Today I had the distinct pleasure of meeting with a large group of individuals concerned about the plight of our Pacific wild salmon stocks. They included Alexandra Morton, who many will know from the documentary Salmon Confidential, Stan Porboszcz from Watershed Watch, Karen Wristen from Living Oceans Society, Sabra Woodworth from Salmon Are Sacred, Eddie Gardner from the Skwah First Nation, Jefferey Young from the David Suzuki Foundation, Torrance Coste from Wilderness Committee,  Dr. Jeff Matthews, president of Sea Shepherd Canada, Bonny Glambeck from Clayoquot Action, Joseph Martin from the Tla-o-qui-aht First nation council, and Dawn Morrison from the Indigenous Food System Network.

I was afforded the honour of introducing a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. I also introduced a second petition signed by more than 100 business organizations across the province who supported the individuals who signed the larger petition. The business organizations argued that they are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

Finally, in Question period I explored what steps (if any) government is taking to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms on sockeye salmon migration routes. Below I provide videos and text of my exchange with the Minister of Agriculture as well as my submission of the petitions.

I have made it a practice to always give government my initial question so I can get an informed response. I do not provide my supplementary question as it will depend on the Minister’s response. The Minister has promised me a more substantive answer to my questions in the coming weeks. I very much look forward to receiving the information.

Video of Question

Question

A. Weaver: The Cohen commission recommended that fish farms not be located on sockeye salmon migration routes, yet this week millions of sockeye fry will be migrating past fish farms in the Discovery Passage and Broughton Archipelago.

Scientific research has suggested a link between fish farm lice outbreaks and the spread of diseases like the piscine reovirus, salmonid alphavirus and the infectious salmon anemia virus The spread, obviously, of such diseases would have grave environmental, cultural and economic consequences for the province of British Columbia, let alone Canada.

Finally, a first in North America, the ‘Namgis Nation on northern Vancouver Island is farming Atlantic salmon at a land-based facility without posing any disease or sea lice threat to wild salmon.

To the Minister of Agriculture: what is the government doing to stop the expansion of open-pen fish farms in the ocean and to promote the creation of more operations like the one the ‘Namgis Nation operates?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. Our government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries, including an environmentally and economically sustainable aquaculture industry for the benefit of all British Columbians.

We place the health of all wild fisheries, including salmon, as paramount. That’s why the government works with our federal counterparts and aquaculture operators to monitor for diseases and is prepared to implement a prompt, coordinated and science-based response if necessary.

I want to remind the members opposite that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that the jurisdiction of licensing is that of the federal government and tenures is that of the provincial government.

The approval for licensing on the federal government side is quite high. They look for applications that can be rejected for anything to do with biotoxins, water quality, impacts to the environment, impacts to spawning areas, cumulative impact to fisheries and impact to navigable waters.

It’s also very high on the province’s role. We accept Land Act applications for new salmon aquaculture sites from companies that demonstrate world-class standards for resource sustainability.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for referring to the Supreme Court ruling, which in fact, actually, ensures that the province continues to retain jurisdiction over issuing land tenures that designate the area a fish farm will occupy.

Although section 8 of the Land Use Operational Policy for Aquaculture cites the provincial government’s sustainability principles as informing leasing decisions, current operating practices indicate these values are not being adequately applied.

Earlier this month the federal court ruled against an aquaculture licence condition that allowed diseased fish to be transferred into open-pen fish farms, and DFO — that’s federal, of course — has been given four months to fix this policy. Nevertheless, there remains provincial jurisdiction.

Given that we currently lack the regulations needed to verify the presence and control the spread of pathogens in farmed salmon, will the Minister of Agriculture today commit to stop granting new licences of occupation for this industry on sockeye salmon migration routes?

Answer

Hon. N. Letnick: Again, I have to repeat that the government is committed to the socially and ecologically responsible management of B.C. fisheries. That’s why we employ two of the outstanding experts in fish biology right here in British Columbia. That’s why we have the great lab in Abbotsford, to make sure we continue testing for fish diseases.

