KNIB home page [siteSEARCH]   ||   COD:  main page   1998_Report   correspondence     press     timeline

TIMELINE 1994-2005 of the COD STATUS REPORT for COSEWIC, and the PROCESS

-- rough overview, many details omitted. See other documents for detail --

1994: KNIB asked to write Cod Report (initially declines and suggests others, but Cosewic's repeated requests stress desire to have author who is 'not currently publishing on cod'). WWF offers a small honorarium.
    The Report had begun as an idea in Cosewic, put forth by Gary Blundell (who shortly after left WWF). A much later press article reported that DFO had accepted only on the condition that I be the author of the Status Report.
    The person who approached me on behalf of Cosewic was Joe Brazil, who in 1997 went along with the political pressure for a deferral. COSEWIC (Joe Brazil in person and Bob Campbell by mail) presents itself as a "scientific" and non-political committee, that Reports are published in Can Field Nat -- and a lot of CFN copies sent to me. It sounds like a simple decent rational process -- I'm given no indication of future pressure to keep the Jurisdiction (DFO) satisfied, nor any indication that Cosewic routinely breaks its own rules (changes Reports to fit decisions, doesn't keep minutes, doesn't document the changes between initial and 'finalised' Reports).

1995: One round of very hostile comments from local DFO St. John's (author at this point is still green enough to be surprised at the hostility). DFO refuses to supply info on certain methods, like otolith reading protocols and whether they are done blind (and to this day [20051204], never supplied) -- becomes evident that positions have been taken and process therefore is neither open nor (therefore) scientific.  Fish-and-Marine-Mammals subcommittee (F&MM SC) chair Bob Campbell frequently hints strongly at the importance of having DFO happy with Report (see his letter 4 Dec 1995 to me). (Author still a greenhorn and the penny doesn't drop about COSEWIC either).   Many drafts.
   About this time Gary Blundell quits WWF, and Sarah Climenhaga becomes the person I deal with at WWF.

1996: Indications in letters from F&MM SC Chair hint that there might be problems later. At my request WWF asks for, and gets, explicit reassurance from COSEWIC etc that the hints of delay (in 1996 correspondence) are not to be worried about, process on track to consider Cod at 1997 April meeting. COSEWIC's own chosen reviewers had highly praised Report, particularly remarking on sections dealing with political influence. DFO does not like it, but tactically waits beyond its own timeline to forward its comments. But F&MM SC chair indicates DFO not sending comments, needn't wait, asks for Report by deadline; it is sent but he has gone on holiday.

1996: Very positive comments on Report, from Cosewic's own chosen reviewers, including some giants in ichthyology.

1996, December 23: DFO date-stamps 16 pages of late, post-deadline, comments. After its alloted time to comment (under Cosewic rules) has expired, and just after F&MM SC chair has departed for a long holiday, DFO date-stamps its comments Dec. 23. Signed by W. Doubleday. This is two days before Christmas, neatly a day or so after the F&MM SC chair Bob Campbell at Cosewic left for an extended break (until the end of January) so the draft and the comments will sit unattended for six weeks.

1997: February 11th -- more than six weeks after the Report was sent and DFO's strategically late comments date-stamped -- a letter is dated and sent to me from Bob Campbell at Cosewic advising that the jurisdiction is not happy with the Report and another revision is required (evidently, in Cosewic the unwritten rule is that the Jurisdiction has to be happy).
    COSEWIC's F&MM SC chair doesn't enforce its timetable, doesn't tell DFO too bad because it missed its deadline -- turns out he is ex-DFO, worked for Bill Doubleday, who signed the 16 pages of late comments. Weeks elapse before he informs us of DFOs comments. He insists (against the rules, and without ever alerting us (me and WWF) that he will support DFO on a deferral once a "late" revision has been generated) on a revision (as opposed to a separate document responding to DFO's comments, which we offered) to take account of DFO's comments.
    All but one of the late comments were either self-contradictory or inane -- the one that applied addressed populations and, having already queried COSEWIC on the mandate, I was more than willing to make a small 'friendly' amendment in that regard (but then DFO changed its mind!).
   Thus, the illusion of lateness was engineered by DFO (with silence during their comment time and then after-deadline comments) & Cosewic (F&MM SC Bob Campbell insisting on indulging DFO despite their late comments, insists on a rewrite despite DFO's passed deadline; that makes the revision, technically, late).
   A Cosewic insider later commented to the Press: "I think there was a plan to make it late".  
   Only substantially after the illegitimate deferral  at the 1997 meeting did author (still green, beginning to get a bit brown) become willing to admit to Press caller that he was the author. Introduce Pauline Comeau and Canadian Geographic.
    (Why did I speak with the Press? I had successfully kept my identity as author quiet until the 1997 meeting. But Pauline Comeau from Canadian Geographic phoned me at home some time after that; I realised that if Cosewic and DFO were not playing even by their own rules, this was going very predictably nowhere if left to them. So I talked with Pauline. I had not yet at that time fully realised what a dangerous thing secrecy was.)

