HORGAN NETS POPHAM, TAKES ON FISH FILE MESS

Premier deflects barbs from Liberal critics over ‘minister of intimidation’

Shortly after noon Wednesday, Premier John Horgan announced his office would take charge of allegations that provincial fish farm research has been tainted by dubious data and possible conflict of interest.

Henceforth, Horgan told reporters, the review of the allegations would be overseen by Don Wright, deputy minister to the premier and the well-respected senior public servant in the province.

Gone from the picture was Agriculture Minister Lana Popham, whose one-sided, threat-laden handling of the fish farm controversy has raised concerns in the business and investment community as well as the provincial public service.

The sidelining of Popham was underscored an hour later, when the legislature convened for the afternoon question period.

Horgan has already earned the nickname “minister of defence” for his practice of stepping in to answer questions on behalf of some of the weaker members of his cabinet team.

Wednesday he was a one-man damage-control party for his beleaguered agriculture minister, substituting himself for Popham to answer every one of the half-dozen questions the B.C. Liberals fired in her direction.

In the midst of the premier’s solo turn, there was a telling showdown between the Opposition Liberals and Speaker Darryl Plecas, who they’ve not forgiven for, in effect, defecting to the NDP after repeatedly assuring them he’d do nothing of the kind.

It happened when Liberal MLA Peter Milobar referred to Popham as “the minister of intimidation.”

Those words had run afoul of Plecas Monday and when the Speaker asked him to withdraw, Milobar backed down and did so.

But Tuesday the Kamloops MLA used them again and this time the Liberals weren’t backing down.

“If you could please rephrase that,” asked Plecas, drawing a chorus of “no” from the Liberal side followed by an extraordinary intervention from Opposition House leader Mike de Jong. He began by referencing long-standing conventions on what is and is not parliamentary language.

“It’s important that we all respect them,” de Jong addressed the Speaker. “But nothing that the honourable member has just said contravenes any of those rules, and it is fundamentally improper, in my view, to demand that they be withdrawn.”

De Jong then delivered a direct challenge to Plecas’ authority as Speaker: “The minister of intimidation is entirely parliamentary and they (those words) will not be withdrawn.”

An act of defiance to the chair can get a member expelled from the house for a day, perhaps longer. But Plecas was not on solid ground in his reading of parliamentary language, nor has he done much to establish a reputation for even-handedness in dealing with his former colleagues.

So the Speaker backed down: “Members, the point I’m trying make is that temperance and moderation are important to dialogue. My preference would be that you not use that language in this house.”

Besides, “minister of intimidation” is central to the B.C. Liberal case against Popham.

She launched the controversy two weeks ago by threatening a fish-farm operator with non-renewal of its licences when they expire next June.

This from a minister whose responsibilities do not include renewals of tenure, which are handled by a statutory decision maker in another ministry. But such is Popham’s zeal on the file that she put the threat in writing anyway.

Then came her handling of the accusations against the ministry lab that handles fish-farming research and in particular against Gary Marty, the senior fish pathologist at that same lab.

The accusations originated with Kristi Miller, a federal fisheries research scientist, who earlier this month on the W5 program on CTV accused Marty of having a real or apparent conflict of interest because of his relationship with industry.

The insinuation being that Marty’s research on the impact of fish farms on wild salmon (which disagreed with the more alarming findings from Miller) may have been skewed by him being in bed with industry.

Following the Oct. 14 airing of the W5 program, the agriculture minister spoke directly to Miller and also fielded a demand from First Nations opposed to fish farming that Marty be fired outright.

Then later that week Popham told The Vancouver Sun that “there were some very strong allegations” against Marty and yes, the NDP government was “going to be investigating his practices.”

Ever since, Popham has been in retreat, insisting that “no one is being investigated” and what she now characterizes as “a review” is only in the preliminary stage.

Outside the house Wednesday, the now-leashed Popham refused to discuss her reaction to the serious and potentially career-destroying accusations against the senior fish pathologist in her ministry.

Asked point blank if she had confidence in Marty, Popham professed not to get the question, then replied: “There’s nothing that is pointing a finger at me having any speculation around the scientist that works in our lab.”

The scientist that works in our lab. She couldn’t even bring herself to say his name.

But moments later, Popham referred to Marty’s accuser, Kristi Miller, as “a very respected scientist,” leaving not much doubt which side she’s on in this clash of scientific reputations.

I wouldn’t like Marty’s chances of survival were Popham to continue as judge, jury and executioner in this case. Which is why the premier is wise to bench his overzealous minister, and let the professionals in the public service handle the allegations against Marty and the research lab.

There’s nothing that is pointing a finger at me having any speculation around the scientist that works in our lab.

LANA POPHAM, agriculture minister