The federal government is conducting a surveillance program on ISA, as the member has said, and the status of three viruses on the west coast — ISA, IHN and PRV. So far all results were negative, no virus.

When we look at IHN, they tested a total of 1,300 B.C. wild salmon and trout for IHN in 2012-2013. Again, all were negative, no virus.

Sea lice are native to B.C. waters, like many other wild animals which have a population cycle trend. What they find is the more that come during one season, the more potential for sea lice in the following season.

Once again, we take very seriously our role in the provision of licensing and also in tenuring. We will continue to hold those values very high to make sure that our wild salmon are protected in British Columbia.

Postscript

On Thursday, May 28, the Minister of Agriculture rose in the house to clarify and correct a response he gave me above. I am very grateful to the Minister for correcting the record. Below is the text of his clarification.

Hon. N. Letnick: Yesterday during question period in an effort to condense my answer to a member’s question, I accidentally grouped PRV with ISA and IHN. I just want to make sure I put on the record the correct answer. What I would like to clarify to the House regarding PRV, or piscine reovirus, is that many reoviruses are viruses without a disease. To date PRV is common in B.C. farmed fish and some wild fish, but it’s not associated with any disease.

Indeed, published scientific evidence indicates that PRV predates the introduction of salmon farming to our province. Some scientists think PRV is the cause of heart and skeletal muscle inflammation, HSMI, a disease that affects farmed Atlantic salmon in Europe. Recent research shows that the type of PVR in Europe is different from the type of PRV in B.C. Lastly, HSMI does not occur in British Columbia.

Thank you for allowing me to clear up the record.

Video of Petition Submissions

Submission of First Petition Text

I would like to present a petition on this — probably the most irresponsible fiscal decision the government has ever made — day in the B.C. Legislature.

This is a petition by 108,848 people who are asking the government to please not issue licences of occupation to salmon farms trying to expand in British Columbia. The rationale for that I outlined in question period.

This petition very clearly identifies the wishes of British Columbians. This petition, I hope, is listened to by the government of British Columbia.

Submission of Second Petition Text

A. Weaver: I have a second petition.

Now this is a petition of over 100 business organizations across the province who are essentially supporting the 109,000 individuals who signed this. These business organizations are small business, umbrella organizations, environmental organizations, fly fishing organizations, river societies, sail societies— numerous societies across British Columbia.

They are asking that the following: we the undersigned are convinced by the published scientific evidence that open net salmon farms are a threat to B.C. wild pacific salmon.

If you look at the base of the B.C. marine ecosystem, you’ll find a funny little fish with a lot of names – eulachon, oulachon, oolichan, hooligan, ooligan, candlefish.  This species is critically important to the viability of numerous other species in our coastal waters, but has been quietly plummeting, with stocks down by ~98%. While economical, effective, and simple solutions to environmental crises may be few and far between, scientists in Oregon seem to have found an answer to the plight of the eulachon. The results are preliminary, but promising and word is spreading quickly through the fishing industry. To understand why this innovative research is so exciting and encouraging, we start near the bottom of the marine food chain with an examination of a fish of staggering importance.

Eulachon, a species of smelt that spawn in a limited number of rivers on the West Coast, spend most of their three-year life cycle in the marine environment where, much like herring, they play a pivotal role in sustaining the coastal food chain. As a forage fish, eulachon are a foundational species that feed hundreds of different types of animals. From salmon to marine birds, lingcod to killer whales, sea lions to eagles, nearly every marine animal in BC relies on forage fish as principal aspect of their diet.

Eulachon returning to spawn in the Columbia River. Photo by Sam Beebe, @sbeebe, CC-BY-2.0

Eulachon are vitally important to First Nations’ culture too; harvests are used for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. Eulachon’s high oil content has made them an incredibly valuable source of nutrients for coastal communities – it also means they’ll burn like a candle if lit on fire, which, logically enough, has earned them the name “candle fish.” For thousands of years, Coastal First Nations rendered eulachons into a grease, the health benefits and longevity of which made it a staple aspect of their diet. It was a coveted commodity traded between communities and carried in cedar boxes across well-trodden “grease trails” – the most famous of which stretches from Bella Coola to Quesnel.

Audry Duncan from the Haisla Nation setting up eulachon in a smoker. Photo by Sam Beebe, @sbeebe, CC-BY-2.0

Although there are still a few rivers, such as the Klinaklini and Kingcome that have strong runs, the eulachon population coast-wide in British Columbia is estimated to have declined by 98 per cent.

As a result, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada has listed the Fraser River eulachon population as endangered, the Central Pacific Coast population as endangered, and the Nass/Skeena Rivers population as a species of special concern.

Despite their ecological and cultural importance, there are significant knowledge gaps about eulachon’s basic biology, migration routes, and historical spawning patterns. Unlike salmon, which are studied extensively, eulachon have little direct commercial market value (none currently as the fishery is now closed – though at one point there were active eulachon fisheries on the Fraser, Nass, Skeena, Klinaklini, and Kingcome Rivers). Intrinsically and indirectly, of course, they are invaluable and feed countless other market species. Given the constrained level of scientific attention given to eulachon, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) says it is difficult to conclusively pin-point the cause of their population crash. Instead, their decline has been linked to a variety of activities, such as the marine transportation of oil, natural gas, and toxic chemicals, estuary alteration, shoreline development, industrial runoff, agricultural pollution, trawl fisheries, and forestry activity.

According to recent egg and larval surveys in the Fraser River, DFO reports eulachon abundance as being at an all-time low. Considering the diversity between localized pressures, however, DFO notes that it is “unlikely that such threats would explain the nearly synchronous coast-wide decline of eulachon that has occurred.” 

Though certain threats, it is worth noting, have been more pervasive and persistent. Many believe that the shrimp trawl fishery, for example, is responsible for much of the eulachon collapse. 

Eulachon are prone to getting caught in mid-water and bottom nets trawling for other species, like the ones used to harvest shrimp. Virtually every eulachon that hits the deck of a fishing vessel will die, according to DFO’s report, and another 60-70% of the fish who escape through the net will be killed as “collateral damage”. 

Monitoring indicates that in‐season eulachon bycatch estimates have decreased over time, dropping from 22,406 pounds in 2001 to 8,818 pounds in 2005, and less than 2,205 pounds since 2006. It is hard not to speculate, however, that the reason fewer eulachon are being caught in shrimp nets is because there are fewer of them around to begin with, as indicated by this DFO graph from 2007.

 Fraser eulachon spawning stock biomass from 1995 to 2007 estimated by egg and larval survey at Fraser sampling locations.  

A population dynamics model conducted by DFO for the Fraser river eulachon run indicated that even a small removal or increased mortality rate (5t of the weakest cycle line) would significantly impair any potential for recovery. “Given the large uncertainty regarding magnitude of threats to the Eulachon,” the report continued, “minimal allowable harm should be permitted at this time, and be reduced below current levels as much as possible.” 

DFO also says that “climate change effects may impact both the marine and freshwater habitats.” The exceptionally large and warm expanse of water currently stretching across the North Pacific Ocean is, unfortunately, making this look quite likely.  “Right now it’s super warm all the way across the Pacific to Japan,” said Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Newport, Ore. Not since records began has the region of the North Pacific Ocean been so warm for so long, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center reported. “The warm expanse has been characterized by sea surface temperatures as much as three degrees C (about 5.4 degrees F) higher than average, lasting for months, and appears on large- scale temperature maps as a red-orange mass of warm water many hundreds of miles across.” 

Image from Northwest Fisheries Science Center illustrating the expanse of warm water stretching across the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea.

The mistreatment of eulachon stocks in B.C. is an environmental and cultural tragedy, to say the least. Forage fish like herring and eulachon form a pillar that holds up the entire coastal ecosystem, yet for decades they have been hastily killed as bycatch and chucked overboard by the tonne, with little consideration for the consequences.

Yet all is not lost. Scientists in Oregon seem to have hit upon an effective and low-cost solution – they are lighting up the shrimp nets. Funded by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, researchers attached 10 green Lindgren-Pitman lights to the fishing line of each net. After 42 tows, the researchers found that the illuminated net caught 90% fewer eulachon than the regular trawl gear, but roughly the same amount of shrimp.