1997 April: Chair at the time (kudos to Erich Haber for insisting Cod be treated like any other species and bringing it to the meeting against the wishes of DFO who cite Fish/MarMam chair as also being reluctant to have the matter at the meeting -- no wonder they broke procedure and had him step down for the 1998 Cod discussions -- read the 1998 annual report of the general meeting).
    The engineered delay provides the desired excuse, and pressure from Cabinet makes members use it: senior bureaucratic levels complain to supervisors of provincial members & get them to vote to defer the matter for an entire year. Hearsay reports from BC people have Fed Environment Minister phoning BC counterparts to urge deferral because '~non canadian criteria* being used for canadian species~' (*but these "non-canadian" criteria came from an Environment Canada document!). Letter from W Rowat, also lobbying against Report, called interference by some COSEWIC members.  
    At the Cosewic meeting, Jake Rice, a senior DFO bureaucrat, astoundingly argues against the multiple-population model -- this is a 180-degree turnabout from Doubleday's recent insistence that multiple stocks must be recognised. He manages to get us all to think, skilfully because he technically avoided explicitly saying so, that a recent DFO workshop had concluded against the multiple-population model that the Report proposes for designation. Presumably not wanting to explain the inconsistency with Doubleday's letter, he says he hasn't seen Doubleday's letter. Shown the letter and asked "when did you guys change your mind?", he gives no answer (and the COSEWIC members let him get away with it: they do not take the cue from that non-answer that maybe all bets should now be off for the deferral. Those shenanigans would be impossible in a meeting that was properly minuted, or open; COSEWIC's procedures say a tape should be kept, but by way of explanation for not doing so they tell me this hasn't been done for years). Then, asked for a copy of the Workshop he refers to, oh, too bad, he didn't have a copy with him* .
    (* it takes 6 (six) months to get a copy of that Workshop's proceedings, and even giving it to me was probably a tactical error of DFO's because, golly gee who woulda thunkit, it turns out the workshop strongly supports, rather than opposes, the multiple-population structure for mgmt & obviously therefore designation basis. Who was the editor of the Workshop that supported multiple-population structure? ...none other than the same guy who argued against it. The Workshop becomes a cornerstone document in the Report. DFO still hates it, but heading up to the next meeting I'm told they refuse to discuss "the population question" with the Press; it's stated in advance that it's off-limits.)

1997 WWF (they had provided the small honorarium) was very upset about the deferral in 1997*.
    Sarah Climenhaga disgusted at the meeting, and soon quits WWF; second WWF staffer to leave during the Cod process.
    (*But see next year by which time something changed and they made only token complaint about the obvious political push for mildest possible designation. Reasons behind change of position open to conjecture (I asked, they made no serious attempt to explain)).

1998 (980204) I send latest draft of Report for April meeting (it remains the latest version and you can only get it here, for reasons explained below).
    Without warning Fish&MarineMammal SubCommittee Chair takes is upon himself to make extensive un-alerted un-authorised changes that change meanings and soften the Report, decides it needs another go-around through COSEWIC reviewers. Reviewers still very complimentary, though they comment on typos, broken sentences, etc. introduced by the 'editing'. But the changes did more than that, they changed meanings, softened meanings (many instances all going different distances but all in the same direction: downplaying of the seriousness of the situation).
    COSEWIC Chair (Erich Haber, the last that tried to play by the rules) apologises for the garblings and COSEWIC agrees to send out a letter to the members explaining the problem. The letter really doesn't properly explain the problem, so I send to all members the un-butchered version, with an explanatory cover letter indicating the extensiveness and incompetence of the unauthorised "edit".

