I just finished reading the approximately 450 pages of transcript of the last three days of the Cohen Inquiry. I highly recommend them, they can be found at www.cohencommission.ca Go to Calendar and Transcripts and see dates December 15, 16, 19.
I know most of us can't take the time to absorb all this material, so I have capture excerpts below. I have noted page numbers so you can read the complete dialogue if you are interested.
The final three days were on the explosive findings of ISA virus in BC wild salmon. The Commission brought us two groups of people; the scientists who are actually running the ISA virus tests and a subset of the people who seem to be in charge of managing the release of fish health information.
The Cohen Commission did us a great service. They not only allowed key scientists from across the Northern Hemisphere to tell us why we should believe their test results - whether or not ISA virus is in BC waters, they also caused a highly informative discussion between these scientists comparing methods. The one government lab that cannot find ISA virus is using a machine known to have trouble detecting low levels of ISA virus. It is that simple! This would never have been known without the Cohen Commission. Scientists interested in ISA virus and why some labs can detect it and some not, can learn a great deal in reading December 15 and the morning of the 16th and examining the exhibits.
Equally important, the Commission gave us the chance to understand how the government of Canada handles wild salmon health. Some diseases are clearly a threat to trade, and so the public is discouraged from knowing anything about them. Hatcheries are asked not to test, pathologists were hindered in trying to figure out why millions of Fraser sockeye are dying just before spawning and salmon farms are off limits to most researchers. The information about these diseases has to be tightly controlled. To put everything in context I start with an exchange sparked in the final minutes of the Cohen Inquiry by Krista Robertson, lawyer for the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council - the First Nations of the Broughton Archipelago. Dr. Klotins works for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Here is why fish health is a federal secret:
(December 19, pg. 118)
ROBERTSON: Safe trade. But is it also part of the mandate of the CFIA to ensure that trade is – trade interests of Canadian companies or companies operating in Canada such as Norwegian fish farm companies, are not harmed by any kind of finding or allegation of disease?
DR KLOTINS: …So if, let’s say, we do find ISA in B.C. and all of a sudden markets are closed, our role [CFIA] is then to try to renegotiate or negotiate market access to those countries. Now what it will be is a matter of they'll let us know what the requirements are. We'll let them know what we can do and whether we can meet that market access. If we can't meet it, then there will be no trade basically.
So there you have it. ISA virus threatens commerce. I don't know if it was intentional, but the lawyers present over the last 3 days worked as a tag team peeling back the layers to reveal a cavernous hole. Where we thought government was working to protect wild salmon there is no body of government present. No government agency can afford to defend wild salmon by learning the truth and there is almost nobody in government who dares.
I am going to try to make it easy for you to see what happened at Cohen below, and then in a later blog I would like to suggest what we can build from here. Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the CFIA are protecting trade. That is why their behaviour has been so difficult to understand. Trade is not a bad thing. We need it, but the evidence brought forward by Cohen makes it very, very clear.... if we want wild salmon it is indeed up to us.
The lawyers I worked with in the Cohen, Greg McDade and Lisa Glowacki of Ratcliff and Company wrote a Final Argument regarding the ISA virus hearings. It is a brilliant synthesis of what we learned Download 08 - Aquaculture Coalition Submissions re ISAV-corrected.PDF (249.8K)
These are the transcripts, the page numbers and dates below refer to these documents:
Download Cohen Dec 15.pdf (605.9K)
Download Cohen Dec 16.pdf (570.7K)
Download Cohen Dec 19.pdf (543.3K)
The people on the stand were:
Dr. Fred Kibenge, Chairman, Department of Pathology and Microbiology, Atlantic Veterinary College, University of Prince Edward Island, heads of only 2 international reference labs for ISA virus diagnosis. Diagnosed the Chilean ISA virus outbreak in 2007
Dr. Are Nylund, Professor, University of Bergen, Norway Longterm ISA virus researcher, studied how ISA virus got to Chile with eggs and traced it to the source hatchery in Central Norway
Mrs. Nellie Gagné, Molecular Biology Scientist and Laboratory Supervisor, DFO, Moncton, runs DFO's ISA confirmation lab, uses a machine for her work that is known to have difficulty detecting low levels of ISA virus.
Dr. Kristi Miller, Head Molecular Genetics, DFO, Nanaimo, discovered the Mortality Related Signature in the sockeye that are dying annually in the Fraser River just before spawning. Miller uses genomics to examine the cellular response to pathogens and other challenges of life. She is a pioneer in applying genomics to salmon.
Dr. Kim Klotins: Acting National Manager, Disease Control Contingency Planning, Aquatic Animal Health Division, CFIA, Ottawa, previously a vet and consultant to the salmon farming industry
Dr. Wright - National Manager, National Aquatic Animal Health Laboratory System, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, DFO, Moncton. previously with the CFIA and International Atomic Energy Agency, Used to work for the CFIA now works for DFO
Dr. Simon Jones, Parasitologist, sea lice Pacific Biological Station, DFO, Nanaimo
Mr. Stephen Stephen Director Biotechnology and Aquatic Animal Health Sciences Branch, DFO, Ottawa, used to work for the CFIA, now DFO
Page 65 December 15
DR MILLER: I had a meeting with the B.C. Salmon Farmers' Association after the aquaculture sessions in the Cohen, and we agreed, in principle, on a tack to take and we were writing a co-proposal for ACRDP, which is a DFO grant, and the very last minute they basically took out all testing of Atlantic salmon ...
Page 66 December 15
DR MILLER: So when this occurred, we approached the people in DFO that are in charge of the audit program … we signed a material transfer agreement with the provincial lab, and that transfer agreement only enabled us to test for Parvovirus and nothing else. The very unfortunate thing is that we were sent tissue homogenates in water that were not kept frozen and they were sent to us on ice, and anyone who knows anything about molecular biology knows you cannot send tissue samples that are not kept frozen or they degrade very, very rapidly. So by the time they got to our lab, they were quite degraded, and the DNA was of no use. There is RNA, we could use the RNA to test, but we had to sign an agreement to say we would not test for anything but Parvovirus. So it's useless for Parvovirus, because Parvovirus is a DNA virus, and we needed the DNA and we have completely degraded DNA.
