Jonathan Wilkinson: A renewed approach to aquaculture

I doubt if he actually wrote it, WMY - likely the DFO communications cartel. Just like I believe that it might be likely that the hardest decision he makes when he gets up in the morning is to decide which colour tie to wear - before reading off his prepared speaking notes at the next PR function. He reminds me of Gail Shea...
 
I doubt if he actually wrote it, WMY - likely the DFO communications cartel. Just like I believe that it might be likely that the hardest decision he makes when he gets up in the morning is to decide which colour tie to wear - before reading off his prepared speaking notes at the next PR function. He reminds me of Gail Shea...

Telling comment from mr transparency. Thanks agent.

Seems pretty clear that morton and nagmis couldn't prove PRV caused harm to wild stocks.

[313]Further, the Minister states that DFO’s PRV Policy is based on its scientific conclusion that PRV is not harmful to fish.While there is possible risk of disease associated with PRV transmission, the likelihood of potential for PRV to cause disease in wild salmon populations is very low.The Minister submits that ‘Namgis has not shown that the PRV Policy Decision will potentially cause an adverse impact on the ability of ‘Namgis to exercise its asserted s 35 rights.Rather, its argument is speculation and conjecture, which is insufficient to meet this element of the test.

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/363491/index.do?q=morton
 
[313]Further, the Minister states that DFO’s PRV Policy is based on its scientific conclusion that PRV is not harmful to fish.While there is possible risk of disease associated with PRV transmission, the likelihood of potential for PRV to cause disease in wild salmon populations is very low.The Minister submits that ‘Namgis has not shown that the PRV Policy Decision will potentially cause an adverse impact on the ability of ‘Namgis to exercise its asserted s 35 rights.Rather, its argument is speculation and conjecture, which is insufficient to meet this element of the test.

No what it basically says is that PRV does not kill enough wild salmon to impact their FSC rights.
 
Looks like scientists for the plaintiffs(morton oct) Krkosek, kibenge an Routlage, didn't fair well from their testimony.

[265]The admission of the ‘Namgis Expert Affidavits would have the effect of transforming the judicial review, intended to be a summary process, into a trial de novo(new trial) on the merits of the science, taking the Court out of its proper role and becoming a forum for fact finding on the merits. And while ‘Namgis puts the ‘Namgis Expert Affidavits forward on the basis of the exceptions to the rule precluding the admission of evidence that was not before the decision‑maker, in reality this is little more than a cloaked attack on the science underlying the decision under review and seeking to provide the Court with an assessment of the evidence that differs from that made by the Delegate and DFO

If you start reading from 24g in the report the judge discussed the individual submission from each activist ehem, I meant scientists, and the result is the same in each submission. What is in bold above summarizes all three submissions by these guys.
This really is insightful as to how the public continually gets mislead by these groups and their scientist. Not this judge tho. Oh boy. NO! She calls them RIGHT OUT.
 
Last edited:
No what it basically says is that PRV does not kill enough wild salmon to impact their FSC rights.
Nowhere in any of this report that I have read does it say that PRV has killed a wild salmon so I suspect your comment is based on belief.
 
Nowhere in any of this report that I have read does it say that PRV has killed a wild salmon so I suspect your comment is based on belief.

"the likelihood of potential for PRV to cause disease in wild salmon populations is very low"
 
I doubt if he actually wrote it, WMY - likely the DFO communications cartel. Just like I believe that it might be likely that the hardest decision he makes when he gets up in the morning is to decide which colour tie to wear - before reading off his prepared speaking notes at the next PR function. He reminds me of Gail Shea...
If he didn't write it, then I would be super surprised. That is essentially word for word what he said in his talk to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce this Friday. I heard many times the same discussion and focus on science based decisions...and that we can have both environmental protection and economic prosperity. I sure hope he applies that thinking to the Chinook fishery decision.
 
speaking notes, searun. All of the Cabinet Ministers can read. Speaking notes are developed from the Communications Branch. The Minister reads them. Reads them Verbatim - so he/she won't get into trouble going off script. The Communications Branch check afterwards on the delivery. Kinda like what has been going on lately between the PMO's office on the SNC Lanalin affair and the ex-attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould, She's off the script they developed.

Laura Gareau - Director of Communications with Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade has written speaking notes for the past Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc, while Jane McDonald with the Office of the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister seems to be the primary author ghost-writing Wilkinson's speeches, currently.

Neither of those authors or their entourage are accountable nor are they open about what industry spokespersons or lawyers contacted them, the DoJ lawyers - or the Minister. It is definitely NOT a democracy, nor a consensus-based governance system reacting with checks and balances. It is instead a PR exercise.

