2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 4

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Achievements of B.C. athletes

Hon. G.

Campbell

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Kristi Richards

Hon. R.

Thorpe

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Clan basketball team championship

H. Bloy

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Finance Statutes Amendment Act,

2007 (Bill 14)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Public Safety Statutes Amendment

Act, 2007 (Bill 16)

Hon. J.

Les

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

St. John Ambulance life-saving

award recipients

C. Wyse

Give the Gift of Sight foundation

Rustad

Pacific Northwest raptors centre

Routley

Simon Fraser University athletic

complex

H. Bloy

Simon Fraser Society for

Community Living

Thorne

Asian contributors to Canadian

Cancer Society campaign

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Government action on farmworker

safety

C. James

Hon. J.

Les

Employment standards for

farmworkers

C. James

Hon. O.

Ilich

Chouhan

Puchmayr

Government action on farmworker

safety

C. Evans

Hon. O.

Ilich

Employment standards for

farmworkers

Farnworth

Hon. O.

Ilich

J. Kwan

Hon. P.

Bell

H. Bains

H. Lali

A. Dix

Petitions

C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6) (continued)

Horgan

J. Kwan

G. Coons

Sather

Ralston

Simpson

Puchmayr

H. Lali

A. Dix

Hon. W.

Oppal

Introduction of Bills

Amendments to Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 2007 (Bill 2)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Committee of the Whole House

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2007 (Bill 2)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Robertson

Ralston

Simpson

Fleming

Reporting of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2007 (Bill 2)

Third Reading of Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2007 (Bill 2)

Committee of the Whole House

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 3)

Hon. C.

Taylor

Reporting of Bills

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 3)

Third Reading of Bills

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 3)

Royal Assent to Bills

Budget Measures Implementation

Act, 2007 (Bill 2)

Income Tax Amendment Act, 2007

(Bill 3)

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2006-2007 (Bill 5)

Supply Act, 2006-2007

(Supplementary Estimates No. 1) (Bill 4)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Agriculture and Lands (continued)

Hon. P.

Bell

C. Evans

Robertson

Simons

Chouhan

J. Brar

Estimates: Ministry of Employment

and Income Assistance

Hon. C.

Richmond

J. Brar

[ Page 6063 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 12, 2007

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

ACHIEVEMENTS OF B.C. ATHLETES

Hon. G. Campbell: This morning the member for Burquitlam

acknowledged the SFU Clan's great victory in the national women's basketball

championship this weekend. I want to add my congratulations to that team. But I

also want to acknowledge that there were some other great achievements by B.C.

athletes on the road to 2010 in the past few days. Team B.C. wrapped up the

Canada Winter Games in Whitehorse yesterday with a total of 77 medals. That

included 24 gold medals, more than twice as many as they claimed in the 2003

games.

[1335]

B.C. athletes were on the international podium this weekend as

well. I should mention, on behalf of the member for Burnaby North, that we did

exceptionally well in the ping pong/table tennis category, where we won four out

of five gold medals. He's an honorary president, so I think we should recognize

that.

Internationally, this weekend Denny Morrison from Fort St. John,

who was a silver medallist in Torino, won two silver and a bronze at the ISU

speed skating championships in Salt Lake City. North Vancouver snowboarder Drew

Neilson won his third straight World Cup snowboard cross yesterday, and on

Saturday Steve Omischl of Kelowna won bronze in the men's aerial and freestyle

skiing world championship in Italy. Just a couple of weeks ago in Penticton

Steve took home both a gold and a bronze in the 2007 World Cup title. His win in

Italy this weekend followed a gold medal performance by Summerland's Kristi

Richards in the same event.

If I could just mention Kristi for one second. She came back from

an injury. Two years ago I first met her at a lunch, where she said she was

going to be successful. This weekend she said that this was one of two important

gold medals you win. One is the World Cup and the second one is the Olympics in

2010. Kristi is going to be here, as are all the rest of B.C.'s athletes.

Introductions by Members

C. James: I would like to make two introductions. The first

one is for someone who is not in attendance but who I know will be a very

important watcher of politics. On behalf of all of us, I would like to

congratulate the member for Surrey–Panorama Ridge on the birth of his son Fateh.

His son was born last Tuesday and has already become a media star,

making his debut in the local paper with his proud parents and his

seven-year-old sister Noor. I also want to let you know that the name Fateh —

My second introduction. I have visiting with me some very good

friends from Prince George, Bob and Ann Martin. Both Bob and Ann have been

incredibly involved in their community — everything from municipal involvement

to community organizations. I'd like the House to please make them very welcome.

Tributes

KRISTI RICHARDS

Hon. R. Thorpe: Following on the Premier's words about

Kristi Richards, I'm proud of Kristi and her hard work and her dedication, which

have led her to this great accomplishment. Kristi is committed to her goals and

determined to make her dreams a reality. She is a great role model for our youth

and a true inspiration to all British Columbians.

Kristi has proven herself as a leader as she continues to push the

boundaries while developing her skills as an athlete and as an ambassador for

British Columbia and Canada to the world. Summerland residents and all British

Columbians have recognized Kristi's gift as an athlete and will be cheering her

on at the 2010 Olympic Games. I ask the House to recognize the accomplishments

of Kristi Richards, a world-champion skier from Summerland, British Columbia.