Image from NOAA, Left: A pink shrimp haul without the use of LED lights shows Eulachon bycatch. Right: The results of LED lights hung on the trawl lines. LEDs have significantly reduced bycatch of threatened Eulachon as well as other fish by showing where the fish can escape the net.

Specific light placement is key, though, as some variations actually increased bycatch levels. “The new technique was shown to be effective when the lights were placed four feet apart across the center third of the footrope, an area near the bottom of the trawl that keeps the net open as it moves through the water. Researchers caution shrimpers to not place the lights around the rigid-grate bycatch reduction device, or BRD, as it actually decreased the effectiveness of the BRD for eulachon,” the NOAA report reads.

Results were so dramatic, the researchers immediately encouraged all shrimpers to start testing the technique. Within two months nearly every vessel across the border was using the illuminated net method, reporting very large reduction in bycatch of  small demersal fish, but eulachon in particular.

When contacted to ask if the B.C. shrimping industry was planning on adopting a similar bycatch reduction strategy, DFO said they are waiting to see the published results from the Oregon studies but they have had “initial discussions with the B.C. trawl industry and they have expressed an interest in testing this technique. Further discussion is expected.”

Eulachon are of vital importance to the marine ecosystem on the West Coast, and to First Nations. Urgent action needs to be taken to help these stocks recover. And a good start might be as simple as switching on some underwater lights.

Banner Image: Eulachon habitat at Kitamaat Village beach. Photo by Sam Beebe, @sbeebe, CC-BY-2.0

The long-standing Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) policy to allow a Sac-Roe Fishery (SRF) harvest of herring eggs has always been incredibly wasteful and shortsighted. It is an industry that has triggered a cascading decline of economic, cultural and ecological well-being in B.C. The intensive reduction fishery started in the early 1930s and continued until all five major stocks collapsed in the late 1960s. Pacific herring populations recovered rapidly following a four year fishery closure but the species is prone to collapse and abundance has declined again recently, with little evidence of recovery. Using seine or purse nets to capture schools of pre-spawn herring, SRF boats can kill thousands of tonnes of fish in a matter of minutes. Of those huge catches, only the roe is removed for human consumption; the carcasses are treated as by-product and used to make feed tablets for fish farms, bait or put into garden fertilizers. As herring can spawn seven or eight times over their lifetime, this kill-fishery not only removes huge biomass from the overall herring population, but destroys their ability to reproduce in future years.

Herring captured in seine nets March 2015, photo by Ian McAllister

This fishery is systematically extirpating one of B.C.’s most important foundational and keystone species. Granted, there are many other wasteful industries in our country, but what makes this one so spectacularly so is the fact that there is a clear, effective, and sustainable alternative. It is not a new method of harvesting herring eggs, quite the opposite, it has been used along the B.C. coast for thousands of years. Herring bones that have been uncovered deep in the substrate of ancient village sites provides evidence of the long relationship between the first peoples of this coast and herring.

The Heiltsuk people today, like the countless generations before them, travel to the traditional herring spawning grounds in anticipation of the inshore herring migration. Heiltsuk families anchor logs and other flotation devices to the seabed and attach lines of hemlock branches or seaweed to them – essentially mimicking ideal herring spawn habitat. With luck, herring will see these branches and kelp fronds and choose them as a spawning location, after a few days multiple layers of eggs will coat the vegetation and the harvest can begin.

Spawn-on-kelp herring roe harvest. Kelp covered in eggs are pulled from the water on the central B.C. coast, photo by Ian McAllister

The Heiltsuk choose hemlock branches because of the needles’ flavour and medicinal benefits, but also because the natural resins provide a lot of sticky surface area for the eggs to attach themselves. Certain species of kelp are preferred over hemlock by some families, and spawn on kelp remains the main product used for export.

Hemlock branches coated with herring eggs, harvested near Bella Bella, B.C. Photo by Max Bakken

These days, as the world’s oceans are picked clean for human consumption, the words ‘sustainable fishery’ have lost their meaning. In contrast, this traditional fishery has a very small footprint. It also maximizes ecological and economic benefits as the herring get to live and continue to spawn for successive generations.

