:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Brian Wallace. I'm the senior commission counsel to the Cohen commission, the commission of inquiry into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River, and with me is one of our junior counsels, Lara Tessaro.
Thank you very much for inviting us here to appear today. I'd like to take this opportunity just to tell you where we are in this process.
I'm going to learn about Mr. Ladouceur's beeper, and in fact I think I may well want to get one for myself for the conduct of our hearings because of the great amount of interest and the very short time in which Justice Cohen has been asked to conduct this inquiry.
I'm sure I'm not telling anybody anything they don't already know, but just for context, the mandate of the commission is twofold; it is looking into the decline of sockeye in the Fraser, first of all, from the perspective of DFO's policies and management, and secondly, from a much broader view of the assessment of the causes of that decline, an assessment of the current state of that fishery, and a prognosis and recommendations for its future.
This is a very broad task, and what I hope to do in the next few minutes is to just explain how we hope to go about it, but at the end of the day Justice Cohen is intent that this inquiry should be conducted thoroughly and fairly, and be completed in a timely way. The time limits have been set by the order in council that appointed him, as an independent justice, to inquire into this issue, but quite apart from that we are all aware of the real-world time limits that are at play here.
We provided a short briefing paper late last week, which perhaps you may have had an opportunity to read; if not, you can if you wish. In it we start off by setting out some of the administration issues to explain how we have gone from November 6, when Justice Cohen was appointed, to today, and what we have achieved in that period of time to where we are in the process.
I'd just like to comment on a couple of the broader issues as to how we intend to engage the public in this process and how we intend to make the inquiry thorough and fair.
The first step in the public part of the process was to invite applicants who wished to be participants in the process to apply for standing. We had what we believe is a record number of people showing an interest in this inquiry, and there were 49 applications for standing. Those 49 applications already included a number of groups that had come together for the purpose of their application. At a rough assessment, there appear to be more than 60 organizations and groups, and some individuals, who have sought standing.
Over the past couple of weeks we have been engaged with these applicants to try to determine if some of them can be persuaded to cooperate even more, so that we have a smaller number of people and make this hearing process work effectively.
The standing applications process came to a conclusion, except for the decision, with a hearing last Friday in the large federal courtroom in Vancouver. We had about 30 or 35 participants there, who engaged in further discussions and made some submissions with respect to how they might work together. The outstanding issue is for Justice Cohen to make a decision on to whom he is going to grant standing.
The next piece of that puzzle is funding. Justice Cohen doesn't have a right to award funding to anybody, but he can make recommendations. Once the decision is made on standing, he will consider the issue of funding for those participants.
Also, with respect to public participation, we have our website up and running, and as of today we have opened it to receive public input on the issues before us. From the website, any member of the public can make a submission. They will be reviewed for appropriateness and relevance by commission staff, and if found to be appropriate and relevant, they will be posted on the website. Others can then comment on those submissions. We hope to get an open public dialogue on some of the issues before the commission.
Down the road we expect to have public meetings that are focused on some of the issues taken to various parts of the Fraser River watershed, and other places where the Fraser River sockeye are important, such as Vancouver Island.
With respect to the more formal part of the hearing for which participants will be engaged, we expect the first step of that to take place in June. I think we will have a short set of hearings without the hearing of evidence to hear submissions that will inform the commissioner on his interim report, which is due on August 1. The interim report is a preliminary assessment of the recommendations that DFO has received over the years from various inquiries and investigations, and on DFO's responses to those reports. As I said, there will be short hearings in June, when participants will be asked to make submissions on the interim report issues.
The process to date has also involved obtaining access to DFO documents. So far we have received some 80,000 pages of documents, and we anticipate that number will grow appreciably, just from DFO. We expect there will be documents provided by other participants as well, so we have a serious evidence gathering process under way to analyze the documents.
We also have begun to interview witnesses. You can appreciate that there are a lot of people who have strong views on this issue and who wish to meet with the commission. We're meeting with some of those people. We also will be interviewing people within DFO.
There's an interview process that will go into the beginning of our evidentiary hearings. The evidentiary hearings we expect will take place later this year. I'm not sure how long they will take. It depends on where the documents and the witnesses lead us.
So we have a public input process and a formal hearing process.
The other aspect of the mandate directs us to a scientific investigation, in a way. The commission doesn't anticipate that it will do any primary scientific research--it just doesn't have the resources or the time to do that, and I think it would be the wrong sort of body to do so--but we do have a scientific program in place. We have a fisheries research consultant who will chair a science advisory panel; that panel will contract some scientific reviews that will be subject to public exposure through the website and perhaps through some round-table public meetings where differing views will be aired, all to the result of getting evidence before the commissioner so that he can make his independent findings in a fair and thorough way.