Introductions by Members

D. Chudnovsky: Last Thursday we were visited in the House

and in this chamber by 81 students and nine adults, including their teachers,

from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my constituency. Afterwards I met

with the students in the foyer. We had a wonderful, productive and thoughtful

discussion.

I was roundly and correctly criticized for not having introduced

them in this House. I promised them that I would do it today, that we would make

sure it was in Hansard and that I would send them that information. So I

would ask the members if they could — a little late but no less enthusiastically

— welcome the students from Tupper to the chamber.

Hon. T. Christensen: It is my distinct pleasure today to

welcome Evie Page to the Legislature. Evie was recently featured on A-Channel,

having won a Save-On-Foods Amazing Kids $1,000 scholarship for being a highly

accomplished teenager, a tireless volunteer and a classroom leader.

Evie is from the Sliammon First Nation and resides here in

Saanich. She will graduate from grade 12 at Claremont this June and plans to

attend Camosun College next fall. She is considering a career in social work.

[1340]

I had the pleasure of having lunch with Evie today, hearing about

some of her future plans, and I can tell all members of this House that we can

expect big things from this young woman. Today joining Evie are

[ Page 6064 ]

her foster mom, Louise Nightingale, and social worker Hélène Provencher. Will

the House please make all three of them very, very welcome today.

D. Routley: I would like the members to help me welcome my

friend and constituent Leanne Baird and her two children Matthew Baird and

Brooklyn Baird. Their mother Leanne and her colleagues together put together the

Vancouver Island loggers' safety support group, and they have fought tirelessly

for safety in the woods for forest workers. I'd like you all to help me welcome

them to the House.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd like the House to welcome a friend of

mine and a former MLA for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. Brian Kerr is here. Please make

him welcome.

C. Trevena: I hope the House will help me welcome the mayor

of Port Alice, Larry Pepper, who's in the gallery today. He came to Victoria to

brief the Special Committee on Aquaculture, and I think that people who know

Mayor Pepper know how committed he is to the village of Port Alice — to getting

the mill reopened and running and now looking for other endeavours to make sure

that the village of Port Alice survives and thrives as it rightly should.

R. Cantelon: Also travelling with the group of mayors who

travelled long and far to make their representations to the Aquaculture

Committee this morning is Patrick Marshall, who is the general manager in

Campbell River of the economic development corporation, Rivercorp. So let's have

the House make him welcome.

D. Thorne: I'm very happy today to have three very good

friends sitting in the gallery: Judi Kask, Helga Enns and Angela Page. We have

been friends since we were all the original members of the Tri-City Women's

Centre. We've been together a long time, and I'd like the House to welcome them

and thank them for all their hard work.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have two guests that I wish to introduce.

First is Brian Wallace, a longtime friend of mine and counsel for the Electoral

Boundaries Commission. I'd like the House to make him feel welcome. As well, I

have a constituent, Balvinder Pal, who is a volunteer in my community. She has

organized a forum on family violence. She's taken that upon herself because of

the issues that have involved particularly the South Asian community. Again, I

ask the House to make her feel welcome.

S. Simpson:

I have two constituents with us today — Lisa

Hartley and Emma Djwa, who are here visiting with us. Lisa has a special

connection to this place. Her grandpa Bill Hartley sat as an MLA from 1963 to

1975 and was the Minister of Public Works and, as I understand, did one of the

first repairs on this building back in the '70s, when they had to pull the

buckets that were collecting leaking water out of the attic to do the repairs.

So I would ask the House to make Lisa and Emma welcome.

J. Rustad:

It's my great pleasure today to introduce two

people. First of all, I'd like to introduce to the House the love of my life,

this person who makes me complete, my wife Kim Royle — and also a good friend of

hers from Victoria, Anne Andersen. Will the House please make them welcome.

R. Fleming: I would like to introduce two persons who are

in the gallery with us today. Justin Schmid, who is the president of Canadian

Union of Public Employees Local 374 and is a constituent of mine, is here with

us today, as well as Kim Manton, who is the director of CUPE's capital regional

district campaign. Will the House please make them welcome.

[1345]

Hon. J. van Dongen: This afternoon in the Speaker's gallery

are a group of Washington State legislative interns visiting from Olympia.

They're here as part of an annual internship exchange between Washington State

and British Columbia, so this is an opportunity for them to share and learn

about our two systems of governance. They are accompanied by the Senate Intern

Coordinator Judi Best and the House Intern Coordinator Samantha Barrera.

Would the House please given them a warm British Columbia welcome.

Tributes

CLAN BASKETBALL TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP

H. Bloy:

Today I'd like to share some good news about my

constituency. This weekend the Simon Fraser University women's basketball team

brought B.C. a national championship. Yesterday Simon Fraser University beat the

University of Alberta in the championship game and won the much coveted trophy

called "Bronze Baby." This team of young women proved once again that B.C. is

the centre of sports excellence.