1998: More comments on Report from Cosewic's own chosen reviewers; they comment on the garblings introduced by Cosewic's unethical, unauthorised, and sloppy editing, but remain very positive.

1998    Author is half a world away, but COSEWIC has no funds to bring him to the meeting, despite that WWF funds (and author time) were wasted the year before due to politicking of COSEWIC. It is plain that the author is unwelcome, is grudgingly told after long delay he can come as an observer. Canadian Geographic offers to cover cost of trip to the meeting, no strings attached, on the basis that on such an issue the author ought to be present (WWF meanwhile barely interested). Last year's DFO guy whose expertise on telling you the correct time in the wrong time zone is a no-show (oh, too bad, was looking forward to asking some questions).

1998    On the Saturday preceding the Cosewic meeting (begins Monday), Pauline Comeau's article "Put Cod on Endangered List" appears front page of Ottawa Citizen. It chronicles the mischief that COSEWIC and DFO have been up to with the Report, including COSEWIC's recent alterations of its substance; the article shows abundantly clearly that COSEWIC is not the pearly-white purely-scientific and completely-apolitical organisation it claims to be. The article follows an earlier few in Canadian Geographic that expose the seamy underside of COSEWIC.
    In my opinion, that article is what made it impossible for Cosewic to simply 'defer' the matter for a whole extra year. Thank you Pauline Comeau, excellent job done. A magazine did more environmental and civic good than WWF or any of the main-line 'enviro' organisations, who mostly show no interest at all; they are donation-mills.
    Also interesting is that in all the material exposed in about a dozen articles, there was not one correction, protest, or objection from COSEWIC or DFO. They probably knew about Canadian Geographic's careful fact-checking.

1998     The COSEWIC Meeting. But this time they have gotten Erich Haber out of the way as Chair -- he should be there, he is still Chair, but his comments in the Press with regard to the Cod Report ( he made the mistake of saying "in terms of content, it's as good as I've seen") are used as an excuse to push him aside for the Cod discussions. This is documented in Cosewic's own minutes of its AGM. The real reason for removing him is that he thinks they should follow procedure, treat Cod without regard to politics; that wish is obviously incompatible with the political will (or the political "won't").
   They have gotten a stand-in Chair (same guy later wrote he intended to have my Report 'finalized' so it would 'reflect' the decision they took -- and as a sometime academic I'm ashamed of these colleagues, because there are not just a few of them, who can't or won't see how fabricating evidence is fraudulent).
  I learn much later (COSEWIC 1998 AGM minutes) that he has held a "mini-workshop on extinction":

"III.3 Mini Workshop on Extinction Concepts and Criteria    
"David Green said that it was decided to conduct a mini-workshop on extinction as it was felt it might be a useful thing to think of the concepts of extinction in a different format so that when COSEWIC goes through its designations, we will be better prepared."

"David Green said [...] Opinions do change when species are discussed. Chairs play an important role because members don't always know about the biology of the species. Chairs help members to appreciate the biology of the species."

    "Help appreciate biology"? Yet he had little interest in having the Report Author enlighten the committee: within seconds he approves Chuck Dauphinee's interruption "point of order ... author [here] only to answer questions, ~we don't have time to explain our rules to him". Clearly, since it would be ridiculous for the Chair to claim greater familiarity with the subject than the Report Author, what he clearly meant by "appreciate" was to think how he wanted them to.
    When he opened the Cod discussions, he said "WE NOW turn to our last fish -- the main event."
    They got a bunch of 'rules' that appear out of nowhere to get Cod considered as just one homogeneous population even though explicit instructions in the Procedures manual to address populations not only if they exist, but even if there's an uproven reasonable possibility they exist, and COSEWIC has designated populations many times before. And there's much more than a reasonable possibility -- new genetics work is showing a strong likelihood, and Ted Ames' work in the Gulf of Maine has shown it from the pattern of fishery collapse there. But the fix is in. They designate on the basis (ridiculous) that all Cod are one population, and they say "vulnerable". Don McAllister, standing in SubCommittee Chair, a decent person, is quite troubled by all of this. He later tells me there had been a special meeting of a small number of people on the Monday, to determine how to handle Cod. Whether it was the same as the 'mini-workshop', I don't know.
    (A cleverness of the bureaucrats who run COSEWIC is that they have been very successful at getting academics to do the dirty work; be Chair, be Sub-Committee Chair, etc. The academics seem a bit green, as dryly commented by one affable DFO bureaucrat.)