Thank you.
:
Yes, that's actually where we run into some conflict, not with the commission, but with your capacity or ability to actually generate a final report that meets the expectations and needs of the salmon and the people of B.C.
We've already heard that there are some significant holes and scientific gaps in the science surrounding this. In particular, one of the main questions posed by stakeholders from B.C. and elsewhere is on the interaction between aquaculture--maritime cage culture in particular--and wild salmon stocks.
I'll have to rephrase it, because you haven't analyzed the data as of yet, but what we've heard already is the lead source of that scientific data, presumably, is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We're already heard from expert witnesses within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that from DFO's point of view, fish farms are not a major factor in the decline of wild salmon populations in British Columbia right now.
If we're just simply using existing scientific databases and literature, do you have any concerns that you're going to be able to provide a proper analysis or is that decision that's already been taken by DFO the only basis on which you'll be able to make a conclusion and it'll be exactly the same conclusion?
:
I do not want to pressure you. I do not wish to offend my Liberal friends, but I cannot help thinking about the Gomery Commission on the infamous sponsorship scandal, and I have a feeling that we have not solved all the problems, as we now have the Cohen Commission.
I think it is important to let you know that problems with salmon runs in the Fraser River are long standing. A report is to be published in May 2011, and I won't get into what is probably going to happen after that. I do not want us to cloud the issue, that is, to end up with a commission that examines and observes the situation, but ultimately does not eliminate the problem. That is what I am worried about.
When I think about the work you will do and the work that we could do, that we have already done, I wonder if there is possibly something else we could do to help you out in the coming months or years. That's all. It's not that you necessarily need our help, as you are perfectly capable of managing things on your own. However, I would like you to reassure me a little bit, or a lot, or not at all.
Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace and Ms. Tessaro, for coming out today. We appreciate you coming to the committee and answering some questions and presenting information.
I had a couple of questions.
You clarified some things for me at the beginning with your opening remarks. I just wanted to go back, because we've had a number of questions and comments in my office from the public, who are very interested in the inquiry, and keen to participate.
With that in mind, can people still participate through the website? Will that be ongoing, or is there a timeline in which they have to get their comments or their submissions in?
As a logistics matter it's important to know who is participating in a timely way, because participants have the opportunity to review the documents that have been produced by DFO and also by other participants. So there's an education process, which--if they're going to participate effectively in the formal evidentiary hearings--they need to start on. The deadline has passed for people to apply for standing and we have a very broad, as you can tell, cross-section of participants as a result.
Something I forgot to mention in my opening is that of the 49 original applicants, some 20 were first nations groups and organizations. So there's a very large interest in that community as well, and I anticipate that there'll be a large number of participants from that community.
But it is open to the commissioner to amend his rules. So if somebody had a compelling case to be added, there's a process whereby they could do that.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I will continue in the same vein as my colleague, Mr. MacAulay.
Considering our work and yours—I understand somewhat better or I am able to grasp better the differences between the two—there are still some aspects that worry me. I have had a look at Commissioner Cohen's resumé. Earlier, you mentioned in one of your responses that some people are working with you and that a fisheries adviser is among them.
I was wondering how the objectives of a commission like that are carried out. We are also sometimes faced with subjects we are less familiar with. The Fraser River salmon is a long way from my home, and I know much less about it. I know about Atlantic salmon and about aquaculture and fishing issues in this area, but I only became familiar with the Fraser River salmon recently. We have consulted experts, and people have come to help us get a better grasp on the subject, but, at the end of the day, we are still just learning about the issue.
My intention is not to question the proficiency of the commissioner or the people who are working on this matter, but I would like to get a better understanding of the dynamics of an issue as specific as this. The matter also involves rather scientific aspects, since there are all kinds of likely causes. Earlier, I talked about poaching, but there are also climate changes, diseases, bacteria, and so on. There is also the pollution in the Fraser River. I have never seen a river in such a dire condition. It really did appear extremely polluted, at least at its mouth. I am used to rivers where I can see the bottom, the salmon spawning grounds, and that is not what I saw at all. I would like to better understand the dynamics of your work on this issue.
Mr. Wallace, there have been a number of panels and studies and reports over the years. Since 1992 there have been at least four others. In 1992, when half a million sockeye went missing, Minister Crosbie looked at it. In 1994, when over a million and a half went missing, Minister Tobin looked at. In 2002, Minister Thibault pulled a panel together, and in 2004, when one and a half million to two million sockeye missing, Minister Regan looked at it.
