Christy Clark Liberals will Shoot the Messenger

[flamingfingers]

B.C. law to ban information on farm outbreaks
Overrides Freedom of Information law, carries stiff penalty

By Ethan Baron, The Province May 22, 2012

B.C.'s Liberal government is poised to further choke off the flow of public information, this time with respect to disease outbreaks. The Animal Health Act, expected to be passed into law by month's end, expressly over-rides B.C.'s Freedom of Information Act, duct-taping shut the mouths of any citizens - or journalists - who would publicly identify the location of an outbreak of agriculture-related disease such as the deadly bird flu.

"A person must refuse, despite the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, to disclose . . . information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present in a specific place or on or in a specific vehicle," Section 16 of the Act reads.

It is quite conceivable that the provincial government, in the event of a disease outbreak at a farm, would delay releasing a warning in order to protect the farm in question or the industry it's part of.

In that event, should you as a citizen hear about the outbreak, or if you were an employee at an affected farm, you would be breaking the law by speaking publicly about it or bringing concerns to the media.

Citizens or journalists breaking the Animal Health Act but not charged with an offence can be slapped with "administrative penalties," which are fines. And the legislation contains an additional attack on rights of citizens: if you don't pay your fine, a government representative simply files a paper in court that is the same, according to Sec. 80(2) of the Act, "as if it were a judgment of the court with which it is filed."

Except for the absence of a judge or any semblance of due process.

Ultimately, this legislation aims to protect businesses from disclosure of information that may harm their financial interests.

As B.C. Freedom of Information commissioner Elizabeth Denham revealed in a letter to provincial Agriculture Minister Don McRae, his ministry has expressed concern that the province's legal protection of "third-party business interests . . . does not adequately protect information related to farmers engaged in animal-health programs or subject to disease-management actions."

Ministry employees, animal-health inspectors and laboratory employees are specifically barred from disclosing information about farm-disease outbreaks.

Denham noted that it's extremely rare for a law to override freedom of information legislation. The Animal Health Act removes "the public's right to access various records regarding animal testing, including actions and reports relating to animal-disease management," Den-ham wrote.

The Animal Health Act would override another provincial law, the Offence Act. While the Offence Act caps punishment at a $2,000 fine and six months in jail for offences not drawing higher penalties in other legislation, the Animal Health Act says that section of the Offence Act doesn't apply, and lays out a punishment regime with penalties reaching to $75,000 fines and two years in prison. The offence of failing to keep information confidential falls among the violations drawing the highest penalties.

Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/informa ... z1vjARn6aE

[LongHaul]

This is unreal. If I read this correctly this act forbids a citizen from notifying the public about a disease that is related to agriculture. Even the owner could not warn his neighbours about a problem that could infect their operations. Am guessing even talking to one person if it led to many people knowing about the problem would be violating this act. What is even worse if the provincial government only suspects a citizen as being the leak they can issue a $75,000 fine and the person accused does not have recourse to the courts. Refuse to pay and the fine will be filed with the court and it will treated as a court judgement. One could be totally innocent and not have any way to fight back.

Wonder if the recent reports of a potential virus now at three salmon farms have anything to do with this act suddenly showing up? The current provincial government has been very protective of the salmon farm industry.

If the above is correct chances are in the future a high court will rule the act is unconstitutional and it will get thrown out. Unfortunately until this happens the provincial government can carry on as if it is a valid act.

[steven lloyd]

This is unreal.

One would think so - yet here we are. Eleven months to go.
How much chaos and destruction can be created in that time ?

[Urbane]

By Don McRae
Minister of Agriculture
May 25, 2012


VICTORIA – I would like to clarify provisions within the new Animal Health Act and allay concerns expressed by some, specifically around privacy issues and disclosure of disease outbreaks.

To be clear, the rules on reporting news of a disease outbreak do not change with the new Animal Health Act. As soon as a disease is actually confirmed, that information would be made public just the same way it has always been, typically through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Fisheries and Oceans Canada or the Province’s chief veterinarian.

What the new Animal Health Act guards against is incomplete or unconfirmed information being made public that would unfairly harm the reputation and livelihood of the families that make their living as farmers. We recognize that upon confirmation of a disease it is essential the public receives complete, accurate, and consistent information and advice on how they can protect their health.

