I have become very concerned about the extent to which important aspects of the Cohen Commission are operating in secret. This is supposed to be a public inquiry.
To participate in the inquiry and get access to the Commission’s database of documents provided by Participants, I was required by the Commission to sign an Undertaking that I would not disclose those documents until they became part of the public record as an exhibit. I believed that was reasonable in respect of the database.
However, the Commission Counsel has now interpreted that Undertaking as applying not just to the database, but to all Applications, correspondence and legal material filed by Participants in proceedings before the Commission.
On April 13th 2011, I made a formal request to the Commission to be released from the undertaking on a limited basis so that I might report to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency information which I consider of urgent public interest, in respect of a very significant risk to wild salmon. On April 21, the Commission Counsel ruled on that Application. Under the Commission’s new rules, the outcome of my request to make a report I feel must be made to protect wild salmon is not supposed to be made public, and all Application material, including the submissions of the government and other participants are being kept secret from the public. Earlier applications have also been kept from the public. Commission counsel has directed that I cannot say what the information is, I cannot say whether I have made a report or not, and I cannot say what the position of the Federal and Provincial Governments were.
This is unacceptable to me.
I believe that the Cohen Commission should be a “public inquiry” and that information should not be suppressed unless there are compelling public interest concerns. This is an inquiry into the fate of wild salmon, and not matters of national security or espionage.
I have instructed my lawyers to make a formal Application to the Commissioner to allow public access to my most recent Application and the Application materials, and in future to all other applications and correspondence to the Commission. If necessary, I have asked my lawyers to make application before the Federal Court to get a ruling that will end this secrecy, and any more proceedings behind closed doors.
I will keep you posted.
Comments
3 responses to “The Cohen Inquiry is going too far with secrecy”
You cannot just change the rules to suit your agenda anytime you chose, Alexandra. Everyone should play by the same rules – even you. You made the choice to follow the terms and conditions of the judicial inquiry. If you now want to be released from these conditions you agreed to (with full knowledge of the terms and conditions) then it is only fair that you not be allowed to be privy to any additional information. It certainly is not fair to the others participants at the inquiry that have chosen to abide by these terms.
The terms of reference of the inquiry were released well in advance of the actual proceedings. I am sure you read this. If you didn’t like the rules then where were your objections back then? This is not your inquiry to dictate as you please whenever you chosse. There is much more testimony than just viruses and stuff related to aquaculture. Many individuals have invested a lot of effort to gather this information and produce reports for the inquiry as well as provide testimony. The least you can do is to show some respect for the process (that you were so vocal should happen in the first place) and let Judge Cohen do his job. I am certain that he is not trying to stiffle anyone or keep things secret just to annoy you and the rest of the general public.
Your case that this information must be made public doesn’t make much sense as this potential virus has already been made public. Running out and alarming people serves no purpose other than to derail the inquiry before it has time to produce it’s final report. You make it out to appear that Judge Cohen is uncaring or not aware of the importance of this inquiry or the material gathered which is totally not fair at all. I have seen his previous rulings and he appears to be very fair – ruling with facts not speculation. Unfortunately, your followers will eat this up and spin this to make it seem like some conspirarcy. If you do not approve of this inquiry then you have no reason to have standing at it – right?
Are you a registered professional biologist or an activist disguised as a professional biologist? You need to decide this at some point because if you ever want to be trusted by your peers that may or may not see eye-to-eye with you then I highly suggest you act like one.
Steve
Thanks for your comments, though I really think you should use your last name so I know who I am speaking with. The law in Canada is that the lesions associated with ISA virus have to be reported to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, who has to report to the World Animal Health Organization. If, as a biologist, I see something that has caused catastrophic negative impact in other countries happening here I take it as my duty to report it to the authorities tasked to deal with this. As biologists we understand the risks associated with novel viruses among naive populations. If we don’t speak up we commit a disservice to humanity.
But perhaps you suggest that as a registered biologist I should remain silent. I know my peers struggle with this.
Yes Steve: put your name out there so all can see who is making these statments and what your affiliation is. I have worked as a volunteer, trying to negate the negative affects of the Aquaculture Industry in N.B.’s, Bay of Fundy, for over 20 years. I would like to know where you are coming from. My name is Gary Griffin.