Category: Fisheries

Editorial: Harper wants to cut off funding for JRP intervenors. Conservatives allow hate speech, while curbing green speech.

The Conservative Party of Canada are sickening hypocrites on free speech.

Hate speech is OK. Green speech is not.

Hate speech is permitted, for it is “free speech.”  “Green speech,” on the other hand, is under constant attack from the Conservatives and their followers. While not subject to legal curbs (for now), we are seeing increasing pressure on those who advocate for the environment to shut up.

The Conservatives  today repealed sections of the human rights act concerning “hate speech” delivered by telephone and the Internet.  There was a free vote,  the Conservative MPs supported the repeal by 153 to 136.  It was a private members bill from Alberta Conservative MP Brian Storseth that repealed Section 13 of the human rights code, which covered with complaints regarding “the communication of hate messages by telephone or on the Internet.”

On the same day, in SunMedia, that Prime Minister Stephen Harper says his government will no longer fund any organization that comes before the Northern Gateway Joint Review opposing the pipeline.

According to Sunmedia story Taxpayer Funding Oil-Sands Activitists

The taxpayer tap pouring cash into the coffers of oilsands opponents could be turned off.

“If it’s the case that we’re spending on organizations that are doing things contrary to government policy, I think that is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money and we will look to eliminate it,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Paris on Thursday.

Harper was responding to reports by Sun News Network that the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has showered more than $435,000 on groups participating in the review of the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, that would connect Alberta’s oilsands to a tanker port in northern B.C.

So there we have it, a prime minister who heads a government elected by just 30 per cent of the Canadian electorate, who now decides who can afford to come before a public quasi-judicial body, the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel. Support the government and the bitumen sands, fine, we’ll give you taxpayers’ dollars, even if you don’t need it. Oppose the government, and you do  it on your own dime.

Transnational energy companies have millions to spend to support their views on the oils sands, whether before the JRP or in a multi-million PR campaign. A poor community that could be devastated by an oil spill off the BC Coast doesn’t count.

In the age of the web, Facebook, Twitter and other social media, all speech is hard to control, as despotic governments around the world are finding.   Hate speech on the Internet is impossible to control.  All someone has to do is  have a server in a country like the United States, where the First Amendment permits it. Green speech will continue to be free on the Internet. The difference is that Conservatives are making every effort to make green speech ineffective in the political and public spheres in Canada.

The change in the Canadian hate law means little in a practical sense. So why did the Conservatives change the law?  Like their efforts to crush “green speech,”  repealing those hate speech clauses has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. The repeal is all about ideological control, the very opposite of free speech.

Behind this vote is the fact that conservatives have made it clear over the years that they despise human rights codes. Today’s act of repeal is nothing more than part the Conservatives  wide-ranging plan to incrementally, millimetre by millimetre, (probably through other private member’s bills) to dismantle all the progress that has been made in this country over the past 70 years.

The right wing media loves to promote the far out wacko cases of people who use the human rights law process, stories the right-wing repeats again and again. There have been wackos who use other legal procedures, including the civil courts and other judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. But the conservatives and their media allies only emphasize the wacko cases before a human rights tribunal.

Of course, the majority of comfortable (and most of whom are, as far as we know, white, male and straight) conservatives are never going to have to use a human rights tribunal to redress a grievance.  They were never beaten up on the school yard, never denied a job or housing.  Most of the people who go before human rights tribunals are on the margins of society.

At the same time, we see the ongoing campaign by conservatives to demonize “green speech,” speaking out for the environment. Conservatives, in politics and the media, are trying to curb the funding of foundations that support the environment, the government routinely calls environmentalists “radicals” and even “terrorists.” Now we have Harper saying, yet again, don’t you dare oppose government policy on the bitumen sands.

The right-wing media routinely heaps their scorn and yes, even hatred, for those who believe that life on this planet is threatened. Those right wing columnists will, of course, fight to death to protect their own free speech but most won’t even put in a single sentence of objection in their columns or reports about the conservative campaign against “green speech.”

Which brings us to the man, who while claiming to be a free speech advocate, is actually now the self-appointed head of Canada’s thought police, Ezra Levant of Ethical Oil. (Ethical Oil today triumphantly tweeted Harper’s statement  @EthicalOil Taxpayers funding anti-oilsands activists #EthicalOil #Cdnpoli… fb.me/V1AS7Tg2 )

Writing in the National Post, Jonathan Kay is full of praise for Levant:

a vigorous network of right-wing bloggers, led by Ezra Levant, began publicizing the worst abuses of human-rights mandarins…. In absolute numbers, the readership of their blogs was small at first. But their existence had the critical function of building up a sense of civil society among anti-speech-code activists, who gradually pulled the mainstream media along with them. In this sense, Mr. Levant deserves to be recognized as one of the most influential activists in modern Canadian history.

Influential activist, yes.  Free speech advocate? No. It is time the media stopped calling Levant a champion of free speech. He is not. Levant is a champion of causes he himself approves of,  especially the bitumen sands.  Free speech for anyone who opposes his agenda is subject at very least to attack and ridicule.

In his columns,  Levant advocated the curbing of the free speech of the thousands of  people of British Columbia who are defending their back yard from the energy industry. Levant is, of course, free to disagree with them, but don’t you dare oppose Ezra Levant or the bitumen sands,

Levant, rather than calling for more free speech in his columns, as his personal PR spin maintains,  advocated cutting off the people who live here in northwestern  British Columbia from the hearings of the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel, by saying too many people had signed up to testify.

Writing in SunMedia on December 10, 2011, Levant let off a broadside at the thousands of ordinary Canadians living and working along the route of the Northern Gateway pipeline who signed up to comment on the project, calling on Stephen Harper to fire chair Sheila Leggett for permitting too many people to speak at the hearings

[A]s of Friday, 4,453 people had typed in their names into Leggett’s website, signing up for the right to make a presentation.

[The JRP] allows anyone in the world — literally any person, any child, any foreign citizen — to simply type their name and address and get the right to testify before her panel.

It’s as trivial as clicking “like” on a Facebook page. That’s why Leggett needs another year. If another 40,000 people click on her website, will she delay things 10 years?

Skimming through the names is like reading petitions where wiseacres sign up as “I. P. Freely” or “John A. Macdonald.” Much of it is just junk, to jam up the system.

The website allows people to write a comment. Many of them are word-for-word replicas of each other. It’s a form letter campaign, arranged by professional environmental lobbyists. And it’s working. The only question is whether Leggett is naive, incompetent or biased against the pipeline.

Some of the forms have been faxed in. They helpfully have the fax signature stamp at the top of the page, showing which foreign-funded lobby group is working to gin up names. Like the Sierra Club, which received a $909,000 contract from the U.S. Tides Foundation and their Canadian affiliate to gin up opposition to the “tar sands.”

Those foreign billionaires are getting their money’s worth — they’ve managed to delay the hearings by a year before they’ve even started.

Levant was giving a completely inaccurate account of the Joint Review process. His column which echoes the ideological blindness of most his conservative columnist colleagues, speaks of foreign influence, repeating the big lie being propagated by the Conservative party,  started largely by blogger Vivian Krause, that there is an International California Conspiracy to undermine the Canadian energy industry.

Dealing with a pipeline coming through some of the most geologically unstable country on the planet is not “trivial.”  The threat of a major oil spill on the British Columbia coast is not “trivial.”

I’ve attended, listened to the remote webcast or read the transcripts of much of the hearings. None–none– of the testimony can remotely be considered: “Much of it is just junk, to jam up the system.”

A fair estimate would say that 95 per cent of people who registered to comment live along the pipeline route or the BC coast. At least a dozen or more letters of comment are posted on the JRP site every day, which means thousands since Levant wrote the diatribe,  and it is clear that they are written by individuals with valid concerns, and none in recent months are form letters. (I check them, I doubt if Levant does)

In that column, Levant goes on about JRP chair Sheila Leggett:

She’s Stephen Harper’s bureaucrat, but she’s taking direction from foreign meddlers. For “whatever time it takes.”

What a fool. No court would permit such a gong show. And Leggett has court-like powers.

Last month, when Barack Obama delayed the Keystone XL pipeline from the oilsands to the U.S., Harper was appalled.

But Leggett was appointed by Harper. And she just pulled an Obama on our own country.

Leggett must be fired. Her job is not to listen to everyone in the world with an Internet connection. It’s to make the best decision in Canada’s interest.

Her Oprah-style hearings are unacceptable, and Harper should make that clear by sacking her.

Leggett was not fired. In fact, over the past six months, she has had a difficult time confining testimony to the narrow rules of evidence that do not permit someone to actually say they oppose the pipeline.  An intervenor had to testify “from personal knowledge” or if First Nations “from traditional knowledge.” So no hearings came close to being “a gong show.”

There hasn’t been a single “foreign meddler” testify in the past six months (although some intervenors, including the energy companies themselves, use experts from outside Canada).

In a later column, on January 7, 2012, the weekend before the hearings began here in Kitimat, Levant again toed the conservative party line in Pipeline review hearings allowing foreign input is ridiculous — we don’t need another country’s permission. It’s all Canada, Levant again repeated his big lie.

Those who testified at the Kitamaat Village hearings in the following days were from the Haisla Nation as well as Douglas Channel Watch and the Kitimat Valley Naturalists (both groups consist of mainly retired Kitimat residents).  There wasn’t a foreign billionaire in sight. Same with the hearings in the days and weeks that followed, First Nations, fishers, hunters, guides, birders, and yes environmental groups. (How dare those BC NIMBYs get in the way of an Alberta pipeline and its manifest destiny?)

In today’s SunMedia article, Environment Canada cautioned:

A spokesman for Environment Minister Peter Kent tells QMI Agency while that funding is often legally required, Kent wants to make sure “common sense prevails” in how it’s awarded.

With its majority, it is likely the Conservatives will change the rules, just as they are by abolishing DFO fisheries protection for salmon spawning streams. Again bottom line, if you support the government and you are rich, you can testify.  If you are poor, even if you are “directly affected,” tough luck.

The sad fact is that Levant has won, for now, his fight against free speech in BC, probably without knowing it.

