and interviews with experts outside the Commission.

Winning the Salmon PR “War”? Emails Reveal Government Scientists Acting Like Flacks

December 18, 2011Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western CanadaAquaculture, cohen commission, Politics, SalmonDamien Gillis

The second of three extra days of hearings at the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser River sockeye yielded more surprises – the biggest of which came in the form of a telling internal email strain between DFO and Canadian Food Inspection Agency staff. The emails were sent following a teleconference for media hosted by the two departments, aimed at quelling concerns over the recent discovery of Infectious Salmon Anemia virus in wild BC salmon.

In a message dated November 9, 2011, Joseph Beres, an inspection manager at the CFIA, wrote to colleague Dr. Con Kiley and other senior DFO and CFIA staff who had appeared on the conference call:

Con,

It is clear that we are turning the PR tide to our favour – and this is because of the very successful performance of our spokes[people] at the Tech Briefing yesterday – you, Stephen, Peter and Paul were a terrific team, indeed. Congratulations! One battle is won, now we have to nail the surveillance piece, and we will win the war also.

Cheers, Joe.

In the same strain, Dr. Kiley replies, “Concentrate on the headlines, that’s often all that people read or remember. Both the ‘Top Stories’ and the ‘Related Pieces’.” (emphasis added)

And it appears Dr. Kiley really knows of what he speaks. That conference call and a subsequent one several weeks later – at least temporarily – removed some of the pressure from his department, as many media outlets in Canada and around the world ran with their talking points.

Commission Counsel Brock Martland asked another CFIA representative on the stand Friday, Dr. Kim Klotins, Acting National Manager for Disease Control Contingency Planning, what she thought Mr. Beres was thinking went he sent the above email. After much stammering, she replied, “We may get a little bit exuberant internally, but…I really can’t speak to what he was thinking during this.”

Mr. Martland questioned the “adversarial” attitude displayed in the emails, suggesting it smacks more of hockey players than scientists in pursuit of truth.

Further testimony heard by the Inquiry on Friday and throughout the previous day’s session demonstrate the tactics these officials were using to knowingly cover up the discovery of ISAv in BC. Earlier that morning, the Inquiry heard from Dr. Fred Kibenge, director of the Animal Veterinary College at the University of PEI – one of only two approved testing labs for the ISA virus sanctioned by the world animal health organization. Dr. Kibenge related the enormous political pressure he faced after confirming ISAv in two wild salmon from BC.

Under questioning from the conservation coalition’s counsel Karen Campbell, Dr. Kibenge described an inspection his lab faced by the CFIA soon after discovering the positive test results. “The inspection was meant to be about understanding my processes so they could improve their own practices, but once the inspection began I got the sense that it was about obtaining information, because the first thing they asked me about when they did the inspection was the samples.” Dr. Kibenge added, “I quickly realized that the purpose of the site visit…was actually in my view, to confirm a hypothesis that had already been presented in the media.”

On the stand beside Dr. Kibenge was Dr. Nellie Gage, who heads up the Moncton-based lab that found contradictory results upon which the CFIA seized to publicly invalidate Dr. Kibenge’s findings. The Inquiry learned that far from confirmed “negative” tests for ISAv in these wild fish, Dr. Gagne’s lab had also turned up a weak positive, which it discounted based on its inability to repeat the result. Yet, rather than call the tests “inconclusive” as they were, the CFIA described them as “negative”, which was plainly not the case.

To that end, Alexandra Morton’s counsel Greg McDade asked Dr. Gagne, “Did you ever speak out to your communications people, suggesting that DFO was misleading people based on your inconclusive results?” Gagne admitted, “No, I have not.” McDade also put to Gagne a media statement from the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association in which head lobbyist Mary-Ellen Walling declared unequivocally that Gagne’s “negative” findings proved Dr. Kibenge had been wrong and that ISA was confirmed not to be in BC. A weary-sounding Gage produced a few chuckles in the gallery when she retorted, “Do you know how many things are wrong that have been published up until know? That’s really just a drop in the bucket.” (emphasis added)

Dr. Kibenge explained he was concerned when he later learned that the Moncton lab had been consulted ahead of time as to what issues to look for at his lab. “Did CFIA consult you in a similar way about possible issues with the Moncton lab?” Campbell inquired. “No, they did not,” replied Kibenge.