Page 122 December 15
McDADE (Lawyer examining aquaculture): … as of the 24th, senior people in DFO were aware that the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo was finding ISA?
DR. MILLER: By the 24th, they were aware of my work, yes.
MCDADE: And so when statements were coming out from DFO after November 24th, and in particular, the statement from the Minister on December 2nd, saying they were not aware of any ISA, that would have been a surprise to you, wasn't it?
DR. MILLER: Yes, it was, but nobody was speaking to me at that point.
Page 138 December 15
DR MILLER (DFO scientist): Just to understand this, specifically what he [Stephen Stephen] he talked to me about was that there was a policy in place about ISA that was developed between DFO and CFIA. Policy cannot be a moving target, so research could come up with new results of new orthomyxoviruses, but that the sentiment that I got was that research should not fog policy, so -- but my take, as a scientist, is that research should inform policy, and if policy has to change based on new findings, then that's what it has to do. But I don't come from a manager's standpoint, I come from a scientist's standpoint.
ROSENBLOOM (lawyer fishing industry) Did you interpret his comments to you in any way that he was attempting to intimidate you, Dr. Miller?
DR. MILLER: I personally took a level of intimidation at the idea of my samples perhaps being taken away. I don't know that he meant -- you know, I mean, it was said to me by a number of different individuals over again, and of course I did read about what happened to Rick Routledge's samples in his freezer in his graduate students' program when CFIA took away all those samples and they weren't able to continue with the research that they were doing.
Of course, I look at my own program and I think I have a lot to lose here if CFIA decided to sweep in and take all my samples. I've go thousands of samples and a very big program in jeopardy, so whether Stephen Stephens (sic) meant that or not, I certainly have been very concerned about that.
ROSENBLOOM: Did he say anything in terms of how positive findings might be consequential in terms of our relations with the Americans?
DR. MILLER: I think he just intimated that I, as a scientist, would not understand the complexities of these issues and that, as a scientist, I should not be undertaking research on something if I didn't understand the ramifications of what the results could do.
Page 39 December 16
MCDADE: Now, this is not a DFO document. This is a BCSFA letter to a newspaper. Can I just ask you to look at the second paragraph?
“Some samples collected as part of the follow up investigation were too degraded to be tested - but many were not, and the testing has shown that those initial results were in fact, false.”
Now, that's not what you found, is it?
MS. GAGNE (DFO - using the less sensitive machine): That's not our statement, so I won't comment on that.
MCDADE: Well, it's an incorrect statement, isn't it? It's referring to your testing.
MS. GAGNE: It's referring to our testing, but the final statement is a fact that the results were false. I haven't said that, not myself.
MCDADE: No. You can’t have said that, can you
MS. GAGNE: I haven't said that.
MCDADE: So whoever said was making a vast over-statement of your findings. They were wrong.
MS. GAGNE: Do you know how many things that were wrong and that were published up to now? I think this is just a drop in the bucket, so...
Page 42 December 16
DR. KIBENGE (one of only two ISA virus reference labs in the world sited in Prince Edward Island): I recall this email and I was forced to write it after I read the information that you've just shown, specifically because that information said that the CFIA was contacted, and they said that the test results were destroyed and the samples were destroyed. Those statements were made a day after I had spoken with Dr. Kim Klotins and I was concerned that what we had talked about is not what was being attributed to -- for the CFIA. And that's why I sent an email to Dr. Klotins. I also copied it to the vice-president of CFIA, Dr. Dubuc, and Dr. Brannivans (phonetic), because I'd also spoken to them in the same context before, and I wanted them to know that I didn't agree with what they were putting out about my lab.
MCDADE: As a result of your making a simple scientific finding of ISA virus, you've been really quite attacked haven't you since then?
DR. KIBENGE: Well, I think we -- there has been a lot of information that has been out there, and it hasn't been easy. But I believe that I'm very fortunate that I'm at a university that is very supportive. My dean in the vet school has been very supportive and I think because of that support we've been able to sort of deal with the other issues that have come our way. I really appreciate that support of the university and the vet college in this matter.
Other scientists who have made findings about ISAv have needed the support of their universities. When Dr. Nylund at U. of Bergen published research on how ISA virus got to Chile in farm salmon eggs "a Norwegian company" triggered an Investigation of Scientific Misconduct of which Nylund was cleared Download Nylund Ethics investigation.pdf (525.5K)
Page 52 December 16
DR. KIBENGE: You know, personally, given the experience I've seen in the last few months, I would suggest that there needs to be a separation between policy and science...
Page 75 December 16
KELLIHER (Lawyer, First Nations): All right. Now, have either versions of the ISA been found in the Pacific Ocean off the West Coast of British Columbia?
DR. KIBENGE: Well, not until recently, when our test results showed that you have ISA virus sequences out here.
KELLIHER: And those sequences most closely parallel which version of the ISA?
DR. KIBENGE: Well, in one typing of the samples we've got, we showed it was of the European genotype. But this -- this was based on the real time RT-PCR genotyping. But in the evidence we heard yesterday from Dr. Kristi Miller, I mean, she even has the sequence, and she claims, at least she showed that it's 100 percent homologous to the European.
Page 78 December 16
KELLIHER: All right. Now, if I might just have a brief moment. Doctor, I'm sure you have colleagues in different parts of the world, as we all do, where what they say and what they do can sometimes result in dire and immediate consequences if there's an offence made to persons in power, in political power. And I'm wondering here, you're well familiar with the scientific culture surrounding salmon and the controversial aspects of that area of science. Is it your sense that, well speaking specifically, have you ever had a sense that there could be negative consequences to you professionally, financially, economically, politically, as a result of you exercising your independent professional scientific judgment?
