Popham comes under fire over fish-lab probe
Fisheries says it never sought investigation
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans says it never asked the province to investigate a fish lab, despite repeated claims from Agriculture Minister Lana Popham to the contrary.
Popham has come under fire this week from the Opposition Liberals for a review of the Animal Health Centre, including work by fish pathologist Gary Marty — who has disputed claims that open-net fish farms pose a high risk to wild stocks.
Popham, MLA for Saanich South, has defended the review, saying it comes in response to concerns by DFO about the integrity of the lab’s research. “I want to emphasize that it was the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who called some of our data into question. We would take that very seriously because these are the partners that we work with as we look at fish pathology,” Popham said in question period Tuesday.
DFO said Tuesday that while one of its scientists has expressed concerns, the department has not lodged a formal complaint. The concern about scientific testing at the lab came from Kristi Miller-Saunders, who is the head of the molecular genetics program at DFO’s Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, it said.
“Fisheries and Oceans Canada [DFO] has not made any official complaint to the Province of B.C. regarding the diagnostic work undertaken by the province’s Animal Health Centre,” DFO said in a statement.
“While DFO has not lodged an official complaint, the B.C. government is being diligent in following up on the concerns raised by Dr. Miller-Saunders. The department welcomes this review by the B.C. provincial authorities and will co-operate in any way it can.”
The federal department has an agreement in place with the lab to conduct diagnostic testing on farmed salmon samples collected through the DFO fish health audit program, which is in place through March 31, 2020, it said.
Popham’s investigation comes amid ongoing protests at three fish farms off north Vancouver Island in the Broughton Archipelago.
Open-net pens allow water to flow freely between farmed salmon and the ocean environment, which some environmentalists say exposes wild stocks to viruses and disease. Some First Nations have argued the farms are operating in their traditional territory, without their permission.
B.C. Liberal environment critic Peter Milobar called the latest developments “stunning” and Popham’s behaviour “very troubling.”
“I think it’s time for the minister to come clean on what’s really driving this personal agenda, because that’s really what it’s starting to look like, that it truly is her own personal belief system overriding how a minister of the Crown should be acting and responding.”
Popham was not immediately available for comment.
In addition to the lab review, Popham has come under criticism from the B.C. Liberals for a letter she wrote Oct. 13, which they say threatened to put a “chill” on business investment in the province.
The letter effectively put Marine Harvest Canada on notice that the province might not renew the company’s fish-farm tenures in the Broughton Archipelago.
Popham’s letter made no mention of salmon health, and focused instead on the province’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Allowing ride-sharing in B.C.?
Too momentous to bring in this year as promised, so it’s under further study.
Finishing the Site C dam on the Peace River?
The economics are questionable. Under study.
How to cope with legalized marijuana starting next summer? Under study.
So are the spending habits of assorted Crown entities, the bridge replacing the Massey Tunnel, ICBC’s financial crisis and the provincial stance on climate change, to name a few.
Many of the reviews are standard practice for a new government that took office in unusual fashion and doesn’t have a strong mandate to barge in and make major changes.
But there are a couple of areas where the NDP government is going full steam ahead on its own initiatives, without seeing the need to seek outside counsel. The legislature dwelled on one of them this week — the reduction in the number of affiliated MLAs required to gain official party status, to two from four.
The origin of the change is transparently obvious — it’s a gift to the three-person Green caucus, a reward for their support. The B.C. Liberals offered the same thing during their brief attempt to govern after the election, but it was done so clumsily and so late in the game it failed on introduction.
The difference was that the Liberals tried to do it by reducing the threshold to three members. The NDP bill cuts it to two. A small point, but enough to spark intense suspicion on the Liberal side.
Liberal MLA Ralph Sultan found it remarkable that a government noted for consulting on everything “from fish farms to taxi-cab licences” sees no need for outside consultants or outside experts on an amendment to the Constitution Act.
“We’re just going to pass it and — what the hell — get on with life. No reference to any expert panels, and no consultation more broadly than in the cabinet room.”
Earlier, he railed against fringe parties and minority governments, noting that one of the small parties taking office in Germany will be a reborn Nazi party.
“This is an example of what happens when you have small, very special-purpose parties, dealing with a group of zealots who are bound and determined to be represented in parliament. I do not think that this is a formula for stability and certainty or, in fact, good public policy.”
Attorney General David Eby reassured him: “The government doesn’t believe that giving a two-member party status will lead to Nazism in B.C.”
It looks as if the bitter Liberals still need some time to get over the NDPGreen accord that unseated them last summer. There were other dark warnings about the new two-MLA standard. It’s to give insurance to the Greens in case one of them crosses the floor, or it’s designed to weaken the Liberal opposition, etc. Green MLA Adam Olsen called them interesting “conspiracy theories.”
But the occasionally silly arguments are part of a broader suspicion the Liberals have about the whole range of changes to the democratic system now before the house.
As explained by Liberal MLA Andrew Wilkinson, the cumulative effect is all to the benefit of the NDP and the Greens, “with no public consultation whatsoever.”
Other changes to the Constitution Act include moving voting day to October from May. But Liberals note it’s to October 2021, not 2020. The government had the choice of subtracting a half-year from its current term or adding it. It chose to add, obviously to its benefit.
The other changes that are drawing Opposition suspicion are better known. The campaign-finance bill that banned big union and corporate donations, but blindsided everyone by substituting public financing, is also in the Liberal gun sights.
NDP originally had plans for an independent review of campaign financing. It was in several of the model bills on the topic when the party was in Opposition. But it was dropped without explanation when it made the move as government last month.
Liberals are also targeting the referendum on changing the voting system to a proportional-representation model.
It’s all being done in-house, with no impartial review.
They are all changes to the fundamentals — the provincial constitution, elections and campaign financing. And they are mostly being made by government without independent review.
Liberals see some ground to be gained by developing that theme.