http://www.theprovince.com/news/met...mon+decline+report+remains/9753367/story.html
Department prepared report as a response to Cohen Commission on Fraser River sockeye, and was then ignored by political leadership
By Peter O'Neil, Vancouver Sun April 18, 2014 5:00 PM
Fisheries department response to salmon decline report remains secret
OTTAWA — The frequently maligned federal Fisheries Department reacted with speed and apparent sensitivity as it raced to come up with a response to the critical 2012 report from Justice Bruce Cohen on its management of Fraser River sockeye, according to just-released internal documents.
The department quickly prepared an in-depth response, including cost estimates, intended to prove Ottawa was committed to a species “economically and culturally important” to British Columbians.
But Fisheries, which has not made its detailed response public, appeared to be orphaned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s top officials. More than two months after Cohen’s report was released, senior Fisheries officials were noting they still hadn’t been asked by the Privy Council Office to respond to Cohen.
The PCO, the senior bureaucratic arm of the federal government that works closely with Harper’s political staff, appeared to become engaged only in early 2013, when media began running stories on the silence from Ottawa, the documents suggest.
The documents, obtained by the B.C. group Watershed Watch Salmon Society, present the first internal look at how the bureaucracy handled the results of the public inquiry into Ottawa’s failings in the management of the Pacific salmon fishery. That peek is very extremely limited, as the documents were extensively censored before release.
Government critics say Ottawa has still not adequately responded to Cohen’s many recommendations, issuing only brief media statements and, when forced through formal petitions that legally require a response, giving basic and upbeat summaries of the government’s approach.
A spokeswoman for Fisheries Minister Gail Shea said Thursday the government is justified in its handling of the Cohen recommendations because the report didn’t, in Cohen’s words, find a “smoking gun” to prove the department or any other actor or factor was solely to blame for problems in the fishery.
“Given that the Cohen Commission did not find any smoking gun, our government has decided to take a practical approach instead of spending more money, time and energy producing an extensive written response,” Sophie Doucet said in an email.
Craig Orr, executive director of Watershed Watch, called that response “ludicrous” and insulting to British Columbians who have signed petitions calling for a formal and detailed response.
He noted that science “rarely finds a single cause” in situations like the 2009 sockeye collapse, and said Ottawa is acting irresponsibly in pushing now for salmon farm expansions in B.C. despite Cohen’s concerns.
The 1,146 pages of documents show that Fisheries went to work quickly after the Cohen report was tabled on Oct. 31, 2012, launching a review “in preparation for a potential government response.”
Each recommendation had a detailed response as well as an estimate of the cost, though the department acknowledged that spending proposals had to reflect both “fiscal realities” and the government’s new and more industry-friendly approach to habitat protection.
Yet, by mid-January of 2013, senior fisheries officials were noting in emails that “to date DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) has not been asked formally to help prepare” a Cohen response.
Something changed between then and early March, during a time when, according to briefing note to then-minister Keith Ashfield, there has been “increasing media and stakeholder interest (in) how the federal government will respond to Cohen Commission recommendations.”
A briefing note to Ashfield, dated March 6 of 2013, stated that Fisheries’ “recent work on this initiative has been guided by” the Privy Council Office.
The March 21, 2013 federal budget didn’t refer to the Cohen report, but it did include an extension of the Sustainable Aquaculture Program, which includes research funding. That program was started more than a year before the Cohen inquiry was launched.
The budget also included $10 million over two years to fund partnerships across Canada with local groups to protect fish habitat.
And it dedicated the proceeds of the “Salmon Conservation Stamp” that must be purchased by anglers to the Pacific Salmon Foundation, adding $1 million annually to its coffers.
An internal email exchange between Fisheries officials a week later asked “to what extent those funds can be used to address Cohen Commission recommendations.”
Stan Proboszcz, a fisheries biologist with Watershed Watch, said officials appeared to be trying to “find things after the fact” that could be used as part of a Cohen response.
More disturbing, he said, is that Fisheries clearly prepared a detailed and costed government response that is being kept secret from Canadians under to legal provisions exempting advice officials provide to ministers.
