Political battle over scientific quarrel
Agriculture Minister Lana Popham’s enthusiasm for a review of one of her ministry’s labs to protect “the integrity of the science” is waning in the face of sustained questions about the integrity of the review itself.
After several days of questions and shifting answers, it’s looking like a backfire. Popham wanted to put the fish-pathology lab under the microscope for reasons related to conflicting findings about whether fish farms are bad for wild salmon. That scrutiny still might happen, but now, Popham is also under fire for the rationale she offered in making the move.
The most notable development Wednesday was how sidelined she was as the arguments continued. Premier John Horgan handled the full halfhour load in question period as Popham sat mute behind him, even for several questions aimed directly at her. She spent some time later with reporters in the hallway trying to explain herself, but suspicions abound about what’s really going on.
She said the lab is being reviewed and she’s confident the review will come back with a recommendation about whether to “investigate” it or not. It’s what prompted the review that occupied the house.
Last week, she repeatedly said lab scientist Gary Marty’s work was being investigated following complaints from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans about the lab’s work. Marty has been targeted by some of the First Nations who oppose fish farms over his findings that the facilities don’t affect wild salmon. That’s one of the main points of the campaign against open-net-pen aquaculture.
But DFO took the unusual step this week of denying any formal complaints were made, flatly contradicting the provincial minister. It turns out Popham’s move was triggered by a remark one federal scientist made during a TV interview.
That’s a far cry from the impression Popham left, that the senior government was so officially distressed about the lab’s work that it had formally asked B.C. to investigate.
And it leads to suspicions the minister was pursuing a personal political agenda. Popham has spoken out passionately against open-net farms in the past. She hailed protests against massive open-net fish farms and dense stocking of Atlantic salmon a few years ago.
“The resulting pollution and sealice infestations are a likely contributor to the collapse of the stocks.”
As an Opposition critic, she said the previous government “turned a blind eye to the practices of massive aquaculture corporations on our precious coast.”
This month, she wrote a letter to one of those corporations that was read as a threat to revoke its north Island tenure. She cited the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples while warning the firm about the need to engage First Nations.
The premier started coming to her defence as the argument over her moves intensified. Horgan stepped out again Wednesday, announcing that his deputy, Don Wright, has taken over responsibility for the review. He’ll work with the public-service agency to look into what Horgan said were allegations of impropriety.
He said it’s not about Marty, it’s about the lab and how the federal government views the work of that lab.
Popham couldn’t bring herself to express confidence in Marty on Wednesday. She said the perennially controversial fish-farm file has been occupying all her time.
But the B.C. Liberals said she overplayed her hand, trying to “improperly advance an agenda by purposely leaving the impression that an official complaint that does not exist, exists.”
Opposition House Leader Rich Coleman accused her of maliciously investigating a provincial scientist after anti-fish farm advocates asked that he be fired.
Now the premier’s deputy is reviewing something on which there has been no formal complaint, he said.
“There’s no way to find out a way for this premier to get out of this charade that’s going on across the house with regards to the issue,” Coleman said.
Horgan said the allegation was made by a federal scientist on national TV and deserves to be reviewed.
He summed it up as “dispute among scientists.”
But there’s a lot of politics behind it, as well, which is torquing it into a major argument about ministerial conduct.