Would the House please join with me in congratulating the winners.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FINANCE STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. C. Taylor presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. C. Taylor:

I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

[ Page 6065 ]

Hon. C. Taylor:

I am pleased to introduce the Finance

Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, which amends the Ministry of Finance statutes,

including the Business Corporations Act, the Cooperative Association Act, the

Real Estate Development Marketing Act and the Real Estate Services Act.

The changes proposed to the Business Corporations Act include

technical amendments to clarify, simplify and refine the requirements of the

act. More importantly, the amendments introduce a new corporate structure called

the unlimited liability company, or ULC, which will encourage investment and job

creation in British Columbia.

This bill also amends the Cooperative Association Act, which

governs the creation and operation of cooperatives in this province. The bill

will provide for and guarantee the legal status of non-profit cooperatives. In

addition, the bill will address numerous cross-references to the Company Act

provisions that are still found throughout the Cooperative Association Act.

Finally, this bill also makes technical amendments to the Real

Estate Development Marketing Act and the Real Estate Services Act to refine the

application of the acts and to enhance consumer protection.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SAFETY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act,

Hon. J. Les:

I move that the bill be introduced and read a

first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Les:

I'm pleased to introduce amendments to several

public safety and Solicitor General statutes. These statutes are the Correction

Act, the Criminal Records Review Act, the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, the

Motion Picture Act and the Motor Vehicle Act.

The purpose of these amendments is to make legislation more

effective in protecting the interests of British Columbians. With this bill we

will be enhancing public safety by protecting the public from unwelcome and

inappropriate communications from incarcerated offenders. The bill will

modernize and enhance criminal-record check legislation to better protect our

children. It will add new tools to enhance British Columbia's efforts to reduce

under-age drinking and strengthen enforcement of B.C.'s liquor laws, and it will

also allow government to delegate administration of the Motion Picture Act to

the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority, supporting the

consolidation of consumer protection and enhancing the film classification

regulatory framework.

[1350]

Finally, the amendment of the Motor Vehicle Act will bring B.C.'s

drivers' licensing requirements for accredited foreign representatives into line

with those of other provinces and with international practice.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 16, Public Safety Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced,

read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) ST. JOHN AMBULANCE

LIFE-SAVING AWARD RECIPIENTS

C. Wyse: Last fall St. John Ambulance brigade

superintendent Andrew Phillpotts of Kamloops was in 100 Mile House to present

the prestigious St. John Ambulance life-saving award to two young men.

In August 2005 Mitch Judson and Tyler Johnson were camping at Lake

of the Trees when they were startled by a loud bang and went to investigate.

They came upon their friends, Trevor Robidas and Jordon Dillman, who had left

their camp on their dirt bikes at separate times. The two had collided head-on

at high speed when rounding a blind corner. Dillman suffered deep lacerations to

his leg, while Robidas was unconscious and bleeding heavily from a wound to his

arm.

Using their skills acquired from first-aid courses, Johnson

applied pressure to Dillman's wounds, while Judson applied a tourniquet to

Robidas's arm to control the bleeding. While Judson and Johnson were

administering first aid, a third person was sent to camp to call for an

ambulance. After determining the injuries were indeed life-threatening and could

not wait for an ambulance, the injured boys were immobilized and driven to meet

the ambulance. Jordan Dillman spent three months recuperating in hospital and

underwent numerous surgeries. Trevor Robidas spent three weeks in hospital

recovering.

I request the House to recognize Mitch Judson and Tyler Johnson,

now both 18 years old. They used their skills to save the lives of two friends

involved in a freak accident in a remote area past Forest Grove.

GIVE THE GIFT OF SIGHT FOUNDATION

J. Rustad: Sight is something that most of us take for

granted. Even those who are optically challenged often overlook the fact that

many in B.C. and around the world are in need of better vision.

[ Page 6066 ]

Unfortunately, not everyone can afford glasses, so in 1988 the

Give the Gift of Sight foundation was created, based on the belief that clear

vision is a basic right, not a luxury. This program helps needy people around

the world through a variety of fundraising efforts, and for those of us that

wear glasses there's an easy way to help. Many of us have old glasses around the

house that we no longer use. By simply donating these unused glasses they can be

recycled to help those who are less fortunate receive the gift of clearer

vision.

But it takes more than just old glasses. Many professionals help

to meet the challenge by donating their time and effort through missions as well

as through local projects. I'd like to highlight one such group in Prince George

that helped make a real difference.

Last Christmas the professionals at Sears Optical in Prince George

teamed up with Dr. John Bosted and volunteered their time to work with school

district 57 to identify eight children in need and provide them with free exams

and new corrective eyewear. I'd like to thank these people for selflessly giving

of their time to help those in need.

I'd also like to honour their efforts and the efforts of others

like them by raising a challenge to the members in the Legislature. That

challenge is to collect as many pairs of old glasses as you can and bring them

to the donation box in the Speaker's office by the end of this session so that

they can be donated to the Give the Gift of Sight foundation.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST RAPTORS CENTRE

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the members about the

Pacific Northwest Raptors centre in my riding, run by Gillian Radcliffe. This is

an amazing service run by an equally amazing person. Raptors are birds of prey —

falcons, eagles and owls. Falconry has been with humans as a sport and hunting

method for thousands upon thousands of years.