More and more people are dropping out of the Joint Review Panel process, hearings scheduled for days now last just a day or an afternoon. That’s because given the position of Stephen Harper, Joe Oliver and Peter Kent, that the pipeline is going ahead no matter what, many of these people  who signed up to comment now see no reason to testify for 10 minutes on a subject that is a foregone conclusion. Here in the northwest, where long distance travel is concerned, it takes time and money to make the effort of participate. Why testify, if the government is going to ignore the concerns of the people who live here?

No wonder Ethical Oil sent out the celebratory tweet this afternoon.

The Conservatives have won a major in battle in their war on free speech in this country by making it not worth their while for many ordinary citizens, those who don’t have deep pockets for research and lawyers, to speak on the Northern Gateway Pipeline, at least before the Joint Review Panel. Now Harper government wants to cut off funds for the poorer intervenors.  If that happens, more opponents will drop out of the proceedings.

Kay, in his attack on the hate law calls it a  “system of administrative law that potentially made de facto criminals out of anyone with politically incorrect views about women, gays, or racial and religious minority groups.”

The National Post’s conservative friends (in its own newsroom and both in and out of Parliament)  are now looking for ways to make “defacto criminals out of anyone with the politically incorrect” view that the Northern Gateway Pipeline is not a new version of the “national dream.” After all,  Stephen Harper’s statement today means “that doing things contrary to government policy” is now politically incorrect.

Of course, if the pipeline breaches along the Kitimat River and the town is without a drinking water system for up to four years (in the worst case scenario), it will be Kitimat’s nightmare, not Canada’s. (In Don Mills, columnists will still be able to drink Toronto’s water or, perhaps, run to the corner store for a Perrier.)  If a bitumen tanker hits the rocky coast and sinks in the deep  cold-water fjords, it will largely be BC’s nightmare, and the BC taxpayers’ nightmare, not Edmonton’s or Toronto’s. If a pipeline buried under nine metres of west coast snow in a remote valley has a small–undetectable by computer– breach  in the darkest days of January and  the ongoing oil leak isn’t discovered for weeks or months, by that time it might also be “politically incorrect” for anyone Canada to object. (Of course, people in the region will object and strongly).

The fact is that these small c and large C conservative campaigns  against hate laws in terms of “free speech” are nothing more than the rankest hypocrisy. What most (not all) conservatives want is free speech for their ideas and only those ideas, especially if they want to shout their own hatred of certain groups from the rooftops or on the world wide web, while at the same time, many conservatives have been trying to shut down anyone with opposing views.

To a conservative, the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion that still drives too many numbers of gay teenagers to suicide, is always protected free speech, no matter the body count.

On the hand, to the same conservatives, free speech in Canada doesn’t include protecting the environment of the only planet we live on, especially if a small portion of the funding that speech comes from California. In conservative Canada, free speech belongs to American (that is foreign) oil billionaires like the Koch brothers. To conservatives, free speech does not apply to local BC groups, coalitions of often left-wing environmentalists and  often conservative anglers and hunters, trying to protect wild salmon.

Where’s George Orwell when we need him? In the Canada of Stephen Harper, the National Post and Sunmedia,  homophobic hatred is protected, preserving the planet is not protected.  In Canada in 2012 (or I should I say 1984+), the only acceptable political speech is support for the bitumen sands and the pipeline projects.

And you wonder why the public has such contempt for majority of politicians and most of the media?

Related links:

Editorial: Just asking: why didn’t anyone object to the Americans at the NEB LNG hearings in Kitimat?

Joint Review media analysis Part one: Calgary Herald columnist advocates curbing free speech on the Northern Gateway Pipeline hearings

(Deborah Yedlin of the Calgary Herald was another columnist who advocated limiting the number of people appearing before the Joint Review Panel. Perhaps this is another case of free speech for Albertans, but not people in BC?)

 

DFO report to JRP says Northern Gateway pipeline will cross “high-risk” streams but releases only two examples on Kitimat watershed

A Department of Fisheries and Oceans report filed Wednesday, June 6, 2012, with Joint Review Panel says the department has identified streams on the Northern Gateway Pipeline route that Enbridge identified as “low risk” but which DFO considers “high risk.” However, in the filing, DFO says it can’t release a comprehensive list of the high risk streams, preferring instead to give two examples on the Kitimat River watershed.

The DFO report comes at a time when the Conservative government is about to pass Bill C-38, which will severely cut back DFO’s monitoring of the majority of streams. It appears that the anonymous DFO officials who wrote the report acknowledge that they may soon have much less monitoring power because the report says:

Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.

Note the phrase “under the current regulatory regime.”

The report also identifies possible threats to humpback whales from tanker traffic.

In the report, DFO notes that Northern Gateway’s “risk management framework” is based on DFO’s own Habitat Risk Management Framework, and DFO, notes “the approach appears to be suitable for most pipeline crossings.”

However, DFO further remarks that it has identified

some examples where crossings of important anadromous fish habitat have received a lower risk rating using Northern Gateway’s framework than DFO would have assigned. In addition, DFO has identified some instances where the proposed crossing method could be reconsidered to better reflect the risk rating.

In bureaucratic language, the Department says “DFO reviews impacts to fish and fish habitat and proposed mitigation measures through the lens of its legislative and policy framework” again a strong hint that the legislative and policy framework is about to change.

It goes on to say:

The appropriate approach to managing risks to fish and fish habitat is based on the risk categorization. For example, where high risks are anticipated DFO may prefer that the Proponent use a method that avoids or reduces the risk such as directional drilling beneath a watercourse to install the pipeline. If low risks are anticipated other methods such as open-cut trenching across the watercourse may be appropriate.

While DFO is “generally satisfied” with Northern Gateway’s proposed approach, it says “DFO has identified some crossings where we may categorize the risk higher than Northern Gateway’s assessment.”

DFO then gives Enbridge the benefit of the doubt because:

Northern Gateway continues to refine the pipeline route and we anticipate that assessment of risk will be an iterative process and, if the project is approved and moves to the regulatory permitting phase, DFO will continue to work with Northern Gateway to determine the appropriate method and mitigation for each watercourse crossing. In DFO’s view, Northern Gateway’s approach is flexible enough to be updated if new information becomes available.

DFO then says it

has not conducted a complete review of all proposed crossings, we are unable to submit a comprehensive list as requested; however, this work will continue and, should the project be approved, our review will continue into the regulatory permitting phase. While there may be differences in opinion regarding the risk categorization for some proposed watercourse crossings, DFO will continue to work with Northern Gateway to determine the appropriate risk rating and level of mitigation required.

Here is where DFO points to current, not future policy, when it says:

DFO is of the view that the risk posed by the project to fish and fish habitat can be managed through appropriate mitigation and compensation measures. Under the current regulatory regime, DFO will ensure that prior to any regulatory approvals, the appropriate mitigation measures to protect fish and fish habitat will be based on the final risk assessment rating that will be determined by DFO.

The report then gives two examples of high risk streams both in the Kitimat River watershed

 

Example 1) Tributary to the Kitimat River, KP 1158.4 (Rev R), Site 1269

Northern Gateway Rating: RMF: Low Risk

DFO Rating: RMF: Medium to High Risk

Rationale: This is a coastal coho salmon spawning stream that is quite short in length. It has several historic culverts in poor repair which are already impacting the reported run of approximately 100 spawning salmon. Works can be completed in the dry as this stream dries up during the summer. DFO is of the opinion that the risk rating is higher than that proposed by Northern Gateway due to the sensitivity of incubating eggs and juveniles of coho salmon to sediment and the importance of riparian vegetation for this type of habitat.

 

Example 2) Tributary to the Kitimat River, KP 1111.795 (Rev R), Site 1207

Northern Gateway Rating: RMF: Medium Low Risk

DFO Rating: RMF: Medium to High Risk

Rationale: In DFO’s view the risk rating for this watercourse is higher than that proposed by Northern Gateway because this stream is high value off-river rearing habitat for juvenile salmon such as coho salmon. This type of fish habitat is vulnerable to effects of sedimentation and loss of riparian vegetation.

 

Humpback Whales

The Joint Review Panel also asked DFO for a comment on the status of the humpback whale, especially in the shipping area in the Confined Channel Assessment Area Between Wright Sound and Caamaño Sound.

DFO responds

Four areas of critical habitat were proposed for humpback whales in coastal British Columbia in the Draft Recovery Strategy released in 2010, including the Confined Channel Assessment Area from Wright Sound to Caamaño Sound. However, humpback whales have recently been re-assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and were redesignated ‘Special Concern’ but remain ‘Threatened’ under the Species at Risk Act (SARA). A draft recovery strategy for the humpback whale has been prepared.
It is unclear if humpback whales are still protected as a Schedule 1 status species under the SARA and whether a recovery strategy has been finalized.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada Response to the JRPs IR Request  (pdf)

Editorial: It’s time for the District of Kitimat to play hardball on Gateway

EDITORIAL

Who speaks for Kitimat?

Someone has to speak for Kitimat on the Northern Gateway project.

The District of Kitimat Council no longer has a choice. It’s time to play hardball with Ottawa and Enbridge on the Northern Gateway Pipeline.

You can’t negotiate from a position of weakness.

The game of pipelines changed forever in recent weeks, when the Conservative government introduced Bill C-38, the Budget Implementation Act.

Bill C-38, which passed Second Reading on May 14, 2012 is an affront to basic democratic principles, a 425 page omnibus monster that will not permit the kind of careful consideration of major changes in Canadian society that what was once normal in a free and democratic society. The omnibus bill not only concerns the federal budget but also repeals the environmental assessment process and guts fisheries protection for the smaller spawning streams where salmon are born. By giving the federal cabinet the power to overrule the National Energy Board, the decision on the pipeline rests with just one man, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has made no secret that he intends to push the project through no matter how fierce the opposition to the project.

This week has seen devastating cutbacks along the west coast, to environmental monitoring and pollution control, to Coast Guard protection.  It is now clear that protection of the environment  along the BC coast and the lives of the mariners who sail those waters are of little importance to Ottawa, and of no importance to the war room types counting votes in Alberta and suburban ridings outside Toronto and Vancouver.

