The post Canadian Aquaculture Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

c/o Aquaculture Management Directorate

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

14W087-200 Kent Street

Ottawa ON K1A 0E6

March 14, 2018

Re: Consultations on the notice of intent with respect to amendments to regulations for managing movements of live fish

In his mandate letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Prime Minister Trudeau directed that the minister’s “overarching goal will be to protect our three oceans, coasts, waterways and fisheries and ensure that they remain healthy for future generations” and particularly to “protect the health of fish stocks… and to support responsible and sustainable aquaculture industries on Canada’s coasts.” The Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (DFO) intent to amend section 56 of Fishery (General) Regulation (FGR), in total contravention of this mandate, solidifies the DFO’s abrogation of responsibility to protect wild salmon, in this case through the administration of introduction and transfer (I&T) licenses, a process begun under the previous government in 2010.

From 2010 to 2015, the previous government worked to shift full responsibility for fish health from the DFO to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), a process being finalized by the current government. In its notice of intent with respect to amending section 56 of Fishery (General) Regulations, the DFO justifies its intention to amend the act by citing this previous shift of responsibility. It argues that given the CFIA’s amendments to the Health of Animals Regulations and Reportable Diseases Regulations and implementation of the final component of the National Aquatic Animal Health Program (NAAHP), it is now “the nationally and internationally recognized lead federal authority for preventing the introduction and spread of aquatic animal diseases in Canada.” Consequently, there is significant program overlap between the CFIA and DFO, which both entities have been working to correct not by ensuring that the DFO continues to issue I&T licenses to intentionally release and transfer live aquatic organisms into fish bearing waters or fish rearing facilities, but instead collaborating “to transition responsibilities from DFO to the CFIA.” The final step in this process is to “amend FGR section 56 to resolve the program overlap.”

The proposed amendment to section 56 would mean that the minister, “when issuing I&T license, would no longer need to consider disease risks that were already being managed by the FCIA through the NAAHP.” To make this change would be an unconscionable repudiation of the Minster and DFO’s duty to protect wild salmon from all threats, including harmful diseases, as laid out both in the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to the Minister and the DFO’s commitment to Canada’s Policy for Conservation of Wild Pacific Salmon (WSP).

In his mandate letter, the Prime Minister sets out that it is the Minister’s responsibility to use “scientific evidence and the precautionary principle… when making decisions affecting fish stocks and ecosystem management.” The issuance of I&T licenses has a direct impact on wild salmon fish stocks and coastal ecosystems, as the introduction of piscine reovirus (PRV) infected farmed salmon into net pens in the ocean has had catastrophic effects on wild salmon stocks.

Furthermore, in the mandate letter, using the same language found in every mandate letter to every Cabinet minister, the Prime Minister commits that “no relationship is more important to me and to Canada than the one with Indigenous peoples. It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous Peoples, based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.” And yet the DFO is currently facing a Notice of Application in Federal Court from the ‘Namgis Nation, which is seeking a judicial review of the DFO’s disinclination to test farmed Atlantic salmon for PRV before moving smolts from Marine Harvest Canada Inc.’s hatcheries into open-net farms in their territory. The 2015 decision Morton v. Canada confirmed PRV is a disease agent of enormous potential harm to salmon protection and conservation and prohibits the issuance of I&T licenses to transfer salmon infected with PRV. And yet the FDO are not conducting PRV tests before issuing I&T licenses, threatening both the health of the wild salmon and our relationship with Indigenous Peoples, in this case the ‘Namgis Nation. In their press release regarding the Notice of Application, the ‘Namgis asserted that they felt “the Minister’s PRV policy threatens the ongoing process of reconciliation in Canada” as well as the “already extremely depleted wild salmon populations in their territory, a resource that has sustained them for millennia.”

If it is the Minister’s responsibility to use the precautionary principle to ensure the safety of wild salmon stocks and to prioritize the relationship with Indigenous Peoples, then it must remain the Minister’s responsibility to issue I&T permits that will impact wild salmon stocks and improve the criteria for their issuance by requiring PRV testing of all fish before transfer.

Furthermore, the WSP’s guiding principles, which according to the DFO’s website the department wholly embraces, holds the conservation of wild salmon and their habitats as the highest priority. Given this stated dedication, the intended renunciation of the Minister’s responsibility under section 56 of the FGR to ensure the health of all fish introduced into the ocean is mysterious to me, particularly given that our wild salmon are facing potential extinction and that open-net salmon farms among the greatest threats to their continued survival.