Gillian, with her dedication to raptors and their ecology, is

incomparable and stands alone in my community as a person dedicated to ecology

and to animals. Her service to community is priceless. She undertakes flying

programs for school-aged children as well as a flying program at Grouse

Mountain. She provides bird control at the Nanaimo regional airport, and she

does media work.

Basically, Gillian teaches people at all levels, including tens of

thousand of school children, about the importance of raptors and their ecology.

These engaged children take in this information, they learn well, and I believe

they transfer their concern about the ecology of these raptors to other

environmental concerns.

[1355]

Apart from a handful of exceptions — non-releasable and injured

wild birds — all of Gillian's birds are domestic-bred birds, legally purchased

in B.C. or legally imported. Unfortunately, she struggles with permit process

problems due to the unique nature of her service, and I'm sure that the

government, the Ministry of Environment and the minister himself will support

this unique and valuable service and help Gillian through this difficult process

so that she can continue to offer this unique service to the people of my riding

and the people of British Columbia.

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

ATHLETIC COMPLEX

H. Bloy: This is Simon Fraser University's day. Simon

Fraser has built a new, extensive addition to their athletic complex. The

40,000-square-foot addition includes a state-of-the-art gymnasium where the

varsity athletes will be able to train and compete in basketball, volleyball and

dozens of other sports and activities.

This stunning space, finished with natural wood from British

Columbia, is a cutting-edge complex that will host hundreds of events and

programs on an annual basis. This building will be a green structure with

closed-loop evaporative fluid cooling systems and energy-efficient heating.

Indeed, getting students active in between work and play is a

central component to them leading healthier lives as they grow. Since this new

facility has been built, gym use has expanded by over one-third.

Soon SFU will be starting development on the second stage of their

expansion — a brand-new campus stadium, which I'm proud to say will be supported

by our government. This next phase is developing because we want to keep B.C. in

the national spotlight while keeping our best B.C. athletes competing at home.

Today my constituency is the home of champions that we can all be

proud of. Today we are working on building a better home for our student

athletes and active British Columbians. Tomorrow is looking very good.

SIMON FRASER SOCIETY FOR

COMMUNITY LIVING

D. Thorne: I am pleased to speak today about the Simon

Fraser Society for Community Living, an organization in my community that

provides exceptional service to children and adults with developmental

disabilities.

On February 14 people with developmental disabilities, their

families and volunteers from around the province travelled to Victoria to visit

their MLAs and to deliver a special Valentine's Day message. Each MLA received a

huge container of red candy hearts representing developmentally disabled adults

and children who are on provincial wait-lists for community living services.

Since official wait-lists are not kept, it is difficult for me to

know exactly how many residents of my own community are waiting for respite,

homemaker services, child and youth care workers, professional supports, parent

and family support or behavioural intervention programs. According to the B.C.

Association for Community Living, over 1,000 infants, 3,700 children and 3,000

adults are waiting for these services.

In my community the Simon Fraser Society works very, very hard to

ensure that people who live with intellectual disabilities and their families

are afforded

[ Page 6067 ]

the same choice in lifestyle that the rest of us enjoy every day. This means

inclusive opportunities wherever possible, including community housing,

employment opportunities, real choices for recreation and leisure, and also

respect for cultural and religious preferences.

As we MLAs enjoy the candies delivered to us last month, I want

all of us to please consider what actions we should each take to support our

most vulnerable citizens.

ASIAN CONTRIBUTORS TO

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY CAMPAIGN

R. Lee: Last Saturday I attended the third annual Universe

of Hope Gala, organized by the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon division.

Since its inception in 1938, the Canadian Cancer Society has spread information

about the early warning signs of cancer to the Canadian public. At that time

there was growing concern among doctors that people were not aware of the signs

of cancer. By the time people consulted a doctor, the cancer was advanced and

difficult to treat.

[1400]

Over the years the Canadian Cancer Society has led the way in

cancer control by focusing on prevention, advocacy, research, information and

support. The Canadian Cancer Society provides Canadians with information to make

healthy lifestyle choices and decrease their chances of developing cancer. As

the largest charitable funder of cancer research, the Canadian Cancer Society

works with the National Cancer Institute of Canada to effectively allocate funds

to cancer research projects. More importantly, the Canadian Cancer Society

offers individual and group support programs for cancer patients, caregivers,

families and friends so no one has to face this disease alone.

The society's annual fundraising events — the daffodil sale and

the telethon — are coming up, and the Asian community has been very active in

supporting these efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the

Asian campaign's contributors: Benjamin Tsang and Ian Cheung, Diversity Gala

chair and vice-chair; Johnny Fong, honorary patron; Buddha's Light International

Association in Vancouver; Cathay Lions Club; Fairchild television and radio; and

staff Titania Chan and Jim Kwong for their tireless efforts to make cancer

history.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

C. James: This weekend I was in Surrey meeting with

farmworkers and the families of those killed and injured in last week's tragedy.

