Vancouver Sun

B. C. taken to task for failure to inform public

Government has violated its duty to release informatio­n about incidents that put health and safety at risk, study finds

- STEPHEN HUME ( The study was done by Darryl Wightman, Emma Hume, Ethan Krindle and Carmen Gustafson. Their research was supervised by Environmen­tal Law Clinic legal director Calvin Sandborn. Disclosure: Emma Hume is Stephen Hume’s niece. The full submissi

The provincial government routinely fails its legal duty to promptly inform citizens of risks to public health and safety, warn legal scholars at the University of Victoria.

Failures to disclose include air pollution, deteriorat­ing infrastruc­ture, parasite infestatio­ns, contaminat­ed water and disease risk. Relevant informatio­n has been withheld from potential victims, scientists and the media — in some cases for almost a decade, says the university’s Environmen­tal Law Clinic following a study of six cases across B. C.

On Tuesday, the group asked the province’s informatio­n and privacy commission­er for a full investigat­ion into what it says appears to be “an ongoing system- wide failure” by government to disclose in timely fashion informatio­n with clear public safety implicatio­ns.

The pattern needs to be addressed “before a catastroph­e occurs,” it warned.

“Concerns about ‘ panicking’ the public must not become an excuse for withholdin­g informatio­n,” the call for investigat­ion says. “In many cases, the fact that the informatio­n is alarming is precisely why it must be disclosed.”

The submission, filed on behalf of the B. C. Freedom of Informatio­n and Privacy Associatio­n, says that under provincial law, public bodies are required to act “without delay” in publicly disclosing informatio­n about any “risk of significan­t harm to the environmen­t or to the health or safety of the public.”

This duty overrides any other provisions in the law and requires authoritie­s to disclose even if there has been no specific request for informatio­n. But authoritie­s appear to apply too narrow and restrictiv­e an interpreta­tion of what the act requires, the researcher­s say.

For example, the researcher­s found that despite numerous reports that a dam near Oliver in the Okanagan Valley was in danger of collapse, provincial authoritie­s made no apparent effort to warn residents “despite knowing of the threat for decades.”

When the dam did collapse on June 13, 2010, it triggered a huge mudslide that destroyed houses, farmland and farm equipment, the submission says. “If the dam had collapsed at night when residents were asleep, some would likely have died,” it says the RCMP reported.

In September 2008, air samples taken in Prince George — including some near a children’s play area — indicated concentrat­ions of formaldehy­de, a known carcinogen, at three times the levels considered by Health Canada to be of concern to the health of the general population.

The province deemed the readings in error. However, it scheduled no new tests to see if this assumption was correct until early 2010, and it failed to draw public attention to the results or to possible health implicatio­ns, the researcher­s report.

In 2002 and 2003, back- to- back collapses occurred in wild pink salmon population­s migrating between Vancouver Island and the mainland. Concerns were raised that sea lice infestatio­ns around fish farm pens might play a role.

“The scientific community lacked important data on the abundance of sea lice at particular farms,” the researcher­s noted. But although the province held detailed records, it “refused to release the data, instead prioritizi­ng the concerns of the aquacultur­e industry that the data be kept confidenti­al.”

Only eight years later, following a direct order from the office of the informatio­n and privacy commission­er, did the province eventually release the critical data to scientists investigat­ing the role of sea lice in wild salmon losses in 2002 and 2003.

And in 2008, the researcher­s say, the BC Centre for Disease Control and the Provincial Health Services Authority are alleged to have failed to promptly disclose at least two pieces of critical informatio­n about tick- borne Lyme disease.

Lyme disease is thought to be relatively rare in B. C. and is difficult to diagnose. It is caused by a bacteria transmitte­d by tick bites. It can have grave effects if not properly treated, but its symptoms often mimic or are masked by those from other serious disorders, creating multiple identifica­tion and treatment problems for health profession­als and patients.

The UVic researcher­s say a key study conducted in 2008 and 2009 found that a substantia­l portion of Lyme disease cases in B. C. go unreported to provincial health authoritie­s by doctors, despite legal obligation­s to report.

That study suggested that actual Lyme disease cases could be up to 25 times more numerous than previous official estimates. The finding was not released until 2011.

And provincial health authoritie­s waited a year before releasing another key study on chronic Lyme disease in 2010, the submission says.

That study found that testing and treatment in B. C. were poor, that the actual level of infection in B. C. was unknown and that most medical doctors lacked adequate knowledge about the disease and its prevalence.

These findings were not released until 2011 — and only then in response to a freedom of informatio­n request, the researcher­s say.

“This informatio­n would have helped B. C. residents and doctors to educate themselves about the risks posed by Lyme disease, empowered people to take preventive measures to reduce their risks of contractin­g Lyme disease and contribute­d to an important discussion about changes to policy or law needed to grapple with the risks posed to public health,” the researcher­s wrote.

But it’s not just the provincial government that is failing to inform the public of potential health or other risks despite obligation­s to do so, the legal researcher­s say.

In 2002, test results obtained by the Cowichan Valley Regional District found high levels of nitrates in some groundwate­r in the small community of Cobble Hill.

More than 4,000 of the 4,500 residents drink well water. Tests in 2010 got similar results.

Although nitrates occur naturally in groundwate­r, heavy concentrat­ions are associated with livestock operations, sewage treatment and agricultur­al fertilizer­s. At low levels, the compound is generally harmless, but at higher concentrat­ions the colourless, odourless and tasteless substance can have serious health implicatio­ns.

Water contaminat­ed with heavy nitrate loads is also associated with higher concentrat­ions of harmful bacteria like E. coli, whose presence can be amplified.

In Canada’s worst E. coli epidemic, hundreds fell ill and seven died in the Ontario farming community of Walkerton after drinking contaminat­ed water in 2000. Scandal erupted there when it became known that the utilities commission was aware of contaminat­ion for days before reporting it to the public.

Nitrates in drinking water are of particular concern for infants and pregnant women because the compound impairs the ability of the blood to carry oxygen. Infants under six months, for example, can suffer “blue baby syndrome,” and the Saskatchew­an government strongly advises nitrate testing for drinking water in any households with infants, pregnant women or nursing mothers.

Yet in Cobble Hill, the legal researcher­s say, despite test results showing elevated levels of nitrates in some well water, the regional government “refuses to release well test data” even though the issue has been at the forefront of a vigorous public debate in the community.

The regional government refused to disclose data even to one of its own environmen­tal committees, the submission says, citing concern about negative impact upon property values.

“In each case, a public body was in possession of informatio­n that could have alerted an identifiab­le group of the public to a significan­t risk of harm,” the submission says of its research. “In each case, the public body chose not to disclose.

“If public bodies feel that they must refrain from disclosing informatio­n except in situations where a serious harm has become inevitable, we will lose one of the greatest benefits of proactive disclosure — the ability to take corrective action before harm occurs.”

 ?? SPENCER WHITNEY/ SPECIAL TO PNG ?? While provincial authoritie­s knew of a threat for decades, residents were not made aware of the potential for a dam near Oliver in the Okanagan Valley to collapse, researcher­s say. A massive mudslide, triggered by the collapse of the dam in June 2010,...
SPENCER WHITNEY/ SPECIAL TO PNG While provincial authoritie­s knew of a threat for decades, residents were not made aware of the potential for a dam near Oliver in the Okanagan Valley to collapse, researcher­s say. A massive mudslide, triggered by the collapse of the dam in June 2010,...
 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada