Here is my reply from Adrian Dix. While they may be debating the issue, Mainstream Media appear to be boycotting the discussion as ther appears to be a dearth of information in BC newspapers. If it weren't for the the Province, we would not know anything. And they seem to have dropped the ball. I am sure the public would react differently if this were on the front page of all the newspapers.
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
“The Gods do not subtract from men’s lives - the time spent fishing.”
Section 16 in the Act is specifically aimed at preventing insiders from being whistleblowers. It will absolutely prevent industry insiders and government scientists or anyone else in the know from divulging information.
We need a Whistleblowers Protection Act like the Americans have and NOT this attempt to keep the public dumb and happy.
URGENT ACTION NEED NOW!!!!
If we don't get off our butts right now on this new legislation, it will be too late.
The BC Liberals meet in Nanaimo next weekend to discuss policy. Get to them NOW with your letters and emails conderning Fish Farms AND the Animal Protectin Act which will silence Alex and all her supporters (or throw us in Jail)
Email the opposition as well...let them know there are votes at stake in the next election!!!!
Comon guys...do it, do it now and do it often!!!! and POST YOUR MESSAGES JUST TO ENCOURAGE THE SLOW TO MOVE GUYS!!
Here is one of many I've sent..a letter as well as countless emails to all these MLA'S headed "I urge you to stop this insanity".....
They don't have to be rude or nasty!
Honourable Don McRae
PO BOX 9043 STN PROV GOVT
VICTORIA BC V8W 9E
Dear Mr. McRae
In reading the story on page two of today's Times Colonist I am concerned that your proposed legislation, "The Animal Health Act" will forbid public access to information and prohibit open discussion of disease outbreaks in animals.
Violators will be subject to large fines and up to two years in jail.
It appears this legislation is a result of the recent outbreaks of disease in fish farms and publicity surrounding this serious problem.
It is hard for me to understand how keeping farmed fish or any other animal disease outbreaks a secret is in the public's best interest.
In defending the proposed legislation you are reported as saying "it will help to prevent the publicizing of inaccurate information, and encourage farmers to report a disease outbreak to the ministry instead of trying to hide it."
From what you say, the problem seems to be the farmers you refer to, do, have and are prepared to hide disease outbreaks from the Government and the public. ("trying to hide it" as you put it).
Wouldn't legislation forbidding any framer from hiding or failing to do proper testing for disease make more sense?
For your Government to proceed with this legislation in its present form is at best ill-advised at worse, scandalous.
I ask you to please reconsider your position on this subject before irreconcilable damage is done.
Here are all the email addresses...please email AND write (even better)
B.C. Liberals
bill.barisoff.mla@leg.bc.ca
bill.bennett.mla@leg.bc.ca
christy.clark.mla@leg.bc.ca
colin.hansen.mla@leg.bc.ca
dave.hayer.mla@leg.bc.ca
don.mcrae.mla@leg.bc.ca
donna.barnett.mla@leg.bc.ca
douglas.horne.mla@leg.bc.ca
eric.foster.mla@leg.bc.ca
george.abbott.mla@leg.bc.ca
gordon.hogg.mla@leg.bc.ca
harry.bloy.mla@leg.bc.ca
ida.chong.mla@leg.bc.ca
jagrup.brar.mla@leg.bc.ca
jane.thornthwaite.mla@leg.bc.ca
joan.mcintyre.mla@leg.bc.ca
john.les.mla@leg.bc.ca
john.rustad.mla@leg.bc.ca
john.slater.mla@leg.bc.ca
john.yap.mla@leg.bc.ca
kash.heed.mla@leg.bc.ca
kevin.falcon.mla@leg.bc.ca
linda.reid.mla@leg.bc.ca
marc.dalton.mla@leg.bc.ca
margaret.macdiarmid.mla@leg.bc.ca
mary.mcneil.mla@leg.bc.ca
mary.polak.mla@leg.bc.ca
mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca
moira.stilwell.mla@leg.bc.ca
murray.coell.mla@leg.bc.ca
norm.letnick.mla@leg.bc.ca
pat.bell.mla@leg.bc.ca
pat.pimm.mla@leg.bc.ca
raj.chouhan.mla@leg.bc.ca
ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca
randy.hawes.mla@leg.bc.ca
rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca
richard.lee.mla@leg.bc.ca
rob.howard.mla@leg.bc.ca
ron.cantelon.mla@leg.bc.ca
s.chandraherbert.mla@leg.bc.ca
shirley.bond.mla@leg.bc.ca
stephanie.cadieux.mla@leg.bc.ca
steve.thomson.mla@leg.bc.ca
terry.lake.mla@leg.bc.ca
BC N.D.P.
