alexandra morton

Day Five - was the transfer of Atlantic salmon into Swanson farm lawful?

Paul Seaman, lawyer for 'Namgis, challenged DFO's granting of a licence to Marine Harvest to transfer 1,000,000 Atlantic salmon from the Ocean Falls hatchery into the Swanson Island salmon farm sited in 'Namgis territory on the basis that DFO did not test for piscine orthoreovirus (PRV), and that the nation was not consulted despite the clear risk of harm associated with this transfer.

The 'Namgis tried to get an injunction against this transfer and while the court did not grant the injunction, Justice Mason did find evidence of serious and irreparable harm to the rights of 'Namgis.  Why, you might ask did the court allow the transfer?  Apparently only because the injunction was filed too close to the time that the smolts had to leave the hatchery.  Once farm salmon are prepped for transfer into saltwater, they have to be moved over a very short window of time or they can never enter saltwater throughout their life.

However, DFO and Marine Harvest were aware five months earlier that 'Namgis did not want the Swanson Island salmon farm restocked. 'Namgis members were occupying the farm and while council could not be a part of the occupation, they were informing all parties including the Province of BC, that they had very serious concerns with the transfer. They were clear that the Swanson Island salmon farm was a serious risk of impact to their title and rights, including their constitutionally protected right to fish. Wild salmon in 'Namgis territory have collapsed since the arrival of salmon farms, despite self-imposed fishing restrictions.  They communicated very strongly that the disease risk posed by 1,000,000 Atlantic salmon was too great given the ongoing decline in their fish since arrival of the industry.

'Namgis wrote to the then Minister of Dominic LeBlanc, recently convicted of a conflict of interest with another fishery and shuffled out of the position, that this transfer was unconstitutional and requested a meeting. They were ignored.

Marine Harvest claimed that the fish had been tested for PRV and were not infected, but when 'Namgis asked for further details about the tests Marine Harvest would not provide the data.  Apparently this information could not be shared as it was "sensitive information."  This does beg the question how is a disease-free status threatening to the company, shouldn't it be something they are proud of? Or are they afraid other nations will demand the same information?

In Marine Harvest's application to DFO for the transfer licence, the facility manager stated "I hereby attest the stock show no sign of clinical disease."  However, the disease that PRV causes cannot be seen until 5-9 months after the fish enter the saltwater, and in the previous case on this issue that I won, Justice Rennie quashed the use of this language, for this reason i.e. that using lack of visual detection of clinical signs is not a valid test for whether the fish are infected with PRV.  I won this case and DFO still refuses to acknowledge this decision. This is a threat to democracy.

Marine Harvest's application to DFO for the licence to transfer these fish includes attestation that the fish were free of IHN, VHS, ISA and several other viruses, but it was silent on PRV.  So while the company told 'Namgis the fish were PRV-free, they would not put this information on their application to DFO.

'Namgis's expert witnesses Drs. Routledge, Krkosek and Kibenge provided evidence that if PRV is in the farm salmon now in the Swanson Island farm, the virus could spread up Knights Inlet and out into Blackfish Sound for a distance of 30 miles in each direction, and that the state of the wild salmon populations in and around 'Namgis territory were in such a fragile state that they have little capacity to thrive and no ability to absorb further stressors. They stated that the impact of this virus could be expected to have far reaching effect, even to further deprive the southern resident orca of salmon, as Chinook from Puget Sound and the Fraser River swim into and through this area.  This information comes from the head recovery tags.

The most troubling revelation by the 'Namgis lawyer was that these affidavits by scientists studying both PRV and the impact of salmon farms in 'Namgis territory were blocked by the lawyers for Canada from reaching the Minister of Fisheries.  

These affidavits set out the potential for serious harm and provided that factual basis that justice Manson concluded represented risk of irreparable harm. and this evidence of harm triggered the duty to consult as a claim or right was potentially threatened by the transfer of one million Atlantic salmon into 'Namgis territory.  However, there was not consultation.

Cermaq and MH are currently are trying to have these affidavits struck from the record.

Marine Harvest and Cermaq, you have a problem. It appears that you are trying to hide information from reaching the Minister of Fisheries, and that the lawyers for the Department of Justice may also have tried to hide this information from the Minister. 

Lawyer for Canada

The lawyer for Canada got up and for 1.5 hours took the judge to the letters between DFO and 'Namgis.  She was trying to make the point that there had been consultation with the 'Namgis.  In these letters 'Namgis repeatedly state that they do not want salmon farms in their territory, because they are concerned about the impact of this industry on the wild salmon not only in their territory, but also salmon that use their territory, including specifically the risk from PRV-infection from Atlantic salmon.  The validity of these concerns are written into the law in section 56 of the Fishery General Regulations as unlawful.

The judge listened patiently and then asked was there any opportunity for 'Namgis to meet with DFO in regards specifically to the Swanson Island. The answer no. 

Similarly to yesterday, these lawyers tried to make the argument that if there was a duty to consult that they had done so in the form of sending information to 'Namgis.  I can see why First Nation governments are hesitant to attend meetings or even respond to letters as any communication from them is construed as consultation. Surely this is not actually consultation, by any definition.

Marine Harvest

Marine Harvest's lawyer said it is unfair to ask for "mandamus" when 'Namgis have no evidence that the Swanson fish have PRV.  Of course, the 'Namgis are barred access to the Atlantic salmon in the Swanson fish farm, and in the Ocean Falls hatchery for testing.  I get this response from the industry on my research, that I have not tested the fish in the farms, when of course I am prohibited from doing so. However stay tuned on that front...

Marine Harvest asked for a minimum of 4 months to remove its fish from 'Namgis territory if the judge rules that the transfer was unlawful.

 

Day Four - Strike the science, no consultation, Bad Faith?

On Thursday, the lawyer for Canada argued that the Minister of Fisheries, North Vancouver MP Jonathon Wilkinson, is not acting in Bad Faith when he permits farm salmon infected with piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) to be transferred into fish farms in Namgis territory.

One of the lawyer's main points was that DFO is concerned about protecting wild salmon "conservation units" (large groups of salmon which if wiped out will not be able to be restored) and was using the precautionary principle to maintain them. 

It was really hard to hear him say this in a court to a judge knowing that bears in the Ahta and Kakwekian Rivers in the Broughton are currently starving for lack of salmon.  'Namgis councilors attending the hearing have heard from bear tour operators who are going into Broughton rivers daily. As well, I know that almost no young salmon came out of those rivers this spring, as I have done 18 years of counting sea lice on those fish. This year where there should have been 100,000s, there were only 10s. DFO's response has been to stop counting salmon in these rivers. No data, no problem.  The Broughton conservation unit is going extinct and a group of us have been studying and publishing on the impact of salmon farms on these salmon. They are being eaten to death by sea lice from salmon farms and 45% of them are infected with a Norwegian strain of piscine reovirus.

Today, 3 1/2 year old J50 was officially counted as dead, her whole family and all her relatives starving towards extinction for lack of Chinook salmon.  This is not evidence of health salmon runs, this is what extinction looks like.

The 'Namgis and myself, would not be in court if DFO was in reality protecting wild salmon of this coast.

Then he moved on to "Duty to Consult."  Should the Minister of Fisheries have to consult with First Nations about the transfer of Atlantic salmon into their territories?  He said "no." This was an operational decision and besides they met with the 'Namgis in 2012 and they have a long history of working together.  He said DFO gave the 'Namgis lots of information at that meeting, and that was the consultation.  And besides, there is no adverse impact from PRV-infected farm salmon because it has been "shown not to cause disease so there is no duty to consult." 

Wow. All through this hearing DFO and industry act as if only one set of science exists, the science which sort of says that PRV was injected into salmon and did not cause disease, only it didn't really say that, it said the fish got some lesions, but only on the inside, so somehow that didn't count as disease.  However, the research that reports PRV invades the red blood cells of Chinook salmon and causes the cells to rupture en masse, is completely ignored.  In fact DFO threw that paper under the bus, without giving the authors the opportunity to defend their work. Warning: if your science crosses DFO policy, expect your work to be discredited.