1998 Cosewic states there are no impediments to releasing the Report. But they don't say it has been released, and they don't say it hasn't.
    Evidently COSEWIC has realised they will look silly if they release it, because it will be obvious that they ignored key information in making their Listing. Cosewic exercises a long series (months) of evasions, firstly avoiding admitting that it has not been released, using answers that seem to say no problem but technically mean something irrelevant like "no problem with my car". Surprisingly they keep this up for a while, though surely they must know once the jig is up, it's up. Was buying time important enough to pay for it with lost credibility?
    Once it's in the clear that they haven't released it, they invoke a series of excuses -- what they really want is to change it so nobody will notice they rode roughshod over the facts. David Green (Chair) insists they have the right to change it to make it fit what they decided. I counter no, that's a deception of the public as well as unfair to me in that my name should not be used to support their divergence from my advice, only for where they follow my advice. That doesn't mean they must follow any author's recommendations; it merely means that while they certainly can make their own decision, they can't just alter a Report to make it an alibi. Proper procedure would be to release something like a "variance statement" indicating what evidence in the Report they didn't accept, and why, or what extra evidence they had that was not in the Report---but they never do that.
    So, unable to get away with fudging the Report, they decided to suppress it. Their excuses over the years are childish, but revealing of an ethically-challenged membership and leadership.
    It turns out other Reports have been similarly suppressed when authors have refused to go along with improper changes, but COSEWIC won't say which (the lame excuse 'that it would violate authors' confidentiality' etc.). See below for how they made to keep on making improper changes.

1999: 640 scientists petition [http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/%7Eotto/LTR-ENG.htm] the Prime Minister, condemning the planned extent of political control over SARA and COSEWIC as "unacceptable". A good and well-reasoned petition, but ignored by Cabinet, and forgotten by some signatories.

(By the way, I didn't sign the petition, but would have; I didn't hear of it until much later.)

2002 SARA -- the Species at Risk Act -- is enacted. This lets politicians choose what species are at risk. Oh, doesn't it mean that? Okay, it means they can choose what to admit is at risk. They can leave off the List any species they don't want on it. This makes as much sense as a Good Weather Act, that lets politicians declare that it's not raining. It won't keep you dry, however.
    The other thing SARA gives politicians, as well as the control of the perception of what is/isn't endangered, is the means to control COSEWIC. They can make its rules, make rules about what goes into its Reports, and best of all they can appoint all its members (i.e. not appoint anyone who won't do as they're told -- as one COSEWIC member called it, "cosy-wick"). That lets them push away species before the public gets to hear about them.
    Control of Reports: COSEWIC wanted a way to control reports, to avoid the kind of problems I and others gave them when they tried to change them to fit political decisions; basically they wanted to legalise tampering with their own evidence*. After the enactment of SARA let the Minister stack Cosewic with members he liked, they got rid of the good rules they'd ignored, and made up new ones to say they could alter Reports; this is floated under the banner of 'living documents', and it means that now nobody can ever know what evidence COSEWIC was given in order to make an assessment; they can only see (posted on the SARA registry) a "status report" that contains only what COSEWIC wanted it to contain. To prevent authors like me from protesting that their work is improperly altered, they now (2003-2006---) make authors sign away both copyright and 'moral rights'.
    (*to try to legalise an improper activity like that is possible only so long as nobody protests. Laws that are "against the good morals"---and this refers to the broad secular sense of right and wrong that is both worldwide and deeply reflected in laws such as habeas corpus, not church-type morality---are readily tossed out by courts.)