Counsel for the aboriginal aquaculture coalition later asked Dr. Kibenge whether he feels there have been threats to him professionally and financially as a result of the criticism leveled at him and his lab over these ISAv tests. Dr. Kibenge responded, “This has been so public that my reputation and everything else has been questioned, so yes, you could say that.”

McDade followed up on this theme of political pressure on Dr. Kibenge when he asked, “If you had found a negative you would not have submitted to that pressure, right?” Kibenge’s answer: “Yes.” McDade continued, “Why such pressure because of a simple scientific finding?” to which Kibenge replied, “It’s a problem when the science is above any question, as was the case here.”

Dr. Kibenge intimated in his testimony that he understood why the Harper government was reacting this way, given the amount of money at stake with threats to the aquaculture industry from his findings. He was also sure to acknowledge the support of his college and university, suggesting that made it easier to deal with these attacks on his lab and professional integrity.

More emails released during Friday’s hearing revealed the lengths to which senior CFIA and DFO staff went to clamp down on Dr. Kibenge’s work. One note from Dr. Klotins to Dr. Kiley stated, “Dr. Kibenge did test the fish submitted by A. Morton. I believe we must check those samples for integrity. I’m thinking we should also advise all laboratories in Canada to not test any more samples of wild finfish for ISAv from the Pacific Ocean (Canada and US). K.” (emphasis added)

When pressed by McDade, Klotins downplayed the email, suggesting no further action came of it.

Commission Counsel Brock Martland posed a similar question to senior DFO manager Stephen Stephen, who took the stand in the afternoon. This time it was in reference to his alleged attempts to shut down the research into ISAv being conducted on the Pacific Coast by Dr. Kristi Miller. “Did you suggest Dr. Miller shouldn’t continue her ISAv research?” Martland inquired. Stephen answered, “I did suggest that until CFIA completes their investigation we should defer further testing.” Martland asked Stephen, “Was Kristi Miller’s discovery of ISAv a ‘game-changer’?” Stephen replied, “I don’t think it’s a game-changer at all,” followed by more of the party line about conducting further tests before jumping to any conclusions.

The day ended with yet another example of DFO covering up ISAv science. This time it involved an unpublished 2004 paper by Dr. Fred Kibenge’s wife, Molly Kibenge, which made headlines when it was leaked to media a few weeks ago. Dr. Jones headed up the lab where Kibenge was a post-doctoral student at the time of the paper and it was his decision not to publish it. Moreover, Jones also didn’t see fit to disclose the document to the Commission, even though he was legally required to – especially given its significance relative to these special hearings into ISAv.

Martland asked Jones, “Why didn’t you produce these documents to the Commission earlier? Didn’t you understand this was going to be an issue?” “No, I didn’t understand that,” replied Jones. “The concern that we had with Molly’s work was that we were not able to reproduce her findings. At the time it was just confusing and didn’t seem to have meaning…It was essentially a negative result.”

Essentially. Just not actually.

The Cohen Commission resumes Monday for one final day of special hearings into ISAv – when it is expected Jones, Stephen and others will face more tough questions on the cover-up of science related to the potentially deadly virus.

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)

ISA Virus Researcher Faced Political Pressure Due to Positive Test Results

December 16, 2011Canada, Oceans, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, Western Canadacohen commission, Politics, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this report form The Winnipeg Free Press on the revelation at the Cohen Commission into disappearing sockeye by ISAv expert Dr. Fred Kibenge that he faced political pressure due to his positive test results suggesting ISAv exists in wild BC salmon.

