Ken Coates: Salmon farming ban undermines reconciliation with First Nations
The Canadian government’s plan to phase out open-net pen salmon farming in British Columbia represents a serious setback to reconciliation with Indigenous communities, according to Ken Coates, director of Indigenous affairs at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
Writing in National Newswatch on 26 March, Coates described the federal government’s decision as “a terrible public policy” driven not by evidence, but by political pressure from environmental activists and select British Columbia MPs.
Coates argued that, despite a troubled start in the 1980s and 1990s, the salmon farming industry in British Columbia had become a model for Indigenous engagement. He pointed to the voluntary withdrawal of companies from contested territories such as the Broughton Archipelago, deeper partnerships with supportive First Nations, and increasing employment and supply chain participation in Indigenous communities.
“Salmon farming was crucial to the economic and social well-being of participating remote and coastal communities,” Coates wrote. “The salmon farms cooperated with Indigenous communities exactly as Canadians would have wished, withdrawing from the First Nations territories where they were not wanted and improving relationships with supportive Indigenous communities.”
He acknowledged that opposition remains strong among environmental groups and several First Nations, and that critics have successfully pressured the federal government to advance the closure of the sector.
However, Coates noted that independent scientific reviews had not found conclusive links between salmon farms and the decline of wild salmon populations. He expressed concern that the only path left open—on-land, closed containment systems—was not economically viable and would be unlikely to benefit remote Indigenous communities.
“The ban punishes and undoes the efforts toward economic reconciliation from one of Canada’s most responsive and progressive industries,” Coates wrote, calling for the policy to be withdrawn and replaced with a transparent, evidence-based review process.
“If the ban stands,” he warned, “this once progressive industry will come to symbolize only government mismanagement and capitulation to special interests at the expense of the wellbeing of remote First Nations communities.”