The audacity of this approach from government is troubling.  To actually stand in a court of law and say there is no adverse impact from PRV on Pacific salmon is how we are losing every valuable fish stock in Canada including the North Atlantic cod - ignore anything or one who has a different view.

The lawyer for Canada also criticized 'Namgis for not responding to all DFO's meeting requests, but can you blame them?  They walk in the door and bam the consultation box is ticked. See ya next time. Fish farming is good to go.

DFO said they wrote 'Namgis and told them they are doing more research to learn about the impact of PRV which clearly indicates that they don't know everything they need to know, but they even won't screen farm salmon for it before putting them into 'Namgis territory. What's up with that? Are they afraid of the data that says which farms are infected and thus which runs of wild salmon are being exposed. This would give us a better picture of the impact of PRV on wild salmon.

Regarding the question, did DFO act in Bad Faith, the lawyer for Canada said the allegations of bad faith should be struck from the record, 'Namgis have failed to provide the evidence.

Cermaq

Kevin O'Callahan, lawyer for Cermaq told the court he wanted most if not all the 'Namgis affidavits struck from the record.  All the evidence on the concerns about the harm PRV may have on wild salmon that the 'Namgis case depends on, from science experts, should not be allowed to be part of this decision.  In addition, Cermaq wants all the freedom of Information documents on how government scientists found the disease caused by PRV back in 2008, but never reported it, even publishing papers saying he had not seen the disease BC, struck from the record.

Then he took a run at all of the scientists who provided affidavits for the 'Namgis. Basically anyone who associates with me can't be trusted.  Of course that would have to also include all the scientific journals we are publishing in. 

I was surprised that he thought a judge would find this at all credible.  Almost every time this industry gets up in this court they slander me.  He told the judge that I personally pay the lab doing the tests for PRV, as if I was that wealthy.  Actually I raise funds through the Raincoast Research Society where a tax receipt is issued to donors.  Personally, I have lived without running water for the past 4 years, because doing this work leaves no time to make a proper living. 

Where are honour and truth?

Marine Harvest

Chris Watson, lawyer for Marine Harvest said he "stood on the shoulders" of the Cermaq lawyer and agreed the 'Namgis evidence should be struck, but he raised the stakes and said it should be an "all or nothing approach" and suggested the Marine Harvest evidence could be struck too, if the 'Namgis evidence was disposed of.

He wanted 'Namgis chief councilor and hereditary chief Don Svanvik's affidavit struck too.

'Namgis

Sean Jones, lawyer for 'Namgis got 30 minutes to respond to the day. 

He said:

DFO has the duty to consult with First Nations on the policy not to screen farm salmon for the virus because it is a decision that is separate from the licence. 

He pointed out the inconsistencies in what DFO is saying - that we don't need to consult, but if we are wrong and we DO need to consult, then we already did because we sent 'Namgis information on PRV bundled in with other stuff

Because there is an existing decision by the Federal Court (Morton vs Canada) that ruled that the precautionary Principle is triggered, there is a heightened burden that minister has to establish that the science has advanced since this decision to the point that there truly is no concern that PRV is harming wild salmon.

The court already found that not screen farm salmon for PRV before transferring them into Canadian waters is  unlawful. The Minister appealed this decision, then dropped his appeal and just ignored the court ruling.

'Namgis told Marine Harvest that they did not have their permission to restock the Swanson Island salmon farm, but Marine Harvest ignored them and did this.  Today, we hear arguments on whether the Minister of Fisheries should have had to consult with 'Namgis before restocking the farm.

 

In memory of little J50, I am sorry beyond words for what we are doing to your world. RIP little one.

Day Three - the virus that isn't what they say it is

Today the 'Namgis lawyer, Sean Jones, was up. It seems that they have chosen a good lawyer.

DFO has taken the position that PRV does not cause disease in BC and that it is natural to BC.

Sean Jones, lawyer for Namgis, presented evidence that the Minister of Fisheries is acting in bad faith when it comes to permitting PRV-infected farm salmon to enter 'Namgis territory.

At the outset he made it clear that 'Namgis were in agreement with the 2015 Morton vs Canada ruling that all farm salmon should be screened for PRV and subjected to section 56 of the Fisheries General Regulations which prohibits fish infected with a disease agent from being transferred into Canadian waters.

This is the ruling that the Minister does not acknowlege.

Sean Jones walked the court through an unbelievable sequence of events wherein the BC government scientist in charge assessing farm salmon health audits found salmon with the heart-wasting disease, HSMI,  back in 2008, but instead of reporting it, he discussed the finding with the salmon farming industry and together they decided it was not, HSMI. By international standards, all other countries would have called it HSMI.   HSMI is caused by piscine orthoreovirus (PRV)

Download Marty May 21 2016 HSMI.pdf (380.5K)</a>

In 2011, DFO scientist, Dr. Kristi Miller (DFO) was contacted by Creative Salmon and asked if she could help them figure out why Chinook salmon in their farms in Tla-o-qui-aht territory, Tofino area, were turning yellow and dying. Dr. Miller found they were infected with PRV. 

Sean Jones then provided evidence that the BC government veterinarian in charge of farm salmon health, advised Creative Salmon, not to allow her to publish this result. 

This is explosive evidence because as DFO and the salmon farming industry were telling anyone who will listen that PRV does not cause disease in BC, they appear to have known and suppressed information showing otherwise!  Seven years later Dr. Miller persisted and got the research published, showing that PRV is causing red blood cells in Chinook salmon to fill up with the virus and burst, en masse, causing jaundice and organ failure. Because this research was hidden, millions of infected farm salmon poured into pens throughout southern BC. The public were assured that PRV is so harmless government does not have to screen farm salmon for it. 

The Minister of Fisheries is relying on his "PRV Policy" to explain why he doesn't require PRV screening of farm salmon.  DFO claims that he reviewed this policy every time new work was published and got the same result every time.  PRV is harmless, there is no need to test farm salmon for it.

In 2017, a team of international scientists led by DFO scientists diagnosed the disease HSMI in a BC salmon farm in Okisollo Channel in the Discovery Islands (DiCicco et al 2017).  This was a problem because the Minister's PRV Policy relied on the belief that PRV does not cause the disease HSMI in BC, that somehow PRV is harmless to salmon in British Columbia.

However, instead of changing his Policy in response to this new finding and order screening of all farm salmon for PRV, the Minister moved the goal posts.  Now he says PRV is not killing enough fish.  He won't consider PRV a threat to wild salmon unless it kills an entire farm...  PRV generally doesn't kill farm salmon, it only weakens them until they can barely move.  A salmon in a farm can survive lying motionless for weeks in a pen surrounded by predator nets, but a wild salmon would be eaten quickly by a whale, eagle or sea lion.

Every time DFO is confronted with science and has the choice to err on the side of precaution, they choose to be reckless

There are scientists in DFO who are publishing research, sometimes with Marine Harvest, that suggests that PRV is natural and harmless in BC.  Sean Jones brought up some of these papers.

One stated that they had "ruled out" that PRV could have been imported into BC. Jones pointed out that this paper had been "corrected," the authors had to admit publicly in the journal they had "overstated" this result, they had not ruled out introduction of PRV from another country such as Norway. (Siah et al 2016)

In another paper, DFO injected Chinook salmon with PRV and reported there was no sign of disease, no jaundice, no HSMI and so the Pacific coast strain of PRV is not harmful to Pacific salmon (Garver et al 2017).  

However, when the lead author of this paper was examined by the 'Namgis legal team he admitted, that he did not examine the fish for disease in the time range that PRV is known to cause disease in other salmon. As well, 87% of the salmon injected with PRV had internal lesions that are considered a symptom of jaundice.  None of the control fish that had not received the injection had these lesions.

So DFO was relying on a study, that claimed to show no impact of PRV on Chinook salmon, but in fact did show impact on Chinook salmon.

There was a lot more of this type of information revealed.  Hopefully I can post the transcript in its entirety some day.  A lot of the material covered was from Freedom of Information requests that I have made.  It was good to hear this being brought to the attention of a judge, in front of 16 lawyers and members of the 'Namgis council. 

Then the lawyer for Canada got up to address the judge.

He said:

The 'Namgis policy on PRV (that they want to keep infected fish out of their territory) is "unreasonable"

"DFO has the science and the monitoring down"

"The DFO management regime provides comfort - it is not a free-for-all there are rules..."

"PRV is not of concern"

“In 30 years we know there has been no outbreak of disease we are on top of it,”

We will hear more from Canada tomorrow...

 

Day Two - The Inconvenient Virus

The Minister's lawyer said DFO's consideration of the health of wild salmon is implied in all decisions, but she couldn't produce any references to show that this is true. In desperation she grasped at the Wild Salmon Policy, which no DFO Minister has ever implemented.

Marine Harvest wants evidence provided by me suppressed and informs the judge that Alexandra Morton is "not a judge," the most bizarre thing Marine Harvest has done in a string of bizarre actions aimed at me. I feel confident the judge already knew I am not a judge. 

The Cermaq lawyer begged for time if the judge rules that farm salmon must be screened for PRV because it would significantly affect them, if PRV was considered a disease agent. 

What I don't understand is why is Marine Harvest and Cermaq are risking their last shred of public licence resisting a simple test to screen farm salmon for a virus that we are learning more about every few months?  They seem unreasonably frightened of our knowing anything about it and this is driving them towards unreasonable behaviour and putting government in a position of defending something that they clearly can't defend.  What seems to escape them is that non-government scientists are on this case and PRV is such an easy virus to study compared to ISA virus, for example, that information is coming in rapidly.  They can't hide from this and I don't know what makes them think that they can.

 

We heard from the DFO lawyer Lisa Nevens for most of the day.

Her main points were that DFO is protecting wild salmon and that piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) is pretty harmless. She did not mention the mythical BC Strain of PRV again today, but Marine Harvest more than made up for this.

Below are roughly some of what was said today in court.

Nevens (DFO lawyer): DFO's consideration of the impact on wild fish is simply "implied" in all decisions by DFO

The judge:  Does DFO only consider risk to an entire species, that's a very high bar. When DFO says PRV is "low risk" does DFO mean low risk to the extinction of an entire species?

Neven: The Minister doesn't go so high as species level,  but rather consider effect on Conservation Units of salmon

Judge: If a Conservation Unit [of salmon] goes, there is no possibility of it regenerating.

Nevens: The Minister isn't waiting for loss of a conservation unit of salmon, but rather the minister is looking for any signs of risk to Conservation Units..

The judge went on to ask for direct evidence that DFO is specifically considering the impact of PRV on wild salmon.

Nevens, lawyer for DFO was unable to produce that evidence. She seemed flustered, at one point glanced at the Marine Harvest lawyer raising her eyebrows in exasperation.  Court broke for lunch and afterwards Neven said the Minister of stands behind implementation of the Wild Salmon Policy. 

Next we heard from the Marine Harvest lawyer Chris Watson

Watson asks the judge not to accept an affidavit submitted by Ecojustice that contains material that we asked the Minister to consider prior to making his recent policy decision on whether to test farm salmon for PRV. The judge warned Watson not to spend too much time on this issue, but Watson continued and told a Federal Court judge that Alexandra Morton is not "judge" and so should not be expressing her opinion to the Minister of Fisheries.

It was a pretty surreal moment as I am pretty sure Justice Strickland knew I am not a judge.

Watson suggest the "BC Strain of PRV" of no concern, harmless, and there is no need to consider its impact on populations of Pacific salmon.

Then we heard from the Cermaq lawyer Kevin O'Callahan

He brings up the point that salmon enhancement hatcheries also need transfer permits and so any ruling on screening fish for PRV before transferring them into Canadian waters would apply to them also.  Good point and good idea. Surely no hatchery wants to plant fish carrying a disease agent into BC rivers.

He says PRV does not cause the risk that I suggest exists and therefore no one should have to test for PRV.

Then in closing the Cermaq lawyer asks that the court take into account the size of impact that a ruling that they have to screen for PRV and not transfer infected fish into the water would have on the Cermaq.

Tomorrow the hearing on the Namgis case begins - they do not want the Minister of Fisheries putting anymore PRV-infected farm salmon into their territory. It's going to be interesting.

 

Day One in Court - The Inconvenient Virus

Today was day one of the week-long hearing - two lawsuits to stop piscine orthoreovirus-infected farm salmon from entering BC waters.

Margot Venton from Ecojustice was first up today.  She is representing me.

I am challenging the Minister of Fisheries' policy not to test young farm salmon for piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) before issuing a permit for their transfer into marine salmon farms.  My concerns is the spread and effect of PRV from farm salmon on wild salmon, herring and other fish.

Remedy that I am seeking from the court is:

• a ruling that the DFO policy of not testing for PRV is unlawful,
• an order that the minister must test all farm salmon from PRV
• prohibition of transfer of infected fish into marine salmon farms where the virus pours out into contact wild salmon salmon.

Incredibly there are 35,000 pages of materials associated with this case!

Margot began with explaining how, in 2013, I learned that PRV-infected fish were going to be transferred into a Marine Harvest salmon farm. When I asked DFO if they were going to allow this, they responded, yes, that testing for PRV was not required.  I eventually took DFO and Marine Harvest to court and I won in 2015. The court ruled PRV is a concern and DFO should be testing farm salmon for it.

DFO and Marine Harvest appealed the decision, but dropped the appeal a few months later when DFO scientists published a paper reporting that PRV was causing the disease heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI) in a fish farm in Okisollo Channel.  This meant that PRV is a disease agent, and thus by law (section 56 of the Fishery General Regulations) DFO can not allow fish infected with this virus into the water.

While the Minister of Fisheries decided not to appeal the decision, based on science from within his own department, he refused obey the court and actually test farm salmon for PRV. As Margot pointed out "if the Minister did not want to accept the court’s ruling he should have not abandoned his appeal. What the Minister can’t do is walk away from the court's decision as if it didn’t occur"

Margot explained to Justice Cecily Y. Strickland, that the Minister of Fisheries has failed to consider the increasingly dire condition of stocks migrating past salmon farms. An alarming and growing number of wild salmon stocks are being "red-listed" as endangered with imminent extinction.  The Minister is not saying that PRV is harmless, he is saying that it is not killing enough wild fish, for him to test all farm salmon for the virus. Unfortunately no one in DFO is looking at the health of wild salmon exposed to salmon farms and by not testing for PRV, no one will ever know what effect it is having.

The Minister is using the health of the farm salmon as a proxy for the effect of the virus on wild fish.  The salmon farming industry is self-reporting low mortality due to PRV in the farms and so DFO's position is that there is no problem, the virus is not dangerous to salmon.

Margot pointed out that salmon in farms are protected from predators, fishing, many forms of pollution and life is easy, food drops from the sky.  So looking at the impact of PRV on farm salmon, doesn't inform us about the impact of PRV on wild salmon, where even the slightest weakness means increased threat from predators.

Margot likened the Minister's PRV Policy to a blunt force tool - unless an entire conservation unit is harmed by the virus, he is not going to order testing of farm salmon for the virus.

Next up was Lisa Nevens, lawyer for the Minister of Fisheries.

Nevens explained that the Minister of Fisheries has considered his PRV policy several times and every time he comes to the same conclusion -  no need to test.

Interestingly NevensShe brought up the BC strain of PRV

Nevens only just got started with her arguments. We will hear more from her tomorrow.  I will be interested to hear more about the "BC strain of PRV." This is a mysterious virus that no one has provided any information on.  I have had thousands of BC wild and farmed salmon tested, published two papers on the virus, with a third in the works and we have never seen it.  The two papers reporting on the impact of PRV in BC farm salmon and Chinook salmon report the same strain as I reported on first in 2013.