…
DR. KIBENGE: I think so. I mean,this has been so public that my reputation and everything else is really in question. So, yeah, you can say that.
Page 121 December 16
MARTLAND (A lawyer with the Cohen Commission): [regarding email Download Exh 2110 - 108. DFO-599910.pdf (110.7K)] It's from someone named Joseph Beres. Who is he?
DR. KLOTINS: Joseph Beres works in CFIA operations in the western area, more specifically out of the Burnaby office, and on this particular disease response he's one of the co-leaders for the team that's running the response.
MARTLAND: Okay. So he’s involved in the CFIA’s active investigation right now?
DR KLOTINS: Yes. Yes, he still is, yes.
MARTLAND: Okay. Now, I appreciate he's not here and neither of you, although you received this, didn't write the e-mail, but I want to just pick up on, if you will, a flavour that is pretty clear in this e-mail:
“It is clear that we are turning the PR tide to our favour, - and this is because...”
It goes on to praise Dr. -- you, Stephen, Peter and Paul are listed there as the ones who get the praise: Congratulations! "One battle is won, now we have to nail the surveillance piece, and we will win the war also.”
That language, that way of framing it is, "If there's a hill to be won and we need to fight our way up it and win that battle," suggests that CFIA is going into this with a hypothesis or with an end goal, and I'd like to put that -- and I'd like to put that to you, Dr. Klotins. Is that an attitude that's prevalent or shared with others at CFIA? Am I misreading this?
DR. KLOTINS: The values for CFIA are actually to – to deal with any response in a professional manner, especially when dealing with external stakeholders. We may get a little bit exuberant internally. I can't speak to his frame of mind here or how he views disease response in general. I really can't speak to what he was thinking during this. In terms of whether it speaks to you as -- how did you frame that, Brock?
MARTLAND: I wonder if it suggests that there's sort of an -- that instead of this being a collective enterprise where people are trying to learn the truth of a situation --
DR. KLOTINS: Yeah.
MARTLAND: this is a hockey game and we're wearing red jerseys and we want to score on the other goal. Is it an adversarial thing? Is the CFIA going into this out of a concern for trade partners and other interests with a view to, however we get there, to announcing there is no ISAV?
Page 136 December 16 Questions regarding why Dr. Jones as a DFO scientist never revealed a paper he is co-author on that found ISA virus in wild Pacific salmon. It is unclear why as a parasitologist he was involved with this paper on a virus, other than he had extensive experience dealing with the sea lice issue and how it was perceived to relate to salmon farms. Attached to this paper are emails where he refuses to allow it to move forward to publications.
Download Exh 2045 - 29. CCI001528.pdf (2183.9K)
MARTLAND: Dr. Jones, you testified before this commission on the topic of sea lice in early September of this year and prior to that, were interviewed by commission counsel and I take it equally were asked to produce relevant documents that you had that pertained to this commission and the work we were doing; is that correct?
DR. JONES (DFO parasitologist heavily involved in salmon farm/sea lice): To my recollection, yes, that's correct.
MARTLAND: At the time of that were you – would you have considered ISA to be an issue – an issue that at least was something that was on the commission's radar that the commission would be looking into?
DR. JONES: No, I did not.
MARTLAND: Were you aware of a dialogue in the public realm or otherwise around the concern about ISA arriving on the Pacific Coast?
JONES: Generally, yes, I -- obviously, I am aware that ISA has not been reported and the potential for ISA to occur has been raised as a concern.
MARTLAND: And in terms of these different documents there's -- I've simply had flash across the screen in front of you, could you tell us why those were not produced at commission until November 2011?
Jones gives a long answer saying the ISA disease did not appear to be in BC and he had doubts Dr. Molly Kibenge's results were valid.
Page 137 Jones continues
DR JONES: Well, you know, I mean, I'm trying hard to keep my thinking as it was in 2003/2004 and what we concluded then. I was certainly aware that we had conducted that work, but there was no reason to assign any importance to that. It was a series of experiments that yield some puzzling results that were not verifiable and it didn't seem to add meaning to -- it didn't seem to contribute to anything other than that this was a confusing piece of information that -- yeah, was essentially a negative result
It is hard to see how Jones concluded this paper is as a "negative result" as what it reveals is a large number of "positive" results for the virus ISA.
Page 16 December 19
TAYLOR (lawyer for Canada): … what's the significance, internationally, on Canada, of a confirmed report of ISA as a reportable disease, if there was such a confirmed report?
DR. KLOTINS: If there's a confirmed report, then we would notify the OIE, as well as our specific training partners, where we trade both wild salmon caught commercially and salmon that are cultured in British Columbia. And we would have to wait and see what -- how countries would react, and then identify whether we can meet their conditions that they may impose on Canada for import of product into their countries.
Page 35 December 19 - Below the CFIA suggests that Coho in Chile were not infected by the European strain ISAv outbreak there, but published research reports otherwise. These answers appear to be an effort to reduce concern over the potential impact of ISA virus on Pacific salmon.
TAYLOR: Now, Dr. Klotins, in the course of your investigation in the recent sockeye salmon PCR test results, did you consider whether farmed Coho in Chile were affected by the 2008 ISA outbreaks?
DR. KLOTINS: Our understanding, from the Chilean Government, is that there have been a fair number of Coho that have been tested for ISAV since the outbreak and even before, and none of them have been positive for ISA.
TAYLOR: Now, Dr. Wright, does this provide evidence Pacific salmon are resistant to developing the disease ISA, even if they do become infected with the virus?
DR. WRIGHT: Certainly, I mean, that's not in my area of expertise. I don't claim to be an ISA or a salmon expert. Something -- all I can say is that's apparently what I hear.
