Greetings All,
Michael is currently hard at work in the Legislature defending our interests.
Find below his rebuttal of the budget with regards to the lack of protection for salmon and the environment.
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(HANSARD)
HOUSE BLUES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
Morning Sitting
HSE – 20090915 AM 001/jag/1000
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
The House met at 10:03 a.m.
M. Sather: I’d like to start off my comments on budget update 2009 by talking about a subject that, incredibly, wasn’t mentioned in the budget at all, and that’s the issue of salmon. We witnessed this summer a catastrophic collapse in the Fraser River sockeye run, and the lack of response on that issue has been absolutely incomprehensible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Here we’re looking at not only the most valuable fisheries resource we have…. Sockeye is one of my favourite foods, and I want to put in a plug while I’m at it for Bruce’s market in Maple Ridge. It serves some of the greatest salmon you can get. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1055]
It’s hard to imagine how such devastation can occur and there be no response on this issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20090915 AM 012/llm/1055
Madam Speaker, it’s hard to imagine how such devastation can occur and there be no response on this issue. There were supposed to be ten million sockeye returning to the Fraser River this year — ten million. A huge run was predicted to return, and less than two million came back — less than two million. That gives British Columbians great cause to be concerned. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Without salmon, what is British Columbia? Salmon is part of our very identity. It’s our heritage. It’s not only economically important to us, but it’s culturally important. It’s spiritually important. To see just a disappearance of that magnitude and nothing being said about it is greatly worrying, and a number of commentators have said as much. How can this happen? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We saw what happened with the great cod fishery on the east coast. It disappeared. It simply disappeared and virtually hasn’t returned. There hasn’t been any responsibility taken for that. Are we going to see the same thing on the west coast — the disappearance of this resource without a squawk, without a squeak, without any sort of taking responsibility for it? I hope not, Madam Speaker. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This return is the lowest since 1952. The runs that make up the Fraser River sockeye — the big ones — are part of the Quesnel Lake system in the Cariboo and the Chilko Lake system in the Chilcotin plateau, and those fish have been decimated. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So it’s not a time for complacency at all. It’s a time for action. To not make the choice to address this problem head-on is not only biologically dangerous, but it’s spiritually bankrupt. Who are we as a people if we let our salmon die? We can’t do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is the cause? How did this happen? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans are pretty quick to say that fish farms have no role in the demise of the sockeye. Maybe it’s some environmental conditions at sea, perhaps a lack of food, perhaps warming of the ocean. So how would it be that we aren’t addressing one potential problem at least, that being fish farms? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There were 130 million smolts in the Fraser River in 2007. That’s the year that these fish went to sea — the smolts or the juveniles that go to sea. So 130 million — that’s plenty. From what I understand, there should have been around ten million returning. But when those fish got into the ocean, into the straits leading north between Vancouver Island and the mainland, they started to disappear from all accounts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There’s one exception, which is near where I live in Maple Ridge, and that’s the Harrison River sockeye run, which also goes up the Fraser. They are very strong this year, whereas the other runs are not at all. Coincidence? I don’t know. But that run goes out the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and they don’t go by a whole lot of fish farms. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So we’re looking for a response, we’re looking for an expression of concern, and we’re looking for an action plan. The federal minister has belatedly been on the scene in British Columbia, after a tremendous amount of pressure being brought to bear on her, to talk about the salmon. I don’t know if that has to do with a genuine concern for the salmon or that has to do with the possibly impending federal election, but nonetheless…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1100]
There have also been good sockeye runs in other areas [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20090915 AM 013/iaw/1100
I don’t know if that has to do with a genuine concern for the salmon or whether that has to do with the possibly impending federal election, but nonetheless…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There also have been good sockeye runs in other areas of southwestern British Columbia, such as the Somass River on the west side of the Island. So it does give some cause to wonder why the Fraser River sockeye, in large part, have been decimated this year, but there are exceptions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[L. Reid in the chair.]
