How is this different from communism? Despite this issue I am noticing more and more these governments are taking rights away from us daily... This really comes from George bush jr ( Harper)... His party is brutal... Our provincial government just tags along...Originally Posted by Rockfish
High Five
So did you know our Harper Government (who I have supported in the past) has paid Ari Fleischer, a former George Bush advisor, $49,000 for advice...What could he possibly have to offer our Canadian Government?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1421410/
It's all about power, money and control.
But it's your "free enterprise" party?
I guess nobody equates that to freedom of information.
Control, Control, Control.
That seems to be what they are all about - including the buggers in Ottawa.
Well folks if we want to help stop this terrible assualt on our freedoms and wild salmon and the environment we must act now. The Legislature sits for only 6 more days and the Animal Health Act (which contains the gag order) is being debated right now. The Liberals are going to tried as hard as they can to ram this through. We the people that this govt. serves needs to know that this gag order is BS and must not go through. We need to support the NDP MLA's in fighting it (i.e. tell them to keep fighting) and tell the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture that it must not pass and we need to do it NOW in the next few days before it is too late. Write letters to local papers, people need to know how dangersous this gag order is.
Please use the email links below to send them emails - or better yet, write them letters it is even more powerful.
mailtoremier@gov.bc.ca - Premier Christy Clark
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/39thparl/mcraeD.htm - Don McRae - Minister of Agriculture
mailto:adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca - Adrian Dix, Opposition Leader
mailto:john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca - Juan de Fuca
mailto:rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca - Victoria Swan Lake
mailto:carole.james.mla@leg.bc.ca - Victoria, Beacon Hill
mailto:lana.popham.mla@leg.bc.ca - Saanich South
mailto:murray.coell.mla@leg.bc.ca - Saanich & Islands
mailto:ida.chong.mla@leg.bc.ca - Oak Bay-Gordon Head
mailto:maurine.karagianis.mla@leg.bc.ca - Esquimalt-Royal Roads
All other ridings in BC - http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm
This gag order shows how powerful the fish farm lobby is in BC. Even the govt's Freedom of Information Office is against this bill - it is an assault on our democratic freedoms to know what kind of harm is taking place around us. Please respond to this important issue NOW!
Long live wild salmon!!!
Hole in the water... THANK YOU for that contact list. I sent emails to some of those yesterday, but I will continue with the rest today. DFO and the Government are the ones farking this up. The only way to change their minds is to let them know that their decisions could result in them loosing the next election! Opposition parties make good allies if the see this as a winning issue.
I want to call out EVERYONE who has posted in disgust of DFO//Harper//Christy Clark policies to TAKE 1 HOUR OF YOUR LIFE and make a few calls//emails//social media posts. PLEASE join the fight, this is too serious to just grumble about.
Brad Baker
Well folks if we want to help stop this terrible assualt on our freedoms and wild salmon and the environment we must act now. The Legislature sits for only 6 more days and the Animal Health Act (which contains the gag order) is being debated right now. The Liberals are going to tried as hard as they can to ram this through. We the people that this govt. serves needs to know that this gag order is BS and must not go through. We need to support the NDP MLA's in fighting it (i.e. tell them to keep fighting) and tell the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture that it must not pass and we need to do it NOW in the next few days before it is too late. Write letters to local papers, people need to know how dangersous this gag order is.
Please use the email links below to send them emails - or better yet, write them letters it is even more powerful.
mailto
http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/39thparl/mcraeD.htm - Don McRae - Minister of Agriculture
mailto:adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca - Adrian Dix, Opposition Leader
mailto:john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca - Juan de Fuca
mailto:rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca - Victoria Swan Lake
mailto:carole.james.mla@leg.bc.ca - Victoria, Beacon Hill
mailto:lana.popham.mla@leg.bc.ca - Saanich South
mailto:murray.coell.mla@leg.bc.ca - Saanich & Islands
mailto:ida.chong.mla@leg.bc.ca - Oak Bay-Gordon Head
mailto:maurine.karagianis.mla@leg.bc.ca - Esquimalt-Royal Roads
All other ridings in BC - http://www.leg.bc.ca/mla/3-1-1.htm
This gag order shows how powerful the fish farm lobby is in BC. Even the govt's Freedom of Information Office is against this bill - it is an assault on our democratic freedoms to know what kind of harm is taking place around us. Please respond to this important issue NOW!
Thanks for the quick-links, guys...I just banged off numerous e-mails.....Cheers.
Thanks Whole in the Water and Stones 93: 4 letters just sent!
Dear ...... :
We live and work in ... and are very concerned with proposed legislation:
The "Diseased Animal Act" (Animal Health? Act) is being debated in the B.C. legislature. This proposed censure to democratic freedoms demonstrates how powerful the fish farm lobby is in B.C. - even influencing our elected politicians in a most outrageous way. Most B.C. citizens (as recently surveyed) are passionately opposed to these changes that will jeopardize our public safety. The Bill proposes to severely sanction whistleblowers, thereby hiding the facts of disease in our food supply. Why do the Liberals patronize us by hiding the facts? Even the provincial Freedom of Information Office is opposed to this bill. Our fathers fought in WW2 to preserve our way of life, our freedoms and especially freedom of speech. This bill is an assault on our democratic freedoms and must be stopped.
We understand the limitations of being in Opposition but please do what you can to stop this madness.
Sincerely, ...
"Save wild salmon - can the D.F.O." - tee shirt from Pacific Net and Twine
Emails sent and sent. Will it do any good? Probably not. Our politicians no longer care what the taxpaying public thinks and are only concerned with looking out for their big money corporate buddies. After they leave office, they will all need good, high paying, phoney baloney jobs to supplement the outrageous pensions they gave themselves, donchaknow. Gotta keep on the good side of those corporations!