2003 (May) Cosewic's re-assessent, based on an Update done to the 1998 Report. Who did it? Jeff Hutchings, who along with Dick Haedrich became a member of Cosewic. (Remember their great (yes, it was) paper in 1997, that chastised the government for "information control", in other words fudging data, intervening in papers and reports, and keeping things secret? But hey ... 'information control' also describes COSEWIC.) The standard canard to explain such participations is 'being realistic' or 'working for change from within'; but does any realist expect to solve the drug problem by joining the Cali cartel?
    Ironically, DFO had bridled at my citation of any work by Hutchings and Myers -- DFO even wrote (July 97 comments) "Myers and Hutchings ... are becoming widely known for their selective approach".
    Also, both Haedrich and Hutchings had signed a 1999 petition condemning as "unacceptable" the proposed political control of COSEWIC .
    What happened to make Hutchings acceptable to DFO (doubtful he could have been appointed without that)---and COSEWIC acceptable to Hutchings and Haedrich? Evidently, a peace was made. The only author of the 1997 paper to not join COSEWIC was Carl Walters.
    The 2003 Report goes only partway to the 1998 Report, which addressed populations at the finest scale for which there were data. The 2003 Report uses only 3 big areas, plus Arctic. Would Jeff explain why the 2003 Report didn't reference the 1998 Report? No. Despite the ridiculousness of it. Just gave the excuse "they didn't provide me with a copy". But could he claim not to know of it? No. Could he claim not to be able to contact me? No (we had been in e-mail contact and had met several times while he was preparing the Update). When confronted with the fact that other Updates routinely referenced the prior Reports, he just said "I wasn't aware of this" (20040428). What happened?
    It's obvious: for the same reasons COSEWIC wouldn't release the 98 Report*, Cosewic doesn't want anyone to know the 98 report exists. Would Jeff, that previous scourger of "information control", release the information about who was trying to control this particular information? No; despite many requests, he wouldn't. Missed his own point.
    (* thus breaking its own rules, but the Chair (Festa-Bianchet) said they were 'guidelines, not laws', i.e., made to be broken?)

2003 Somehow, the folks over at COSEWIC ran out of stamps. Or was it pencils, or envelopes. Dunno, but something. How do we know? Well, the Update report was done in May. Next, SARA (s.25) says:
    25. (1) When COSEWIC completes an assessment of the status of a wildlife species, it must provide the Minister and the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council with a copy of the assessment and the reasons for it. A copy of the assessment and the reasons must also be included in the public registry.
    And what does "when" mean? If it isn't specific, it means a reasonable time, like how long does it take to lick a stamp, make a copy, put it in an envelope, etc. It does not mean bury it under the birdbath and dig it up next winter. It does not mean tie it to the back of a buffalo and see when it comes back. It does not mean fiddle with it for a while and make some changes. It does not mean just sit on it to give a break to the guy who's the next step in the process.
    But that is exactly what they did. How can we tell? Okay, done in May 2003 (official records). Posted on SARA registry (SARA s.25 again) around Oct 25 2004. Sent "officially" to Minister -- hold your breath -- Jan 26, 2004. How in holy popcorn does it take 3 months longer to get it to the Minister? How is it reasonable under the Act that the Minister has to wait 3 months longer than John Q. Citizen? I was given a hint that the Minister actually had it earlier but sent it back asking for some changes, and also that it be submitted together with all the Assessments (in that batch). Why together? In fact the Minister must have changed his mind on that one because it was sent apparently on its own, one day after another batch.
    From early May 2003 to Jan 26 2004 is nearly 9 months. That is a ridiculously long time. It is accounted for by only 2 possibilities, or both: [1] the Minister simply asked his chosen appointees on Cosewic to slow this one down; or [2] Cosewic made a decision that was difficult to support from the Report, and some argument took place followed by editing and possibly negotiation. Item 2 would only be un-necessary if the author had correctly anticipated what DFO wanted Cosewic to do.

2004 Minister Anderson, in a feelgood speech Mar 03, lets slip a little "change" to the process. Despite SARA having given him so much control over the process, he wants a way to duck out of Cod -- at least that's all that makes sense. He shoves in a way to delay the process. He announced a surprise extra round of consultations on "costs and benefits" [C&B] of Listing. That blindsided the conservation community. These consultations were an unanticipated roadblock to Listing of endangered species under SARA. They are not provided for by SARA. One loophole in SARA is that the Minister has the power to refuse or accept, or refer an Assessment back to Cosewic. Given the loophole, all that's needed is an excuse, and these consultations are it. (Of course, they depend on another loophole, but that's another story.) Addressing C&B is pointless when you haven't yet got any notion of the kinds of plans that will follow a Listing (SARA s.39, 48, 66).