If we go back to 2005, we will all remember the five great goals for a golden decade that this government brought forward. At that time, I kidded them a bit about its Maoist overtones. Nonetheless, I think Mao would have made it for a millennium, but we’re westerners. We’re only good for a decade. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Goal 4 was to have the best fisheries management in the world, bar none — in the world, bar none, Madam Speaker. That was one of the great goals of this government, and now where are they? What do they have to say on the most important issue the fishery has experienced since maybe forever? How can you have the best fisheries management, bar none, and yet have nothing to say about the demise of the Fraser River sockeye? It’s not good enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I’m calling on the government and the Minister of Environment to step up to the plate and tell us what the plan is to deal with the disaster. Unfortunately, it appears that the government has completely abandoned the fishery — completely abandoned it — and that’s not good enough. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There was a court ruling recently that said that the federal government was responsible for the management of the fish farms and the fishery, including fish farms. Well, I understand why that suit was brought forward — because of the belief that the legislation is there federally under the Fisheries Act to deal with the problem. Nonetheless, I have to think that the government here in British Columbia was all too happy to see that responsibility devolved to the federal government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, the federal government…. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was once a very proud organization. It was an organization that did cutting-edge research in fisheries, but not anymore. They appear to be a political arm of the federal Conservative government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have to think, and I’m concerned that our government in British Columbia is okay with that, because we know, as I’ve said, that the DFO quickly wrote off the fish farms having any possible link to the demise of our sockeye. But it doesn’t match up with the great goal. It doesn’t match up at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, although our government didn’t challenge the ruling, the fish farms did. Marine Harvest, the Norwegian-based fish farm, did. They said: “Wait a minute. You can’t include us in that, because these are our fish. This is not part of the fishery. These are our fish.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These fish may be in an open-net pen, but they are benefiting from the oceans that belong to the public. They’re not privatized completely, so therefore, that point that was brought by the fish farms was rejected by the courts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1105]
There are a lot of concerns about the way that fish farms conduct their business. The fish farms are using a drug called emamectin benzoate or SLICE, the commercial name for it. Those applications are made without warning to the public. A drug that apparently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration bans [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20090915 AM 014/bjh/1105
SLICE, the commercial name for it. Those applications are made without warning to the public — a drug that apparently the U.S. Food and Drug Administration bans. It bans food that’s exposed to this neurotoxin, and this is what’s being used liberally in the fish farms. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Perhaps equally worrying is the fact that Atlantic salmon eggs are being imported to fish farms here despite the infectious salmon anemia virus. That virus is in some of the places where the Norwegian fish farms, which also bring their operations here to British Columbia, operate. This could be potentially a bigger source of concern for our wild salmon, even, than the use of the pesticides themselves. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, the energetics, the energy balance, and the advisability of the methods of feeding fish is questionable in these fish farms. A lot of this fish food comes from fish that are harvested off the coast of South America. It takes more biomass to be harvested there than what they reap here, so it’s an energy deficient system. They’re actually losing energy, not counting all the energy costs of importing that material, that fish food, from Chile up to British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Speaker, the member for North Delta, MP Peter Julian and I had the privilege a couple of weeks ago of having a chat with Alexandra Morton at her home in Sointula. Members of this House, I’m sure, are familiar with who she is, an independent researcher on the biology of salmon along our coast. I can’t think of a more courageous person, someone who has stood up as an independent person against incredible odds, because there’s a whole array of experts — supposed experts, government-appointed, government-hired — who have tried to shoot her work down right, left and centre. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s so bad that the bioassays she sends out to test some of the fish that she’s sampling…. There’s not a lab in Canada that will accept her material that she sends in, and the reason for that is that they say: “If we accept your material, we’ll be blackmailed. We’ll be blackballed from any business from other sources — from government sources, from private sources.” [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, she’s fighting against all odds. I think what she’s saying — in fact, I know what she’s saying — bears a great deal more scrutiny, more attention by the government, by this government, before kissing goodbye to our salmon stocks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the things that has come up in the dispute or the discussion around the disappearance of the sockeye in the Fraser is: “Well, what about the pink salmon? There’s a good return of pink salmon this year. If it’s a problem with fish farms, why aren’t the pink salmon decimated? Why are they returning?” I know the fish farms are writing about that and saying that Alexandra Morton is out to lunch, etc, etc. But what Ms. Morton had said in 2007 about the pink salmon, which had been decimated in large measure in the Broughton Archipelago, was that the fishery was going to collapse if nothing was done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1110]
Well, there was a response from the fish farms, and they started using the pesticide, the chemical SLICE, in February every year. That’s February onwards for [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20090915 AM 015/ebp/1110
Well, there was a response from the fish farms. They started using the pesticide, the chemical SLICE, in February every year. That’s February onwards for about six or eight weeks, and that’s the time when the pink salmon juveniles are migrating. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It did have an effect in reducing the sea lice load on those pink salmon — which, I think, is considerable or at least circumstantial evidence that the fish farms had something to do with the sea lice load on salmon, which they’ve repeatedly denied and which the DFO has denied, as well, and which this government is completely silent on, as far as I can tell. I’m still waiting. Maybe the minister will come to this House and will tell us what he thinks about the demise of the sockeye salmon in the Fraser River. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the problems with a chemical solution is that biological creatures — fish being one of them — build up a tolerance to these chemicals, and they build up a tolerance to SLICE, the chemical that’s being used on the fish farms. Also, there’s always variability of tolerance in humans to disease or infection. It’s the same thing in fish. Some fish are resistant to the drug, or they’re just not feeding at the time, so they don’t take the drug in, and they accumulate the sea lice, which they very rapidly transmit in the wild, then, to their cohorts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This resistance to these drugs is happening in the fish farms in Norway. That’s been documented, so that solution won’t work indefinitely. As Ms. Morton called it, it’s “an escalating arms race.” An escalating arms race is not a holistic way to deal with the problem at hand. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That treatment by SLICE, as I mentioned, lasts about six to eight weeks, but by June or July, when the sockeye smolts are beginning to run through the channels in the straits up the coast, it has worn off. The chemical has worn off, so by then the sockeye are subject to the load of sea lice. Ms. Morton did measure up to 28 sea lice on those juvenile salmon from this run as they were going by the Broughton Archipelago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Well, I don’t know why the government is so silent on this issue, but we do know this much: they have been huge supporters of the fish farm industry — huge supporters, huge donators from the other side, supporters, donators. Does that interfere with this government’s objectivity? One can only assume that it does. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In fact, this government has gone beyond being passive about the problem. They’ve been actively lobbying for eco-certification from the U.K.-based Marine Stewardship Council, which would say that the management of the fishery in this part of British Columbia is all up to snuff; it’s great. Well, how can they be doing that when we’ve got a catastrophic collapse on our hands? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, this lobbying hasn’t come cheap either. We’re talking about tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on this. That’s the active involvement of the Ministry of Environment. That’s shameful. I believe the minister has a lot of explaining to do about their role in the demise of our fishery, but the silence has been deafening. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So what should be done, Madam Speaker? What should be done to address the issue? Well, you know, the fisheries closed this year. The fishery on the sockeye — from the salmon…. Well, I’ll try that again. They closed the sockeye fishery for the Fraser for the commercial fishers, for the recreational, for first nations, but fish farms are untouched. Why? That’s not right. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1115]
You know, they should be made to close those farms, at least on the main [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20090915 AM 016/bmg/1115