Page 39 December 19, All the ISAv positive test results I received were from salmon that had died just before spawning. Miller’s lab found evidence ISAv positive salmon are exhibiting classic influenza response and the ISAv positive River’s Inlet sockeye smolts sampled by Dr. Routledge’s lab were in poor physical position from a population at less than 1% of its size, but the CFIA says:
KLOTINS: These were not diseased animals, at least with clinical signs consistent with ISAV. So in this instance, it was apparently healthy populations …
Page 46 December 19
KLOTINS: … we did notify our trading partners and we did notify governments in Canada
STEPHENS: … The Government of Canada does not routinely report presumptive or preliminary results until we can confirm those results.
MCDADE: So the answer to that is, Mr. Stephen, is you would not have gone public either at DFO?
MR. STEPHEN: It would be CFIA's responsibility to do the reporting, but again we do not report presumptive results. We have to confirm those results first.
MCDADE: And that can take months; is that right?
DR. KLOTINS: It's possible.
MCDADE: Well, and, Dr. Klotins, as I understood your testimony on Friday, there was no way that these samples could ever be confirmed because you had chain of custody issues.
DR. KLOTINS: Correct.
MCDADE: So these would never have been more than presumptive positives, no matter what
DR. KLOTINS: This particular event, yes.
MCDADE: All right. So the Canadian public would not have known about this but for SFU.
DR. KLOTINS: At some point we do report on our investigations, but it is possible the Canadian public would not have known.
MCDADE: And if a new disease came forward, something like HSMI, discovered by a researcher at a university, the same result would occur at CFIA; is that a fair statement? No one would ever know until you could do confirmatory testing yourself.
DR. KLOTINS: That particular disease is not a reportable disease. It would be a new – possibly a new emerging disease. That is not -- it's not notifiable to CFIA, and whether we would do any more investigation on that disease would depend on degree of mortality and how many fish populations were being affected
Page 47 December 19
MCDADE: Mr. Stephen, what is DFO doing about the report oF HSMI in the Clayquot Sound fish farm?
MR. STEPHEN: I don't -- I'm not aware of DFO doing anything at the moment. I only learned of Dr. Miller's results when she forwarded them to the Commission on last Tuesday. I have not had any communication with anybody based on that disease at the moment.
MCDADE: So it's now been almost a week and there's nothing at all happening at DFO?
MR. STEPHEN: I didn't say that. I said I wasn't aware of anything being done. I'm here, sir.
Page 50 December 19
Download Exh 2029 - 106. DFO-600991[01-02].pdf (64.6K)
MCDADE: And when the provincial Minister referred to "reckless allegations", he was aware that the OIE office had found positive results in at least two sets of salmon?
MR. STEPHEN: I can't speak to what the provincial Minister had to say or did have any knowledge of.
MCDADE: Well, you'd seen this press release before it was released, hadn't you?
MR. STEPHEN: I had seen a version of it, yes.
MCDADE: So that would be a pretty misleading statement, "reckless allegations", wouldn't it?
MR. STEPHEN: I can't speak to that. As I said, I had no input into Minister McRae's comments here.
MCDADE: All right. Can we have Exhibit 2029 on the screen. You saw this, Mr. Stephen, you were aware of this statement before it was released?
MR. STEPHEN: I saw a version of it, yes.
MCDADE: Dr. Klotins, you saw a version of it?
DR. KLOTINS: Yes, a version of it.
MCDADE: In the fourth paragraph, it says that DFO has tested all 48 samples...and the results are all negative for the virus. Is that a correct statement, Mr. Stephen?
MR. STEPHEN: I think Dr. Wright might be able to provide a better answer to that than I.
MCDADE: Well, before Dr. Wright answers, I want to know what your views were.
MR. STEPHEN: I was advised by our laboratories, yes, that was a correct statement.
MCDADE: That's Nellie Gagné's laboratory?
MR. STEPHEN: That's correct.
MCDADE: Now, you heard her testify, didn't you?
MR. STEPHEN: I did.
MCDADE: And you heard her testify that her statements were not negative, they were inconclusive because there wasn't enough RNA present to be able to make a conclusive statement; isn't that right?
MR. STEPHEN: I'm not sure I recall that exactly, no. I heard a lot of testimony in a day and a half.
MCDADE: Well, let me suggest to you that she agreed that without some qualification that would be misleading, the qualification being that the results were too degraded to be able to test.
MCDADE: Before you answer, Dr. Klotins, I want Mr. Stephen's answer on this.
MR. STEPHEN: Could you repeat the question, please.
MCDADE: I understood her evidence to be that the samples were so degraded that she couldn't say that they were negative, that they were inconclusive, and further that she would have expected a statement to that effect in the release, otherwise it would be misleading. What's your view on that?
MR. STEPHEN: On my understanding from the information I was provided that those samples were negative.
MCDADE: You didn't know that they were inconclusive.
MR. STEPHEN: I knew that some samples were inconclusive based on degradation of other materials, the 299 fish that were collected from Dr. Routledge. But I wasn't aware that these particular ones were degraded to that level, no.
MCDADE: The next statement says: These results are consistent with the findings of an independent laboratory in Norway... Now, did you hear Dr. Nylund testify that he found positives?
MR. STEPHEN: I did.
MCDADE: Doesn't the word "consistent" there mean they're all negative? How is a positive from him consistent with negatives from the other?
MR. STEPHEN: I don't know.
MCDADE: All right. Do you agree that's very misleading, isn't it?
MR. STEPHEN: I wouldn't say it's misleading. I said I don't know who put that comment in there.
MCDADE: Dr. Klotins, do you know?
DR. KLOTINS: That would have been an assessment by the CFIA, an assessment of all the information we had gathered to date, an assessment of whether those findings were true positives or false positives, and also in terms of the negative testing, how confident we could feel in that.
Page 56 December 19
MCDADE: …the other thing you did very shortly after the [SFU] press conference on October 17th was to go out and seize all of Dr. Routledge’s samples, right?
DR. KLOTINS: It was not seizure. It was a request for samples that we needed to help conduct our investigation.
MCDADE: You took all of his samples away from him, right?
DR. KLOTINS: No, not all of his samples…. we did take all of his samples from 2011 to -- and sent them to Moncton.