2004 The illegitimate DFO consultations. An information poster with white print on a black banner at the top:

(top of DFO poster, their filename "Species-at-Risk-(E&F).pdf")
    Where does it say to send your comments? Superficially, it looks like you are writing to SARA:

Look at that address: it looks like it belongs to SARA, and clearly meant to; but no, it's a DFO address. That is how they had it. Can anyone claim that was an innocent mistake?
    There's even a section "Who can I contact for moreinformation about SARA?" and for Cosewic, with SARA and Cosewic addresses. The presence of those addresses tends to support the illusion that these were "SARA" consultations, although they were not.
    The way the poster is set up, it's easy to miss the fact that DFO set up the consultations. In fact a common complaint was that there were no SARA or COSEWIC people there. But they were DFO hearings!
    The Cosewic Chair (Marco Festa-Bianchet) gave a talk at MUN in April 2005, and lamented the fact that in DFO's "consultations" COSEWIC was taking all the flak for the Listing issue. (Shoulda thought of that before playing ball*.) But he's an academic (U. Sherbrooke), and academics are generally no match for bureaucrats or lawyers. Cosewic is tactically so outclassed by DFO, you'd think the smart thing would be to catch on. You'd think he'd maybe counter the flak by pointing out exactly how deeply DFO was involved in the Assessment; but that'd be admitting he'd played ball too. Outclassed.

*COSEWIC and Cabinet didn't merely play ball with DFO bureaucrats' strategy to avert a Listing, but they got suckered. They went along without thinking it through. DFO's strategy was to make the Assessment cover such a large area that the heterogeneity within it would combine with the rigid Prohibitions in SARA to generate unworkability and objections. DFO's consultations could hardly have been effective had they not directed the public dissatisfaction away from themselves, which is why people at the "consultations" had very little idea how powerful DFO is within COSEWIC, and that the problematic Assessment reflected DFO's strategic decision!
    Simple adherence to principle and proper procedure would have kept COSEWIC out of trouble. Their willingness to overlook principle was what allowed them to be suckered.

    Speaking of tactics, I was chatting with a DFO person in June 2005 and he bemoaned the absence of SARA or COSEWIC people at the DFO consultations. (Though that probably worked for them too.) My simple reply was "of course not: not invited, not part of the plan". He couldn't remember how the consultations had been arranged to point the objections at SARA and COSEWIC, but he couldn't deny that it had worked out well for DFO (when you're the one that mismanaged the fishery, it's quite a feat to get all the fishermen to do what you want by getting them angry with SARA and COSEWIC). To argue against it having been engineered, he offered the defence that DFO wasn't nearly smart enough to engineer all this stuff. I can see the headline: "DFO staffer advances 'stupid but lucky' hypothesis". Well, he was a pleasant fellow, let him believe it if it makes him happy.

2005    DFO 'consultation' results kept secret        
    Their poster said: "A report outlining the results of these consultations will be prepared by the Newfoundland and Labrador Region and submitted to DFO Headquarters by the end of November."
    Despite that, repeated requests for a copy of these summaries has gained the reply that they have not yet been made public. More secrecy! Secrecy that provides the opportunity to alter, as Cosewic does with its Reports? What's the secret?
    William Randolph Hearst is credited with: "News is what somebody is trying to hide. Anything else is just advertising." Anderson tried to style the consultations as a part of democracy, and so has DFO, yet the results of the consultations were never released [until 20051205] despite a promise that I would be sent them as soon as they were released (it is now 2008 and I still haven't received them; clearly, they were never intended to be released, just to have that aura of destined for release). How is secrecy and manipulation of information consistent with democracy? How is it consistent with democracy to take your money and my money, then use it to pay someone todeceive, mislead and manipulate you and me?