for first nations. But fish farms are untouched. Why? That’s not right. They should be made to close those farms at least on the main channel where those young sockeye are going up the river. That’s the least that should be done. That would give us another measure of whether or not the fish farms are having an effect, unless they keep dousing with more and more SLICE, which is not a good thing in the long term. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Of course, beyond that, the fish farms have to be in closed tanks, closed containment. Members will know that this side of the House has called for that and that the government has steadfastly refused it. So we can only hope that the response is going to improve because the issue is huge and the people of British Columbia deserve to know what the government of this province feels about the situation and what they’re going to do about it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, you can’t have as your goal the best fisheries management in the world and then stand silently by and watch the sockeye disappear around you and say nothing. It just isn’t good enough. So I’m sure the minister is going to come forward with maybe not a solution, but at least an explanation of where this government stands on the demise of the Fraser River sockeye. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I want to move on now to another subject which is about the medium that sockeye depend on, the medium that we all depend on, and that’s water. Water, as has been said by many, is going to be a huge issue in this century. It’s already a big issue — the availability of water for the many uses that is made of it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s going to be equal to or greater than — I think greater than — the decline of hydrocarbons, the oil and gas. It’s a serious issue as well, and it’s getting a lot of attention in certain parts of the province in particular. I didn’t see anything in the budget specifically addressed to this, although I do note that there’s now a minister of state whose responsibilities include water allocation, and that’s the member for Boundary-Similkameen, and that’s a good thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s understandable that he’s from that community, because the Okanagan is really suffering already from water shortages. The Okanagan has the highest usage of their water resource of any area in the country, because it’s a beautiful part of the province and people like to live there, but it’s a very arid part of the province. So it’s hitting the Okanagan, but not just there. Also in the Fraser Valley where I live the issue of water allocations and water use is becoming significant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So far, we’ve been relatively fortunate in terms of drinking water in my community and a lot of the communities in the Tri-Cities and up the Fraser Valley have water from the Coquitlam watershed, which has been a steady source. The Capilano watershed — not quite as good. They had a scare a few years ago with the water becoming unpotable, undrinkable for a period of time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have various users and usages. We have, of course, residential use — drinking water, watering the lawn, all those kinds of things. We have commercial uses, and we have agriculture uses. The more that agriculture is developed, the larger those issues become. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1120]
I know that’s part of the issue in my part of the world and I expect it is also in the Okanagan because of the expansion of the wine industry there. But, you know, [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
HSE – 20090915 AM 017/bah/1120
part of the world, and I expect it is also in the Okanagan because of the expansion of the wine industry there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You know, the whole thing about water is only part…. It’s sort of symptomatic of a bigger issue in my view, and that is our whole relationship to the environment, our whole relationship to our natural resources. We hear a lot about the word “sustainability.” It’s coming out of everyone’s mouths these days. But what does it mean on the ground? How does it work in practice? Does it work in practice? Is what we’re doing sustainable? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don’t think it is. I think one of the impairments to that sustainability is our religious beliefs. In our society we worship at the altar of the god of growth. That’s the numero uno that we take as our reason to be, the gross domestic product, the gross provincial product. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It’s a utilitarian measure. It certainly has validity in many respects and is useful, but that belief is archaic. It does not fit with the modern world and the challenges we face. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That’s why we have been largely unsuccessful, in my opinion, in balancing our economic endeavours, our rates of consumption with the need to protect our environment. We are incapable, it seems to me, at this point of realizing that there is a contradiction of considerable proportions between producing more and more goods, often from further and further places, while at the same time having an environment that is livable, that is supportive of other species than our own. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One of the words I hear a lot nowadays in the debate is the word “mitigate.” I see I’m running short on time. Mitigate is a dirty word to me. It means…. It’s an expression, an admission, of failure. We’ve been unable to protect the environment. Therefore, let’s look at what we can do to kind of make it the least bad possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That’s not good enough. We have to do much better. There are a whole array of effects that stem from our lack of the ability to be creative, to evolve in a creative way so that we actually can have real sustainability, so that we actually can protect our communities, protect our health, protect other species and have a place that is lower on crime. You know, community cohesiveness fails as environmental degradation increases. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
