top of page

DFO has consistently demonstrated behaviour that erodes the public’s trust

In the transition planning process, one of the stated objectives is 'trust and transparency', aiming for 'improved trust, transparency, and clarity of regulatory goals and actions.' The very fact that rebuilding trust and transparency is a stated objective indicates that DFO recognizes its previous failures.

​

DFO has a track record of ignoring orders of the Federal Courts, recommendations from a judicial inquiry, the Auditor General, Canada’s Chief Science Advisor, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans (FOPO), and peer-reviewed science:

2012

Cohen Commission concludes that DFO should not have dual mandate to promote and police the aquaculture industry.

2015

Federal Court rules DFO’s conduct over the regulation of the aquaculture industry unlawful and unreasonable.

2018

The Commissioner for the Environment and Sustainable Development concludes DFO prioritizes industry over protecting wild fish.

 

The Independent Panel on Aquaculture Science concludes DFO science is not objective. Recommends establishing an External Advisory Committee and appointing a Departmental Science Advisor to address issues of bias.​​​

​

Federal Court finds DFO does not exercise regulatory control over the stocking of fish farms.

2019

Federal Court finds DFO’s regulation of piscine orthoreovirus (PRV) unlawful for a second time.

2023

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans confirms crisis of trust in DFO. Recommends 13 different investigations into DFO’s regulation of aquaculture in BC.​​

​

Scientists from the Pacific Salmon Foundation, the University of British Columbia, the University of Toronto, Simon Fraser University, Dalhousie University, and University of California Davis, as well as a lawyer practicing environmental law, conclude that DFO’s aquaculture science does not meet international standards for scientific integrity. Recommends a National, independent fisheries-science body, with independent funding, that is entrenched in the decision-making process for fisheries decisions.​​​

2024

The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner open an investigation into conduct of
DFO officials within the Aquaculture Management Division.

Examples of DFO’s mismanagement of aquaculture and suppression of science in British Columbia include:

​

2011:

  • DFO suppresses first discovery of PRV in a British Columbia fish farm.

2016:

  • DFO suppresses evidence from Norwegian experts confirming that PRV from BC salmon farms causes disease.

2018:​

  • Dr. Kyle Garver, Research Scientist and Lead of DFO’s Virology Research Program in the Aquatic Animal Health Section, confirms under cross-examination that DFO lied in its risk assessments and advice to decision-makers when it claimed his research found no evidence that PRV causes disease in infected Chinook.

2022:

  • DFO’s framework for consultation on the Transition Plan does not identify removal of net-pens as a possible outcome and makes no reference to the Minister’s primary duty to protect and conserve fish.

2023:

  • DFO’s “What We Heard Report” on the consultation for the Transition Report did not report multiple criticisms of DFO’s consultation or adequately represent the criticisms First Nations and the public made regarding the industry.

  • DFO ignores all 13 out of the 48 recommendations from The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans relating to open-net pen salmon farms in BC.

bottom of page