Save the North Alouette

My submission to the Cohen Commission in March this year and the 257 pages of the DFO’s departmental memos – all of which I received through the f.o.i. process can be read on their site:   www.cohencommission.ca

Please take the time to read through this fascinating set of documents to see how your government works and make a comment. Democracy only works when individuals bother to get involved in decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats.   Jack

MP Randy Kamp’s conclusions that a single access to information document – mine – can’t throw light on the fisheries and oceans department, or how it responded to the fish kill in the North Alouette River is incorrect.

The 257-page document I received reveals as much about the DFO as a single swab of DNA reveals to the CSI; It’s no “snapshot,” Mr. Kamp.

What does this single document regarding the May 25th, 2009 North Alouette fish kill (file: DGIR90048) tell us?

Firstly, it shows that 257 memos focused on this incident were circulated by senior officers within the DFO during a single two-month period (May 25th-July 28th).

Mr. Kamp says these 257 don’t account for all the personal conversations (some involving him) and phone calls that took place regarding this incident. My, God, how many more were there, and why – in not one in those 257 – did anyone within the DFO show concern for discovering the cause of the kill?

Mr. Kamp may tell us one day what the heck all these folks were talking about, and why they are just talking? When salmon are disappearing, we could sure use more boots on the ground and fewer at their telephones.

Here are some other facts revealed by my 257-page “snapshot”: the dozens of DFO personnel who continuously labored to draft “media lines” did so solely to explain why the department did not become involved in the investigation of 100,000 dead fry-sized fish, despite the fact that Allco Fish Hatchery had just released more than 300,000 chum and Chinook upstream, and why the DFO arbitrarily assigned responsibility for an investigation to Environment Canada.

The documents clearly show that this decision was premature since DFO reassumed responsibility for the file at the end of June, realizing at a late date that it needed to head the investigation after all.

The FOI documents Mr. Kamp says are a “snapshot” also show that some officers within DFO might have suspected they should have played a role in the investigation from the beginning, but that the lines of communication within the department failed to inform them of crucial facts that would have initiated their involvement. In fact, several memos involve personnel asking colleagues if the department should been involved early; some ask, after the handover to EC, if the department should be doing anything to prevent similar fish kills. None of the memos suggested they should. That’s also very revealing.

Mr. Kamp alludes to the division of labor between DFO and Environment Canada when investigating reports of a fish kill. About time.

A 1985 memorandum of understanding assigned DFO the role of investigating reports suggesting “sediment” and turbid water as problems, while EC was to look after pollution or “toxic substances.” Some memos ask for clarification within the department about reports that the DFO may have received in May about “sediment”.

One DFO officer who might have played an early role in an investigation asked if any of his colleagues had received reports about “sediment” or “turbid,” and that he hadn’t been informed of any during May “or any other time.”

There seems to be confusion in the DFO, not just about the role of the organization, or what it should be involved in, but also how information is circulated within the department.

This is clear from the “snapshot” which is my file: DGIR90048, achieved through the Freedom of Information Act.

We know now, of course, that three Maple Ridge residents – Margaret Cowan, Jo-Anne Retallick, and Peter Groehme – did everything they could to alert DFO to the fact that big machines were working on the river bank, and in the stream days before the fish kill I reported to the department.

By the way, none of the 257 documents in DGIR90048 seem to allude to any of that.

What the documents show within this one file, in addition, to all of the above is the immense energy and time that the DFO spends in rationalizing for the press a role that limits their involvement in reports of fish kills by private citizens. Literally dozens of employees networked to shape and finalize “media lines” in an attempt to satisfy the curiosity of the Maple Ridge News, Global TV and the CBC.

Too much taxpayer money spent in this way, Mr. Kamp, to justify obsolete and ineffective procedures and practices entrenched in the memorandum.

Mr. Kamp is right about one thing when he says: “… there could be improvements in how Environment Canada, which deals with pollution, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which protects fish habitat, respond to incidents.”

So, “what’s taking so long?”

The memorandum was supposed to be a trial, and revisited for assessment. I have not heard the parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister say anything about it previously.

Finally, the 257-page document clearly reveals a lack of passion for B.C.’s salmon and habitat that should equal that of private citizens who were inspired by their awe of salmon to implore the DFO to put boots on the ground; the type of passion that I heard expressed at the Cohen Commission Inquiry into the Disappearance of West Coast Salmon this Tuesday by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, and representatives of Aboriginals who have fished off Vancouver Island for generations.

Some DGIR90048 documents indicate clearly that that same passion beats in the hearts of some DFO personnel – who sought information from others, and suggested a bigger role in the investigative process from the onset – but that a top-heavy and poorly operated department blanketed that spirit.

A single FOI file, not just a “snapshot,” Mr. Kamp, but a sample of DNA that may lead us to a problem with the DFO that is province-wide.

Jack Emberly

Thanks to Bruce Hobbs for his recent comments on Julie Beradinucci’s visit to Maple Ridge Council. Hopefully, Council will pursue the topic of water licencing on the M.R. border – the issue is fairness for all in pricing, as well as preservation of land and water for everyone, and every thing.
A Freedom of Information of information request by a citizen may be one of the last and shakiest pillars of the democratic process all Canadians assume will live forever. Yet, as I’ve discovered, bureacracies such as the DFO and Environment Canada are riddled with procrastinating policies and procedures that delay facts and figures getting into the hands of any of us. My file re the N.Alouette fish kill May 25th is an example. As I write I am still awaiting documents from DFO -who BTW now tell me I should pay for photocopying, but can have a CD for free.

Sorry, Rob, but it’s comments such as yours which encourage Government to ignore their specified responsibility, believing that the public they serve has gone to sleep, and has lost their will for vigilence. Aldous Huxley said, “the price of freedom is eternal vigilence”. That’s a citizen responsibility he was talking about. Human beings – neighbors of you and I – frequent the area in dispute – some to fish, some to hike, some to pick blackberries, some to watch birds, some to commune with nature. Every one them breathes the air; some splash in the water. Some train their bird dogs in that water. If there is any, stress any possibiltiy that they are breathing or ingesting something to kill a plant or animal, MOE and DFO must “investigate”. They can’t just look around and go back to their offices. Several of us will not let them. Jack

On Tuesday, June 23rd, MOE officer in charge informed me that she and crew were conducting an “inspection” of the kill site. That took me aback. I said, “you mean an investigation?” This was my understanding when I was called by her superior, Martin Pomeroy earlier. We used the word “inspection”. In the News, I told reporter, Phil Melnychuk, Mr. Pomeroy was definite in saying that the enviroment had to be protected and that an inspection had to occur. I gushed with joy at that. However, when I asked Officer Rasmussen what would take place, and was told an “inspection” my heart sank. An “inspection” required verification of a citizen report of dead fish. I had hoped we had that, because I told the officer, who attended the site previously where to find dead fish. As we walked along the dyke on May 23rd she said she looked over the bridge but couldn’t see any fish because it was pouring down rain. We agreed it would be impossible to see through such a pummeled water. On her “inspection” day I asked her to come back. It wouldn’t have been raining, and she could have seen fish. I know because i went back there myself, saw, and collected 100 of them. These are the ones they have in their lab now. I’m hoping they’ll test them for chemicals, but haven’t heard back from them yet. So, here’s the catch22 in this story. An “investigation” of my sighting would have taken place if the Officer investigating had inspected when it was possible to see through the surface of the water, but because it was raining and she couldn’t see, no investigation could take place in accordance with the rules of MOE. How similar to that is the story of the soldier who is going crazy in the army and wants to get out. He could, supposedly, if he’s crazy, but because he wants out the army says he can’t be crazy. The MOE has rules that insure inertia. The question for me now is why? Jack

After leaving the company of Environment Canada at “the pipe” I met two teenagers fishing by the bridge. They hadn’t caught anything. I said that was probably a good thing because anything they caught might not be safe to eat. I told them why. One kid said he’d fished in that area since he was a little guy and used to catch fish all the time, a whole variety of types. Last year, he said, he came across a bunch of dead fish along a slough adjacent to the berry farms. He couldn’t understand it. He said Asians used to catch carp there, but they haven’t been around for a long time. Jack Emberly

We found out today that a portion of the Golden Eagles cranberry farm is in Maple Ridge, but the majority is in Pitt Meadows. According to Maple Ridge, the property is considered wetlands, therefore any changes to the property (in this case, farming) requires appropriate compensation restoration by the landowners. The District is asking for restoration on the Maple Ridge side.

Currently, there are no policies, processes, or regulations required by the City of Pitt Meadows and there is no environmental monitor/planner to oversee any environmental concerns happening in Pitt Meadows. It would also seem that there may not be any enforcement when things go awry. When water licenses are applied for, the City has a chance to express concerns or input requirements to the license holders. It appears the City of Pitt Meadows has passed on these licenses without comment.

AB