The District of Kitimat Council has voted to wait to make a decision until after the report of the Joint Review Panel, when “all information” is available.

The news this week that the Joint Review Panel decided to bypass Kitimat, that the town that is to be the terminal of the proposed pipeline is irrelevant to the process, shows more than any other move what the JRP thinks of Kitimat. Not much.

The Joint Review Panel has lost all credibility. Even if the JRP does produce a fair and honest report with valid recommendations for conditions and restrictions, it is highly unlikely that those recommendations will be fully implemented, because the final decision will be made in the Prime Minster’s Office and that decision will be build, baby, build.

Media reports in recent months have shown that Enbridge has easy access to the senior levels of the Conservative government and Enbridge lobbying preceded the changes to the Fisheries Act in Bill C-38.  Enbridge  walks the halls of power in Ottawa. Kitimat, on the other hand, counts for little, as the JRP schedule clearly shows.

So, for example, even if the Joint Review Panel recommends strict conditions on the pipeline to insure the safety of Kitimat’s water supply, and if Enbridge doesn’t like those conditions, there is no guarantee that Harper and the cabinet will implement those recommendations. That would leave the District of Kitimat holding the water barrel for several years.

(One of the many reasons, it seems, that the JRP wants to have all the northwest hearings is in Prince Rupert is so the high-priced energy lawyers from Calgary can have comfortable accommodation. So, if any protests from the District and the Haisla Nation are successful and there actually are final hearings in Kitimat,  perhaps the District could arrange for the lawyers to camp in Radley Park, so they can actually grasp the realities of living in Kitimat by the Kitimat River.)

The District of Kitimat Council has a duty to make sure that this region is protected.

So what does this mean?

“Armed neutrality”

It is now too late for the District Council to take a position for or against the pipeline. It no longer matters whether Mayor and Councillors support the pipeline, are sitting on the fence or oppose the pipeline. Bill C-38 has made the decision for the Council.

Council must assume that Stephen Harper will impose the pipeline on Kitimat and will impose conditions that could be determinable to the District in favour of Alberta and Enbridge.

From now on Council must unify and work to protect the District from Stephen Harper. The Council must make sure that the District is an aggressive force at any negotiating table or court battle.

That means Council should retain its position of neutrality, leaving opposition to the pipeline to others like Douglas Channel Watch. Given the growing witch hunt against the environmental movement, an official position of neutrality is negotiating from a position of strength and protects the District from any accusation that “radicals” are distorting the District’s position.

In international affairs, countries like Switzerland and Sweden are neutral, robustly neutral. Both Switzerland and Sweden practice what is called “armed neutrality.”

“Armed neutrality” means that Kitimat Council can no longer continue its current wishy-washy neutrality, arguing over the nuances of words in letters to the Joint Review Panel and Enbridge. To protect Kitimat, Council must adopt its own policy of “armed neutrality,” an aggressive stance that represents the entire community, both opponents and supporters of the pipeline.

So what now?

Professional advice

The announcement this week that Shell is planning to build a liquified natural gas facility in Kitimat, in combination with the KMLNG and BC LNG projects plus Enbridge, means it is vital for the District to have independent, professional advice on energy issues.

The District must immediately start paying much closer attention to the all the relevant documents that are filed with the Joint Review Panel. The District Council and staff must have their own independent advisers rather than juggling the views of Douglas Channel Watch and Enbridge and hoping for the best. That means hiring more professionals to supplement current staff that will understand the technicalities of both the Enbridge pipeline and the LNG projects; staff who can advise the senior administration and Council about how to proceed where the issues of the pipeline construction, terminal construction and management of the terminal come under municipal jurisdiction or could adversely affect the municipality.

That takes money, even though money is tight, Council must budget for that staff. When it comes to negotiating factors within the responsibility of the municipality, Kitimat must be at the table at full strength.

All the way to the Supreme Court

It is now certain that after Stephen Harper orders the pipeline to go ahead, disputes over the Northern Gateway Pipeline will end up in the courts. Lawyers are already talking about the constitutional necessity to consult First Nations, that pushing the pipeline across aboriginal traditional territory will violate Rights and Title.

First Nations across British Columbia are already represented by some of the best lawyers in Canada.

Vancouver is already looking at what powers a municipality has to make sure that city is fully protected in case of a catastrophic tanker accident from the Kinder Morgan pipeline and project.

Yes, the District is wary because of the long and bitter fight over power allocation, but that is in the past. Again Bill C-38 gives the District no choice but to prepare for new legal battles, probably all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The District of Kitimat must immediately budget for, seek out, retain and instruct a law firm that  can advise the District on its rights and responsibilities now and in the future once the Harper government imposes the pipeline on Kitimat. As we have seen from the Joint Review and other National Energy Board hearings, the energy industry hires the best lawyers money can buy.

If Kitimat has to face those lawyers, the District can’t act like a Junior B team facing the NHL All-Stars. That law firm should be able to advise Kitimat on the constitutional issues involved and what powers a municipality has to protect the community from unwanted and unwarranted aspects of pipeline and tanker development. That law firm must also be able to participate in hardball business negotiations.

Seeking Alliances

The District must build better bridges with the Haisla Nation and find where there is common ground in the Kitimat region as Stephen Harper imposes the pipeline on the northwest. They may be arguments before the courts or with Enbridge where both the Haisla and the District of Kitimat are allies in a fight.

Stephen Harper and his government are prepared to impose the pipeline, terminals and tanker traffic on northwestern British Columbia, again no matter what local municipalities and regions say. All the environmental and Coast Guard safeguards that might have brought acceptance of the Enbridge project are being cut to the bone. That means Kitimat must also forge alliances with those municipalities and regions, again to make sure that local rights and responsibilities are fully protected once the government decides to impose the pipeline on the northwest.

It is highly likely that the constitutional consultation and Rights and Title cases on the pipeline will end up at the Supreme Court of Canada. If there are other cases, perhaps raised by Vancouver or other Lower Mainland or northern communities or even the Province of British Columbia, it may be that the Supreme Court, as it has with some cases in the past, could consolidate all the pipeline cases into one. That means Kitimat will need to be a participant in any case on the pipeline before the Supreme Court.

Unless District of Kitimat Council starts playing hardball, Stephen Harper will drive a bulldozer down bank of the Kitimat River to Douglas Channel, ignoring the council standing and watching from the hill looking over the pipeline trench. 

Letting salmon escape from nets could benefit grizzly bears and even the fishers, study says

Grizzly eating a salmon
A grizzly bear eats a salmon. A new study says managers must consider the value of salmon to the entire ecosystem. (Jennifer Allan)

A new study suggests that the health of the grizzly bear population is also a strong indicator of the health of Pacific salmon—and perhaps surprisingly, allowing grizzlies to consume more salmon will, in the long term, lead to more, not less, salmon.

The study, led by Taal Levi, of the University of California at Santa Cruz and colleagues from Canada, suggests that allowing some more Pacific salmon to escape the nets of the fishing industry and thus spawn in coastal streams would not not only benefit the natural environment, including grizzly bears, but could also eventually lead to more salmon in the ocean. Thus there would be larger salmon harvests in the long term—a win-win for ecosystems and humans.

The article, “Using Grizzly Bears to Assess Harvest-Ecosystem Tradeoffs in Salmon Fisheries,” was published April 10 in the online, open-access journal PLoS Biology. In the study  Levi and his co-authors investigate how increasing “escapement”—the number of salmon that escape fishing nets to enter streams and spawn—can improve the natural environment.

“Salmon are an essential resource that propagates through not only marine but also creek and terrestrial food webs,” said lead author Levi, an environmental studies Ph.D. candidate at UCSC, specializing in conservation biology and wildlife ecology.

Salmon fisheries in the northwest Pacific are generally well managed, Levi said. Managers determine how much salmon to allocate to spawning and how much to harvest. Fish are counted as they enter the coastal streams. However, there is concern that humans are harvesting too many salmon and leaving too little for the ecosystem. To assess this, the team focused on the relationship between grizzly bears and salmon. Taal and his colleagues first used data to find a relationship between how much salmon were available to eighteen grizzly bear populations, and what percentage of their diet was made up of salmon.

The study looked at Bristol Bay, Alaska, the Chilko and Quesnel regions of the Fraser River watershed and Rivers Inlet on the Inside Passage, just northeast of northern Vancouver Island.
The study says adult wild salmon are “critical” to ocean, river and terrestrial ecosystems. As well as humans, salmon are eaten by orcas, salmon sharks, pinnipeds (seals and sea lions). On land, salmon are eaten by black and grizzly bears, eagles and ravens.

Because the grizzly is the “terminal predator” the study says “if there are enough salmon to sustain healthy bear densities, we reason there should be sufficient salmon numbers to sustain populations of earlier salmon-life history predatory such as seabirds, pinnipeds and sharks.”
As is well known in the northwest, the study says “bears are dominant species mediating the flow of salmon-derived nutrients from the ocean to the terrestrial ecosystem. After capturing salmon in estuaries and streams grizzly bears typically move to land to consume each fish, distributing carcass remains to vertebrate and invertebrate scavengers up to several hundred metres from waterways.”

“We asked, is it enough for the ecosystem? What would happen if you increase escapement—the number of fish being released? We found that in most cases, bears, fishers, and ecosystems would mutually benefit,” Levi said.

The problem, the study says, is that fisheries management have a narrow view of their role, what the study calls “single-species management,” concentrating on salmon and not the wider ecosystem. “Currently,” the study says, under single-species management, fisheries commonly intercept more than 50 per cent of in bound salmon that would otherwise be available to bears and the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems they support.”

The relationship between salmon and bears is basic, Levi said. “Bears are salmon-consuming machines. Give them more salmon and they will consume more—and importantly, they will occur at higher densities. So, letting more salmon spawn and be available to bears helps not only bears but also the ecosystems they nourish when they distribute the uneaten remains of salmon.”

When salmon are plentiful in coastal streams, bears won’t eat as much of an individual fish, preferring the nutrient-rich brains and eggs and casting aside the remainder to feed other animals and fertilize the land. In contrast, when salmon are scarce, bears eat more of a fish. Less discarded salmon enters the surrounding ecosystem to enrich downstream life, and a richer stream life means a better environment for salmon.