Compare this to the DFO industrial-scale kill fishery model and it becomes shameful that the Heiltsuk and other Nations have not been more supported for the long battle that they have been waging against DFO, ­ both in the courts and by active blockades on the herring grounds – to shut this unsustainable fishery down. Like the east-coast cod and so many other fisheries that have collapsed at the hands of DFO, herring stocks here are following the same path and hundreds of traditional spawning areas in the territory have gone silent.

Seine nets set to harvest herring on the B.C. central coast, photo by Ian McAllister

When the Heiltsuk fishers go out on the grounds they are bringing with them generations of experience and knowledge. The logic behind the SRF industry, however, hits a dead-end pretty quickly. One does not have to use much foresight to see that a fishery founded on the mass and unnecessary killing of future spawning populations is doomed to harvest itself into the ground. All of the hallmarks of hunter-overkill are evident with the herring fishery. More corporate control of the fishery, more technology being used with bigger boats and hi-tech sonars while the fish get smaller in size forcing more immature fish to be harvested. This not only destroys the fish with greatest lifetime spawning potential, it is not even profitable as immature fish (2-3 years old) have fragile stomach linings that burst before any roe can be harvested.

The DFO releases an annual ‘Pacific Herring Integrated Fisheries Management Plan’, which, on the surface, appears to be a comprehensive report. Reading ten years worth of these documents, however, only further convinced me that the DFO not only has a limited understanding of herring’s ecological importance, requirements, or how to safely manage them, they also don’t seem to care. Take this section of the 2004 report, for example: “At this time there is no information available on the appropriate conservation limits for the ecosystem as it pertains to the herring stocks”. It continues on to talk about harvest rates, and ends with: “Research is ongoing to better understand these ecosystem processes and the role herring plays in maintaining the integrity and functioning of the ecosystem.” This paragraph, on page two, appears sincere enough, a commitment to future herring research is definitely important. I then read the exact, word for word, statement in the 2013 report. Nine years later they have failed to do any of the conservation research they claimed to be working on, and they don’t even care enough to write a new excuse.

In 1996 conflicts between First Nations’ fishing practices and DFO’s regulations reached the Supreme Court of Canada when two Heiltsuk brothers, William and Donald Gladstone, were arrested for selling SOK. In what has become known as the Gladstone Commission, the Heiltsuk Nation argued their case and became the first Nation in Canada to be granted a court-affirmed, un-extinguished aboriginal right to commercially harvest and sell SOK. Unfortunately, this victory was not the end of the Heiltsuk Nation’s struggle with DFO. The SRF continued to kill thousands of tonnes of herring biomass every year resulting in extirpation of stocks throughout the territory.

In March, the Heiltsuk declared a tribal ban on commercial sac roe fishing in all of Area 7, including Spiller Channel, to preserve the region’s threatened herring stock. DFO opened the herring sac roe seine fishery in Spiller Channel shortly after.

“This action shows blatant disrespect of aboriginal rights by DFO and industry,” Chief Councillor Marilyn Slett told the CBC.

“DFO provided inconsistent and misleading communications throughout the day and did not attempt meaningful consultation,” said Slett.

“We must put conservation first. We have voluntarily suspended our community-owned commercial gillnet herring licenses for this season to allow stocks to rebuild, but DFO and industry are unwilling to follow suit,” said Kelly Brown, director of the Heiltsuk Integrated Resource Management Department.

In response to the situation, Fisheries and Oceans Canada told the CBC “We were committed to providing harvest opportunities where they were possible. A purse seine fishery did occur on March 22nd, yielding 690 tons of an available 800 tons. This fishery is now closed.”

The historical and ongoing treatment of herring by DFO is a tragedy. The constant theme underlying years of collapses and management failures is a complete disregard for the essential role these forage fish play in B.C.’s ecosystem and First Nations culture. Whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions, cod, salmon and sea birds all feed heavily on herring, making those small fish hugely important in the coastal ecosystem. This miraculous, mysterious species – which provides a foundation for so many – needs more support.