MCDADE: Now, quarantine is, as a layperson understands is you put something in a place so that it can't go in contact, in the case of humans, other people.
DR. KLOTINS: Yes. So in the case -- oh, sorry.
MCDADE: So let me finish this question. He had frozen fish sitting in the lab. You put it under a quarantine order. Were you afraid that it was going to get out and contact other fishes?
DR. KLOTINS: The reason we put it under quarantine is to assist with our investigation, so those samples would be available if we needed them for further testing.
MCDADE: you took all -- but you took all of his 2011 samples.
DR. KLOTINS: Yes, we did, and we sent it to Moncton.
MCDADE: And you've not given them back.
DR. KLOTINS: We're currently –
MCDADE: Just answer the question, have you given the back?
DR. KLOTINS: Not yet at this date, and nor have we –
MCDADE: Are you going to give them back?
DR. KLOTINS: That determination is still to be made. We've completed the documentation and a veterinary inspector will make the decision whether to return them or not.
MCDADE: Well, and you're going to decide not to give them back, aren't you?
DR. KLOTINS: I'm not –
MCDADE: So that no person will ever be able to test these samples other than you. That’s a seizure, by my definition.
DR. KLOTINS: No, I have not told you that we're not going to give them back.
MCDADE: No, you're going to make that decision after the Commission stops hearing testimony, aren't you?
DR. KLOTINS: No.
MCDADE: He's requested them back?
DR. KLOTINS: Mm-hmm.
MCDADE: Dr. Morton's requested her samples back?
DR. KLOTINS: Well, what happened there was she requested the samples back, but it was unclear which ones she wanted back, so we have requested further information because --
MCDADE: You've only got one -- let me just -- hold on. She only gave you one set of samples. How could it be unclear when she asked for samples back?
Page 59 December 19
MCDADE: Well, let's find out who you told, Dr. Jones. You were aware of it in 2004 and 2005 and 2006. Did you advise your superiors of that?
DR. JONES: That I was aware of exactly what?
MCDADE: Well, that Dr. Molly Kibenge had found ISAV in wild salmon.
DR. JONES: Molly Kibenge had some PCR results that suggested the possibility that the virus is present.
MCDADE: Yes. Well, let's not -- let's not get too deeply into the niceties. She had certain findings.
DR. JONES: Mm-hmm.
MCDADE: Did you pass those up the chain of command?
DR. JONES: I did. My colleague, Garth Traxler, a virologist, was aware and a participant in this research. And the manager of our diagnostic laboratory, who managed the Fish Health Protection Regulations in the lab was also aware of these findings.
MCDADE: Well, then when this -- when ISAV began to become somewhat controversial, and during the Cohen Commission hearings, you discussed those with your superiors at DFO?
DR. JONES: Well, certainly after mid-October, we discussed the earlier findings and it was obviously relevant that the documents be included at that point.
MCDADE: So when was -- why hadn't you reported this -- these reports to the Commission any earlier?
DR. JONES: Well, it's as I gave evidence last week on Friday that the findings were deemed to be not a positive finding. We were very critical of the need for a very high level of confidence in the information and when you put it all together, we weren't comfortable that we -- we weren't convinced that this was ISAV.
MCDADE: Well, you say "we". Dr. Molly Kibenge was convinced.
DR. JONES: She may have been.
MCDADE: Yes. And so who do you mean by "we"?
DR. JONES: We means collectively the staff in the Fish Health, Fish Health Section at the Pacific Biological Station, which includes Garth Traxler and Dorothy Kiesler.
MCDADE: Did Stewart Johnson know about these findings?
DR. JONES: I’m not sure he did. He wasn’t working with DFO until much more recently.
MCDADE: Well, did you discuss those with him once this became controversial in October?
DR. JONES: Yes, I did.
MCDADE: And was Sonja Saksida aware of this?
DR. JONES: I'm not sure. I didn't mention it to Sonja Saksida.
MCDADE: Back in 2004 did you not talk to her about this?
DR. JONES: I don't believe so. I don't recall speaking to her about this.
MCDADE: Well, why would -- why would DFO bury the results if they were simply something that was suspicious?
DR. JONES: Well, you know, this Commission might be
surprised to learn that much of what we do provides negative results. We're sitting on files of negative results. My computer is full of negative results. They don't get talked about or published. We -- this is how it works.
MCDADE: This is significant, though, ISAV in wild salmon. Did you at least go and do more testing? Isn't that what scientists do when they have uncertain results is they test a bunch more salmon?
DR. JONES: Well, scientists do a lot of things, and one of the most important things we do is be very critical of what we're finding. We're -- we have to be necessarily critical and skeptical especially of unexpected findings, particularly when it relates to the occurrence of the first time of a highly virulent pathogenic organism in an area that's not been reported before. We have to be critical and skeptical.
MCDADE: But in the 2005 season, in the 2006 season, in the 2007 season, and on until DFO took over responsibility for aquaculture, DFO did not a single piece of research to sample wild salmon for ISAV. Is that your understanding?
DR. JONES: I didn't ask specifically what – Kyle Garver was hired shortly after Molly Kibenge left and is now the research virologist. Garth Traxler and Kyle were both aware of the findings and whether they chose to pursue a research program in ISAV, I gather they did not, but I didn't ask why they didn't.
MCDADE: So Dr. Garver was aware of these findings back in 2004 and '05?
DR. JONES: Not that early. He was aware shortly after he started.
MCDADE: Okay. And so when he testified before this Commission he knew about these findings, too?
DR. JONES: He knew that there were findings that could not be repeated, that were not verifiable and that to our best opinion did not represent the occurrence of ISA virus.
MCDADE: And so when he was answering questions he didn't think that that was something relevant?
DR. JONES: I don't know what Kyle was thinking.
Page 66 December 19 Lawyer, Judah Harrison with the environmental coalition, asked DFO scientist Simon Jones about the ISAv positive test results for the Cultus Lake sockeye which are in critical condition.