In four out of the six study systems, allowing more salmon to spawn will not only help bears and the terrestrial landscape but would also lead to more salmon in the ocean. More salmon in the ocean means larger harvests, which in turn benefits fishers. However, in two of the systems, helping bears would hurt fisheries. In these cases, the researchers estimated the potential financial cost—they looked at two salmon runs on the Fraser River, B.C., and predicted an economic cost of about $500,000 to $700,000 annually. This cost to the human economy could help support locally threatened grizzly bear populations, they argue.

While these fisheries are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), the researchers suggest that the MSC principle that fisheries have minimal ecosystem impact might not be satisfied if the fishery is contributing to grizzly bear conservation problems.
The researchers believe the same analysis can be used to evaluate fisheries around the world and help managers make more informed decisions to balance economic and ecological outcomes.

 

What do grizzlies eat in northwestern BC ?

The current study and previous studies track the grizzly’s diet by studying the nitrogen and carbon istopes in grizzly hair. In one study in the early part of this decade, the BC Ministry of the Environment used guard hairs from “passive hair snags” as well as samples from bears killed by hunters or conservation officers.

The 2005 study says “Guard hairs are grown between late spring and fall, thus integrating the diet over much of the active season of temperate-dwelling bears.” Analysis of the isotopes can show what the bears ate over the season.

The study identified four elements in the grizzly diet across British Columbia, Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest Territories: plants, “marine-derived nutrients” mostly salmon, meat (primarily from ungulates such as moose) and in inland areas, kockanee salmon.

As could be expected, grizzly salmon consumption is highest in coastal areas. Males generally consume more salmon than females, likely because a mother grizzly may avoid taking salmon if there is danger to the cubs from males. The further inland a grizzly is found, salmon is a lesser factor in the bear’s diet. In Arctic regions, grizzlies can feed on arctic char, whales, seals and barren-ground caribou.

So what do local grizzlies eat? (excerpts from the 2005 study, Major components of grizzly bear diet across North America,  National Research Council Research Press  published March 28, 2006)

Map of grizzly diet and salmon
Grizzly consumption of salmon on the northwest coast (NRC)

North Coast 54.54 N 128.90 W (north and west of Kitimat)
Plants 33 per cent Salmon 67 per cent

Mid Coast 52.50 N 127.40 W (between Bella Bella and Ocean Falls)
Plants 58 per cent Salmon 42 per cent

Upper Skeena Nass 56.80 N 128.80 W
Plants 71 per cent Salmon 5 per cent Meat 13 per cent

Bulkley Lakes 54.10 N 127.10 W
Plants 63 per cent Salmon 6 per cent Meat 16 per cent Kokanee 15 per cent

Cranberry 55.40 N 128.40 W (near Kiwancool)

Plants 30 per cent Salmon 17 per cent Meat 40 per cent Kokanee 13 per cent

Khutzeymateen 54.68 N 129.86 W (near Prince Rupert)
Plants 22 per cent salmon 78 per cent

 

###

Other authors of the 2010 study are Chris Darimont, UCSC, Misty MacDuffee Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Denny Island, BC; Marc Mangel, Paul Paquet, UCSC and University of Calgary, Christopher Wilmers, USCC
Funding: This work was funded by an NSF GRF and Cota-Robles Fellowship (TL), a NSERC IRDF (CTD), the Wilburforce and McLean Foundations, and Patagonia. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

2005 study by Garth Mowat Aurora Research  Crescent Valley BC and  Douglas Heard BC Ministry of the Environment, Nelson

Cut back on taking “forage fish” to save salmon and halibut, scientists recommend

A group of international scientists is recommending that fishing for what they call “forage fish,” including herring and anchovy, should be cut in half around the world to help save larger predator species like halibut and salmon.

Harvesting anchovy in Peru
Harvesting anchovy in Peru (Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force)

The expert group of marine scientists, called the Lenforest Forage Fish Task Force, say their worldwide analysis of the science and management of forage fish populations, “Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs,” concluded that in most ecosystems at least twice as many of these species should be left in the ocean as is done now.

The scientist say a thriving marine ecosystem relies on plenty of forage fish. These small schooling fish are a crucial link in ocean food webs because they eat plankton, tiny plants and animals and are then preyed upon by animals such as penguins, whales, seals, puffins, and dolphins.

The task force says “forage fish” are primary food sources for many commercially and recreationally valuable fish found including salmon, halibut, tuna, striped bass, and cod.
The task force says that if “forage fish” are consumed by other commercially important species they are worth $11.3 billion. But if the “forage fish” are caught themselves, they only generate $5.6 billion as “direct catch.”

Forage fish are used in fish meal and fish oil to feed farmed fish, pigs, and chickens that people consume on a regular basis. Fish oil is also used in nutritional supplements for humans.

“Traditionally we have been managing fisheries for forage species in a manner that cannot sustain the food webs, or some of the industries, they support,” says Dr. Ellen K. Pikitch of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, who convened and led the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force.

“As three-fourths of marine ecosystems in our study have predators highly dependent on forage fish, it is economically and biologically imperative that we develop smarter management for these small but significant species.”

Small schooling fish are an important part of the ecosystem on both coasts of North America. Many marketable species on the Pacific coast feed on the forage fish, including as salmon, lingcod, Pacific hake, Pacific halibut, and spiny dogfish.

A large number of seabird species relies on them as well, and research shows that the breeding success of the federally endangered California least tern may depend on the availability of local anchovy populations. On the eastern seaboard, more menhaden are caught (by weight) than any other fish off the Atlantic coast. Taking out excessive amounts, however, means less food for tuna, bluefish, and striped bass ― as well as whales, dolphins, and seabirds – and affects fisheries and tourism industries from Maine to Florida.

“Around the globe, we’ve seen how removing too many forage fish can significantly affect predators and people who rely on that system’s resources for their livelihoods,” said Dr. Edward D. Houde, a professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Science and task force member. “We need to be more precautionary in how we manage forage fish in ecosystems that we know very little about.”

Made up of 13 preeminent scientists with expertise in a wide range of disciplines, including UBC, the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force was established to generate specific and practical advice to support better management of forage fish around the world. This group of experts, with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, synthesized scientific research and other information about these species and conducted original simulation modeling to reach their conclusions.

“The Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force has provided guidance on how to prevent overfishing of these small prey species,” said Dr. P. Dee Boersma, professor and director of the Center for Penguins as Ocean Sentinels at the University of Washington and task force member. “Our hope is that fishery managers will put our recommendations into action to protect penguins, cod, whales, and a whole host of other creatures that need them to survive.”

Links Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force

Minister issues non-denial denial on taking habitat protection out of the Fisheries Act

On Friday, March 16, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield released a brief statement denying that the government had made a decision to take habitat protection for fish out of the Fisheries Act (Earlier in the week reports had leaked saying that government intended to take protections for fish habitat out of the act, as way of clearing the way for industry.)

Ashfield’s statement, which came at 4:40 p.m. Eastern Time appeared to be the classic buried government news release issued late on  a Friday.  The release actually did not deny facts of  the leak, making it also a classic non-denial denial.

Ottawa (Ontario) – The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today issued the following statement:

“The government is reviewing fish and fish habitat protection policies to ensure they do not go beyond their intended conservation goals. Recent speculation about the current review is inaccurate. No decision has been made.

“The government has been clear that the existing policies do not reflect the priorities of Canadians.

“We want to focus our activities on protecting natural waterways that are home to the fish Canadians value most instead of on flooded fields and ditches.”

It is clear that Conservative policy, such as proposed changes to the Environmental Assessment Act and budget cuts at Environment Canada, is to eliminate as many environmental protections as possible, and so the sentence that policies “do not go beyond their intended conservation goals” must be interpreted in light of the environmental record of the Conservative government.

On March 13, media including The Globe and Mail  Ottawa wants to bow out of regulating fish habitat, documents show and The Vancouver Sun, Canada poised to ‘gut’ fish protection laws, biologist claims reported that the Conservatives want to get government out of the job of regulating fish habitat, so projects such as the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline can be fast tracked.

Otto Langer, an aquatic ecologist who worked for the federal government for 32 years, obtained the documents and made them available to the media.

He said the documents show that the government intends to remove the requirement in the Canada Fisheries Act to protect fish habitats for any fish that is not of “economic, cultural or ecological value.”

Langer told The Globe and Mail: “Probably the main reason why the oil industry, especially in the Prairie provinces, wants it out of the act is its use triggers [a review under] the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. If you are going to do harm to habitat, you have to do an environmental review and that takes time and money.”

Speaking to The Vancouver Sun Langer asked how the government could define
“what is a fish of economic, cultural or ecological value?”

Documents obtained by PostMedia news, as reported in The Vancouver Sun story, say that energy and other industries consider the Fisheries Act a irritant that holds up projects.  One of the documents say:

“Some of the largest and most complex natural resource and industrial development projects across the country are affected by Fisheries Act requirements, which are consistently identified as one of the top federal regulatory irritants by stakeholders across the country,”

In his bi-weekly conference call with northwestern reporters, earlier Friday, before Ashfield issued his statement, Skeena Bulkley Valley NDP MP Nathan Cullen said he has heard the “the government is planning to take the word ‘habitat’ of Section 35 of the Fisheries Act and then ram that potential change into a budget bill.

“This is what the fisheries act is for, to protect habitat,” Cullen said. “Protecting habitat is one of the most crucial factors in protecting fish stocks. If you can’t protect habitat, then how do you protect fish?

If they do this,” Cullen said, “They’ll rip the very heart out of the Fisheries Act. The heart and soul of the act is that if you want to protect fish, you must consider habitat. You don’t have to be a genius or a fish biologist to know that if the fish don’t have anywhere to spawn, you’ll kill the fishery.”

Cullen said if the government does go ahead with the changes, “it will further compound all the problems and stresses we’ve been putting on the fishery. Essentially the government is saying that wild fish populations will not matter, that oil and gas is going to trump them every single time.