“A response exists on this federal public inquiry, the work is apparent, yet Canadians still haven’t received it from government,” he said.
poneil@postmedia.com
Department prepared report as a response to Cohen Commission on Fraser River sockeye, and was then ignored by political leadership
By Peter O'Neil, Vancouver Sun April 18, 2014 5:00 PM
Fisheries department response to salmon decline report remains secret
OTTAWA — The frequently maligned federal Fisheries Department reacted with speed and apparent sensitivity as it raced to come up with a response to the critical 2012 report from Justice Bruce Cohen on its management of Fraser River sockeye, according to just-released internal documents.
The department quickly prepared an in-depth response, including cost estimates, intended to prove Ottawa was committed to a species “economically and culturally important” to British Columbians.
But Fisheries, which has not made its detailed response public, appeared to be orphaned by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s top officials. More than two months after Cohen’s report was released, senior Fisheries officials were noting they still hadn’t been asked by the Privy Council Office to respond to Cohen.
The PCO, the senior bureaucratic arm of the federal government that works closely with Harper’s political staff, appeared to become engaged only in early 2013, when media began running stories on the silence from Ottawa, the documents suggest.
The documents, obtained by the B.C. group Watershed Watch Salmon Society, present the first internal look at how the bureaucracy handled the results of the public inquiry into Ottawa’s failings in the management of the Pacific salmon fishery. That peek is very extremely limited, as the documents were extensively censored before release.
Government critics say Ottawa has still not adequately responded to Cohen’s many recommendations, issuing only brief media statements and, when forced through formal petitions that legally require a response, giving basic and upbeat summaries of the government’s approach.
A spokeswoman for Fisheries Minister Gail Shea said Thursday the government is justified in its handling of the Cohen recommendations because the report didn’t, in Cohen’s words, find a “smoking gun” to prove the department or any other actor or factor was solely to blame for problems in the fishery.
“Given that the Cohen Commission did not find any smoking gun, our government has decided to take a practical approach instead of spending more money, time and energy producing an extensive written response,” Sophie Doucet said in an email.
Craig Orr, executive director of Watershed Watch, called that response “ludicrous” and insulting to British Columbians who have signed petitions calling for a formal and detailed response.
He noted that science “rarely finds a single cause” in situations like the 2009 sockeye collapse, and said Ottawa is acting irresponsibly in pushing now for salmon farm expansions in B.C. despite Cohen’s concerns.
The 1,146 pages of documents show that Fisheries went to work quickly after the Cohen report was tabled on Oct. 31, 2012, launching a review “in preparation for a potential government response.”
Each recommendation had a detailed response as well as an estimate of the cost, though the department acknowledged that spending proposals had to reflect both “fiscal realities” and the government’s new and more industry-friendly approach to habitat protection.
Yet, by mid-January of 2013, senior fisheries officials were noting in emails that “to date DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) has not been asked formally to help prepare” a Cohen response.
Something changed between then and early March, during a time when, according to briefing note to then-minister Keith Ashfield, there has been “increasing media and stakeholder interest (in) how the federal government will respond to Cohen Commission recommendations.”
A briefing note to Ashfield, dated March 6 of 2013, stated that Fisheries’ “recent work on this initiative has been guided by” the Privy Council Office.
The March 21, 2013 federal budget didn’t refer to the Cohen report, but it did include an extension of the Sustainable Aquaculture Program, which includes research funding. That program was started more than a year before the Cohen inquiry was launched.
The budget also included $10 million over two years to fund partnerships across Canada with local groups to protect fish habitat.
And it dedicated the proceeds of the “Salmon Conservation Stamp” that must be purchased by anglers to the Pacific Salmon Foundation, adding $1 million annually to its coffers.
An internal email exchange between Fisheries officials a week later asked “to what extent those funds can be used to address Cohen Commission recommendations.”
Stan Proboszcz, a fisheries biologist with Watershed Watch, said officials appeared to be trying to “find things after the fact” that could be used as part of a Cohen response.
More disturbing, he said, is that Fisheries clearly prepared a detailed and costed government response that is being kept secret from Canadians under to legal provisions exempting advice officials provide to ministers.
“A response exists on this federal public inquiry, the work is apparent, yet Canadians still haven’t received it from government,” he said.
poneil@postmedia.com