VANCOUVER – A scientist who found signs of a potentially lethal fish
virus in B.C. salmon has told a federal commission he’s come under
government pressure for work he considers “above question.”

The results of Fred Kibenge, who runs a lab in P.E.I., were
widely publicized in October after he detected infectious salmon
anaemia in two of 48 sockeye smolts.

He told a special hearing for the inquiry studying the
collapse of the Fraser River salmon run that since then, he’s faced
difficult questioning from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. (Dec. 16, 2011)

Kristi Miller Steals Show Again as Salmon Inquiry Rocked by New Virus Bombshells

December 16, 2011Oceans, Salmon Farming and AquacultureAquaculture, cohen commission, SalmonDamien Gillis

“The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” – Carl Sagan

Dr. Kristi Miller took the stage for a curtain call at the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser River sockeye yesterday, delivering a dramatic follow-up performance to her headline-grabbing run in September.

Among the bombshell revelations that emerged from the first of three extra days for the Commission – added recently to address the discovery of ISA virus in wild BC salmon – were the confirmation that ISA virus (or something very similar) is undoubtedly here in BC, and has likely been for at least 25 years; and Miller’s own detection of a new deadly virus in both farmed and wild salmon. The latter surprise was so fresh it came as a major shock to most everyone in the packed Wosk Centre for Dialogue, where this round of hearings is taking place.

There was plenty of techno-jargon on display at the hearing that had many – including yours truly – struggling to keep pace with the high-level banter on the stand; but between all the talk of PCRs, primers, probes and orthomyxo viruses emerged some truly dramatic revelations from Miller and three other key figures in the issue who testified on this day.

The players were Dr. Fred Kibenge, director one the world’s two official reference labs for ISAv, out of the University of PEI; Dr. Are Nylund, who video-conferenced in from Norway, where he heads up the other World Animal Health Organization-sanctioned ISAv testing lab; Dr. Nellie Gagne, whose Moncton-based lab specializes in disease testing for DFO’s Aquatic Animal Health unit; and Dr. Kristi Miller of DFO’s Pacific Biological Station. Miller came to prominence in the national media when she delved into her leading-edge studies into a mystery virus potentially responsible for wiping out wild sockeye at the Cohen Commission a few months back – also revealing the enormous political pressure and censorship she has been facing throughout this work.

On a day so jam-packed with heated exchanges and dynamite revelations, it’s hard to know where to begin when making sense of it all – but here are the Cole’s Notes, seen through the lens of Miller’s testimony:

First off, Dr. Miller helped clarify the baffling claims coming from both the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and BC Salmon Farmers’ Association that “ISA is not in BC.” Given the number of positive test results from the world’s top labs, the certainty with which the Harper Government and its fish farming pals have claimed the disease is not here has puzzled many in the media and conservation community. Well, Miller cleared up the confusion in her testimony, explaining the sneaky linguistic trick these folks have been leaning on in making these boasts. More on that in a moment.

Three of the four scientists on the stand, the sole exception being DFO’s Nellie Gagne, were quite comfortable asserting there are indications of ISA virus – or a very similar virus or yet unknown strain of ISAv – here in BC. The same three also concurred there was no hard evidence of ISA causing mortality in wild fish…yet. They all asserted the vital need for more testing at this stage – something DFO has gone out of its way to avoid (with the exception of Miller, who has taken this work upon herself – to the great consternation of DFO managers, by whom she claims she has been completely ostracized for her recent investigations into the virus).

Back to the verbal sleight of hand contained in that statement, “ISA is not in BC.” As Miller explained, there’s no real doubt that ISA virus (ISAv) is here; but until the virus is actually demonstrated to be killing salmon, it’s fair not to call it a “disease”. And that’s what these folks are hanging their hat on – by their definition ISA alone implies ISA disease. They are very careful not to call it ISAv (virus) – just ISA without the “v”, implying that there is no evidence of ISA disease here in BC – which appears, for the time being, to be technically correct, though patently and deliberately deceitful.