He went to say, “They did this with the Navigable Waters Act a few years ago They killed off a one hundred year old act that was designed to protect waterways in Canada. You know who it upset, and this is something the government is going to have to be paying attention to is the BC Wildlife Federation, the anglers and hunters associations, any of those groups that likes the go out into nature and actually see some nature. All of those groups got upset last time and now its going to be that times ten.“

Ashfield’s statement about flooding referred to a couple of incidents where the Department of Fisheries and Oceans would not allow draining of  flooded areas. He told the House of Commons “Last year in Saskatchewan, a long-running country jamboree was nearly cancelled after newly flooded fields were deemed fish habitat by fisheries officials. In Richelieu, the application of rules blocked a farmer from draining his flooded field.”

In response, The Globe and Mail quoted Adam Matichuk, fisheries project co-ordinator for the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, said that, during high-water events, many fish species move into flooded areas to feed and reproduce.

“The Craven area is basically a flood plain,” he said. “It doesn’t flood every year, but, when it does, fish take advantage of it. There were hundreds of thousands of young fish, mostly pike and walleye, in there when they turned on those pumps,” he said.

 

The Cullen confrontation at the Joint Review hearings: Transcripts

The Member of  Parliament for Skeena Bulkley Valley,  Nathan Cullen had a fiery debate Friday, Feb. 17. 2012, in Prince Rupert with the Northern Gateway Joint Review panel over a subject that has been vexing the panel since the first day of hearings at Kitamaat Village, the exact definition of what constitutes personal or traditional knowledge in this round which the panel calls  “Community Hearings.”

This is an edited transcript of the proceedings where Cullen was testifying.

Chair Sheila Leggett repeated at the opening on Friday:

So as I’ve stated, we’re here today to listen to the oral evidence from
intervenors that have previously registered with the Panel. Oral evidence is only
that information which is relevant to the matters the Panel will be considering and
cannot be presented as written evidence.

In order to assist parties regarding the types of information that
intervenors may provide as oral evidence during the community hearings, the
Panel issued Procedural Direction Number 4.

Parties will not be able to provide information orally here that could be
provided in writing or at a later stage in the process. This would include
information such as technical information, questions to the Applicant, or
argument and opinion on the decisions you would like the Panel to make. This is
not what we are here to listen to today.

Sharing your traditional knowledge and your personal knowledge and
experiences on the impacts that the proposed project may have on you and your
community, and how any impacts could be eliminated or reduced, is of great help
to us. This is the type of information we’re here to listen to today. We appreciate

Nathan Cullen then began his testimony, with an acknowledgment that it was taking place  on the traditional territory of the Tsimshian Nation

Cullen. I think it does the entire process a level of respect that is actually quite
indicative of how we, in the Northwest, like to treat visitors, with respect and
understanding and an open heart. I also thank the Metlakatla Nation for allowing
me to switch times with them to make this available — I’m a little preoccup ied
with some other endeavors right now.

I think in the best tradition of Justice Berger, this Panel is attempting to
establish a balance between traditional knowledge, rights and title and the laws of
this land, and the importance of hearing oral testimony and oral evidence and
giving it the weight and circumstance that we do to technical briefings and to
other sources that upon which you will make your decision.

And let me say that I have no envy for you in the chairs that you are in.

This is an incredibly complicated matter. It weaves together many of the most
fundamental factors and decisions that exist within any nation and potentially has
an impact on many people, both here in the Northwest of British Columbia but
right across Canada and perhaps around the world.

I will also, as I’ve expressed to you privately, Panel, do my level best to
adhere to Procedural Direction Number 4 and follow in the guidelines that you’ve
set forth. It’s somewhat out of practice for serving politician to find themselves
restricted in particular ways when we are speaking but it’s good practice anyways.

Let me say that politics is my vocation, a calling, and politics ultimately at
its best is about story. It is about collecting the stories of people that we seek to
represent and then relaying those stories to a broader audience.

I see that my testimony here today is certainly on my behalf as an
independent Canadian citizen, as a resident of the Northwest, but also on behalf of
many people who either can’t speak or are intimidated by the process to be here,
who have relayed many of their concerns and thoughts and hopes through me to
you.

This is about telling our story. This proposal of a pipeline and the super
tankers that are connected to it asks us to ask questions of ourselves, as a people,
as region, and as a country. And I believe, fundamentally, if I attempt to
summarize where the concerns lay, it is a question of trust. And I will break that
down into four particular segments because I think there are elements in this
question that are important for you to consider.

First and foremost is trust of this particular company. They are the one
making the proposal through you to the Canadian Government and through you to
the people that I represent here in the Northwest. Can the company be trusted?
Has the company’s record in the past shown it to be worthy of trust? I think this
is also a technical question, although I won’t — I will refer away from the
technical aspects of trust of pipelines themselves and of the capacity to keep them
safe and of the tankers that are associated to this project in the particular area that
we are talking about, and can we trust that that will also be safe?

In some ways, this very process is the third area of trust. Can the people
that I represent trust what’s happening here? Is it as you said in your introduction,

Chairwoman — and I think it’s accurate — as established as an independent arm ofgovernment? Is it free in the way that we have designed it to come to a decision and is that decision going to be respected? That is a question that many of the people that I represent — that is a question that I ask.

And, lastly, and perhaps most fundamentally, the question of trust of the
Federal Government, the Government of Canada to honour the commitments that
they make in law and by statute, that will be actually be adhered to.

And I think as we watch the current government in action, there is a
certain amount of mistrust over the particular issue of energy and over the
particular industry of oil; that many of my constituents feel that there is not a level
playing in the conversation; that they feel that perhaps we are an afterthought to
the interests of the oil sector and that we should have a respect for a fundamental
idea as Canadians; that we live in a democratic society and that the government of
the day goes well beyond its mandate and its ethics to attempt to bully or silence
Canadians when they seek to raise their voice at Panels like this or anywhere else
across the country.

Let me start first with the companies and I will relate my personal
experience because I think that’s what you’re seeking.

It’s been a number of years since I’ve been dealing with Enbridge. This is
not new to me, this is a company that I have been dealing with for quite some
time and, upon their invitation, met them some years ago — Chairman, I think you
may have that —

Sheila Leggett interrupts and says:: Mr. Cullen, I just want to make sure that we
were going to be — you were going to be talking to us about your personal
knowledge and experience about the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: Absolutely.
Leggett. THE CHAIRPERSON: Terrific.
Cullen: Absolutely. Allow me to relate –
Leggett:  On you or your community.

Cullen That’s right.

Leggett: Thank you.
Cullen: So allow me to relate to this.  So my first personal interaction with the company outside of some emails and some telephone calls, was a meeting that was held in Vancouver talking about how the company would interact with my community and what the effects would be of that interaction.

And the first thing that the company wanted me to know was that they had
been able to successfully raise a $100 million in the effort to promote this project;
a $100 million that was received in $10 million allotments that was from
undeclared sources.

I asked who is behind that and they neglected to reveal that, which is fine.
Since that meeting a number of years ago, we do know now who some of those
companies are. The reason this is relevant is that we have been unable to
encounter any project in Canadian or U.S. history that has had that type of money
and support behind just the promotion and engagement of citizens. It’s an
extraordinary amount of money and that money bares influence and it can’t be
ignored.

I thought it was an extraordinary claim for them to make, to be the first
thing that I should know, and it led to the second conversation; this is relevant to
your intervention that I sought with Enbridge to conduct community forums to
inform people as to the risks and benefits as perceived by both the Proponent and
opponent of the project. I thought that was a worthwhile role for a Member of
Parliament to play to facilitate that engagement.

I had not taken any public stand on the project. I had not made any public
utterances and thought my best engagement is what you’re essentially attempting
to do right here, which is to find out the various views about moving raw bitumen
1,100 kilometres in a 36-inch pipe and a corresponding pipe coming from the
coast into the interior.

For more than 18 months that conversation went on and on and on, to the
point where I realized that it was never going to happen, that the company had notentered into good-faith negotiations with me and felt that by being in those negotiations I was unable to declare myself publicly one way or the other.

I now turn to my experience with the Gitxsan Nation —

After Cullen’s statement about the lack of good faith negotiations, Laura Estep,  one of the lawyers for the Enbridge Northern Gateway objected.

We would like to express an objection to this presentation. We believe that it is argument. It is argumentative. It is a political agenda. This is nothing more than a political speech and we object on that basis.

Mr. Cullen has been directed on numerous occasions, in writing and
otherwise, by the Panel as to what constitutes appropriate oral evidence. We’ve
been listening this morning and have yet to hear that.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to continue waiting for something appropriate
to be provided in terms of oral evidence. It’s not oral evidence what he’s been
giving so far.

At this point, the transcript dryly notes “Reaction from the public” and Leggett calls for order in the room, going on to say:

This is a serious proceeding and we need to be able to have it unfold in a way that shows the kind of respect that we’ve all gathered here to be a part of. So I’d ask the audience to please refrain from verbally expressing or by handclapping or anything like that your perspectives.

Legget then asks, Mr. Cullen, any comments in reply?

Cullen: I’m surprised it took 10 minutes.
(Laughter/Applause)

Leggett: Excuse me —

Cullen: The notion — Madam Chair, I think it’s your comments about the audience.

Leggett: No —

Cullen: I also referenced those questions and those opinions.
I think it is critical for us to show as much decorum and respect and I’ve
attempted to, in my comments, to show that respect.

I looked very carefully at this Procedural Direction Number 4 and what is
oral evidence; it’s in the second bullet:

“Personal knowledge and experience about the potential effects of
the project on you and your community.”

My initial intervention in this was to describe the approach that was taken
and is being taken by the company to engage with my communities in the
promotion of the project and to describe the merits from the company’s
perspective.

I then described my intervention with the company to attempt to have as
much public engagement and disclosure as possible around the project and was
denied that.

I think both of those references directly speak to how the company seeks
to engage the people that I represent, which speaks to my personal knowledge
about the potential effects on the project and the community. How a company
engages a community is also linked to how the project will be manifest.

I will seek to speak to the personal references that I have and the
experience that I have with this company, but it shows some umbrage from the
company who attempted to limit my ability to even speak here at all today to then
suggest that they have the interests of the Panel at heart when they intervene
within eight and a half minutes to attempt to limit my testimony further.