Such was a key finding of the Cohen Commission, a landmark study under the leadership of Mr. Justice Bruce Cohen in October 2012, mandated by the previous government to investigate the decline of sockeye salmon in British Columbia’s Fraser River. It took 3 years and $26 million to develop this report of over 1,000 pages, which included the testimony of scientists, First Nations and the public. The report presented 75 policy recommendations for combating the multiple threats to the survival of British Columbia’s wild salmon, including the need for far more stringent monitoring of local salmon farming operations. Among Justice Cohen’s supporting remarks for his recommendations he wrote:

“I therefore conclude that the potential harm posed to Fraser River sockeye from salmon farms is serious or irreversible. Disease transfer occurs between wild and farmed fish, and I am satisfied that salmon farms along the sockeye migration route have the potential to introduce exotic diseases and to exacerbate endemic diseases that could have a negative impact on Fraser.”

The previous government chose to completely ignore the Cohen report, which it had commissioned at enormous expense to taxpayers. The current government, though proposed amendments like that of section 56, has also demonstrated a lack of active concern regarding the danger to wild salmon stocks reminiscent of that to the tragically foreseen fate of Atlantic cod in the 1990s. This administration has had numerous opportunities to address problem over the past two years, first with Petition E-270, which called on the government to legislate the removal of caged salmon from our oceans. The response was that such action was unnecessary, as existing aquaculture regulations were sufficient. I believe Justice Cohen would beg to differ, as do I. The second missed opportunity was the government’s vote against amendments to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-228 on December 6, 2017. I sincerely hope that the DFO reconsiders this amendment and instead accepts full responsibility for the protection of wild salmon and acts on the immense danger posed to them by open-net farmed salmon.

Thank you for your consideration. I would be happy to meet with the department and staff to discuss these matters further.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament
Saanich – Gulf Islands
Leader of the Green Party of Canada

A copy of this submission is available as a PDF here.

The post An Amendment to Aquaculture Regulation appeared first on Elizabeth May.

On Tuesday, December 6^th, the committee held a videoconference with from representatives of Overwaitea Food Group and Albion Fisheries Ltd.

On Thursday, December 8^th, the committee held a videoconference with Professor Colin Brauner of the Department of Zoology at the University of British Columbia and Catherine Stewart of the Living Oceans Society. Before the committee adjourned, Patricia Davidson  (Sarnia-Lambdon, Ont., CPC) gave notice of a motion to have the committee conduct a study of invasive species that pose a threat to the Great Lakes system. More details on the motion can be found here.

The post Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The communications strategy also attacks environmental groups for having a self-serving agenda, suggesting they are raising awareness about fish farms in order to support their fundraising efforts.  “This allegation against environmental groups is outrageous,” said May. “No one in their right minds would dedicate their lives to stopping the destruction of our oceans just for kicks – these people work incredibly hard and for very little money. That DFO would promote this denigration of citizens is completely inexcusable.”  The strategy goes on to attack journalists as biased and suggests that the public is confused and apathetic.  “It is disgusting that this communications strategy was considered a viable way to proceed,” said May.

The Green party recalls the parroting of DFO talking points against the David Suzuki Foundation and salmon activist Alexandra Morton in a September 2010 Globe and Mail column by Margaret Wente.  “We need to know who promoted this boosterism over regulation, how much was spent to assist the multinational fish farms, and how many journalists received their talking points from DFO. The House Committee on Fisheries should hold emergency hearings into the matter,” said May.
Greens are calling for an overhaul of aquaculture policy in DFO.  “We demand that DFO do its job to protect fisheries and leave pro-industry public relations to the industry. They can afford to do their own PR,” said May.

The post DFO should leave PR to fish farms, say Greens appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“As a nation, we should be terribly concerned about crashing salmon populations and we should have access to the research of our own government scientists that can help us to fix this problem,” said Green Fisheries Critic Janice Harvey.  “The entire convoluted process that government scientists have to jump through to access media is completely ridiculous.”

Kristi Miller leads a salmon genetics project at the federal Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, on Vancouver Island, operated by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.  She has been researching possible genetic factors associated with increased death rates of sockeye salmon.  After her research started to gain worldwide attention, the Privy Council Office ordered her not to speak publicly and prevented any interviews by journalists.

“Muzzling Kristi Miller is unfortunately part of a larger pattern of the Harper government silencing scientists from all departments, preventing any information from reaching the public.  Any information that does emerge is carefully screened and scripted by political communications officers in Ottawa,” said May.