adrian.dix.mla@leg.bc.ca
bill.routley.mla@leg.bc.ca
bruce.ralston.mla@leg.bc.ca
carole.james.mla@leg.bc.ca
claire.trevena.mla@leg.bc.ca
dawn.black.mla@leg.bc.ca
diane.thorne.mla@leg.bc.ca
doug.donaldson.mla@leg.bc.ca
douglas.routley.mla@leg.bc.ca
gary.coons.mla@leg.bc.ca
guy.gentner.mla@leg.bc.ca
gwen.omahony.mla@leg.bc.ca
harry.bains.mla@leg.bc.ca
harry.lali.mla@leg.bc.ca
jagrup.brar.mla@leg.bc.ca
jenny.kwan.mla@leg.bc.ca
joe.trasolini.mla@leg.bc.ca
john.horgan.mla@leg.bc.ca
kathy.corrigan.mla@leg.bc.ca
katrine.conroy.mla@leg.bc.ca
lana.popham.mla@leg.bc.ca
leonard.krog.mla@leg.bc.ca
mable.elmore.mla@leg.bc.ca
maurine.karagianis.mla@leg.bc.ca
michael.sather.mla@leg.bc.ca
michelle.mungall.mla@leg.bc.ca
mike.farnworth.mla@leg.bc.ca
naomi.yamamoto.mla@leg.bc.ca
raj.chouhan.mla@leg.bc.ca
rob.fleming.mla@leg.bc.ca
robin.austin.mla@leg.bc.ca
robin.austin.mla@leg.bc.ca
s.chandraherbert.mla@leg.bc.ca
scott.fraser.mla@leg.bc.ca
shane.simpson.mla@leg.bc.ca
sue.hammell.mla@leg.bc.ca
B.C. Independants
bob.simpson.mla@leg.bc.ca
john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca
vicki.huntington.mla@leg.bc.ca
Thanks fogged.eman
not much of a response so far...thanks for the come back eaglemaniac...where are the others?
too busy or just don't care?
Just sent a letter to all on your list Fogged In thanks for the list. Maybe the Mods can make that list a stickie. I must admit that I'm not the best letter writer it would be nice if someone with some better letter writing skills posted there letter so some of us could just copy and paste it and send it along.
The four B’s of fishing: boat, bait, beer and BS.
The Three Rules of Fishing 1. Bait your own hook. 2. Clean your own fish. 3. Tell your own lies.
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Thir...424/story.html
A third fish farm is quarantined.
http://www.gofundme.com/SalmonDiseaseTestingFund
Time to support independent lab testing with a money donation at the site above.
This is exactly why these things should be banned. I have a feeling that might be final nail in coffin....We need First nations to step in that is only way.
High Five
[QUOTE=High Five;236822]This is exactly why these things should be banned. I have a feeling that might be final nail in coffin....We need First nations to step in that is only way.
High Five[/QUOTE............i agree 100%...these net pens r the worst thing we can have in our waters....either put them on land away from rivers or creeks or just get rid of them..between restrictions and diseases there will be no more salmon fishing...
Our government has never attempted to make money, no matter what party is in power, it's all about spending. So who is getting paid off? Sounds like some or all of our politicians are at the trough. Looks like oil companies, fish farms, slipper skippers etc. Would be great to follow the money trail and see which pockets are being filled.
What's next on king Harper's agenda?
Stosh
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote