Animal health act would stifle talk of disease outbreaks, critics suggest
Minister insists confidentiality provision applies only to government officials
VICTORIA — 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 animalrelated 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.
“If everybody is included in that, it takes secrecy to the next level and it doesn’t allow people to talk about health concerns. For me that’s a problem,” Popham said in an interview Friday.
She added it would be a serious issue if, as appears to happen under the act, journalists or independent experts were barred from speaking about an outbreak.
But Agriculture Minister Don Mcrae said people are misinterpreting the act, and that the provisions in question are not in any way meant to restrict public dialogue.
Instead, Mcrae said the limitations apply to inspectors, lab officials and other people charged with administering the act. He added the sections are important to make sure farmers and other industry stakeholders know they can report potential issues to the proper authorities knowing the matter will only be taken public if there is an actual problem.
“The crux of the matter we’re struggling with in this act, as in animal health acts across the country, is how do we get the data to government in the first place?” he said.
Mcrae added that farmers are reluctant to report issues without such privacy protections because they fear public reporting of a false positive, or another non- harmful anomaly, could see their business unnecessarily ruined. It was a position supported by Provincial Health Officer Perry Kendall and Provincial Chief Veterinary Officer Paul Kitching.
“The new Animal Health Act not only creates comprehensive inspection powers, consistent with those in the Public Health Act, but also ensures that information will be shared on a timely basis to improve the early detection and eradication of disease,” said a letter the two released on Friday.
“Effective animal disease management involves gathering sensitive information from farmers related to their animals, their own health, and their farm operations,” they added.
“Disease management also means sharing this information on an as- needed basis with other agencies having disease management responsibilities.”
In another letter, Privacy Commissioner Denham raised her own issues about the act, and called for the repeal of the disclosure limitations in the bill.
“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 [ the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act] are served by a blanket override of this nature,” she wrote to Mcrae recently.
Denham also asked for the removal of a section of the act allowing for special powers in the event of a declared emergency.
“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,” she wrote in that letter.
“The broad and sweeping strokes taken by this bill adjust the long established balance of interests between access to information and confidentiality,” she continued.
“I respectfully ask that your ministry amend the bill to remove [ these provisions].”
Mcrae responded saying he believes the changes related to information disclosure are necessary as written.
“Right now we don’t have access to that information and we need to figure out how do we get farmers and producers to be comfortable sharing that with us?” he said.
“According to the chief veterinary officer the only way it works is if the farmers feel they can submit the samples in confidence.”
On Friday, Mcrae also conceded that he can see why people would interpret the wording of the act to think the disclosure limitations apply to all people, adding he too had similar questions of his staff.
“How can you assure me this is not referring to the general public, because I don’t want a situation where the media cannot speak about it or the farmer feels they are hampered?” Mcrae said Friday, recounting what he asked of his own staff.
He added he was assured that the restrictions only apply to people charged with administering the act.
Popham responded Friday saying Mcrae should reword the legislation to make its true intention absolutely clear.
“I have faith we’re trying to do the same thing, we’re trying to go in the right direction and that’s why I think the minister should be open to suggestions,” she said, adding she doesn’t oppose the entire bill, only the sections that override the Freedom of Information Act.