Elizabeth May has pledged her support to the Canadian Science Writers’ Association who are working to end the muzzling of Canadian government scientists.

The post Let Scientists Speak appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Seconded by Elizabeth May February 1, 2012

Click here for the complete document.

The post Bill C-225 An Act to amend the Fisheries Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Jerry Mander dealt with the problem created by wildly over-optimistic assessments of all that is new in his classic In the Absence of the Sacred (Sierra Club Books, 1991). New technologies are announced with fanfare and down- sides are down-played—from nuclear technology’s early claims (‘too cheap to metre’) to DDT (‘miracle chemical’) to the boosterism for new GMO applications. Mander argued that we had swallowed a ‘pro-technology paradigm’. ‘In a truly democratic society,’ he wrote, ‘any new technology would be subject to exhaustive debate.

That a society must retain the option of declining a technology—if it deems it harmful—is basic. As it is now, our spectrum of choice is limited to mere acceptance. The real decisions about technological introduction are made only by one segment of society: the corporate, based strictly on considerations of profit.

Reports that the US Food and Drug Administration is ready to approve a genetically modified Atlantic salmon brings that problem into sharp relief. If approved, this will be the first genetically-altered animal approved for human consumption in the US or Canada.

The booster is a GMO company called AquaBounty Technologies. Ronald Stotish, the CEO of AquaBounty boasts, ‘This is an Atlantic salmon that is identical in every regard to wild Atlantic salmon. The nutrition is the same, the texture and so forth. … If we were to prepare our fish and other fish of the same size from other sources, you could not tell the difference.’ (Globe and Mail, Sept 20, 2010)

The only difference is that the GMO salmon grows twice as fast as a wild salmon. It has the introduced growth hormone of a Chinook salmon.

AquaBounty has been trying to gain approval through US regulators for a decade. Strangely, the US Food and Drug Administration decided to review the GMO salmon through the process used for veterinary drugs, and not the process for a new food. The Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee is in charge of the review. If approved in the US, it would be up to the Canada Food Inspection Agency to decide if it was acceptable in Canada. There is no word on whether Canada would treat the GMO salmon as a fish or a veterinary drug. Health Canada is just beginning its review.

The review process by the FDA has drawn criticism from public interest scientists. AquaBounty provided data related to only six fish, and significant allergenic effects were seen in that small group. The key issue for many is the question of health risk to consumers. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union points out, ‘Data from a mere six salmon, which is all FDA presents, is not sufficient nor rigorous enough to conclude that no problem exists.’

Meanwhile, the idea of fish farming with GMO fish has raised concerns even from the usually anti-environmental government in the State of Alaska. Even Alaska doesn’t like the idea of farmed GMO salmon mixing with the wild salmon fishery.

AquaBounty is ready with its response. They promise never ever to grow their fish in the wild. They promise to keep their super-sized GMO salmon in swimming pools far away from our coastlines. They also promise that since they only raise female fish and that since 99% of the fish are sterile, even if they did get into the wild, there would be no problems. Other studies demonstrate that up to 5% of the fish can be fertile.

And, of course, they promise this is all about feeding the world—conveniently ignoring the fact that carnivorous salmon are fed on fishmeal which could be fed to the hungry people who will never be able to afford poached salmon at a restaurant.

This issue is worth watching closely. Genetically modified animals raise even more concerns than GMO corn and canola did. The risk of interbreeding in the wild cannot be dismissed. Even if one believes the hand-over- heart pledges of AquaBounty, once approved and being developed commercially, it is impossible to ensure that there is never a coastal operation.

It is also a precedent for other GMO animal products. And if this fish can be approved pretending it is a veterinary drug, what regulatory processes will be used in future? There is no public policy reason to raise GMO salmon. There is only the profit for AquaBounty.

Elizabeth May, Order of Canada, is the nominated candidate for the Green Party of Canada in Saanich Gulf Islands and leader of the Green Party of Canada.

The post GMO salmon: coming to a store shelf near you? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Last year, the front pages of our newspapers screamed out the news of sockeye salmon collapse. Over 10 million fish were ‘missing.’ Citizens were demanding answers and the federal government launched commission to investigate the mystery of the missing fish.

This year, the Cohen Commission is underway, but the salmon news could not be more different. This year’s salmon return is the largest since 1913. Some twenty-five million Fraser River sockeye have returned, compared to the dismal less than one million last year. Last year’s salmon run had been predicted by DFO to be a bumper year, with ten million fish expected. This year DFO had no expectation of a huge return. I guess the one constant in fisheries science is that DFO predictions are unreliable. To put it mildly.

