PALMER’S VIEW,
Agriculture minister should take step back from provincial lab ‘review’
For the second day running, Agriculture Minister Lana Popham assured the legislature that a review of provincial lab research on fish farming was prompted by the federal government.
“So, first of all, I want to emphasize that it was the department of fisheries and oceans who called some of our data into question,” Popham said. “We would take that very seriously because these are the partners that we work with as we look at fish pathology.”
She was responding to questions from the B.C. Liberals who have branded Popham “the minister of intimidation” for her handling of a dispute over fish farming off the northern end of Vancouver Island.
The Liberals went after Popham this week over what happened when First Nations called for the firing of fish pathologist Gary Marty over his findings that fish farms pose no decisive threat to wild salmon.
Popham initially responded to the call by telling reporter Randy Shore of The Vancouver Sun that she regarded the allegations as “strong ” and twice promised an “investigation.”
Then Monday, she downgraded the exercise to a “review” and insisted “no one is under investigation,” just the lab where Marty works.
But when asked outside the house whether the review that is not an investigation might lead to Marty’s firing, she replied “I’m not going to answer that at this time.”
Given those equivocations, the B.C. Liberals went back at her Tuesday, eliciting several variations on the theme that the agriculture minister was merely responding to concerns raised by the federal department of fisheries and oceans (DFO).
She said much the same thing Monday several times: “When DFO raises concerns about our research, we take it seriously, as any lab who believes in integrity would.”
But Tuesday’s responses were different in one significant respect. This time Popham was reading from a sheet of paper she held in front of her, repeating her lines as if from a script.
No more answers on the fly. No more calling it an investigation one day, a review another. Apparently someone in government decided the ministerial leash needed to be shortened.
Unfortunately for the damage control experts, the script they gave to the minister had at least one Popham-worthy hole in it. The story began to unravel when my colleague Rob Shaw asked the minister’s office for a copy of the correspondence from the federal ministry, raising the aforementioned concerns about the data and research conducted by the provincial lab. The answer took the case back into the realm of fly-bynight.
“The complaints have been verbal,” said the email from Popham’s office.
Verbal? For a moment I thought we’d been transported back to the days of the bad old B.C. Liberals, when nothing was put in writing.
Shaw sought clarification, asking whether the verbal complaints were at least made in some official capacity by the federal ministry.
“Provincial and federal ministry officials have had ongoing conversations re: complaints,” said the unhelpful followup from the minister’s office.
Then the federal department weighed in with its response to a query from Shaw: “Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) has not made any official complaints to the province of B.C. regarding the diagnostic work undertaken by the province’s Animal Health Centre.”
The centre is home to the lab where Marty works.
Ottawa’s disavowal put Popham’s whole cover story at risk. But after a frantic exchange between Victoria and Ottawa, the New Democrats were able to cling to a fig leaf defence that Popham had learned the concerns about the lab research from a DFO scientist, Kristi Miller.
Miller was also quoted in a recent W5 report as accusing Marty of being in a real or apparent conflict of interest because of his relationship with the fish-farming industry.
Serious stuff. For there is an investigation here, even if the minister is no longer calling it that.
“We’re in the initial preliminary assessment phase, reviewing the overall fish health audit program from front to back,” Popham told the legislature Tuesday.
“This will involve looking at our policies and practices of the lab and examining them for scientific rigour.”
To recap: Data and research called into question. The lab’s integrity at stake. Allegations of conflict of interest against a provincial scientist. And the minister refuses to say “at this time” whether the accusations are serious enough to warrant a firing.
Worth recalling that allegations of conflict of interest played a role in the badly botched firing of those health researchers under the B.C. Liberals.
The case, a cautionary tale for all governments, was plagued from the outset by a lack of due process for the accused, and interlocking investigations that were as half-assed as they were travesties of justice.
“The investigations were conducted unfairly and ineffectively and resulted in decisions being made on the basis of unreliable, incorrect and incomplete conclusions,” wrote ombudsman Jay Chalke in his definitive review of what went wrong.
“Neither (investigative) team used or applied acceptable investigative standards, including principles of administrative fairness.”
Supposedly all the lessons from that debacle have been learned, procedures have been changed and accused public servants are no longer treated that way.
But given Popham’s everchanging story and activist bent, cooler heads inside the government would be wise to separate her from the review that is not an investigation, before she compromises it any further.
When DFO raises concerns about our research, we take it seriously, as any lab who believes in integrity would.
LANA POPHAM, B.C. agriculture minister