HARRISON: …was there an initial detection of positive finding of ISA in 100% of the Cultus Lake sockeye samples she tested?
DR. JONES: Her finding was that of the 64 tissue samples she tested from Cultus Lake sockeye, all 64 of those gave a positive result in her PCR reaction.
HARRISION: So I understand you were never able to repeat the results, using those same samples, but have you ever gone and obtained additional Cultus Lake sockeye samples and done any additional testing since that time?
…
HARRISON: Have you ever suggested to anyone that they do additional sampling and testing of ISA, of Cultus Lake sockeye salmon?
DR. JONES: No, I have not.
The answers below make it obvious that the CFIA, the federal body in charge of all the most serious diseases, the "reportable" diseases, has absolutely no responsibility to wild salmon. This is essential to understand, because appealing to the CFIA to act responsibly towards wild salmon is a waste of time. They are very open here - protection of wild salmon is not their responsibility. What the answers below reveal is that the people in DFO who manage disease information, also have no mandate to protect wild salmon. Mr. Stephen Stephen is employed by DFO.
Page 64 December 19
HARRISON: … Dr. Klotins…. Are you familiar with the Wild Salmon Policy?
DR. KLOTINS: That is put out by...?
HARRISON: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
DR. KLOTINS: No, I'm not.
HARRISON: Mr. Stephen, are you familiar with the Wild Salmon Policy?
MR. STEPHEN: I just heard mention of it, but I'm not aware of it in any details at all.
Dr. Kristi Miller is an anomaly within the federal agencies involved in fish disease, she remains resistant to suppression, and continues to do the science we need to find out what is happening to wild salmon.
Page 67 December 19
ROSENBLOOM: Well, Mr. Stephen, I think it's only fair to you that you're confronted with the testimony that Dr. Miller gave on Thursday of last week, December the 15th, and I refer to the transcript, Mr. Lunn, of that date, page 127. And I ask for you to look at line 16 of that page, here I am questioning Dr. Miller about this very communication between you and herself.
And at line 16 I asked:
Did he say anything --- speaking of you, Mr. Stephen -
-- in terms of how positive findings might be consequential in terms of our relations with the Americans?
Answer [by Miller]:
I think he just intimated that I, as a scientist, would not understand the complexities of these issues and that, as a scientist, I should not be undertaking research on something if I didn’t understand the ramifications of the results could do.
…
ROSENBLOOM: Let's go on with her testimony. I'm at line 25 now.
MR. STEPHEN: Mm-hmm.
I asked [Miller]:
“And you took that as being intimidation, did you not?”
Dr. Miller’s response:
“Some level of intimidation”
Do you [Stephen] accept how she could have interpreted your remarks as being intimidation?
MR. STEPHEN: I do not.
Lawyer, Don Rosenbloom asked several questions regarding the accuracy of two joint ministerial press releases that speak of “reckless conduct” and “unfounded science,” directed at myself and the other scientists who put forward the ISA virus positive test results. The ministers referred to below are the federal Minister of Fisheries, Keith Ashfield (Min@dfo-mpo.gc.ca) and the Provincial Minister of Agriculture and Lands Don McRae (don.mcrae.mla@leg.bc.ca). Mr. Stephen appears uncomfortable with what these ministers said.
Page 79 December 19
ROSENBLOOM: ...Did you -- do you at this day, knowing what you know, find that ministerial comments, both in the November press release and the December press release to be acceptable and accurate?
MR. STEPHEN: First I'll repeat that some of those comments were not made by my Minister, they were made by the Minister of the Province of British Columbia. Secondly, I feel in general that the Minister's comments do reflect the investigation and the findings up to that date.
Download Exh 2089 - 07. DFO- Ashfield Statement Nov 9 11 (00472095).PDF (18.3K)
Download Exh 2004 - 28. Statement - Federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans Canada.pdf (39.5K)
ROSENBLOOM: And so you stand here and you're comfortable in adopting the term "reckless and unfounded"?
MR. STEPHEN: I did not say that.
ROSENBLOOM: Well, are you comfortable in adopting the remarks made by your Minister?
MR. STEPHEN: I don't think my Minister made those comments.
….
ROSENBLOOM: No. But it's from the federal government jointly with the provincial government, is it not?
MR. STEPHEN: That is by the federal government, yes, but it's not from my Minister.
ROSENBLOOM: Yes, but you're integral to this whole sequence of events that lead us to this hearing today, are you not?
MR. STEPHEN: I've been involved directly, yes, since the 17th of October.
ROSENBLOOM: Yes, you hold a senior position.
MR. STEPHEN: Well, Director's not that senior, but, yes, I hold the position.
ROSENBLOOM: Yes. And I'm asking you in that position whether you're comfortable in informing the Canadian public that there was recklessness by those that participated in announcing positive results.
MR. STEPHEN: Sir, I reply back to you that I give advice, informed science advice to senior management and to the Minister, and ultimately it’s the Minister’s prerogative to make informed decisions on that advice. I cannot stop anybody putting down something in those documents. My Minister did not make that statement. The B.C. Minister did.
ROSENBLOOM: I understand. Now, let's lead to the second of the communiqués, Exhibit 2004. And the clause that has been highlighted to witnesses today and yesterday -- or Friday is the third paragraph down:
“After Canada’s reputation has needlessly been put at risk.”
And this is your Minister speaking, is it not?
MR. STEPHEN: Yes.
ROSENBLOOM: Yes. It goes on:
“...over the past several weeks because of speculation and unfounded science, additional in-depth, conclusive tests, using proper and internationally recognized procedures, are now complete and we can confirm that there has never been a confirmed case of ISA in BC salmon, wild or farmed.”
Did you participate in the drafting of that communiqué?
MR. STEPHEN: I participated in putting some input into that, yes.
ROSENBLOOM: Yes. And so you were seeing drafts of this document where they spoke of unfounded science?
MR. STEPHEN: Yes.
ROSENBLOOM: And you were comfortable with it then?
MR. STEPHEN: I provided comments to my Minister, and communications, and they accepted what they wanted from my comments.
ROSENBLOOM: Yes. And did -- were your comments that to make such a statement might be reckless?
MR. STEPHEN: I didn’t say the word “reckless”. I said, I would have used "because of speculation", there has been a lot of speculation in the media. I wouldn't have said "unfounded science".
ROSENBLOOM: And you wouldn't have said "unfounded" because it was inappropriate, wasn't it
MR. STEPHEN: I would have said "unconfirmed science".
Page 83 December 19 Lawyer, Don Rosenbloom, asks Dr. Simon Jones (DFO) why he did not do further work in response to the finding that 100% of the Cultus Lake sockeye tested positive for ISA virus.
ROSENBLOOM: But, you know, Doctor, and I appreciate you haven't been here day in and day out, but we've been at this for almost a year, and if there's any topic that has been of paramount importance to this Commission, it appears to be the Cultus Lake stock. And you were asked a question a few moments ago, you as a panel, about the Wild Salmon Policy. You are aware, are you not, that the issues surrounding Cultus Lake are affecting the commercial fleet in the opportunities to fish in the West Coast, and you're aware that between 2007 and 2009 in fact there really wasn't a commercial fishery because in part the government and DFO is motivated to attempt to protect the Cultus Lake stock. You're aware of that, are you not, in a general sort of way?
DR. JONES: Yes, I am.
ROSENBLOOM: Okay. And knowing what you knew back in 2004 that Dr. Molly Kibenge was coming out with the results of 100 percent, as spoken about by my friend, Mr. Harrison, a moment ago, wouldn't that have triggered off in the minds of yourself and those in authority at DFO that maybe you should be doing a second test, a third test, and really putting to rest that you could be confident that in fact the government was carrying on surveillance about ISAV at Cultus Lake, and that there was not an issue of a pathogen?
DR. JONES: You know, shortly after Molly Kibenge conducted those tests, she sent me an email and said in that email that these – this result does not represent ISA virus. And reflection of that was stated in the manuscript. This was just another part of a long series of information that led us to believe that these were not true ISAV results.
Page 92 December 19 Regarding Exhibit #2137 Email chain between Stephen Stephen and Dr. Kiley.
Download Exh 2137 - NonRT.pdf (17.3K)
PENCE: ... So it seems to be that the minister's office is asking for somebody to draft a letter that will go to the U.S. Senate and Congress and then the minister is indicating to the drafters what the messages should be.
“Testing: Our official lab in Moncton has completed the first tests and we can confirm that all samples which have previously been reported as infected with ISA have tested negative in our lab. The samples show no signs of the disease.”
Then there's statements as to what should be said in the letter with regard to lab review, as well as public confidence. And my question to you, Mr. Stephen, is is this the usual routine for the minister's office to tell staff what the message should be as opposed to staff on the ground informing the minister as to what the messages might be?
MR. STEPHEN Well, I haven't had a lot of correspondence with the minister's office communication outside of this particular investigation and over the last few months….
Page 93 December 19 Disturbingly, the Minister of Fisheries and the CFIA, seem in a power struggle over who is responsible for ISA virus. The dialogue refers to an email chain Exhibit # 2137
Download Exh 2137 - NonRT.pdf (17.3K)
“Just forwarding you this to make a point. It is becoming more apparent that DFO MinO --[MinO = Minister’s Office] -- may not understand that ISAV no longer theirs. The disease is reportable under the H of A – [Health of Animals Act] -- -- and CFIA takes the lead. That they may be doing a rewrite of the news release is worrisome.”
PENCE: Can you comment, Mr. Stephen, on this notion that maybe DFO's minister is confused about his role as opposed to CFIA's role?
MR. STEPHEN: Well, I didn't have personal communication with the minister, but I can tell you that his staff was obviously interested in making sure a message was out that was clear and to the point…
Page 100 December 19 PENCE brings up an email from a First Nation fisheries manager responding to a letter I wrote suggesting she test her fish for ISAv, forwarded to DFO. The fisheries manager writes:
“Please help me understand the concerns –“
PENCE: by concerns, she's referring to concerns forwarded to her by Alexandra Morton.
“She's suggesting we take samples from our salmon. While I would support her idea if I could get your support, time is of the essence.”
PENCE: So it's, in essence, a request from a First Nations person, a First Nations Fisheries Program manager for more information from DFO on taking samples of their salmon because they have concerns about the health of salmon. If you scroll back up to Ms. Benner's response, what we see is she writes:
“At this point in time we do not believe that additional sampling of salmon for ISAV is necessary.”
So I'm just wondering how that response works with what we see in the functional plan which suggests that First Nations and other partners play a key role in detecting the disease. Dr. Klotins or Mr. Stephen, if you could comment on that?
MR. STEPHEN: I'll just say that I've never seen this request. Keri Benner I don't know myself and this request never crossed my desk at all.
PENCE: Would you be surprised that somebody from DFO is responding like this to a First Nations person asking how they may sample because they're concerned about the health of their wild salmon?
Page 102 December Lawyer, SCHABUS (Sto:lo Tribal Council, Cheam Indian Band) I highly recommend reading all of her examination in the Dec 19 transcript, here is a part of it:
SCHABUS: You're aware that there has been a significant effort and investment in restoring and rebuilding Cultus sockeye stocks?
JONES: Yes, I am.
…
SCHABUS: And you're aware that DFO partially funds some projects like the DFO project for survival of Cultus Lake sockeye?
JONES: In general I'm aware of that. Not the specifics.
…
SCHABUS: But you’re aware that there is strong First Nations collaboration on this project on the ground correct?
JONES: Yes.
SCHABUS: But you were the supervisor overseeing Dr. Molly Kibenge's work, right?
DR. JONES: That's correct.
SCHABUS: And in order to access samples, and I understand the samples that were accessed were spawning Cultus Lake sockeye?
DR. JONES: That's correct.
