Submitter: Priscilla Judd

Community: Lumby

Date Submitted: December 17, 2023

Summary:

Some participants have manipulated information to keep it out of the hands of other participants and out of public view. The commission should explain the options for redress of contemptible behaviour by those who sought to prevent this inquiry from finding fault or stumbling upon it.

Submission:

“improving the future sustainability of the sockeye salmon fishery in the Fraser River” is one outcome sought under Terms of Reference for this Inquiry. It’s an interesting statement since the Inquiry was struck when Fraser River fisheries management was not sustainable. Fisheries were closed for three years and millions of Sockeye didn’t return in 2009.



After that, we saw a fabulous Sockeye return in 2010, everyone was elated. Defenders of wild salmon were attacked for their suspicion of fish farm disease and pollution. DFO did everything they could to advertise their defense of Fish Farms in the wild salmon migration route.



Now, after reviewing the new fish farm disease information and what looks like an attempt by DFO to suppress disease information, one might suspect that DFO facilitated fish farms operations to hasten the extinction of the wild salmon fishery. Why would they do that? Even as I write this, fish farms poop, disease, pestilences and dirty water continues to be released into wild salmon migration routes.



The Terms of Reference, direct the Commissioner to: “conduct the Inquiry without seeking to find fault on the part of any individual, community or organization” but there is no reference to consequences of stumbling over fault without seeking it.



I can’t help but notice that some participants have manipulated information to keep it out of the hands of other participants and out of public view. There is evidence of lies, deception, publicity campaigns to distribute false information. Contemptible actions. Meanwhile, the largest stakeholder in “conservation of the sockeye salmon stock” are the salmon themselves and they have no personal voice at the inquiry. DFO does not represent the interests of nature.



The Commission has encouraged and succeeded in establishing broad cooperation among some stakeholders – but other stakeholders have not been co-operative. Clearly, the above transgressions by DFO and Salmon Farms belong to the rule of law in matters of Commission Procedure and not to findings on “improving the future sustainability of the sockeye salmon fishery in the Fraser River”.



So, I am hoping the Commission Lawyers will make a statement for the largest stakeholder group – the living breathing citizens of this planet, explaining the various options for redress on Contemptible behavior by those who sought to prevent this Inquiry from finding fault or stumbling upon it.