The families spoke courageously and eloquently. They told the crowd about the

heartbreaking choices they face every single day, whether to support their

family or whether to choose safety and not work. They want to ensure that action

occurs so their loss has some meaning.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. When she meets with

farmworkers on Thursday, will she commit to real changes to better protect

B.C.'s farmworkers on the roads and in the fields?

Hon. J. Les: It's a new week, and it's the same old

opposition, I'm afraid.

It's important to know, as I'm sure most people understand, that

we've had a very tragic accident that occurred last week. That accident is still

very much under investigation as to what the causes of that accident were.

In the interim we are stepping up enforcement activity to ensure

that there is compliance with existing laws and regulations. It's important to

recognize this. There are many laws and regulations that apply to the

transportation of farmworkers to and from their place of work. We want to ensure

that those are being properly adhered to. In the meantime, of course, we also

await the results of the investigation that's ongoing.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental?

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR

FARMWORKERS

C. James: I do. I am sorry if the member finds it tiring

that we will stand up for farmworkers, but we're going to continue to do that.

The families and the communities are looking for more than just changes to

vehicle safety. They actually want the B.C. Liberals to admit that they were

wrong to strip farmworkers of their basic rights and protections — minimum wage,

overtime, statutory holiday pay.

In October 2001 the former Agriculture Minister dismissed those

protections. He said those rights were "choking industries." By stripping those

protections, the B.C. Liberals said they didn't care about farmworkers.

My question is again to the Minister of Labour. Will she admit

today that it was wrong to strip those workers of their basic rights, and will

she commit to reversing the B.C. Liberals' cuts to employment standards for

farmworkers?

[1405]

Hon. O. Ilich: As a matter of fact, the NDP have it wrong.

The changes that were made in 2001, in fact, strengthened the employment.

Provisions were made for direct deposit of wages to banks. In fact, those

changes were made so that farmworkers were in fact protected better than they

had been before.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental.

C. James: It's very clear from the minister's answer that

farmworkers can't trust this government to stand up for them at all in this

province.

The B.C. Liberal record speaks for itself. Perhaps the minister

would like to hear from a former Labour Minister. Graham Bruce directed

employment stan-

[ Page 6068 ]

dards compliance staff to "reduce your presence in the fields during peak

harvesting times."

Again, to the new Minister of Labour: will she agree that it was

wrong to strip these rights for farmworkers?

Hon. O. Ilich: The things that we have focused on since

taking over have been compliance with the rules and regulations that have

already been in effect. They have been in order to make sure that wages are

being paid. We have introduced fees to make sure they have been paid.

These changes were all relating to fees, payments, accounting,

etc. What really has hurt in the safety aspect are the changes that the former

government made when they stopped the compliance teams in 1997. That's when the

changes were made, and that's when workers were made unsafe.

R. Chouhan: I think when you're dead, wages mean nothing.

These farmworkers died in the field. You have the gall to stand here and tell us

that you have taken those rights away from farmworkers, and you're calling it

strengthening of their rights? It's unbelievable. It was this government that

stripped farmworkers of their rights. It was this government that pulled

inspection staff out of the field. It was this government that put reckless

deregulation first.

Can the Minister of Labour explain why farmworkers are the only

people in this province who are not eligible for minimum wage, overtime and

holiday pay?

Hon. O. Ilich: I just want to talk a little bit about the

fatalities in the agricultural industry, because that's what we've been chatting

about. In 1994 there were 15 deaths in the farm sector, in the agriculture

industry. In 1995 there were ten. In 1996 there were ten. In 1997 there were 12.

In 1998, one; 1999, three. Now we're down to 2003, six; 2004, one; 2005, three.

But the injury rate has gone down incredibly. In 1997, 1,321 workers injured,

and today, 477 workers injured.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: It's unbelievable. It's really unbelievable.

I'm shocked. This minister can't even answer a simple question. The Minister of

Labour can't hide from her government's record. The record speaks for itself.

They drastically reduced protection for workers not only on farms but throughout

the industry. They also drastically reduced site inspections.

Will the Minister of Labour reinstate full inspections and restore

protections for farmworkers that her government took away?

[1410]

Hon. O. Ilich: We obviously know that inspections are not

what is required. The laws are there, and the laws are there to be followed.

In fact, I have in my hand the WorkSafe report from two weeks

before this tragic accident, when the employers were informed. They agreed, and

the workers were also informed. Let me tell what you it says: "The vehicles used

for transporting workers must comply with the regulations of the Ministry of

Transportation, motor vehicle branch of B.C., WCB act, occupational health and

safety regulations and other applicable regulations of provincial file and/or

the RCMP."

The management said they were committed to reducing vehicle

injuries. They were told that they had to wear seatbelts. The driver supervisor

said that they must possess a valid B.C. driver's licence and that seatbelts

will be worn. Workers were talked to at the time, too, and were instructed to

wear seatbelts. These rules and regulations are there, and inspections are at

the highest rate they've ever been, in all time.

C. Puchmayr:

Through the leaked memo which showed that

there was an ability to prevent people from going in to inspect the fields in

2002 by this very government…. Can the minister tell us if she is willing to put

together a committee to investigate this serious infraction, breaches of the

actual act itself?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm assuming that the member is talking about

the employment standards branch. Let me tell you something else. In 1997 to 2000

there was one branch officer dedicated, with two co-op students who would go out

and visit farms. Now we have a total of four dedicated officers.