SCHABUS: So in order to access those, you have to work with DFO and the First Nations staff on the ground to be able to access them, right?
DR. JONES: Almost certainly we did.
SCHABUS: Okay. And so you collect -- you have those samples collected, but you never -- you're not aware of -- you didn't and you're not aware of anybody else in DFO advising Soowahlie or the Sto:lo of positive findings of ISA virus in 2002, 2003 in Cultus sockeye or since.
DR. JONES: That's correct. We did not do that.
SCHABUS: You also never notified the DFO Cultus Sockeye Recovery Team?
DR. JONES: Not based on the findings that we obtained, no.
Page 109 December 19
SCHABUS: In October 2011 when it came to the Harrison samples
DR. KLOTINS: Mm-hmm?
SCHABUS: samples -- You sent a request out asking where and why the fish were collected to the person who had collected the samples, correct?
DR. KLOTINS: Yes, to Alexandra Morton.
SCHABUS: And Dr. Morton told you that she had been contacted by people who were concerned about many dead salmon floating in the Harrison River in Sto:lo territory drifting down the Harrison and that the samples were collected between Harrison Mill and Weaver Creek, correct?
DR. KLOTINS: Actually, we got no response back on that, no directly -- direct response back on that. But unless you -- we have that email, there was one email.
SCHABUS: I think there's a letter dated October --
DR. KLOTINS: Okay.
SCHABUS -- 28th, 2011 that would be on file --
DR. KLOTINS: Okay.
Page 112 December 19 Lawyer, Krista Roberston Musgamagw Tsawataineuk Tribal Council ("MTTC")
ROBERTSON: … I take it then that when the CFIA receives notice of a suspected disease there’s no policy to notify First Nations …?
DR. KLOTINS: Well, there is some notification of suspect to provincial governments and to the Canadian Council of Aquaculture and Fisheries ministers. If that requires to be expanded, then we need to know about that.
Page 113 According to this, when a disease is dangerous enough to be "reportable" responsibility for it is taken away from the agency supposedly tasked with protecting wild fish and given to an agency more explicitly tasked to protect trade.
ROBERTSON: Mr. Stephen… Would you be prepared to enter into a protocol with First Nations to notify, for instance, my clients, who are residing in the Broughton Archipelago, where there’s approximately 30 salmon farms in their territory. If they asked for that, would you be prepared to enter into a protocol with them so that they were given early notification …?
MR. STEPHEN: I'd certainly be willing to have a discussion with CFIA because they are the ones who do the notification. DFO doesn't notify under the National Aquatic Animal Health Program. It's CFIA who does the communication and lead on the investigations of any suspect cases.
Page 118
ROBERTSON: … Dr. Klotins, I understand the mandate of CFIA be to protect animal species from disease while at the same time protecting the trade interests of companies operating in Canada; is that correct?
DR. KLOTINS: It's actually to facilitate safe trade of aquatic animals. It's not to protect the interests, but it's to facilitate safe trade by working on negotiations for technical market access.
ROBERTSON: Safe trade. But is it also part of the mandate of the CFIA to ensure that trade is – trade interests of Canadian companies or companies operating in Canada such as Norwegian fish farm companies, are not harmed by any kind of finding or allegation of disease?
DR KLOTINS: …So if, let’s say, we do find ISA in B.C. and all of a sudden markets are closed, our role [CFIA] is then to try to renegotiate or negotiate market access to those countries. Now what it will be is a matter of they'll let us know what the requirements are. We'll let them know what we can do and whether we can meet that market access. If we can't meet it, then there will be no trade basically.
And so in the final moments after hundreds of hours of testimony the reason government is so secretive about the Norwegian salmon farming industry is revealed. If Drs. Kristi Miller and Molly Kibenge's results are accurate, BC has been selling salmon as ISAv - free for a long time, when perhaps it was not ISA virus-free. This has implications for wild and farm salmon, but there is no way past this unless we deal with it.
When Dr. Nylund, ISA virus researcher in Norway tells us that 80-90% of Atlantic salmon have ISA virus at the time of egg-take (page 136, December 15) we know that among the tens of millions of Atlantic salmon eggs that have been brought into BC by the fish farm industry many were likely ISAv positive. The industry and our Ministers of Fisheries are reluctant to accept that ISA virus seems to be traveling with Atlantic salmon eggs. When Nylund wrote a paper demonstrating this is how ISA virus got to Chile his career as a scientist was attacked: (Download Nylund Ethics investigation.pdf (525.5K)). Both Miller and Kibenge talk about threats to their labs and work.
But the facts speak for themselves, we must have received the ISA virus repeatedly. Remember ISA virus is not listed on the foreign egg import form (Download Fish Health Cert.png (117.2K)). I doubt anyone could have signed this form had ISA virus been explicitly listed.
This game is over, we became pawns in an international trade scheme. We trusted government when they said we can have salmon farms without damaging wild salmon. We can never trust them again, they have betrayed us. It will be years before we have measured the impact, and it might never happen if DFO and the CFIA take the samples Dr. Miller is storing. She is trying to stand by our fish. I am sure she does not need this abuse, she is a scientific star, I am sure labs are trying to lure her away. But for now she is trying to decipher what is going on with out fish. She can screen for 30 pathogens in 200 fish/day. Her lab is an extremely powerful tool.
Dr. Kibenge survived the attempts to discredit his lab, his university stood by him. Dr. Nylund remains willing to test our fish and thus we have everything we need to move forward. I feel it is time to build. Salmon farms have to get away from our fish. They are beyond control, bringing the ruthless pressures of international trade into direct conflict with wild salmon and BC communities. I don't know exactly when government lost control of them, but no one has been telling us the whole story. If our wild salmon have been contaminated, we have to give them the chance to sort this out. Remarkably, as all this was unfolding the farm salmon market has been collapsing - because they made another big mistake - they over-stocked themselves, worldwide. Turns out we all need the same thing - less farm salmon.
It's time to move forward.