Legett: Mr. Cullen, this is not a political statement.

Cullen: Absolutely.

Legett: And you’ve recognized as a politician it’s difficult from that aspect of it. I would ask you to please talk to us about your personal knowledge and experiences on the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: Absolutely.

 

Leggett: So if we could get straight to that point.

 Cullen: Absolutely.
Leggett So if we could get straight to that point.

 Cullen: Sure.
Leggett The Panel doesn’t need to hear the preamble and the setup of that. We’re interested in just getting straight to your personal knowledge and experiences about the potential effects.There are other stages in the process for argument —

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett —as you’re well aware, and as an intervenor you’ll have that opportunity at the appropriate place. But the concept of the oral evidence is to hear directly from you on yourpersonal knowledge and experiences on the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: So may I ask a procedural question then?

Leggett Go ahead.

Cullen: The point I was getting to before being interrupted was
my experience with the Gitxsan Nation and spending time with people in the
Hazeltons immediately following the impacts of a deal that had been publicly
reported to be signed between the Gitxsan Nation and the Enbridge company and
the local community effects.

I think it may be overly restrictive to suggest that only once a pipeline in
the ground and the effects of a potential spill are the only impacts. I would argue,
and respectfully argue to the Panel, that the engagement with the communities
that I represent is also an impact of the project, that the First Nations’
engagement, the engagement at the community level is part and parcel of what this project is.

To suggest that it’s only an engineering question full stop seems like it
would limit the ability of people presenting, as I am, to relate who this company is
and what they seek to do through the course of the implementation of this project.

The way a company conducts itself with a community in advance of a
project is also indicative of maybe how they will conduct themselves with a
community after the project is in the ground, if you follow my line of reasoning.

Leggett Again, I would remind you that we’re not here to hear argument.

 Cullen: I understand.

 Leggett We’re not here to hear the case from that perspective. And so I would ask you to continue to bear in mind that I will interrupt you —

 Cullen: Of course.

Leggett —and we need to hear your personal knowledge and your experiences about the potential effects of the project.

Cullen: Yeah.

Leggett And so within that context, I’d ask you to
proceed so that we don’t end up spending your time on this. I know you have 45
minutes —

 Cullen: Sure. So —
Leggett — and I know you probably have a busy schedule, so let’s listen to you again and see how this works.

Cullen: Let me try this and you’ll interrupt again if I’m offline. Inherent in the project is the ability to have agreements with First Nations. That is in the Application. That is in the nature and design of the project.

In my personal experiences, particularly in dealing with the Elders andHereditary Chiefs of Gitxsan, the project has been, to this point — in the attempt to sign a negotiated agreement to enable the project, the impact has been incredibly negative on the people within that nation.

I met with Enbridge some weeks ago in Ottawa, asked the company representatives if they would take responsibility for any of those upfront impacts of the way they were treating the First Nations people that I represent. I was told “No”. I think that’s wrong.

I think we cannot simply say that the impacts are only in the prospective
idea of a pipeline breaking upon the land or a super tanker running into an island
and leaking into the ocean. I think those are real. Those are perceived and
accurate.

But I think in the nature of the communities that we represent — that I
represent and that you will be visiting, it is also inherent in the way that we have
relationship. We started today off with relationship. We talked about respect.
You thanked the people who came in for their honouring of today. That is what
we are in fact also talking about.

I don’t know if I’m within the bounds of Procedural Direction Number 4,
but it feels to me that the two cannot be separated, that the way the company
conducts itself within the local communities and the First Nations is inherent to
the way the company will conduct themselves in the engineering and the cleanups
if there is an accident. Those two things seem to me indivisible.

Before I continue, I want to seek if I’m at all on the right track.

At this point the three members of the panel confer among themselves.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, you started your presentation by saying that you had stories to tell.

Cullen: That’s right.

Leggett And the stories that you are hopefully going to tell us about the land and the history of the land; that’s what oral evidence is about.

As far as potentially discussing what you believe is the credibility of the
company and those types of things is not within the framework of oral evidence.

As I said before, there is a different time in the proceeding for argument,
to present your views, to present the thoughts on how you think things have
unfolded, but the oral evidence is particularly to — as we’ve mentioned time and
time again, the Aboriginal traditional knowledge is a good indication of —

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett –what oral evidence is. So if you could constrain yourself to the stories, for example, of the land, of the history of the land, that would be the information that would be mosthelpful to us at this point.

 Cullen: I appreciate the Panel’s comment.  I was going to impugn that on the question of credibility. If the company has none, I won’t approach it in my testimony today.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, please, that’s not appropriate. Could you please proceed if you have stories about land use and the history of the land?

Cullen: So —

Leggett: If you don’t have –

Cullen: Absolutely.

Leggett —that, then I’m afraid it won’t be a good time
for us to listen to you.

Cullen: The history of the land is implicitly connected to the people who live here. The history of the land, the traditional knowledge that has been accumulated of this land, we have an expression here that says “The land makes the people. The people don’t make the land”.

— (Applause/Applaudissements)

Cullen: And it seems —

Leggett Excuse me, for people listening in over the
internet and also for the Panel, it’s very difficult when tthere continue to be
interruptions from the audience.

So could I ask you for your cooperation in helping us be able to proceed
here in a way that we can all hear and appreciate the oral evidence that’s being
provided?

Thank you.

Cullen: It’s tough. These are emotional and powerful issues for
people, and they — it’s tough to tell folks in the North to restrain themselves
emotionally sometimes. We are a passionate people, particularly when it comes
to the land.

The history of this land is connected to the people. The stewards of this
land have been the First Nations people for millennia.

The impact that I have seen to this point on the stewards of the land, by
even just the proposal of this project, has been to — so discord and a great division
within some of the communities that I represent. This is at a very personal level.

You asked for personal stories in which Elders have felt that expressing
their opinions one way or the other on a project has exposed them to abuse and
criticism, that it has divided communities, some of whom are very small and
intimate places to live.

The question that we have before us is: What impacts will this project
have on the land and the people which it sustains?

The proposal that a 36-inch pipeline carrying 525,000 litres of oil -barrelsof oil per day across some of the most rugged and difficult land to traverse, and the inherent risk that is associated to such an endeavour has affected people at their core because unlike some places in this world, the connection of people to that land is implicit, is inherent, and is in fact defended by the very Supreme Court of this country, that when a project comes along under the lawsand guise that are developed here in Canada, the law is not on our side. And so the impact on people at a personal level, the impact on people’s ability to imagine a viable economy, to remain stewards of both the ocean and the land is what is being put at risk.

Before we started our hearings today, I spent some time looking out at the
ocean and wondering, are there any decisions — is there anything that we are
doing here today to put that at risk? And that is true.

It is impossible for me, as somebody who represents 300,000 square
kilometres of north-western B.C. to suggest that the imminent threat of super
tankers, bigger than the Empire State Building, ploughing some of the most
difficult waters to plough does not have implicit threat to the people I represent.

When I visit the communities of Hartley Bay and Bella Coola, Metlakatla,
Lax Kw’alaams, the connection people have to the ocean environment is second
to none. It may be in fact difficult for some Canadians to understand that don’t
live in such communities.

You have the great fortune of visiting some of these places. You will eat
the food that they will generously provide for you. There’s an expression that
says, “When the tide goes out, the table is set”. And the people that I represent
and the impacts upon their very way of life cannot be measured only in dollars
and cents but in the very cultural fabric that holds people together.

You asked me for my personal experiences and what the potential impacts
of this project are. Before even a shovel has hit the ground the impacts have been
felt. I understand you don’t want that kind of testimony today. You want
something more implicit to the proposed actual building of the pipeline, but if
something starts off so badly at a human level, at a community level, how can we
expect it to turn out well in the end?

Ms. Estep: Madam Chair, I’m sorry to interrupt — interject again, but Icontinue to — Northern Gateway continues to maintain its objection that this is argument, not oral evidence.

The views he’s providing are argument, and we will be hearing directly
from the Metlakatla and the Gitxsan. Those parties can speak for themselves as to
the cultural impacts and their oral traditional knowledge. They’ll provide that
directly to the Panel.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, again, if we could get you to focus
in on the stories that —

 Cullen: Sure.

Leggett —you’re bringing today to us about the history of the land and the land, and to stay away — I mean, it’s not that we don’t want to hear your argument.

Cullen: I understand.

Leggett But it’s just not the right place.

Cullen: I understand.

Leggett And it’s the oral evidence piece that we’re here to hear from you today. So again, I would direct you to come back to that aspect.

Cullen: M’hm.

Leggett If you would like a little bit of time, we’d be happy to take a bit of a break for you to rethink where you want to talk to the Panel today or, you know, just proceed on that basis, but —

Cullen: I think best while talking, so I’ll keep on talking.

Leggett But while you talk, would you please contain yourself to the oral evidence, please?

Cullen: Yeah, absolutely. If I come, Madam Chair, to the point of objection that was raised, I take some significant umbrage with the idea that is suggested by the company that Ihave ever at this point, or any point in my political career —

Leggett Mr. Cullen —

Cullen: — attempted to speak on behalf of — Madam Chair, you
have to allow — there’s been — when interjections like this come there’s a certain
impugning of reputation that happens. To not be able to address the point of order
that is being raised by Enbridge seems to leave me at a certain disadvantage, that I
am only being accused of certain things and not being able to defend myself of
those accusations, and that, to me, seems somehow unfair.

Leggett Mr. Cullen, the objection that’s been raised is in
terms of the content of the material that you’re presenting —

Cullen: That’s right.

Leggett — in terms of oral evidence.  The Panel is continuing to remind you and ask you, please, to go to the personal knowledge and experience about the potential effects.

Cullen: So —

Leggett If you can’t do that —

Cullen: Okay. Allow me to —

Leggett — then we will have to —

Cullen: Let me try this.

Leggett — we’ll have to tell you that, you know, we’ll look forward to your argument at the right time, but the oral evidence piece will be finished for today.

Cullen: Let me try this. I met with a company, one of the leading companies globally who deals with spills from tankers. They’re the best of the best. I asked them for what the recovery rate was considered a success on a marine accident. I was told that in ideal conditions, anywhere approaching 10 per cent recovery of the total spill was considered successful.