C. Puchmayr: Well, there were certainly a lot more offices,

and there were certainly a lot more field offices back then, which you have cut

under this government. In 2006 — 82 employment standards inspections, 82 for

over 5,000 farms; 250 WCB inspections, 250 for over 5,000 farms. Can the

minister assure us that the reduction in inspections wasn't a direct result of

members of cabinet or ministers consulting with those boards?

Hon. O. Ilich:

One other thing that we should be talking

about…. We are enforcing more; we are inspecting more. There have been more

orders written. There were 46,163 orders written last year as compared to 34,000

in 2001, and the penalties are up significantly.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I was not involved in this line of

questioning until a minute ago. The minister talks about what happened in 1997.

I was the minister in 1997, and you were the critic. Let's remember, there's a

plaque on my wall in my basement for six months of negotiations between the

federal government, the Ag Council, the provincial government, the Ministry of

Labour and the police as we built a protection system for agriculture workers

that allowed farmers to farm and workers to stay alive, and that stopped the

farmwork contractors from ripping off wages from people

[ Page 6069 ]

for getting into buses that were dangerous to ride to work in.

[1415]

Hon. Speaker, three years later, piece after piece after piece out

of the deal that we put together was stripped away by the government that was

over there before you came to work here. I don't care what the spin children who

wrote that alligator book say. Will the Minister of Labour intervene, bring the

parties together and do the work to put the protections back in place so farmers

can farm?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. O. Ilich: That member is absolutely right. He is the

minister who cancelled the compliance team that used to do the inspections.

Perhaps he would be able to tell us why they cancelled that team.

What we've said today is that we are going to…. On an interim

basis, until we find out what happened in that particular accident that happened

last week, we are going to resume some of those inspections.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Evans: Yeah, sure. I'd love to explain it. It might not

be possible within the six-second-clip context in which she answers questions.

You will remember last week…. A person died three years ago. There

was an investigation, an inquiry into the death, and they said to this

government: "Put the restrictions back in place that you stripped out in 2001,

so people will quit dying." All last week that was the nature of the questions.

It wasn't about the present death. It was, "Will you put the regulatory regime

back in place that saved people's lives?" and they ducked it.

Now I would like to ask the Minister of Labour…. It can be fixed,

but I don't trust most of the people sitting around you. Will the Minister of

Labour personally intervene, sit down with the parties and put the restrictions

and the regulations back in place that were there six years ago to save lives?

Hon. O. Ilich: We have already announced that we are in

fact stepping up the inspections and compliance visits of the vehicles —

enforcement on those vehicles. But let me say again that we are doing more

inspections. WorkSafe is doing more inspections. The rules and regulations are

clearly there already, and we are writing more orders than ever before.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR

FARMWORKERS

M. Farnworth: I can understand this minister's reluctance

to answer questions in this House today. For the last six years this government

has done nothing for farmworkers — absolutely nothing.

Will the minister tell this House whether she thinks it's

acceptable that farmworkers receive no overtime, no holiday pay and no minimum

wage? And will she commit to this House to calling a public inquiry into the

state of farmworkers' conditions in British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: You know, the NDP keep going on about how we

stripped rules and regulations around safety. In fact, we did not. In fact,

they've been increased.

The employment standards branch has done more to protect

farmworkers in the last number of years than they've ever done before. There's

now direct deposit to farmworkers' accounts. There's a number of things that

were done to strengthen how the farmworkers were treated. The employment

standards branch now has four dedicated workers. When they were looking after

this, there was one dedicated worker with two co-op students that visited farms

to make sure that farmworkers were well looked after.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

[1420]

M. Farnworth: Well, it's pretty clear that she believes

that farmworkers don't deserve overtime. It's pretty clear she believes that

farmworkers don't deserve holiday pay, and it's pretty clear she believes that

farmworkers don't deserve minimum wage. Can she tell this House and the

farmworkers of British Columbia why this government doesn't believe they should

get overtime, holiday pay or even minimum wage?

Hon. O. Ilich: Just the other day I was reading that

somebody who farms for daffodils here on the Island is now paying more to get

labour. We have a 4-percent unemployment rate right now. It's the highest that

we have ever had. Workers are having to come from different parts of the world

to help in the fields. And workers are being looked after better than they ever

have before because if employers don't look after their workers, they're not

going to be working. So what people are getting paid in the fields is up, and

there's more work available for everybody in the province.

J. Kwan: To the Minister of Labour: could she explain to

this House and to the families and farmworkers out there why farmworkers are

being treated like second-class citizens?

Hon. O. Ilich: I go back to what we're doing out in the

field. We're educating farmworkers more as to their rights, and we have

compliance officers who go and visit farms. We have four times as many

compliance officers as they had.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. O. Ilich: We are spending more and more time

educating. We have agreements with the agricul-

[ Page 6070 ]

tural community and a memorandum of agreement with them as to how we go about

doing these things. So we're enforcing and educating, and we're continuing to

work with the community.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: To the Minister of Labour: could she tell this

House what class of worker does not get overtime or minimum wage or holiday pay?