I got a response from Adrian Dix assistant!!
Thank-you for writing to share your concerns regarding Bill 37 – the Animal Health Act.
The Opposition is concerned that Bill 37 fails to strike the appropriate balance between empowering the Chief Veterinarian to take the extreme actions that may be necessary in an emergency, with societal obligations to protect the public interest, ensure due process and be transparent and open with information.
Specifically, Section 16 exempts data gathered through its authority from being subject to a FOI request. Equally disturbing, this section also appears to prevent journalists and others such as scientists from releasing information about serious animal disease outbreaks.
During committee stage of debate, I questioned the Minister about Section 16. He said that Section 16 does not apply to journalists and independent scientists. His statements - now in Hansard - form part of the formal record. The Opposition will hold the Minister accountable for his statement that Section 16 will not apply in these instances.
For ease of reference, I have clipped the exchange below and you can find the full debates online here: http://www.leg.bc.ca/39th4th/votes/b...st_hansard.htm
L. Popham: The protected information, section 16, states that, except as permitted under section 17 or 18, "a person must refuse" — despite the freedom-of-information legislation — "to disclose the following…."
There is no qualifier on "person" in this section. I'd like to know if this is a drafting error, because in the following section, section 17, it does limit the meaning of persons. This suggests that the broadness of the term was deliberate in section 16.
Hon. D. McRae: Section 16 must be read within the context of the acts. The references in section 16 to section 17 and 18 imply that the "person" in section 16 takes its meaning from those sections. So in section 17, "person" is implying employees and former employees of the ministry of the minister, each inspector or former inspector, persons engaged or previously engaged in the administration of the act, a person responsible for administering a laboratory and an employee or former employee of a laboratory identified for the purposes of section 16.[1630]
L. Popham: I'm going to read this again. Except as permitted under section 17 or 18, a person must refuse, despite the freedom-of-information legislation, to disclose the following: information that would identify or reveal (a) the identity of a person responsible for an animal, (b) a specific place where animals are kept, (c) information that would reveal that a notifiable or reportable disease is or may be present, (d) information that would reveal that an animal or an animal product affected by a notifiable, reportable disease is in a place or owned by an identifiable person or body, (e) info derived from a sample under this act.
So we go back to the reference to a person, and it looks to me like, on the face of it, the government is trying to prohibit all people from communicating about the existence or even the possible existence of a notifiable or a reportable disease. In my interpretation, and in many other people's interpretations, this is a big overreach, and it would apply to everyone. If you follow the law that we are now debating, it would apply to journalists, independent scientists, concerned neighbours, interested individuals, etc. This law reads that it applies to everyone. I don't think that, if you read…. As I read it, and I've had legal consultations, this is a big concern. It's trying to block information. I understand the idea that trust must be built between businesses and the government, allowing for freedom of information. But I don't think British Columbians have chosen to live in the dark about issues. I don't think that when the freedom-of-information legislation was voted on in this House, it was passed unanimously with the idea that it could be used whenever the government wanted to and then if the government didn't want to, it wasn't important. Does section 16 apply to the media and independent scientists and anyone who would want to inquire around information of a potential disease outbreak or a disease outbreak? Why would this information be kept from the public and anyone else who may have a concern about it?
Hon. D. McRae: The term "person" in this act does not refer to the media. It does not refer to independent scientists or individuals making inquiries. The term "person" does refer to the section 17, subsection (1)(a) through (e) — which I quoted earlier, and I think it's already in the record, but it was particularly to those (a) through (e) individuals. Again, to the member opposite, it does not refer to the media, independent scientists or the general public making inquiries.
L. Popham: So if the media, if independent scientists, if other advocacy groups were to inquire around information, around disease outbreak or potential disease threats, would the information be given to those people? Would the information be shared with the media so that the media could then report out on it? I don't think the legislation says that that would happen.[1635]
Hon. D. McRae: Again, we're referring in this act to the word "person." It refers particularly to the positions I mentioned in section 17(1)(a) through (e). However, if a person involved in the media, an independent scientist or the general public were to inquire to the individual farmer about a test's results and the individual farmer wished to share them, he or she would be more than able to do so. If the farmer were to provide consent to the ministry, we would also be able to provide that information.
L. Popham: Well, that's the minister's interpretation, but I think that section 16 creates an obligation for the person to refuse to give information. In fact, that's exactly the point. If they don't refuse, they could be incarcerated; they could be charged. I mean, there are severe penalties for disclosure of this information.
There's some headshaking going on, and I understand there may be some frustration. But the interpretation….
I didn't come up with all of this information on my own. I have also had legal advice, and it is concerning. So if it's not the intention of section 16 to basically create a gag clause within this legislation, then I think this section 16 needs to be reworded so it's more clear, because the advice that I've been given is that this may be an unintended gag clause, but it's a gag clause.
Hon. D. McRae: Again, in section 16, the "person" refers to those mentioned in section 17(1)(a) through (e). Again, I won't read them off. It is talking about employees of government, inspectors, persons engaged in administration of the act. It is not referring to media, independent scientists or people making individual inquiries to such an act.
Again, thank-you for sharing your concerns. I will continue to debate Bill 37 in the Legislature this coming week and will suggest changes to improve it.
Yours Sincerely,
Lana Popham
BC NDP Agriculture Critic
It looks like the BC liberals are beginning to feel the heat and some cracks are forming. This bill needs some changes to make it acceptable to British Columbians.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote