Campaigns to ensure that BC’s environmental laws protect the environment and allow democratic voices to be heard can take years. Or, as we saw last week, they can result in a win for the environment in a matter of weeks.
The government has dropped its Bill 37, the Animal Health Act, just days after West Coast Environmental Law wrote to the Minister of Agriculture to express concern that the Bill, as drafted, would silence scientists, journalists and citizens concerned about farm diseases. While we were only one of many voices expressing concern about the proposed Act, we are proud to have provided a bit of legal credibility that its many critics could leverage.
The story so far
To recap – the government introduced Bill 37 on April 30th. While there’s nothing wrong with the broad purpose of the Bill – to give the government broader powers to address diseases on farms – concerns were quickly raised regarding sections of the Bill which would allow, and even require, government to keep information about diseases secret from the public. These included:
- a letter from Elizabeth Denham, BC’s Freedom of Information and Privacy Commissioner,
- questions in the house from NDP Agriculture Critic, Lana Popham, and her colleagues, and
- expressions of concern from journalists and from scientists who believed that they could be arrested, if the Bill were passed, for reporting on the existence of disease in agricultural operations.
We weighed in on May 25th, writing a letter to Minister McRae indicating that in our opinion the Bill could realistically be interpreted as making it illegal for journalists, independent scientists and citizens to publicly disclose information about diseases on farms. We pointed out that a simple amendment to the Bill could clarify that this was not the intention, and avoid the need for costly litigation. Up until this point there was, to our knowledge, no public acknowledgment from Minister McRae of any concerns about the language of the Bill.
Over that weekend there were a number of prominent media stories about the controversy.
On the morning of May 29th, Minister McRae was quoted in the Vancouver Sun as considering an amendment to the Bill to clarify its intent. And later that day, a government press release confirmed that amendments would be introduced. McRae stated:
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. 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. It also reflects our government's commitment to not only engaging the public, but acting on suggested improvements.
We received this press release over Twitter, and retweeted it along with a thank you to the government for listening.
But the story doesn’t end there. The very next day, the government announced that it would not be bringing the Bill back for 2nd Reading in the Legislature during this sitting of the Legislature. This means that for the moment, at least, the Bill is not going to proceed into law, although it could be revived in a future sitting.
Stay tuned
Noted fisheries biologist and anti-Fish Farm activist, Alexandra Morton, has publicly referenced our letter as a factor in stopping Bill 37, high praise indeed.
But, of course, the reality is that a great many people – from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, to the Opposition MLAs, to Alexandra Morton, to the general public – were concerned about this Bill, and told the government so. And the government – to its credit – listened and put on the brakes.
We hope that, if this Bill is debated when the Legislature next sits, the government will use the additional time to rethink some of the provisions of the Bill exempting animal health from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.