Banner Image: Shoreline waters change colour as the herring spawn begins in the Great Bear Rainforest, photo by Ian McAllister

After Question Period yesterday the premier participated in a media scrum. There she announced that the government made “a principled policy decision” regarding the direction that First Nations treaty negotiations would take. Today I rose in Question Period to ask the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation about building trust and respect within the Treaty process. I noted that this wasn’t consistent, in my view, with an apparent “principled policy decision” being announced in a media scrum after question period much to the surprise of key stakeholders.

As you will see from the exchange, I simply cannot fathom how Minister Rustad, a man known for his integrity, can continue to head up his portfolio when his ability to build trust and respect with First Nations has been undermined.

Most regrettably, the key message that this whole fiasco has sent to First Nations is that you cannot trust the word of the government. Sadly, this is a message that they have heard loud and clear for far too many decades. And here I thought that we were taking serious steps toward reconciliation.

Question

A. Weaver: Yesterday the Premier claimed that the government made “a principled policy decision” regarding the direction that First Nations treaty negotiations will take. I must admit that this is the first time I’ve heard of a principled policy decision being announced in a media scrum after question period.

Last month cabinet appointed Tom Happynook, the highly respected hereditary whaling chief of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, to the Treaty Commission. As the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation will know, trust and respect are two essential characteristics of relationship-building.

My question is this. Did the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation inform Mr. Happynook, prior to his appointment, that the government’s new direction would include no longer appointing George Abbott or anyone else as chief commissioner and potentially dismantling the entire Treaty Commission?

Answer

Hon. J. Rustad: Thank you to the member opposite for the question, although I really appreciate the note that you sent me. You’ve broken from your tradition of sending written questions to us. But that’s fine. I get how that can go.

I do want to thank the member, because Tom Happynook is an excellent individual, and we’re very honoured that he has accepted the appointment to the B.C. Treaty Commission office.

The B.C. Treaty Commission office is structured in that there needs to be four commissioners — two appointed by the summit, one by the federal government and one by the government of British Columbia — in order to be able to function.

Without those four people being in place, the Treaty Commission office cannot continue forward with the work. So I had discussions with Mr. Happynook about the appointment. I talked about the fact that we are thinking about the treaty process, and we’re excited about being able to work with nations and being able to find ways to be able to do things better. Mr. Happynook said that he would be excited to be part of the B.C. Treaty Commission process and the work that they will be undertaking.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: I would suggest that the minister call up Mr. Happynook, as I did yesterday, and ask the same question of him.

I’ve heard that the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation is a man of integrity. I’ve heard this not only from his constituents but also from First Nations. However, in order for a minister to be able to do his job, he must have the trust of the cabinet and the Premier. This is especially true for the portfolio of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, which comes with the added burden of historical B.C. governments dealing in bad faith with First Nations and with the complexity of navigating an intricate treaty process.

The events of the past few weeks have thrown into doubt whether this minister can speak with authority to First Nations, given the fact that the Premier is making major decisions that affect the foundation of his work, apparently without his knowledge.

To the minister: an honourable man of integrity as he is, how can he continue to head up this portfolio when his ability to build trust and respect with First Nations is being undermined by the Premier?

Answer

Thank you to the member opposite for the question. I have spent the last two years travelling around the province building relations with First Nations, nations that are in the treaty process, nations that are outside of the treaty process, nations that we already have treaties with. We continue to find ways to work with all nations on progressing with our relationship with First Nations.

I find it interesting that both nations that are in treaty and not in treaty have all said the same, similar things to me: “The process needs to be reviewed. We need to find ways to be able to improve things.” So I’ve been working very closely with all nations. We’ve been listening to them. We’ve had the All Chiefs meeting. We heard this message come forward.

Even with the wide range of groups that we have, there is one thing that is consistent. That is that First Nations want to see good things for their people. They want to see healthy and wealthy communities. They want to work with the province and the federal government on the relationships, and they want to be able to build a prosperous future. We plan to work with them as partners in doing that.