Some in the anti-environmental crowd have been triumphant. In the Globe and Mail Margaret Wente used this year’s amazing sockeye return as a cudgel to beat the David Suzuki Foundation, environmentalists in general and Alexandra Morton, in particular. (‘BC’s fishy salmon science,’ September 2, 2010). She claimed that all of the above had received millions in support from fat-cat, US funders to attack the fishfarm industry.

As anyone who knows Alexandra Morton knows well, the charge is outrageous. She survives on next to nothing and small donations somehow keep her campaign (and her dear self) alive (see also her ad in Attractions, page 10). The question is not how much money Alexandra receives, but how she manages to survive and be so effective on so little.

Wente also trumpeted that the collapse of ocean life is a much greater threat than global warming, and then went on to proclaim that the successful run this year somehow proves the sealice from open pen salmon farms is not a threat to wild salmon. Fish farms, according to Wente, will be essential to feed the vast and growing populations of the world’s hungry. She made no mention of the carnivorous nature of salmon and the larger quantity of wild fish that are taken from hungry human mouths to feed the farmed fish.

Others have decried the ‘waste’ of fish as constituted in the sockeye that are not caught by fishermen. Some fishermen have demanded DFO abandon the precautionary principle and expand the fishery, even though the relatively healthy sockeye run is intermingled with threatened coho.

And the idea that too many salmon returning to the river (known as ‘over-escapement’) can cause roe to stack up in the rivers, resulting in a decline in survival has no scientific basis. That notion was put to rest in 2004 by the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council (PFRCC). At the time, PFRCC Chair, the Honourable John Fraser said, ‘This long over-due paper brings much needed science to the question of over-escapement and salmon stock collapse. On the basis of the data available there is no evidence that higher escapements have resulted in stock collapse….’

Meanwhile, many ecologists have weighed in to explain that there is no such thing as ‘waste’ in nature. The abundance of nutrients from the dying sockeye of 2010 will renew health in a vast web of life that includes forests, grizzly bears and future salmon.

The science of the variables and factors impacting sockeye salmon population is complex. The build-up of greenhouse gases (which Wente ironically claimed is a non-issue compared to the decline of ocean life) is actually a key factor threatening marine life—through both temperature and chemistry. Salmon fry are extremely sensitive to water temperatures and as BC rivers warm up, the salmon are threatened. Globally, the transfer of atmospheric carbon to carbonic acid in ocean waters is a huge threat. Carbonic acid can cause shells to disintegrate, threatening life at the base of the food chain.

A recent study in Nature, co-authored by Canadian leading scientist Boris Worm, found that the world’s oceans are experiencing a dramatic decline in phytoplankton, as much as a 40% decline over the last 40 years.(‘Global phytoplankton decline over the past century’—Nature, July 29, 2010).

The authors speculate that a rise in ocean temperature could be causing the loss of phytoplankton. A nasty feedback loop lurks here. Phytoplankton absorb carbon and release oxygen through photosynthesis. Less phytoplankton means a weakened carbon sink, and more carbon to turn into carbonic acid.

We have many unknowns in fishery science. The mix of factors, the impact of environmental conditions once the salmon leave our waters and live in the wild and open ocean, the availability of food, the impact of sealice, other pathogens, and pollution, all have an impact.

We should celebrate the return of the sockeye this year, but it would be grossly irresponsible to herald one year’s return and declare that all is well.

The mystery of the 2009 missing salmon and the miracle of the abundant 2010 sockeye are both worth investigation. We would be wise to adopt an attitude of humility in the face of all we do not know.

Elizabeth E. May, Order of Canada, lives in Sidney. She is leader of the Green Party of Canada and nominated candidate in Saanich–Gulf Islands.

The post That amazing salmon run—were we wrong to be worried? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Occupying one third of the front page with lovely colour images of sockeye and Atlantic salmon, the headline ran: ‘Debunking our fetish of fresh.’ The article started off: ‘The local food movement has made waves among environmentally conscious consumers. Why buy frozen sockeye from Alaska when you could choose the fresh stuff from your backyard? An ecological economist has revealed the burden of buying local: the carbon footprint is much bigger than you’d think…’

Classic Globe and Mail: definitely provocative; debunking what is intuitive; slapping down the locavore movement.

On reading the story and doing a bit more research, I suggest an accurate headline would have been ‘More reasons to avoid farmed salmon.’

