Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

British Columbia: Proposed Changes to Animal Health Act to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • British Columbia: Proposed Changes to Animal Health Act to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret

    Gov't Moving to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret
    Changes to Animal Health Act, said to protect public, slammed by NDP, privacy commissioner.
    By Andrew MacLeod, Today, TheTyee.ca


    Making information about diseases on British Columbia farms secret will better protect the public, said Agriculture Minister Don McRae.
 The NDP's critic on the file, Lana Popham, said that approach is unfair to consumers and to other farmers.

    "We want the producers to make sure they are submitting samples voluntarily," McRae said in a May 10 interview. "We'd hate to have a scenario where farmers are fearful that the data they give government would be used in a way that's out of their control."
 The measures are included in the Animal Health Act, which got second reading in the Legislature on May 2 and is expected to pass by the end of the month.

    
Farmers may choose to hide disease outbreaks if they believe the information will become public, McRae said.
    ...
    Twitter: @RonanKelly13
    The views expressed are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person or organization.

  • #2
    Re: British Columbia: Proposed Changes to Animal Health Act to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret

    Reporters will remain free to report on animal disease outbreaks: minister
    By Andrew MacLeod May 15, 2012 03:45 pm

    The British Columbia government has no intention of restricting journalists from reporting on disease outbreaks on farms, said Agriculture Minister Don McRae.
    ...
    Section 16 of the act says, in part, "a person must refuse ... 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."

    Popham said it is unclear from the wording who is meant by "a person." Other sections specify that they refer to people who are administering the act or who are responsible for an animal.

    Indeed, when asked about the section, McRae said, "Who's 'the person'? You've got me here."
    ...
    Twitter: @RonanKelly13
    The views expressed are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person or organization.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: British Columbia: Proposed Changes to Animal Health Act to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret

      Animal health act would stifle talk of disease outbreaks, critics suggest

      Minister insists confidentiality provision applies only to government officials

      BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN MAY 25, 2012



      Critics are raising alarm bells over a piece of provincial legislation they say appears to shut down the ability for any person to discuss a possible outbreak of an animal-related disease.

      The Animal Health Act stipulates that 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."

      The province's Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham, as well as New Democratic Party agriculture critic Lana Popham, have both raised concerns about the bill, which is expected to be passed by the end of next week.

      ...

      Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Animal+h...#ixzz1vyLytqqV
      Twitter: @RonanKelly13
      The views expressed are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person or organization.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: British Columbia: Proposed Changes to Animal Health Act to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret

        Gag order on identifying fish farms with potential disease sparks debate


        BY JUDITH LAVOIE, TIMES COLONIST MAY 26, 2012

        Critics who speak publicly about a disease outbreak on a fish farm don't need to fear retribution because of new provincial legislation, says the province's chief veterinarian.

        Confidentially measures in the Animal Health Act, introduced last month, that override the Freedom of Information Act refer only to those administering the act, such as inspectors and laboratory technicians, said Paul Kitching.

        "It is people who come into [the situation] as part of their job," Kitching said.

        "It's because we need farmers' co-operation. If the farmer feels any information he gives us will be in the media the next day, there will be concerns."

        The gag order does not extend to others and the ban will be lifted once a disease is confirmed, Kitching said.

        ...

        Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/or...#ixzz1w3uWrRed
        Twitter: @RonanKelly13
        The views expressed are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person or organization.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: British Columbia: Proposed Changes to Animal Health Act to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret

          Victoria clarifies gag-order wording


          BY JONATHAN FOWLIE, VANCOUVER SUN MAY 30, 2012 2:02 AM



          Agriculture Minister Don McRae introduced an amendment to the Animal Health Act on Tuesday to address criticism that it could have been interpreted to muzzle all speech in the case of an outbreak of animal-related disease.

          "We've heard from various groups that the original wording in Bill 37 left some ambiguity as to who a 'person' was referring to, and therefore who might be impacted by the new act," McRae said in a statement.

          "There was never any intention to include the general public, interest groups or media, but rather only persons directly involved in administering the act.

          "While I'm confident the original wording would have passed legal muster, it just makes more sense to clear up any confusion with a simple amendment."

          ...

          Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Victoria...#ixzz1wLatuvP1
          Twitter: @RonanKelly13
          The views expressed are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person or organization.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: British Columbia: Proposed Changes to Animal Health Act to Keep Farm Disease Outbreaks Secret

            OFFICE OF THE
            INFORMATION & PRIVACY
            COMMISSIONER
            for British Columbia
            Protecting privacy. Promoting transparency.

            May 3, 2012

            Honourable Don McRae
            Minister of Agriculture
            Room 301, Parliament Buildings Victoria BC V8V 1X4

            Dear Minister McRae:
            Re: Bill 37 ? Animal Health Act; OIPC File F12-49123
            I am writing to provide comments on the access to information and privacy implications of Bill 37 ? Animal Health Act, which your ministry has tabled before the Legislative Assembly.
            The Bill would override the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (?FIPPA?) and remove the public?s right to access various records regarding animal testing, including actions and reports relating to animal disease management.
            Key goals of FIPPA, expressly stated in s. 2(1), are to make public bodies more open and accountable to citizens. The importance of these goals is reflected by the fact that FIPPA?s provisions override every other enactment, unless the other enactment expressly overrides FIPPA. Only a very small number of these overrides have been enacted in the almost two decades since FIPPA came into force. Bill 37 would unnecessarily add to that number and this is a matter of deep concern considering the importance of disease management measures, and the need for openness and accountability in the monitoring and enforcement of such measures.
            This override would be at odds with FIPPA?s policy choices approved by unanimous vote of the house ? a balance between the public?s right to know, and individual and commercial interests of confidentiality. In effect, the Bill would establish a separate and very broad access to information regime, without providing compelling evidence that such an extreme step is necessary.
            Your ministry has expressed concern that s. 21 of FIPPA, the exception for ?harm to
            third party business interests?, does not adequately protect information related to
            farmers engaged in animal health programs or subject to disease management actions.
            Your interpretation that FIPPA is out of step with other jurisdictions, or is overly onerous,
            is not supported by our research.
            I also refer you to this office?s Order F10-061, which required your ministry to disclose
            the results of random audits related to the presence of disease on fish farms. While this
            Order may be the basis for the ministry?s desire for greater confidentiality of such test
            data, the Bill as drafted would result in the protection of records well beyond the scope
            of those disclosed pursuant to that Order.
            Though it may be in the interest of your ministry and of farmers to protect test data in
            the ministry?s possession from disclosure, it is not clear how the public policy interests
            carefully balanced in FIPPA are served by a blanket override of this nature.

            In addition, s. 60 of the Bill also provides for an override of FIPPA and the Personal
            Information Protection Act (?PIPA?) in relation to emergency powers. When the chief
            veterinarian declares an emergency under Bill 37, the ministry and other organizations
            have unlimited powers for collection, use, and disclosure of personal information. The
            ministry is granting itself these unlimited powers without sufficient evidence of actual
            need or evidence that FIPPA and PIPA do not already enable this collection, use, and
            disclosure.
            Bill 37 also provides the Minister with broad powers to make regulations in an
            emergency. The Minister could exempt any person from any provision or modify any
            requirement in the Bill. While this power may be useful to deal with unforeseen
            circumstances, it is very broad and potentially compromises both access to information
            and personal privacy. Further, this authority for emergency regulation making powers
            precludes oversight to mitigate against unnecessary infringement of personal privacy.
            In conclusion, the broad and sweeping strokes taken by this Bill adjust the long
            established balance of interests between access to information and confidentiality. It
            also provides a legislative basis for overriding existing privacy protections. I respectfully
            ask that your ministry amend the Bill to remove ss. 16 and 60, and to provide for
            oversight of the emergency provisions described in Part 5.
            Consistent with our longstanding practice when commenting on a Bill tabled in the Legislative Assembly, I am providing a copy of this letter to the Opposition critic for your ministry. In addition, a copy of this letter will be posted on my office?s website.
            Sincerely,
            Elizabeth Denham
            Information and Privacy Commissioner
            for British Columbia

            Twitter: @RonanKelly13
            The views expressed are mine alone and do not represent the views of my employer or any other person or organization.

            Comment

            Working...
            X