 

No one has entered the BC strain of PRV it into the international virus database Genbank, or told us what fish they found it in.

If there really is a strain of PRV that is natural to BC and harmless the salmon farmers might be able to avoid the consequences of laws of Canada.  So a lot is riding on proving the BC strain of PRV really exists.

To be continued...

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH to everyone who showed up in the pouring rain to let us know how important these lawsuits are!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nnnnnnnn

 

 

Lawsuit: Minister of Fisheries must uphold the law.

 

 

Piscine reovirus (PRV) is a threat to our coast, and to the salmon farming industry.  The industry indicates that they can't or won't survive in BC waters without it.  Either they need it to protect their fish from IHN, as recent research suggests or they simply can't get rid of it. It is highly contagious.

Over 80% of the BC salmon farming industry is infected with PRV. Washington State prohibited farm salmon infected with PRV from entering Puget Sound farms. The court ruled BC farm salmon must be screened for PRV prior to a permit being issued by the Minister of Fisheries to transfer fish from hatcheries to sea pens.

However the Minister of Fisheries refuses to acknowledge this Federal Court decision.

So I sued the Minister a second time and the Namgis have also sued the Minister of Fisheries.

My suit is based on Fishery General Regulation, section 56 which prohibits transfer of fish infected with a "disease agent" into Canadian waters

The Namgis sued the Minister of Fisheries and Marine Harvest to stop them from putting PRV-infected farm fish into their territory.

This is a critical moment in the future of salmon farming and wild salmon in British Columbia.

PRV is a disease agent.

Ultimately U.S. and Canadian wild salmon will be severely challenged to survive exposure to high levels of PRV in salmon farm waste plumes.  PRV is just what BC and federal fisheries scientists and staff warned us about when Atlantic salmon were first in demand by the industry.

1986 – “I trust that you and your staff fully appreciate that this question of the introduction of exotic races of salmonids into British Columbia is probably the most critical issue ever to face the maintenance of wild salmon stocks.” (Director, Dave Narver, BC Ministry of Environment to Bruch Hackett Assistant deputy Minister MAFF)

1990 – “Continued large- scale introductions from areas of the world including Washington State, Scotland, Norway and even eastern Canada would eventually result in the introduction of exotic disease agents of which the potential impact on both cultured and wild salmonids in B.C. could be both biologically damaging to the resources and economically devastating to its user groups.” DFO Director General, Pat Chamut to Director Pacific Rim & Trade, A. Sarnia

2003- Failure to provide permission for egg importation may trigger a trade challenge under the World Trade Organization...” Oct. 3, 2003 Briefing Note For The Director General

see more on the origins of salmon farms in BC

 

 I am in Federal Court September 10 - 14, represented by Ecojustice to try, once again, to enforce Canadian law

The Namgis, represented by Gowling WLG, are fighting to keep PRV-infected farm salmon out of their territory, a reasonable request as that is the law.

I will be posting updates on this blog daily as I hear the arguments from all sides.

Below are photographs for download and the documents associated with my lawsuit.

 

 Notice of Application filed in Federal Court:

Alexandra Morton challenges the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' (the "Minister") ongoing policy or practice of issuing fish-transfèr licences without first considering whether Piscine reovirus and Heart and Skeletal Muscle Inflammation ("HSMI") are present in the fish proposed for transfer (the "Illegal Policy"). The Illegal Policy is contrary to s. 56 of Fishery (General) Regulations (the "Regulations") and therefore unlawful. Section 56(b) requires that fish to be transferred do not have any disease or disease agent that may be harmful to the conservation and protection of fish.