It turns out the entire study, a collaborative effort between Dalhousie School for Resource and Environmental Studies, the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology, and Ecotrust, focused only on the environmental impact of salmon production. The researchers looked at wild versus aquaculture, transportation of fresh versus frozen, and the carbon footprint of getting salmon to the plate.

In that analysis it was not so much local versus imported, as local aquaculture versus imported wild salmon. Even accounting for carbon emitted in the transportation, a ‘local’ choice of farmed salmon has a whopping carbon footprint compared with wild, sustainable salmon.

It turns out that the largest carbon component of salmon production is the huge ecological cost of making the pellets fed to farmed salmon. Those pellets are made from fish protein. Currently a significant proportion of the wild fish caught globally is diverted to making pellets for farmed fish. According to the World Resources Institute, 10-15% of the world’s total production of fishmeal—a concentrated mix of anchovies, sardines and other low-value fish—go to aquaculture. The fishmeal, which could feed people, goes to the carnivorous, high-value aquaculture species—salmon and shrimp.

The environmental damage from shrimp aquaculture is horrific—including the destruction of mangrove forests, salinization of local, coastal farmland, loss of habitat for the wild fishery (and a myriad of other species that inhabit mangroves), leading to loss of sustainable livelihoods in countries from Thailand to Ecuador.

Vandana Shiva, heroic Indian scientist and activist, once told me that of all the destructive industries that had ever come to India, shrimp aquaculture was the worst. The Indian Supreme Court ordered a moratorium on shrimp aquaculture on the evidence of the ecological and social devastation it caused. In Thailand, shrimp is referred to as ‘pink gold’, and, as in Bangladesh and Ecuador, those opposing shrimp farms have been murdered.

It takes up to two kilograms of fish meal for each kilogram of shrimp or salmon produced through aquaculture. And that, on top of local environmental concerns of sea lice, destruction of benthic biota, creating anoxic environments due to fish feces, loss of coastal zones for healthy ecosystems, is one more reason not to eat farmed salmon.

As lead researcher, Professor Peter Tyedmers of Dalhousie explained it, ‘Intensive livestock production, whether it be salmon or milk, is predicated on concentrated feeds…that are global commodities.’

It also turns out that fresh versus frozen can lead to poor choices if such decisions are uninformed by the reality. Fish sold as ‘fresh’ may have been air-freighted, while frozen at sea has a lower carbon footprint. It turns out that shipping fish by container ship is less GHG-intensive than most other methods of transport.

I doubt very much that residents of this area, committed to eating locally, would ever make the mistake of thinking that ‘local’ farm-salmon was an environmental choice. The multitude of reasons for shunning this destructive industry are well known. Whether the aquaculture operations contributed to the collapse of returning Fraser River sockeye salmon this year will be determined (we hope) in the judicial inquiry. It is quite likely that the greater damage was done by high temperatures in the river’s waters, due to the climate crisis. Nevertheless, the aquaculture industry is being pressed globally, including by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, to improve its record or face bans.

The overall point that local is not always better is worth elaborating with some sensible ‘life-cycle’ tests of the food in question. So, if you live next to an industrial-scale hog factory, you are better to eat something brought in from an adjoining county that was raised organically. Of course, if you are unfortunate enough to live next to a hog factory, you would not want to eat what is produced there.

A few simple tests will help. Local is best if it is raised organically, always. Local is likely best as long as it is not from an intensive livestock operation or aquaculture. Local may still be best if the ‘food miles’ to import organically grown fruits and veggies begin to circle the globe. And, please, add to your standard restaurant query about the salmon, ‘Is this shrimp local and wild caught?’ If not, do the mangroves a favour and order whatever is wild and local and sustainable.

Elizabeth E. May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada, candidate in Saanich Gulf Islands and Officer of the Order of Canada.

The post Local food: defending what’s local, healthy and organic appeared first on Elizabeth May.

As the news of the 10.5 million missing Fraser River sockeye hit the news headlines last month, I was reminded of the warnings that were ignored of threats to the North Atlantic cod. In the late 1980s, I worked with others, including the organized in-shore fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, who argued for a reduced quota to protect the species.

The larger corporate players with their enormous off-shore draggers were dismissive of the in-shore fleet. In essence, they and government said the problem in lower catches in the in- shore was that the smaller operators needed to modernize to improve their ‘fishing effort.’