Hon. P. Bell: It's embarrassing for people on that side…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …to turn this into a political issue. I think

it's absolutely unacceptable that the members opposite disparage the farmworkers

who come to British Columbia to work hard in the fields day after day after day

and take pride in the work that they do. It's incredible…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …the efforts that they put into this

industry. For this opposition to try and take a terrible accident, an awful

accident that occurred last week and make it a political issue, they should be

embarrassed.

H. Bains: If as the minister said earlier, the farmworkers

are as important as he says they are, then tell us: why are they not in your

eyes worthy of minimum wage? Why are they not worthy of holiday pay? Why are

they not worthy of all these safety protections? You tell us here in this House

why they continue to be considered second-class citizens.

Hon. P. Bell: The opposition is trying to put agricultural

workers in a little box. If they had their way, there would be no agriculture

industry in this province. The agricultural workers in B.C. are some of the

highest-paid….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1425]

Hon. P. Bell: The agricultural workers in B.C. are some of

the highest-paid agricultural workers anywhere in Canada — $12 and $13 an hour.

All I hear from this opposition is a cheap attempt to take a terrible accident

and politicize it.

H. Lali: For the benefit of the Minister of Labour, it is a

fact that it was this Liberal government that cut the minimum wage for

farmworkers. It is a fact that it is this Liberal government that cut the

overtime for farmworkers. It is also a fact that they are the ones who cut the

inspections. It is a fact that a majority of the farmworkers who work in the

Fraser Valley are immigrants and are also women. They are people from

backgrounds in India, Pakistan, Vietnam, the Philippines as well as Latin

America and other countries around the world.

This government has continued to treat farmworkers as second-class

citizens. I want to find out from the Minister of Labour: when is she going to

reinstate inspections and also make sure that farmworkers are getting paid

minimum wage and getting paid their overtime — all of those things that these

Liberals have cut — and quit treating them as second-class citizens?

Hon. P. Bell: What the opposition is trying to indicate

here is completely inaccurate in terms of the number of inspections that are

taking place on the farm. But it's interesting how all of a sudden the

questioning seems to be moving away…. They've been caught. They're trying to

politicize a devastating accident that happened last week. We should allow the

police to do the work, and we will react to the recommendations that the police

make.

This opposition needs to recognize that it was a devastating

accident. Farmworkers are someone whom we show tremendous respect to in this

province. In fact, we work very closely with them to make sure they have the

sort of support that they need in the fields.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

H. Lali:

Farmworkers are the amongst the lowest-paid people

in British Columbia, and their way of showing respect to the farmworkers is to

cut their holiday pay, their minimum wage and their overtime. That's how this

Liberal government shows respect to the lowest workers in this province. It is a

shame.

It is about time that this Liberal government, this Liberal

Premier on the opposite side, quit copping out whenever it comes time to take

responsibility. They don't want to take responsibility for the cost overruns on

the Olympics. They don't want to take responsibility for the B.C. Rail scandal.

They don't want to take responsibility for the convention centre cost overruns

in the same way that they're copping out — copout after copout — in terms of not

taking responsibility for issues.

When is this minister, when is this Premier, going to stand up on

behalf of the lowest-paid workers in society — those farmworkers — and reinstate

their holiday pay and their overtime and also, at the same time, reinstate the

minimum wage for the lowest workers in this province?

Hon. P. Bell: This is obviously a whole new era that these

folks just don't get on the other side of the House.

[ Page 6071 ]

There's competition for agricultural workers out there. We're working

closely, whether it be with the blueberry industry, the cranberry industry, the

tree fruit industry…. They can't find enough workers, so they're paying

premiums.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, take your seat.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. We want to be able to hear the answer.

Minister, proceed.

Hon. P. Bell:

Industry out there today is competing for

workers on an ongoing basis. We've had to significantly increase the number of

seasonal agricultural workers coming into British Columbia.

You know what? In my hometown of Prince George, in 1998 the

unemployment rate was 16.6 percent. Today it's 4 percent. That's why there's

competition out there for workers.

[1430]

A. Dix: Well, hon. Speaker, 12 times today we've asked the

Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Agriculture popped up. The Premier has

been silent. We've asked them 12 times why in 2001, 2002 and 2003 they stripped

minimum-wage protection from farmworkers, they stripped overtime protections

from farmworkers, they stripped holiday protection from farmworkers and they cut

inspections. And 12 times they haven't answered.

My question is to the Premier, because he did it. It wasn't the

Minister of Labour, who wasn't here. The Premier did it. He made that decision,

and again and again and again he refuses to take responsibility, as ministers

refuse to take responsibility. My question to the Premier is this. If you

support those policies, if you believe that farmworkers should be treated like

second-class citizens — the only workers in the province not to have those

protections — then I say to you, sir…

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

A. Dix: …please stand up and defend your position.

Hon. P. Bell:

The detail and effort that we put into the

agricultural community…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: …is significant. Clearly, the issue around

minimum wages and holiday pay were built into the piecework rates that were

established in 2001.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what? People are competing out there for

agricultural workers now. It's no longer a case of the community being able to

go out and acquire as many workers as they need. They have to go out and work to

get each individual worker into their fields. Today people are competing in the

industry and paying premium wages to get workers in the field.

