And on it goes…
The Tyee (BC independent news) is reporting today:
Hearings scheduled for early September have now been forced back to late October because it appears the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can’t get their poop together and are delaying document release.
“We need to review tens of thousands of documents, and the federal government is disclosing those to us, but we don’t have all the documents yet,” … “For example, we’re waiting for over 200,000 emails that we’ve identified need to be disclosed, and that’s coming, but it’ll probably take several months for the government to review and disclose them.”
Suggests the PR firm owner who is the spokesperson for the Commission. Yet, ‘public’ hearings will be held province-wide in September.
Would members of the public not want to have an opportunity to comment on the hearings and documents, reports, etc. released by DFO?
Justice Cohen is supposed to deliver an interim report this coming month (August) and remember this Commission is supposed to be signed, sealed, and delivered by May 2011.
_ _ _ _
The article also suggests that the Panel is now potentially adding another panel member after Brian Riddell resigned last week:
While Shore says it’s not a question of replacing Riddell, the commission is looking into adding a panelist that has some “traditional fisheries ecology experience.”
“When we held the opening hearings in June, some of the participants, notably First Nations groups, suggested to us that it might be useful to bring in someone to our science advisors that has [that experience], so we’re investigating that right now,” Shore said.
I tend to be someone who calls it, as I see it…
Is not hiring one “traditional fisheries expert” a good example of “tokenism”?
The Cohen Commission now has five “eminent fisheries experts” (a few of which still have potential conflict of interest implications or at least of optics of such and could also be called as witnesses); and now there’s the potential opportunity for one traditional fisheries expert… hmmm…
Why not a panel of “eminent” traditional fisheries experts?
Especially when in Canadian law, and as part of the Canadian Constitution (Section 35, if I remember correctly), First Nations people have first right to salmon for food, social, and ceremonial purposes — after conservation needs have been met.
Plus last time I checked traditional knowledge is something that is handed down over generations — meaning hundreds of years, if not thousands.
How long has “fisheries science” been around?