Within Department of Fisheries and Oceans the prevailing belief system (and I chose the words deliberately, as it was as much a religion as science) was that there was a vast ‘spawning biomass.’ Based on a mathematical calculation, DFO brass persisted in refusing to accept the evidence of the local fishermen.

Within DFO were the brave ‘heretics’, scientists like the late Dr Ransom Myers, who defied the spawning biomass theory. By the time the rest of the scientists woke up, they faced politicians who insisted on maintaining dangerously high quotas. And thus, to maintain the economy, they killed it.

Then, overnight 30,000 were made unemployed as the Minister of Fisheries declared the cod ‘commercially extinct’ and ordered the moratorium, which is in place to this day.

The crisis in BC salmon management is not new. Reports, reviews, and studies on the state of the fishery by commissions and international panels would fill a small library. What is new is the startling failure of the Fraser River sockeye after scientists had so confidently predicted record returns for 2009 based on counting at least 130 million sockeye smolts in tributaries to the Fraser River in 2007. Negotiations for quotas were based on the scientific estimates for 10.5 million returning salmon. Lobbying to have BC sockeye labelled as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council was based on the estimates of 10.5 million returning sockeye. It now appears the return will be fewer than two million fish.

What Happened?

As in any engrossing mystery, we have a long list of suspects. The advent of intensive salmon aquaculture has created several threats to the wild fishery. (2009 marks the first time in human history that more fish protein was consumed from aquaculture than from wild fisheries.) The escapement of salmon, especially of Atlantic salmon which is entirely foreign to this ecosystem, sets up dangerous competition with the wild salmon. Salmon farms create anoxic (de-oxygenated) areas due to over fertilization, destroying benthic communities, while, at the same time the intensive penning of animals has promoted the problem of sea lice.

Another suspect is climate change. BC rivers are running warmer and salmon are very sensitive to even slight changes in temperature. At sea the impacts of climate change are also a threat. According to Alanna Mitchell’s new book, Sea Sick, the threats to our oceans due to the climate crisis dwarf its terrestrial impacts. Then there are the threats from polluted waters, both marine and land-based sources, loss of habitat due to logging to the banks of streams and physical destruction of salmon habitat, and over-fishing.

Given all this, the mystery is undeniably deeper, and the science more complex, than in the case of Atlantic cod.

Are there any similarities? Are there any lessons to be learned?

Sadly, yes. We have not ever really addressed the dysfunctionality that is the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As the story of this year’s millions of missing fish was unfolding it turned out that DFO scientists had the data in 2007 that the 2009 returns would be stunningly low. While the Quesnel and Chilko Lakes and other tributaries had their sockeye smolts counted, there was a later count in the Strait of Georgia. It revealed that those teeming millions of juvenile salmon had never made it that far. DFO scientists reported in 2007 than 2009 returns ‘may be extremely poor.’ This scientific assessment was ignored.

I have seen this movie before. Ignoring worrying science, allowing the DFO managerial class to set the policy and draft the agreed upon script serves no one’s interests. On behalf of the gillnetters, the group that have requested the judicial inquiry, Bob McKamey stated, ‘This is the third year of disastrous sockeye returns.’ (Vancouver Sun, Sept 19, 2009)

I could almost hear echoes of the voices of the Newfoundland fishermen with whom I worked two decades ago in Mr McKamey words accusing DFO of ‘epic mismanagement of Fraser River sockeye, which has been regularly covered up. It is long past time we got some honest answers. We don’t have time to watch four more years of compromise and ass-covering from here to Ottawa.’

The BC government has supported the call for a judicial inquiry. Back in the 2006 election, Stephen Harper promised such an inquiry. That promise is as hard to track as the millions of missing sockeye.

We need an urgent inquiry into the state of the BC wild salmon, and not just sockeye. We need answers to the obvious questions: why was the more realistic appraisal of 2009 returns buried while the anticipated 10.5 million prediction trumpeted? We need a complete forensic review of decision-making in DFO. We need more authority exercised in regional decision- making, guided by science, and reduce the role of remote decision-makers in Ottawa. We need more local engagement working nation to nation with First Nations, while seeking the advice of all fishermen regardless of gear type. Local and traditional knowledge was accurate in Atlantic Canada, while the official science was dead wrong.

If we act now, we may be able to ensure that BC wild salmon do not go the way of the North Atlantic cod.

Elizabeth E. May is the leader of the Green Party of Canada, candidate in Saanich–Gulf Islands and Officer of the Order of Canada. She will be writing a regular column for Island Tides.

The post From cod to salmon: when do we ever learn? appeared first on Elizabeth May.