The best way to ensure that disease outbreaks are reported early is to assure farmers that their information will be treated in a strictly confidential fashion.

Section 16 of the new Animal Health Act is actually designed to encourage the reporting of potential animal diseases and participation in traceability programs, by guaranteeing the confidentiality of the information. It simply makes animal medical records held by the Province protected by the same confidentiality rules that apply to private veterinarians and private laboratories. The wording is very similar to that used by Alberta and Ontario.

The new legislation places no specific restrictions on the media or individuals from reporting the presence of diseases to the public. It also does not change anyone’s responsibility to notify CFIA or the Province’s chief veterinarian if they have reason to believe that an animal in their care has a reportable disease.

To that end, the restriction on disclosure of animal health information provided in confidence only applies to a “person engaged in the administration of the act”, for example inspectors and government employees directly involved in animal health. It does not apply to journalists or other members of the public.

The Animal Health Act is a rewrite of a bill that was originally passed in 1948. The act was rewritten based on best practices and similar legislation in other provinces. The changes bring us up-to-date so that we have the tools to protect human and animal health while ensuring our producers can compete in the global marketplace, as animal health has become a major global trade issue.

Under the act, as well as federal legislation, people with knowledge of a reportable disease are legally obligated to provide that information to provincial and/or federal authorities. Failure to do so is an offence.

Maximum fines under the act have been increased to $75,000 because animal disease control is a serious matter, as an outbreak has potentially devastating consequences to human health as well as the health and welfare of animals. The penalties are designed to ensure people responsible for the health of animals take that responsibility seriously. This maximum fine applies upon conviction only to certain offences that are prosecuted through the courts.

Proposed changes to the Animal Health Act will ensure B.C.’s reputation as a producer of safe and healthy foods and animals. The changes would help prevent the spread of animal disease as well as improving the response to a potential outbreak.

I assure you that the new act balances the need for protection of confidential information in the ministry’s possession with the public interest in receiving timely disease information.

Journalists and other concerned citizens can also take solace in knowing their right to report on animal disease occurrences is guaranteed within section 2 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[LongHaul]

The above post reads a lot better and makes more sense than the information published in the papers.
Whew! Was beinging to think we were headed for a dictatorship...
Thanks.

[Captain Awesome]

VICTORIA – I would like to clarify provisions within the new Animal Health Act and allay concerns expressed by some, specifically around privacy issues and disclosure of disease outbreaks.

Oh screw all that common sense and logic. Let's talk about chaos and destruction this govt is causing, along with all the kids eating their eyeballs cause bimbo Christy Clark doesn't know what she's doing.

[steven lloyd]

Ya, lets pretend this is the best government we've ever had.
Let's elect them into power again.

[Captain Awesome]

Hmmmm, apparently not falling for hysteria is pretending they're the best thing since sliced bread.

Excellent logic worthy of such reputable opponents as grumpydigger and Baggsy, carry on.

[steven lloyd]

Na, I'll leave the perpetuation of this discussion to the deflectors and apologists.

[The Green Barbarian]

Na, I'll leave the perpetuation of this discussion to the deflectors and apologists.

which ones - the Liberal apologists for the last 12 years, or the NDP apologists for the 10 years before that?

[steven lloyd]

which ones -

The current deflectors and apologists – making excuses and apologizing for, and attempting to deflect attention away from the extent and degree of the ongoing malfeasance of this current government.


"OMG !!! Wait ! Did that guy just try and get on the Skytrain without a ticket" ?!?!?

"What about the nineties" ???

[The Green Barbarian]

The current deflectors and apologists – making excuses and apologizing for, and attempting to deflect attention away from the extent and degree of the ongoing malfeasance of this current government. :

and yet the deflectors and apologists for the disastrous 1990's NDP clown show have been just as guilty, IMHO.

[Madtaxi]

*off-topic/Jo*

[albertabound]

Can someone explain why bc can only elect ndp or libs,history has shown that most leaders have been idiots in the way they run the province.A resource rich province has shown to do a lot of dumb things and all they know is to keep taxing .