Download 2016 10 12 - Notice of Application - Filed

 

Conflicting industry statements re PRV infection levels: 

• Publicly the salmon farming industry states that "The virus, he said, is rarely detected at hatcheries in B.C. and instead is contracted in the marine environment." (Shawn Hall spokesman for BC Salmon Farmers Association, The Star Vancouver
• In Marine Harvest Affidavits the company states: "PRV has been found in all but one of Marine Harvest's hatcheries." pg 197
• "I am informed by Dr. Diane Morrison, a veterinarian employed by Marine Harvest as its Director of Fish Health and Food Safety, that Marine Harvest has since 2010 tested thousands of samples of its fish for PRV and HSMI.  Dr. Morrison has informed me that PRV has been found in some of our hatcheries." pg 81
• "If the relief sought by Ms Morton is granted it will severely impact Marine Harvest - she attacks the legal basis for Marine Harvest's transfer of fish.  If the ITC's  [Introduction and Transfer Committee] decision or policy to allow fish with PRV to be transferred is successfully challenged [for a 2nd time], Marine Harvest's legal right to transfer fish with PRV to its marine sites and in between its marine sites will be undermined." pg 8

Download Marine Harvest Affidavits

 

It's the Law - Canada prohibits transfer of fish infected with a "disease agent" into Canadian waters

Licence to Release or Transfer Fish

56 The Minister may issue a licence if

• (a) the release or transfer of the fish would be in keeping with the proper management and control of fisheries;

• (b) the fish do not have any disease or disease agent that may be harmful to the protection and conservation of fish; and

• (c) the release or transfer of the fish will not have an adverse effect on the stock size of fish or the genetic characteristics of fish or fish stocks.

Section 56 (b) Fisheries General Regulations

 

2015 Rennie Decision I already won this case.

Page: 37 [99] In my view, the Minister’s argument cannot stand. For the reasons given, conditions 3.1(b)(ii) and (iv) are inconsistent with section 56(b) and thus with the precautionary principle.

Download T-789-13 - Judgment and Reasons

 

DiCicco et al 2018 DFO paper reporting PRV causes Chinook salmon cells to rupture causing organ failure

"...migratory Chinook salmon may be at more than a minimal risk of disease from exposure to the high levels of PRV occurring on salmon farms."

Download Di Cicco et al 2018

 

Morton et al 2017 - Wild salmon exposed to farm salmon become infected with PRV

"These results suggest that PRV transfer is occurring from farmed Atlantic salmon to wild Pacific salmon, that infection in farmed salmon may be influencing infection rates in wild salmon, and that this may pose a risk of reduced fitness in wild salmon impacting their survival and reproduction."

Download The Effect of Exposure to Farmed Salmon on PRV infection and Fitness in Wild Pacific Salmon in BC

 

Washington State denies permit for company to place 800,000 Atlantic salmon into Puget Sound net pens

"Citing the risk of fish disease transmission, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has denied permission for Cooke Aquaculture to transport 800,000 juvenile Atlantic salmon from its hatchery near Rochester to net pens at Rich Passage in Kitsap County."

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife NEWS RELEASE

 

Related news

The ‘Namgis, Kwikwasutinuxw Haxwa’mis and Mamalilikulla First Nations and the Province of British Columbia have executed a letter of understanding (LOU), formalizing ongoing talks regarding salmon aquaculture in the Broughton Area...The LOU takes effect immediately. The First Nations and British Columbia have begun the work necessary to implement the government-to-government process, and have 90 days to develop consensus recommendations.

Province of BC News Release

 Images

 

When disease infects intensively farmed Atlantic salmon, such as these, it spreads easily through the stock, amplifying the pathogen and into the wild. Photo by Karissa Glendale

 

Up to 45% of wild salmon exposed to salmon farms become infected with PRV.  Photo by Tavish Campbell

Alexandra Morton is an independent biologist with a first hand perspective on the impact of salmon farming.  Photo courtesy of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

 Indigenous women make final plea to Marine Harvest not to put any more farm salmon into Namgis territory. Photo by Alexandra Morton

First Nations taking a stand on the Marine Harvest, Swanson Island salmon farm, the subject of the Namgis lawsuit. The facility was occupied for 280 days to inform government and Marine Harvest to remove this salmon farm from Namgis territorial waters. Hereditary chief Ernest Alfred in forefront.  Photo courtesy of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society