Much of the day’s discussion revolved around the nuanced differences in testing methods between the different labs. In total layman’s terms – which is all I’m capable of – Miller’s technique has been able to capture positive test results that Dr. Gagne’s lab in Moncton has missed. Meanwhile, Dr. Kibenge stood by his positive findings, as did Dr. Nylund, though he acknowledged that the degraded nature of the sample he examined prevented him from being able to reproduce the positive. But he was careful to say under questioning, “No, it’s not a negative – it’s a positive.”

Gagne’s lab, by contrast, has provided the inconclusive tests that the CFIA and salmon farmers have often cited in their defence – Note: not negative results, but rather “inconclusive”, for she has turned up positive results which were dismissed because they didn’t meet the lab and CFIA’s standards for an official positive result. Dr. Nylund had questions about Miller’s methods, but acknowledged that he didn’t know enough about them to call her results into question.

The fact is Miller is running what could be termed as a super-lab out of the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo. Because of the wealth of fish samples she has to draw on, dating back 25 years, and the sophistication of her equipment and methods, she’s able to process enormous volumes of tests and data compared to the other labs (several hundred tests a day compared to as little a 6 tests a week for some of the others).

Another key point Miller made on the stand was the fear she harboured of having all her years of samples confiscated by the CFIA, as the agency did to SFU professor Rick Routledge after his sockeye samples form Rivers Inlet came back positive for ISAv earlier this year – the catalyst, in fact, for the re-opening of the Cohen Commission. Miller indicated she felt intimidated by DFO managers and the CFIA from the strongly implied threat that they could storm into her lab and take away this enormously valuable genetic bank she oversees. “I was very concerned that that would be one threat that if the samples I’m working on were classified as ISA that I would lose the samples that are important for my genomics program,” she told the Inquiry.

It is thanks to this wealth of material that Miller was able to establish that ISAv has likely been here in BC at least since 1986 – as she was able to test livers from sockeye that date back that far and find evidence of the virus, which came as another shock amid the day’s proceedings.

The salmon farmers will be quick to change their story now from “There is no ISA in BC” to, “See, we told you – ISAv is here and has been since before we arrived, so it’s not our fault after all.”

They will try to make this case because it’s all they have left now that they’ve been stripped of their final fig leaves. But we also learned yesterday form Drs. Nylund and Kibenge that European and Canadian Atlantic strains of ISAv have been around for at least a hundred years and probably much longer. So have sea lice – all these pathogens and parasites are likely endemic to wild salmon.

What has changed is the introduction of these breeding grounds for disease that are open net pen fish farms. As Dr. Nylund explained, viral mutation and transmission occur at a much faster rate in farmed fish compared with wild because of the enormous densities of fish in these ocean feedlots, which incubate and propagate these pathogens. ISA was in Norway for decades – maybe centuries – before it devastated the country’s farmed and wild stocks. It wasn’t until the farms arrived – and grew in numbers and scale – that the problems really arose. Bear that in mind as the fish farmers spew their inevitable tripe in the coming days and weeks.

Once again, Miller acknowledged that she hasn’t found any hard evidence of ISA killing wild salmon in BC – she posited that we have stumbled onto a new strain of the virus unique to the North Pacific, which genetically closely resembles the European Strain of ISAv. But she also warned, “If the ISA that is virulent in Norway were to come here that would be a disaster.”

While Miller continues to search for another mystery virus that very well could be killing wild sockeye – referred to a different stages as salmon leukemia or a parvovirus, which was the focus of her testimony earlier this year at the Inquiry – the real bombshell from yesterday was her very recent discovery of a third deadly virus affecting both farmed and wild salmon in BC.

Miller revealed that she had been invited in recent months to some farms in Clayoquot Sound owned by Canadian farmed salmon producer Creative Salmon, to see if she could help them get to the bottom of a mystery jaundice condition afflicting many of their fish. As an aside, Miller went out of her way to commend Creative Salmon for their open engagement with her, calling them at one point, “a very forward-thinking and cooperative company.”

