I've worked on salmon farming issues for almost 16 years for Watershed Watch. I believe this case study illustrates an unreported suppression of science by DFO to protect the salmon farming industry at the risk of wild salmon. My written submission includes evidence, e-links and context. It can be found on watershedwatch.ca.
In 2012, the independent Cohen commission made strong recommendations and reversed the burden of proof onto DFO to show that salmon farms are a minimal risk. To paraphrase recommendations 18 and 19, they concluded that salmon farms in the Discovery Islands may be a risk to wild sockeye salmon. Unless DFO can show they are of minimal risk, they should be removed by September 30, 2020, or sooner, if evidence arises. I was on the steering committee of the first five CSAS risk assessments.
Did DFO change the risk assessment plan midway to avoid inconvenient science? There are at least two DFO website references that state that more than nine risk assessments were planned. When DFO, including Jay Parsons, held a press conference on September 28, 2020, to reveal their evidence of minimal risk, we learned there were only nine risk assessments. Assessments on sea lice and cumulative effects weren't done. Did DFO change the plan?
In July 2015, DFO's Dr. Jones and Dr. Garver began lab studies on the effects of salmon lice on sockeye and the cumulative interactions with IHN virus. This research was published in science journals in 2019. The two studies made conclusions pertinent to Cohen's recommendations 18 and 19. They found that “infection with L. salmonis caused a profound physiological impact to Sockeye Salmon”. They also concluded “that the reduced survival in co-infected sockeye salmon resulted from the osmoregulatory consequences of the sea lice infections which were amplified due to infection with IHNV”.
DFO appears to obfuscate and cherry-pick science and misdirect Canadians and news media away from inconvenient science and precautionary action. When you go to the DFO media release of September 28, 2020, then to the link entitled “Work to support recommendation 19” and then to “Scientific research on sea lice”, logically this would be the place to objectively and transparently list all the research to conclude that sea lice are of minimal risk.
Let's look at that link closely. Look at the “Sea lice on wild salmon” section. This appears to link to DFO research projects, but no external studies are listed. One paragraph in the “Sea lice on wild salmon” section generally encompasses a sockeye and sea lice research project. However, it talks about it as if it is still in progress. No findings are included in the paragraph. When you click on the research abstract link under this sockeye project that appears to be still in progress, it goes to the wrong project. The correct DFO link describes a completed 2010 project and findings of significant negative impacts on pink, chum and sockeye from sea lice.
An ATIP includes a January 2017 statement from DFO's Dr. Ian Keith to Adrienne Paylor. How can DFO science not share with their health management counterparts that they have data including that sockeye are the most susceptible species of Pacific salmon?
Another ATIP from October 1, 2020 includes questions from a Canadian news reporter to DFO and includes Timothy Sargent. They ask to see the information DFO relied on to conclude that sea lice are of minimal risk. DFO responds to this question with two e-links, and neither direct the reporter to the Jones and Garver sea lice, IHN virus and sockeye research.
Is this not obfuscation, cherry-picking and misdirection by some in DFO at the expense of precautionary action to conserve wild salmon?
Thank you very much, committee.