2005    Letter (reproduced in Appendix 1 of letter 050603) to Prime Minister, pointing out the political risks in a potential (political) denial of Listing. The rationale for Listing of Cod, but with needed changes to Listing, is explained.
    Unsubstantive reply from DFO (reproduced in Appendix 2 of letter 050603) a couple of months later, ignoring all issues but one and dealing with that only by vacuous assertion.
    Letter 050603 to PM, explaining why DFO's reply leaves standing all the issues I raised, asking for action and a reply (I got neither, but the PM was out a few months later, some might say because he similarly showed unenthusiasm in other issues).

2005    House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO) holds hearings in Newfoundland. Their mandate* is to find out about the reasons for the collapse and for non-recovery so far. I am asked to give a presentation. I, Barbara Neis and Ram Myers address this question and we all say similar things.   

    Somehow the committee in its Report* includes a recommendation (#13) against a Listing under SARA. That was not in its declared mandate for this session. [38th Parliament, *Report 4 - Northern Cod: A Failure of Canadian Fisheries Management (Adopted by Committee on November 23, 2005; Presented to the House on November 25, 2005)]
      FOPO was told that the core feature that allowed the collapse was bureaucratic/political interference with or disregard of scientific information. For instance, in the last 3 years preceding the moratorium, bureaucrats/politicians added 278,000 tonnes to the quota, beyond what had been recommended on the basis of scientific assessment and the F[0.1] benchmark. Furthermore, the feature that allowed that kind of cavalier interference was the ability to control information and perception -- THEREFORE, the future of any agency for fisheries or resource management should include a clear accountability for each decision. Decisions cannot be made and defended on the basis of false or nonexistent or cherry-picked information, and those doing so must be held accountable. The Chair made notes of those points, but their report didn't mention any of that.

2005    (Nov. 28, in CBC interview by John Furlong)   Days later, and on the same day the Liberal Government falls (November 28, 2005) following a non-confidence vote in the Commons, Fisheries Minister Regan announces that Cabinet has decided not to List Cod under SARA. A search of the government Environment Canada website failed to show (Dec. 02) the press release or speaking notes covering that statement; it turns out the info is on the DFO web site, incorrectly because SARA comes under Environment.

(Nov. 28, in CBC interview by John Furlong, transcribed from CBC audio by KNIB with point numbering [#] and comments in italics) REGAN: First of all, I've been hearing, the government's been hearing very strongly from the liberal members of parliament for NL that we should not be listing the cod [1], and they've, and the second thing is, that the science indicates that while the populations are obviously down, they're not in danger of extinction [2], I think that's important, uh, scientists are certainly saying that they are at historic lows and they're not as abundant as they were. They're not dominant. But there still remain a lot of cod, and um, um, they're not, you know, it's not a situation where we think we have to list, [inaudible] appropriate to list [3]. [1] I.e. the decision was political, not scientific [2] Wrong: Cosewic is according to SARA the Government's best source of 'science' related to assessment of exctinction risk, and Cosewic's assessment said cod was at risk, therefore the Minister is incorrect in that statement. What he is most likely doing is using DFO 'science' to contradict Cosewic 'science'. Problem is they're both crooked on this topic, but that's formally Cabinet's responsibilityand they should fix it because they do have the information (cannot claim not to know). [3] 'not a situation where we think we have to list' -- this explains nothing. FURLONG: Now tell me, what would have been the consequence of having listed cod as an endangered species? REGAN: Well, ah, first of all its a statement that's very clear about your intention to protect it, but we already had made a lot of statements, and we really maintain our conservation approach to cod, but it would mean, for example, um, that, uh, if you caught cod as bycatch you wouldn't be able to sell it*, we couldn't, we could not give permits to allow you to sell cod if you caught it, that obviously would have a big impact on a lot of fisheries**, um, off of our east coast and would be a big concern. [*note: these consequences continue the scare tactics that are coaxed from the way SARA is written and interpreted. They bent SARA to stretch the 9-month timeline, so they certainly could amend or suspend (as indicated in the SARA Guide on the web) the SARA provisions that make Listings unworkable in fisheries. More pointedly, they could use the same approach that they have already used for the endangered wolf-fish that are incidentally caught, so why not do so? Because it would spoil a scare tactic used to generate opposition to the Listing. **Note also the concern specifically about being able to sell by-catch, as in the 'black-back flounder' fake fishery (it's a fishery that in some areas -- northern areas especially -- catches cod as bycatch but catches zero blackback flounder, and the allowed gear is more appropriate to a cod fishery, so it's a cod fishery masquerading as a blackback flounder fishery to let the Minister out of a previous promise to not open a commercial cod fishery unless there's a 'food fishery' first.)] FURLONG: How does this augur for a favourable reply to the standing committee's recommendation, which is that a bay-by-bay commercial cod fishery return in some parts of Newfoundland? REGAN: That's a different matter entirely, my decisions in that regard rely on the advice of our scientists, which as been not to open a commercial fishery for instance on the northeast coast but, clearly, if the stock indications change, and the advice changes, so would the decision. FURLONG: What's the latest thing that your scientists are telling you about the state of cod recovery REGAN: well there's no question that I hear from people from NL, particularly our Liberal Members of Parliament, but as well from the scientists, that they do see populations in the bays, for example, but not in the broader areas that are outside the bays, and that remains a concern, I mean it's encouraging to see the numbers we're seeing inshore in some areas , but, er, we'd be anxious to see that increase and spread. [note reference to Liberal MPs again.]

Why was it a mistake to refuse to List Cod?
[i]   It relied (Regan cited) on consequential inconveniences resulting from the poor way SARA was written (notably the Prohibitions) -- if those were problems, then SARA should be fixed, instead of refusing to List species that SARA was intended (this is the claim, at least) to protect.
[ii]   Many of the objections resulted from the fact that Cosewic's re-assessment (2003) lumped together populations from northern Labrador to the southern Grand Banks -- inshore and offshore. But there is much difference amongst inshore and offshore, and likely amongst "Bay stocks" that very likely represent populations that should have been separately listed. Certainly, inshore and offshore should have been separately assessed, and probably there should have been separate assessments within each of those. OR, SARA should have been written in a way that allowed each population to be managed, with or withour fishery as appropriate, even within a Listed umbrella unit (e.g., although USFW recognises ESUs (Evolutionarily Signficant Units) for salmon in the Columbia River system, they also acknowledge that much smaller scale population complexity exists and that small population units are neither interchangeable nor expendable, i.e. if lost they will not be restorable within several human generations. The ESU system is not intended to sanction writing off those population elements. [RW pers comm Dec 2005]). But the Cosewic Assessments of Cod do not mention what should be done within their 'populations', and Cosewic's use of ESUs looks more like an excuse to lump populations together as tactically desired by DFO in order to defeat the entire process.
    Fundamentally, the denial of Listing was a decision that began with bureaucrats, who created the circumstances (bitter pill) in which a Listing would be as problematic as possible (via [a] the way SARA was written, then via [b] COSEWIC's Lumped-Together assessment) to as many people as possible. The taste of that bitter pill was harvested via [c] the bogus 'consultations', and by Liberal MPs who fed it to the Minister who then had the excuse that bureaucrats needed him to have, and tried to get him via the 'consultations'. The FOPO visit only gave an additional opportunity to harvest discontent, and to me it remains a question why they made a recommendation on Listing when it was not in the stated mandate.
[iii]    An opportunity was lost to declare cod endangered in the offshore (and its unlikely many would disagree that was a fair assessment) and to use that as ammunition to force reforms in, or elimination of, foreign overfishing. Government at provincial and federal levels knew of this opportunity.
[iv]    The decision to not list was what had been fought for by DFO bureaucrats using shifty tactics over years. There are many good DFO scientists whose work was ignored leading up to the collapse. For instance, in the last 3 years preceding the moratorium, bureaucrats/politicians added 278,000 tonnes to the quota, beyond what had been recommended on the basis of scientific assessment and the F[0.1] benchmark. Bureaucrats evidently feel that a Listing would cause a light to shine on what their role was, and how management needs to change.

2006, Jan. 23: Liberals voted out, probably because other things* went as far out of control as Cod did, because there was too little evidence of sincerity, accountability and good management. (*Notably Sponsorship, a much smaller potato than Cod (cost much less than Cod in real terms); the long gun registry's ten-thousand-percent cost over-run; etc.)

...