Her experience with the rest of the industry has been quite the opposite. Miller related how Mary-Ellen Walling, head lobbyist for the BC industry, had reneged on a handshake deal made with Miller as she was about to take the stand the last time around at the Inquiry. Up until that point the BC Salmon Farmers’ Association had been obstructing all efforts to obtain fresh samples of their fish for testing – but in the glare of the media spotlight brought about by Miller’s appearance at the Commission, they’d promised at the last minute to share fish with her lab. Well, that didn’t last long, as Walling recently backtracked and refused to provide samples, insisting Miller stick to studying wild fish for now.

Miller related similar difficulties in getting samples from the Province’s farmed fish health auditor – explaining in tragicomic fashion how the samples they did eventually send over were thawed and thus totally degraded and useless to her.

Back to Clayoquot Sound and this new virus Miller discovered there. When she was invited to test Creative Salmon’s farmed Chinook salmon, Miller came up with two shocking findings: 1. A full 25% of these fish tested positive for ISAv (so there you have it – farmed fish in BC with ISAv, contrary to the claims of the Province’s fish health audit office and industry that after thousands of test over the years, they’re just sure it isn’t in their fish!); 2. A second virus known as piscine rheovirus – the cause of a deadly disease called HSMI (Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation).

HSMI has devastated farmed fish before in Norway – Dr. Nylund confirmed that it caused a 10% mortality rate and 100% morbidity in Norwegian farmed fish when it hit there a number of years ago. Miller not only confirmed the existence of the virus that causes this disease in Creative Salmon’s fish but subsequently found it in Fraser River sockeye as well! Scientific inquiries are generally staid and technical affairs, as anyone who’s attended the Cohen Commission much can attest – but this revelation hit the room like a lighting bolt.

If there is one take-away from this day of testimony from Dr. Miller and company, it is that we’re only beginning to grasp just how much we don’t know about these viruses, diseases and the relationship between them and farmed and wild fish. Which brings us to the key philosophical divergence between Dr. Miller and the Harper Government, which I’ll bet you dollars to donuts will find a way to get back at Miller and destroy her collection of samples as soon as the camera lights are extinguished and the buzz around the Commission dies down – an indication of how truly brave and rare a government scientist this woman is.

That difference turns on the Precautionary Principle – a point I myself raised on a conference call with the CFIA when their mouthpieces were telling media that “ISA is not in BC.” Miller poignantly summed up this divide in her testimony – and so it is to her whom the last word goes: “Their approach is to make sure that it’s not there; my approach is to ask if there’s any chance that it is there.”

If only we had more Kristi Millers and fewer sycophantic CFIA and DFO bureaucrats and fish farm flacks, perhaps our wild salmon would stand a chance.

The Cohen Commission continues its special hearings into ISAv today and Monday, before closing its doors for good.

Salmon Virus Has Been in BC for at Least 25 Years, Dr. Kristi Miller Tells Cohen Commission

December 15, 2011Oceans, Salmon Farming and Aquaculturecohen commission, SalmonCommon Sense Canadian

Read this story form CBC.ca reporting on the revelation from the Cohen Commission into disappearing sockeye that ISA virus or a similar virus has been in BC’s wild salmon since at least 1986, based on studies of sockeye livers from that time frame by Dr. Kristi Miller.

Department of Fisheries (DFO) biologists have told a federal inquiry
that fish samples, dating back more than two decades have tested
positive for a potentially lethal wild sockeye fish virus — but that
fact wasn’t publicly reported.

Dr. Kristi Miller, the head of molecular genetics for DFO in Nanaimo,
told the Cohen Commission on Thursday that frozen samples dating back
to 1986 have been tested, and show infectious salmon anemia (ISA) has
been in B.C. waters for at least 25 years.(Dec. 15, 2011)