I have lived by these waters. I represent the people who depend on these
waters. That knowledge and the potential impacts of a spill within the marine
environment and the inability to clean those up is a personal experience and a
knowledge — we cannot forbade the idea that we have to have actually sat in an
oil spill in order to comment on what the effects are going to be to the coastal
environment here.

We have knowledge at our hands in terms of what these impacts can be. The communities I represent are deeply concerned about this. My experience with them has been, in the past, when there have been accidents, the Queen of the North, for example, that the promises that have been made by both government and the private sector alike are only made when the cameras are rolling, but when the attention disappears the cleanup isn’t there.

And that is real and important in terms of the experience that we have had in the North Coast in dealing with government and in dealing with the private sector when commitments are made in the proposal of an idea that are not followed up in the actual implication and implementation of that idea. That is real experience; that is knowledge.

Leggett And, Mr. Cullen, you’re again referring to
technical information and scientific information, and again that’s a piece that will
come forward —

Cullen: Okay.

Leggett –in the cross-examination phase. I would still –

Cullen: Sure.

 Leggett –ask you to focus on the stories that you told you were bringing us today —

Cullen: Sure.

Leggett — about your personal knowledge and experiences about the potential effects of the project on you and your community.

You’ve — you and I are having this discussion on a regular basis now. If
the information you’re bringing just doesn’t fit within that scope today, then I
would — you may be asked to stop and we’ll hear from you at the appropriate time
when —

Cullen: So, may I ask a question before I proceed?

Leggett If you would proceed with your evidence that would be helpful and we will continue to go from there.  Mr. Cullen, this is a very important process and —

Cullen: I absolutely understand, Madam Chair.

Leggett –it’s very important that we deal with the aspects that are in front of us, and right now we’re in the oral evidence collection phase.

Cullen: That’s right.

Leggett: And as we’ve said many times, a good reference
point for that is the Aboriginal traditional knowledge. That’s the aspect of oral
evidence that is pertinent to this point of the review.

 Cullen: As has also been declared, the personal knowledge and
experience about the potential effects of the project on you and your community.

Leggett: Correct.

Cullen: I’m simply trying —

Leggett: That’s absolutely correct.

Cullen: — to follow the rules that you’ve been given out to the
witnesses. I find — I hold this Panel in respect. I attempt in every angle and word to adhere to the guidance that you’ve given me, the personal knowledge and experience about the potential impacts/effects of the project on me and my community.

I feel at this point somewhat disheartened that, in effect, the interpretation
of the guidelines being allowed and permitted at this stage so encumber the ability
of someone from the north, someone who represents people to actually present
what my experience has been with this company and what my experience has
been with the people that I represent and the implications of this project on those
people and on me and my family.

I find that through whatever course of angle I take the words that you gave
me and I seek to apply them to my evidence and I feel that it’s near to impossible
— near to impossible in the restrictions that have been offered and the
interpretation of that one line, that one sentence, that in fact you’re looking for
something entirely different.

Leggett: What we’re looking for is your evidence not
your argument.

Cullen: The evidence that I have is that, in fact, this process
suffers under a certain amount of intimidation from the Prime Minister of this
country.

Ms. Estep: Madam Chair, we continue to object. This is completely
inappropriate.

You’ve reminded Mr. Cullen numerous times now and he quite clearly has
a very different interpretation of what personal experience and oral evidence is.
And that just simply is not within the scope of what we are trying to do here
today, as you have pointed out numerous times.

Leggett: Mr. Cullen, at this point I’m going to suggest that we take a 10-minute break and —

Cullen: Five is good, if you don’t want to waste your time.

Leggett: I beg your pardon?

Cullen: Five is okay?

Leggett: Five is just great. Thank you.

Cullen: Good.

 Leggett: And again I want to make sure that you understand that it’s not that we don’t want to hear from you —

Cullen: I understand.

Leggett: — it’s just the time and place and the content, and so final argument would be the place for the type of information that you’ve been providing to the Panel today.

Cullen: Absolutely.

Leggett: And if you do have other information that relates to evidence as far as your personal experiences and knowledge, that’s what we’d like to hear about today. At a different point, which is the final argument, that’s where we’ll want to hear further in terms of the way you’re speaking today.

Cullen: Absolutely. So five minutes?

Leggett: Thank you.  Five minutes.

— Upon recessing at 10:01 a.m.
— Upon resuming at 10:08 a.m.

 Leggett: We’d like to get underway, please.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Attention.

Leggett: Thank you for your help. That’s terrific. So
we’ll get back underway.

I just wanted to start off by saying, from the perspective of the Panel it’s an interpretation aspect. Your interpretation of what oral evidence is falls within our expectations of what argument is. And so I want to be clear that the stage and place for that is at a later time. And the oral evidence piece that we’re here to talk about is as you started to talk earlier on about your stories about the land and the historical land use. And so with that we’ll turn it back over to you.Thank you.

Cullen: You’re inviting me back for later, is what you’re saying.

Leggett: You’re an intervenor in the process, Mr. Cullen;we welcome you at all the appropriate times.

Cullen: Just keeping it friendly. Let me allow this; I wasn’t born here, I was born in Ontario and I chose to live here. I can remember coming off the ferry here in Prince Rupert with a beat-up ’86 Tercel and driving across the northwest to what I thought was an eight-month experience to do a contract in Smithers B.C. I had no expectations that this would become my home. I had no expectations that this would become my family.

I think the experience that I had driving across the north that day — it was a beautiful morning, going over the rivers and by the lakes and seeing the mountains — the most clear thought I had that day was if we mess this up there’s not much hope for us because everything’s here.

I’ve lived around the world. I’ve worked in countries that do not have the fortune that we have. And I realized that while this place is incredibly powerful -and I’m sure you share those feelings, having spent some time here — it will only continue with us if we respect the land.

The interconnectivity that I’ve seen between people and the land — my interconnectivity has increased enormously since living here. When I attend the feast halls of various nations across the north from Haida Gwaii to Fort St. James all the way to the Taku River Tlingit in the far north down to the Bella Bella and Bella Bella Coola people in the south, all of which is contained within this one federal riding.

It has been one consistent factor, and that is the land supports us and we must defend the land. That my ability, not just as a representative but as a citizen and resident of this place, to speak up when necessary in defence of this place is my responsibility and it will not be curtailed or shut down by anything. I think it is incumbent upon all of us when we live here.

I took a trip with some friends, who are also elected representatives, down the Douglas Channel two summers ago — and I hope this bears relevance to what we’re talking here today — and it was in a fishing boat. We like to fish up here. And it was not a big boat, 30, 35 feet. And I wanted to take the actual route that is being proposed by the Proponent. I wanted to see the waters. I wanted to see the channels. I wanted to understand what the challenge was in moving these incredibly large vessels through these particular waters.

And it was a beautiful day, it was a sunny day, it was summertime, and I was most struck coming out of the Douglas Channel going towards the ocean by the incredible sharpness of the turns that are required and having done at least a little bit of research on what the capacities and capabilities of super tankers are to manoeuver and to move.

I was asked this question that over the course of this project there will be approximately 15,000 sailings through that route, and I have to ask myself, and I ask this Panel, what the perspective is of perfection when humans are involved; that can we sail that narrow channel 15,000 times through all kinds of weather, all kinds of circumstances, both human and environmental, with never having made a mistake once, because we can’t make a mistake once.

When I stay in Hartley Bay people who this country celebrated as heroes,
as you’ll remember, after the sinking of the Queen of the North, they risked their
own lives to go out and save people.

And when I’m in Hartley Bay you have to hit the day right in order to see anybody because if it’s a day when you can go out and collect food, if it’s a good day for getting clams or sea urchin,  you’re not going to find anybody around.

11018. And in my vocation as a politician what I’m trying to do when I visit a community is see people, but I don’t despair when I end up Hartley Bay or Bella Coola and everybody’s gone, and they’re out fishing and they’re out collecting, and they’re out sustaining themselves and sustaining the land. And I’m reminded of that inherent connection every time.

And so when the Panel seeks to understand what’s being put at risk here, it’s not simply a meal, it’s not even just a job, but it’s an entire culture and way of live.

We sometimes say we are a salmon people, and you live here long enough you understand the inherent connection of that one species to our vitality as people. And we cannot survive without it.

So in your deliberations and your understanding of what the merits and the implications are of this particular project, you have to understand what the implications are for us. And it’s everything, it’s everything.

You’ll spend some time looking at this project. Maybe it seems like a long time to you but it’s very short for us. And you’ll move on and you’ll do other things.

I hope you’re impacted, as I have been by the people, because I know we’re supposed to talk about the rivers and the oceans and the trees, and all those things are important, but it’s the people that I think of when I’m here today.

And when I’m in the feast hall and we celebrate, we celebrate culture, we celebrate the bounty of this land, we celebrate coming together and forming nation. And I think what wealth we have and how generous people are here in sharing that wealth.

Thank you for your time.

— (Applause/Applaudisement)

Leggett Thank you, Mr. Cullen. The Panel has no questions.

— (Applause/Applaudisement)

Leggett: Thank you, Mr. Cullen. You’ve left the table now, but the Panel has no questions of clarification

 

Recreational halibut quota increased to 15 per cent but season may end in August

 Updated

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has increased the recreational halibut quota to 15 per cent.

A release issued this afternoon by Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield says, “the Minister has instructed the Department to make an immediate correction in the allocation formula for the Pacific halibut fishery. Under the new formula, 85 per cent of the resource will be allocated to the commercial sector and 15 per cent to the recreational sector.”

However, this may not be good news for the recreational halibut industry. A news release from the Sports Fishing of Institute British Columbia, issued late Friday, says that regulations not mentioned in Ashfields’s Friday afternoon news release from DFO, says the recreational season will end August 15. DFO officials were not available for confirmation late Friday.

So if there is a shorter season, the quota increase may not mean that much to the recreational sector.

 The DFO news release goes on to say:

The 2012 Pacific halibut recreational fishing season will open March 1st. Recreational anglers with a tidal water licence will be able to catch one halibut per day with two in possession. Fisheries and Oceans Canada will continue to work with recreational community representatives to identify monitoring and management measures that will provide greatest flexibility and season length while staying within their allocation.

