Fraser River Sockeye Salmon - Cohen Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River DFO stated that, in preparing this document, it limited its review to specific types of reports: The reports contained in this compilation spanned the period 1982– 2005, and included those commissioned by the Government as well as those prepared for the Government including the Auditor General of Canada and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. These reports were chosen on the basis that they focused exclusively on the Fraser River or contained significant recommendations pertaining to Fraser River sockeye. Reports that were not initiated by, or prepared for, the Government of Canada were not included in this document. In this Part, I will refer to 22 of the 25 reports that are included in the DFO document. I have also included in my consideration reports from several other sources, including provincial auditors general, provincially appointed commissions, and reports commissioned by Aboriginal organizations and by an environmental non-governmental organization. In the case of most of these other reports, the commission is not aware of any formal Government of Canada responses to recommendations contained in them. In deciding what previous reports to consider, I took several factors into account. Of principal interest were the reports that were relevant to the specific mandate of this commission of inquiry – the Fraser sockeye fishery. However, I also considered it important to review reports that dealt more generally with various aspects of West Coast fisheries, such as DFO management, conservation, and habitat protection, and the potential impact of open-pen salmon farms on wild salmon stocks. This Part is divided into two sections. In the first section, I will identify each report that I have considered, will comment on each report’s terms of reference, and will provide the historical context within which the report was prepared. If the federal government advised the commission of its formal response to the report, I will identify that response. The government’s responses come from a variety of sources, including ministerial statements, DFO news releases or backgrounders, cabinet committee reports, and formal responses from DFO. These responses, many of which may be difficult for the public to locate, were provided to the commission by DFO in Recommendations and Responses. In the second section, I will set out the recommendations that I consider most relevant to my mandate, followed by the Government of Canada’s formal responses to those recommendations. I determined that it would be informative to cluster the recommendations contained in the previous reports and the government’s responses to them according to subject matter; within each category, I then set them out chronologically, so that the reader can gain an appreciation of how analyses on discrete issues have evolved. In most cases I will limit myself to the government’s initial response to these reports, even though DFO’s Recommendations and Responses also provides information about the government’s “subsequent actions.” 32
Part Two • Previous reports and government responses I want to make it clear that, in this section, I am presenting only what the government has said was its response to particular recommendations. Readers should not infer from this presentation that the commission has accepted or is endorsing such responses. I expect that counsel will explore during the evidentiary hearings how DFO and other government departments and agencies have dealt with some of these issues since the recommendations and initial responses were made. In Part Three of the report, I will provide my preliminary views on and assessment of these previous reports, and of the government’s responses to them. Previous examinations, investigations, and reports Previous reports reviewed by the commission Table 2: Reports Reviewed by the Commission Year Title Organization Author, or committee chair 1982 Turning the Tide – A New Policy for Canada’s Pacific Fisheries 1992 Managing Salmon in the Fraser 1995 Fraser River Sockeye 1994, Problems and Discrepancies 1995 Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the Renewal of the Commercial Pacific Salmon Fishery 1996 Tangled Lines: Restructuring in the Pacific Salmon Fishery Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy Report to the Minister on the Fraser River Salmon Investigation Report of the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board Pacific Policy Roundtable A Federal-Provincial Review of the Mifflin Plan Abbreviated reference Dr. Peter Pearse Pearse (1982) Dr. Peter Pearse, Dr. Peter Larkin Pearse and Larkin (1992) Hon. John Fraser Fraser (1995) Louis Tousignant Pacific Policy Roundtable (1995) Federal- Provincial Review of the Mifflin Plan (1996) [cont’d] 33
Page 1: Fraser River Sockeye Salmon: Past D
Page 7 and 8: Fraser River Sockeye Salmon: Past D
Page 9 and 10: Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 PART O
Page 11: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page 14 and 15: Cohen Commission of Inquiry into th
Page 23 and 24: Part One • Commission activities
Page 39: PART TWO Previous reports and gover
Page 92 and 93:
Cohen Commission of Inquiry into th
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 131:
PART THREE Preliminary views and as
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 147:
APPENDICES
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312:
show all

Fraser River Sockeye Salmon - Cohen Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?