By most standards it was a small headline.
But it got front page of Nov. 6's Globe and Mail.
"Harper launches judicial inquiry to save the salmon."
The Canadian Press also reported it would be a "no holds barred" inquiry into the failure of the sockeye salmon stock, after only 1.37 million fish returned to spawn in BC rivers this year. The Fisheries department, and salmon fishers, were expecting 10.5 million.
Something is dreadfully wrong.
And the federal government is doing the proper thing by calling for a full judicial inquiry; where witnesses will testify under oath under the same rules as a Court of Law.
So is it too late to ask for the same thing with respect to the East Coast fisheries?
Maybe not.
There are signs of cod inshore. There appears to be some rebuilding of the stock; but not as swiftly as wished for.
Yet 17 years after the government declared a moratorium on northern cod, there are still gaps in our collective knowledge about why the stocks collapsed.
The Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries has explored the issue many times in those years, calling witnesses from the fishing community, DFO and university scientists, to offer explanations for the demise of the cod.
While that process has provided some information, it has not given the kind of detail that could be gotten in a formal court-style proceeding, with a commissioner given the power to subpoena evidence.
What we needed then, and still need today, is what NDP Parliamentarian Peter Stouffer suggested to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans on Oct. 21, 1997.
Speaking to the chairman of the day, Newfoundland MP George Baker, Stouffer said, "I recommend to you, sir, that although you can't tell the government what to do, you can certainly advise them. That would be a judicial inquiry.
"In my opinion, a judicial inquiry is the only way that scientists from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, from the Department of the Environment, and from all other aspects of our society can come forward without job retribution or this gag order that they're under-in this so-called democracy we live in-and start laying the blame where it is."
It's still not too late to save the cod, or turbot, or American Plaice, or shrimp, or crab.
The East Coast fishing industry depends on all of these species for its wealth.
Most of these species are still being fished. And some of them are in trouble.
We never really figured out what happened to the cod, beyond narrowing it down to a broad range of possibilities - cold water, seals, overfishing, destructive gear, foreign fishing on the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks, and mismanagement by governments and bureaucrats.
But we have never had a "no holds barred" investigation into the what, when and why of decision making; or been given the inside story of trade deals made over fish quotas.
And now, we are just two weeks away from a federal government decision on a proposed NAFO amendment that some say could eliminate Canada's control over its own fisheries, and eradicate any chance for saving the stocks on the Nose and Tail of the continental shelf just beyond the 200-mile limit.
DFO managers, themselves, 17 years past the moratorium, still don't seem to fathom the complexity of the fishing industry, or its role as a sustainable creator of new wealth for now and the future.
The cod, turbot, American Plaice, shrimp and crab are just as important to the Canadian economy as sockeye salmon are to the West.
Everyone knows the salmon are in trouble because a simple mechanism called a counting fence gives accurate records on the numbers that are returning,
We don't have the benefit of that kind of information for other fish species. All we know is that cod stocks are poor, other species appear to be declining, and no one really has a full understanding of why.
Prime Minister Harper's decision for the sockeye salmon fishery proves that in the government's own eyes, a judicial inquiry is the only way to fill in the blanks.
The Packet
.jpg)
.jpg)