The release from Robert Alcock, of the Sports Fishing Institute says:

Today’s changes to the recreational halibut fishery, will ensure that in 2012, recreational anglers will experience the shortest halibut fishing season in memory, said Sport Fishing Institute of BC President Robert Alcock. “Minister Ashfield closed the recreational halibut fishing on September 5th last year and caused extensive economic damage to the sport fishing industry”, said Alcock. “Today he served notice that recreational halibut fishing will end in the first week of August, which will wreak havoc in the sport fishing industry and which will not conserve a single fish.”

Ashfield announced that he will not accept the unanimous recommendation of Canada’s 300,000 recreational anglers and create a “fixed number’ fishery that would allow recreational anglers to enjoy a predictable fishery during periods of low halibut abundance. Instead, Ashfield simply tinkered with the flawed allocation system established in 2003 which will ensure that Canada’s 436 commercial halibut quota holders can continue to harvest 85% of Canada’s sustainable Total Allowable Catch (TAC). The TAC is established annually by the International Pacific Halibut Commission and the amount of halibut that Canada and the US can harvest without endangering the long-term stability of halibut stocks.

Ashfield said in his news release that the decision will provide greater long-term certainty to the Pacific halibut fishery.

“Our government is making good on a commitment to provide greater long-term certainty in the Pacific halibut fishery for First Nations, commercial and recreational harvesters, and, most importantly encouraging jobs and economic growth in British Columbia.”

The release also says the controversial program where recreational fishers could buy additional quota from the commercial sector will continue, despite the fact a report from DFO to the International Pacific Halibut Commission indicated the program was a failure, with few people taking part.

While the recreational halibut fishery has lobbied for years to increase the quota from the old system of 12 per cent for the recreational sector and 88 per cent for the commercial sector, today’s decision comes after the IPHC lowered the overall quota for the Pacific Coast by 18 per cent. BC’s quota for 2012 is eight per cent lower, at 7.038 million pounds of halibut, a decrease  from the 2011 quota of 7.650 million pounds.

At the IPHC meetings in Anchorage, Alaska, last month, scientists expressed long term fears about the health of the halibut biomass, due to the large number of undersized females. At the same meeting scientists and fishers also said that the bycatch, especially from the pollock trawl fishery in the Gulf of Alaska was devastating the halibut “nursery.”

Before the news of the early closure of the season broke, Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan, recreating to the news of the quota increase said. “Hopefully some of the hard lobbying by the Kitimat group did paid off. I believe it did. Good going guys. Keep it up, still things to do.”

In the Institute’s news release Alcock went on to say:

 

During the 2011 election, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Island residents that “Our government recognizes the importance of the halibut fishery in BC. The jobs and regional economic impact of the commercial, recreational and related tourism in BC are substantial. We remain committed to finding a solution to BC’s halibut allocation issue in advance of the 2012 season that strikes a fair balance between all sectors.”

“Recreational halibut fishers took the Prime Minister at his word,” said Alcock. “Sadly, today we have learned the hard way that the Prime Minister’s word is of little value, particularly to the hundreds of businesses, thousands of sport fishing industry employees and the hundred thousand Canadians who enjoy recreational halibut fishing.”

According to a recent study conducted for the BC Seafood Alliance (the commercial sector’s industry association), the recreational fishery in BC produces $642 million in annual sales, pays $150 million in wages and benefits, creates more than 7,800 jobs and 3,950 person-years of employment and contributes $240 million to the province’s Gross Domestic Product.

 

Editor’s Note:  Journalists are always wary of a government news release issued late on Friday afternoon. On the surface, the increase in the recreational quota was good news, something the guides and fishers had been fighting for years. Still, I was wondering why it came out on a Friday afternoon.  It took the Sports Fishing Institute of BC, who was able to find the regulations that they say indicate the season ends on August 15, that shows why the release came out  late on Friday.

BC 2012 halibut quota drops 8 per cent, as Canada protests devastation caused by pollock trawl in Gulf of Alaska “nursery”

The International Pacific Halibut Commission has recommended a Canadian harvest quota for the 2012 season of 7.038 million pounds of halibut, a decrease of eight per cent from the 2011 quota of 7.650 million pounds.

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has yet to confirm the quota but it routinely follows the IPHC recommendation.

The reduction was not as bad as first feared. The commission staff were recommending a B.C coast quota of 6.633 million pounds, a decrease of 16 per cent.

The overall harvest quota decrease for the Pacific coast is 18.3 per cent, due to continuing concerns about the state of the halibut biomass.

The 2012 halibut season is much narrower, opening on March 17 and closing on November 7. The commission says the March 17 opening day was chosen because it is a Saturday and will help the marketing by both commercial and recreational fishers. The earlier November date will allow better assessment of the halibut stock after the 2012 season, according to an IPHC news release. (In Canada, DFO closed the recreational season much earlier than the date recommended by the IPHC, in September, while allowing the commercial harvest to continue.)

In the release following the annual meeting in Anchorage, Alaska, last week, the IPHC said

The Commission has expressed concern over continued declining catch rates in several areas and has taken aggressive action to reduce harvests. In addition, the staff has noted a continuing problem of reductions in previous estimates of biomass as additional data are obtained, which has the effect of increasing the realized historical harvest rates on the stock. Commission scientists will be conducting additional research on this matter in 2012….

The Commission faced very difficult decisions on the appropriate harvest from the stock and recognized the economic impact of the reduced catch limits recommended by its scientific staff. However, the Commission believes that conservation of the halibut resource is the most important management objective and will serve the best economic interests of the industry over the long term. Accordingly, catch limits adopted for 2012 were lower in all regions of the stock except Areas 2A (California, Oregon and Washington) and 2C (southeastern Alaska)

Pollock trawl bycatch crisis costs Canada $7 million a year

In the bureaucratic language of the IPHC, “The Commission expressed its continued concern about the yield and spawning biomass losses to the halibut stock from mortality of halibut in non-directed fisheries.”

The  IPHC says that British Columbia has made “significant progress” in reducing bycatch mortality and that quotas for vessels for other fish are being monitored, in California, Oregon and Washington have also had some success in reducing bycatch mortality.

It says that “Reductions have also occurred in Alaska, and new measures aimed at improving bycatch estimation, scheduled to begin in 2013, will help to refine these estimates.”

That phrase apparently masks a major problem of bycatch in the halibut nurseries off Alaska.

Craig Medred writing in the Alaska Dispatch in Should Alaska have protected halibut nursery waters noted that the Canadian delegation took a strong stand at the meetings:

Canada has protested that something needs to be done about the trawl industry [mostly for pollock] killing and dumping 10 million pounds of halibut off Alaska’s coast, but the International Pacific Halibut Commission proved powerless to do anything about it.
Meeting [last] week in Anchorage, the commission recognized the trawl catch as a potential problem, but then placed the burden of conservation squarely on the shoulders of commercial longliners along the Pacific Coast from Alaska south to California. The Commission again endorsed staff recommendations to shrink the catches of those fishermen in an effort to avoid an ever-shrinking population of adult halibut.

(This wasn’t reported in the Canadian media despite the importance of halibut both commercial and recreational to the economy of British Columbia. No Canadian media covered the IPHC conference in Alaska, despite the fact that halibut was a major issue in BC in the last federal election)

Medred’s report in the Alaska Dispatch goes on to say that the scientists say the Pacific Ocean is full of juvenile halibut, but that the juveniles seem to be disappearing before they reach spawning age (when the halibut reaches about the 32 inch catch minimum). “How much of this is due to immature fish being caught, killed and wasted by the billion-dollar pollock trawl fishery — which is in essence strip mining the Gulf of Alaska — is unknown.”

Medred says, “Scientists, commercial halibut fishermen and anglers all believe the catch is under-reported. Advisers to the commission — a U.S.-Canada treaty organization — indicated they are beyond frustrated with the bycatch issue.”

The official IPHC Bluebook report to the annual meeting said: “Not all fisheries are observed, therefore bycatch rates and discard mortality rates from similar fisheries are used to calculate bycatch mortality in unobserved fisheries.”

The official report to the IPHC gives one reason that the bycatch in Canadian waters is not as big a problem, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans ongoing monitoring of almost all commercial fisheries for bycatch.

But Canada is not satisfied with that and has submitted a formal proposal to the Commission to designate the Gulf of Alaska, “‘an area of special concern.” because the halibut that spawn in the Gulf of Alaska migrate to coastal British Columbia.

The Alaska Dispatch report says that the Canadian delegation told the IPHC: “Canada should not and must not be penalized for uncontrolled bycatch in other regulatory (areas), which IPHC staff have indicated could be costing (Canada) approximately 1 million pounds of lost yield in each year based on current, and what Canada believes may be questionable, estimates of bycatch.”

Medred says that one million pounds of halibut equals a loss of $7 million to Canadian fishermen alone.

 

IPHC news release, Jan. 31, 2012  (pdf)

International Pacific Halibut Commission confirms 18 per cent cut in overall quota for 2012

According to Alaska media reports, the International Pacific Halibut Commission, meeting in Anchorage, has confirmed an over all  cut in Pacific halibut harvest quota of 18 per cent, or 7.5 million pounds for 2012.

KMXT, an NPR station in Kodiak, Alaska reports 

 Area 3A, the Gulf of Alaska will experience a 17-percent reduction from last year. That results in a 11.9-million pound catch limit, down 2.4-million pounds.

Area 3B along the Alaska Peninsula southwest of Kodiak Island, the reduction is the same 2.4-million pounds, but the percentage reduction is 32 percent, down to just over 5-million pounds. In Area 4A, the eastern Aleutians, the cut is 35 percent.

The only areas that did not get reductions were off the Washington coast in Area 2A, which will get a 9-percent increase, and Area 2C in Southeast Alaska, which will get a 13 percent bump, up almost 300,000 pounds.

There are no figures in the Alaska reports for British Columbia and no news on the International Pacific Halibut Commission website.

 

More to come
Related: Recreational halibut quota buy-in program had “limited success:” DFO report to IPHC