In your opinion, what will be different about this inquiry under Minister Shea and Justice Cohen? Specifically, there have been all of these recommendations made by previous panels and studies. One could probably argue that had those been implemented, they may have prevented this problem.
I have a two-part question. First, is that the case? In other words, had the recommendations of previous panels been implemented, could we have avoided this problem?
Secondly, how will this inquiry be different from the previous ones, in terms of getting to the root of the problem and ideally avoiding it in the future and putting us on a path of protecting our wild salmon?
:
Thank you, Mr. Donnelly.
The answer to the first part of the question is that it's specifically part of the terms of reference of this commission to look at the recommendations and the responses from DFO from all of these previous reports. I see that not just being whether or not DFO said they were doing this or that, but whether or not that actually happened.
That takes us to the second part of the question. I can't anticipate the results here as to whether it will be different, but it may be that given the ability of Commissioner Cohen to subpoena evidence, which is already under way, in effect, by us having made a demand for discovery of documents from DFO, we will learn more about the responses, including whether or not things are followed through on, whether they were consistent, and so on.
The tools are there for a detailed analysis of the policies and the application of those policies within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I have two quick questions.
From a different tack, assuming this committee went into this in a little more depth and looked at aquaculture or something of that nature, presumably we would end up potentially calling some of those witnesses who are part of your standing list, if you will, and maybe some of the individuals. First, do you see that as potentially confusing to those who may testify to two perceived government inquiries that are going on?
Second, if we choose to go ahead and do that anyway, and we hear evidence, I'm assuming the commission would put a process in place whereby it would pick up the information from the publicly available testimony and incorporate that into its findings. Is that true?
I think the point is that some direct questions were asked of Mr. Swerdfager, and he offered the department's view and position. From what I understand, there is certainly an alternative view or concern from the public that seems to be of a higher degree than what the department is presenting.
However, I'm not saying that Ms. Morton wants to come to correct anything. I have no idea. She may very well want to do that, but I think it's providing an alternative. It would only require one meeting to get the full perspective on what's happening on the west coast. It would be another scientific perspective. She's done a fair amount of work on this subject, and I was very specific to have her come and present information. It might be of interest, although if we start to look at other perspectives, such as Marine Harvest Canada or others, we would probably start to get into the concern that you raised, Mr. Kamp, with turning this into a work plan item.
My intent with the motion is to have a perspective from a scientist who will offer a different view on the testimony that we heard on a very key issue on the west coast regarding salmon.
While the certification exercise is probably worthwhile as well, it's my understanding that the committee has not finalized its work plan for this session. We've got some good ideas, but it's still open to amendment or addition. It's my understanding that the B.C. study was still very much in play.
I view having Ms. Morton appear before us like a grand jury exercise. It's to help the committee decide whether or not there's enough meat on these bones to continue with the study. I'd like to hear from her, and, based on what we do here, determine for myself--and hopefully with the committee--whether there's cause for a more elaborate or extensive study.
We just heard the senior counsel for the Cohen commission, and asked them whether they thought a study by this committee into the Fraser River sockeye or salmon stocks on the Pacific coast would generally be an intrusion into their mandate or their work plan. The answer I thought we heard was that they didn't really see it as an intrusion--that the two are separate beasts.
The question would be, why would that question be asked if we weren't still considering it as a potential course of study? So I'll be supporting this motion.
I look forward to hearing what she has to say in open and transparent dialogue, so that we can use it to determine whether there are grounds to flesh out this as a major piece of business for the committee to work on in this particular session of Parliament.
:
I understand that point of view.
This motion is about sea lice, I think, and not aquaculture in a broader study. That's why I thought if we wanted to go in this direction.... Yes, she is a scientist and she has her particular agenda or involvement, I think, in this.
I wondered whether, in addition to Alexandra Morton, it would be helpful to also ask Dr. Mark Sheppard, the senior aquatic animal health veterinarian for the province of B.C., who is responsible for controlling and monitoring sea lice, and all that stuff. As I understand it, he is a provincial individual, but I think it would be interesting to have both of them here. It has been provincially managed up until now--well, largely, with some federal involvement there as well.
I'd be happy to amend the motion to include him after Alexandra Morton, and have them both appear, maybe on the same day for an hour each, or something like that if we wanted to. That would be up to the chair.
So my amendment would be to add the words “and Dr. Mark Sheppard, senior aquatic animal health veterinarian for the province of British Columbia” after the words “Alexandra Morton”.