Seemingly out of nowhere, George Abbott, the highly respected former Liberal Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, was abruptly dumped last week from becoming chief commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission. In October, just six months earlier Abbott had accepted an invitation of Minister John Rustad to head up British Columbia’s Treaty negotiation process. He was supposed to begin next Wednesday when Sophie Pierre’s term expired on April 1st.

What is so bizarre about this recent turn of events is that both the federal government and the First Nation Summit had already approved Abbott’s appointment. In a strongly worded press release, the First Nations Summit blasted the government for their decision just days before the new commissioner was to start working:

Obviously it came as a shock to some of the Premier’s own cabinet ministers too. On March 20, Health Minister Terry Lake  was quoted in Kamloops This Week as stating he was surprised by the decision to dump Abbott. He was further quoted as saying “I understand he was being considered,”and “I haven’t been an intimate part of those discussions.”

What’s even more more unusual is that Minister Lake is also a member of the cabinet’s Priorities and Planning Committee, commonly referred to as the inner cabinet. This committee, chaired by the Premier, identifies the broad direction of government, including its priority policies and programs. If anyone in cabinet should know what is going on, it should be Minister Lake.

In a statement issued by government, John Rustad, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, commented on the rationale for suddenly no longer supporting Abbott.  “I have also heard from many First Nations that the treaty process, mandates and negotiations take far too long and they are looking for a better way.”

An obvious question is which First Nations is the Minister referring to. And when did Minister Rustad start hearing from them?

But it doesn’t end there. In response to questions in the legislature on Monday, Minister Rustad stated:

“We said last September in the all chiefs meeting that we wanted to find a new path. We wanted to look at new ways to work with First Nations. We were at a signpost in the road, and we had a choice as to the path that we could take. Over the last number of months we’ve been thinking about our relationships with Nations, how we can work with First Nations differently. We’ve come to the realization that the B.C. treaty process has been very successful for the Nations that have made it through, but we need to be thinking about how we can revitalize it, how we can move forward.”

So if in fact the Minister was already thinking of a new path in September, why did he nominate Abbott to be the commissioner in October? The logic is perplexing.

It might be argued that in light of the landmark Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court of Canada decision, the first to grant aboriginal title , the government decided to focus more on economic partnerships rather than the treaty process itself. In fact, Rustad alludes to this in a response during question period on Monday where he states:

“The Tsilhqot’in decision has set the stage for thinking about how we can do things different in the province of British Columbia and how we need to shape relationships.

But we have, over the last two years, signed close to 150 new agreements. We’re now up to 300 agreements between First Nations and the province of British Columbia, furthering that reconciliation — many of those new agreements just in the last year alone.”

But here again, why would Rustad approach George Abbott in October, more than three months after the June 26, 2014 Supreme Court decision?

Perhaps we should be looking to the real power brokers in the BC government — those working on the LNG file. These are the members of the Cabinet Working Group on Liquified Natural Gas. This committee is chaired by Premier Clark with Minister Coleman serving as Vice Chair. Ministers Bennett, de Jong and Polak also serve on the committee.

We know that this government is  desperate to fulfill its irresponsible, and unfounded election promise of hope, wrapped in hyperbole, for wealth and prosperity for all British Columbians from a hypothetical LNG industry that may or may not materialize sometime in the future.  Perhaps the government is desperate to provide industry certainty by focusing on economic and  resource negotiations instead of treaty negotiations with First Nations. If this is indeed the case, you certainly wouldn’t need a highly respected, efficient and thoughtful deal-maker in the form of George Abbott to distract from the governments goals.  And so, George Abbott gets thrown under the bus with no consultation and despite the protestations of the First Nations Summit.

This fiasco makes one thing clear to me. John Rustad should resign.

He does not have the confidence of the upper echelons of the government or he would not have recommended then withdrew support for George Abbott. He does not have the confidence of the First Nation Summit who were blindsided by the last minute decision. And he does not have the confidence of the opposition in the legislature. Most regrettably, the message that this whole fiasco sends to First Nations is that you cannot trust the word of the government. Sadly, this is a message that they have heard loud and clear for far too many decades. And here I thought that we were taking serious steps toward reconciliation.