Kinda like ships used to have a figurehead. Figureheads never actually steered the ship but they were decorative and were the 1st part of the ship you saw - and it looked like they were leading. Behind the scene - it was actually someone else steering the boat.

see:
http://www.writinghelp-central.com/speaking-notes-sample.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...ourabledominicleblancpcqcmpministeroffis.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archi...er-fisheries-oceans-dfo-oceans-day-event.html
 
Last edited:
speaking notes, searun. All of the Cabinet Ministers can read. Speaking notes are developed from the Communications Branch. The Minister reads them. Reads them Verbatim - so he/she won't get into trouble going off script. The Communications Branch check afterwards on the delivery. Kinda like what has been going on lately between the PMO's office on the SNC Lanalin affair and the ex-attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould, She's off the script they developed.

Laura Gareau - Director of Communications with Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade has written speaking notes for the past Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc, while Jane McDonald with the Office of the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister seems to be the primary author ghost-writing Wilkinson's speeches, currently.

Neither of those authors or their entourage are accountable nor are they open about what industry spokespersons or lawyers contacted them, the DoJ lawyers - or the Minister. It is definitely NOT a democracy, nor a consensus-based governance system reacting with checks and balances. It is instead a PR exercise.

Kinda like ships used to have a figurehead. Figureheads never actually steered the ship but they were decorative and were the 1st part of the ship you saw - and it looked like they were leading. Behind the scene - it was actually someone else steering the boat.

see:
http://www.writinghelp-central.com/speaking-notes-sample.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...ourabledominicleblancpcqcmpministeroffis.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archi...er-fisheries-oceans-dfo-oceans-day-event.html


Wish you were there - no speaking notes. He simply answered a question and pretty much followed that article in terms of content. I actually don't think he's making it up - this is something he believes in and wants to see happen was my take away. Reading the article, it is pretty close to what he stated.
 
"the likelihood of potential for PRV to cause disease in wild salmon populations is very low"

So we all agree PRV may kill a few salmon. AND
Fish Farms have not disputed the fact that their Sea Lice kill some salmon. BUT
There is no consensus on all the other crap that comes out of Fish Farms.
All that is needed now, as one former member of this forum said many times is, "show me the dead fish"
Problem solved...simple eh.
 
So we all agree PRV may kill a few salmon. AND
Fish Farms have not disputed the fact that their Sea Lice kill some salmon. BUT
There is no consensus on all the other crap that comes out of Fish Farms.
All that is needed now, as one former member of this forum said many times is, "show me the dead fish"
Problem solved...simple eh.

Well its true isn't it. Up and down the coast salmon declines are equally erratic in areas where there are salmon farms and areas where there are not. There isn't even a correlation available for evidence against salmon farms looking at a specific run. This is why that fella was always asking to see the dead fish you speak of, and you could never do it! And along the lines of PRV killing a few salmon there is no evidence of this. You can not show this. The science does not show this and I think its fair to say that even when or if additional science does arrive to show this it will not change the mind of FA and Agent and a few others. Whats scary to me is that this sort of mind set exists in people against sport fishing. Yikes! And they get paid to think like this.

speaking notes, searun. All of the Cabinet Ministers can read. Speaking notes are developed from the Communications Branch. The Minister reads them. Reads them Verbatim - so he/she won't get into trouble going off script. The Communications Branch check afterwards on the delivery. Kinda like what has been going on lately between the PMO's office on the SNC Lanalin affair and the ex-attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould, She's off the script they developed.

Laura Gareau - Director of Communications with Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade has written speaking notes for the past Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc, while Jane McDonald with the Office of the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister seems to be the primary author ghost-writing Wilkinson's speeches, currently.

Neither of those authors or their entourage are accountable nor are they open about what industry spokespersons or lawyers contacted them, the DoJ lawyers - or the Minister. It is definitely NOT a democracy, nor a consensus-based governance system reacting with checks and balances. It is instead a PR exercise.

Kinda like ships used to have a figurehead. Figureheads never actually steered the ship but they were decorative and were the 1st part of the ship you saw - and it looked like they were leading. Behind the scene - it was actually someone else steering the boat.

see:
http://www.writinghelp-central.com/speaking-notes-sample.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/fisheries-...ourabledominicleblancpcqcmpministeroffis.html
https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archi...er-fisheries-oceans-dfo-oceans-day-event.html

I hardly understand this post as an argument. ITs quite telling to me that this post arives now and not when the announcement was made to move all farms out of the broughten. I think it is safe to say that the information is carefully scripted so that is is 1) factual, and 2) not misleading. Clearly, no one here can contest it, instead we get some strange lecture on speaking notes. Bizarre.
 
Back
Top