I still find it incredibly disturbing that this opposition, after

six years, hardly ever mentioned agricultural workers. All of a sudden they've

got some religion because of a terrible accident. Let's not put politics into

that accident. Let's let the police do their work.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

C. Trevena: I have several petitions with approximately 600

signatures protesting the continued cuts to provincial child care funding.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued second

reading debate on Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act, and in Committee A, I call

Committee of Supply. For the information of members, debate is continued on the

estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Second Reading of Bills

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

(continued)

J. Horgan: I know some members are just taking a comfort

break, and they'll be back any moment to hear my riveting comments on the Public

Inquiry Act.

I left debate on Thursday on this bill, so it's with enthusiasm

that I start again at this point. I am not certain how much time I have left,

but I'm sure the Chair will advise me when I get close.

An Hon. Member: Two minutes.

J. Horgan: My friend from Shuswap wants me to keep my

poignant and reasoned responses to just two minutes, but I'm sure it's a bit

more than that.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It will seem like longer to the Minister of

Energy; I know that.

We were talking last week about modernizing legislation. That was

the intent; that was the thrust. Last fall — pardon me; we didn't have a session

last fall, so it must have been last spring….

[1435]

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

The Attorney General tabled the Public Inquiry Act to much

opposition and much hostility from stakeholder

[ Page 6072 ]

groups, interest groups and the like, and the bill was withdrawn. We had an

expectation on this side of the House that we would see it again at the fall

sitting, when we were led to believe we would be discussing legislation. Of

course that sitting didn't happen, and here we are again today with a new bill,

a revamped Public Inquiries Act, and our disappointment remains.

The biggest challenge for legislators is to be in this place

representing people in our community and helping them to understand what the

point and objective of legislation is. It's quite difficult in this instance,

where you have a bill that's replacing 100-some-odd years-old legislation that

had a time limit. It had a time limit on how much time there would be between

the receiving of a report and the tabling of it in this place or the making

public of the findings of the inquiry. It was 15 days.

My friend the critic from Nanaimo spoke quite eloquently on this

question, and he said that even as far back as 1897 the legislation said as

follows: that it be laid before the Legislative Assembly for a set period of

time — 15 days — after such report had been received. Well, what have we got

today? If we go to

section 28 of the bill, the final report section, there is no

time limit. It's open-ended. In fact, there are clauses in that

section of the

act that allow executive council or the cabinet of the government of British

Columbia to review, sanitize, scrub and cleanse and take out any findings that

they find objectionable.

Now, the language isn't as clear as that in the bill. But based on

past practice and the approach, to this point in time, to openness and

transparency in government, I think it's important for members to pause and

reflect on that for a moment. That, of course, is why we have debate at second

reading. We talk about the substance of the legislation. We talk about the

principles of the bill.

If we're to believe the Premier and cabinet, who said back in 2001

that access to government information helps us and others hold the government to

account and that accountability enhances democracy…. I couldn't agree more. I

couldn't agree more with that statement, but yet I don't find it in this piece

of legislation. Quite the contrary. I find a

section in the act that says that

following review of the report, the executive council will direct the minister

to lay the report, except any portion directed to be withheld under subsection

3, before the Legislative Assembly.

We have

an act now that says that following a public inquiry, all

findings will be laid before the public — all findings. Not selected findings.

Not findings that are convenient for the government of the day. Not findings

that the minister may find adverse to his political whims, but in fact, all

findings. We have a new, modernized bill that has no time limit and has out

clauses for government to seize upon.

It's been said that only Nixon could go to China. What does that

mean? My son said to me the other day: "What are you talking about, Dad? What

has Nixon got to do with anything? Why would he have wanted to go to China in

the 1970s, anyway?" Well, the point of that….

Interjection.

J. Horgan: I see my friend from Shuswap wants to hear this,

so I'll go into some detail about it. The objective was that only a Republican —

a right-wing, anti-China Republican — could go to China and mend the

relationship between these two superpowers. Well, only the B.C. Liberals could

table legislation that says: "We're going to do public inquiries, but of course

we'll only table them when we see fit. We'll only table them after we've

sanitized them, after the public affairs bureau has gone through it and scrubbed

out any of the adverse findings." Only B.C. Liberals could do that.

If this party stood in this place and tabled that legislation, the

roar would be deafening from that side. It would be deafening, and they all know

it.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: They all know it. In fact, my good friend the

Mining Minister would be the loudest of those on the other side. The din would

shake the walls if this party stood up and said: "Here's some public inquiry

legislation that we may show you after we've had all of our political hacks go

over it and take out any of the damaging stuff."

My point is that only B.C. Liberals could table inquiry act

legislation that is not public and is not open and is not accessible. I see the

Attorney, and I know he'll want to correct me at committee stage if I'm off the

mark on this question. But it strikes me — having seen a piece of legislation or

two in my day, and certainly some since I've been in this place as a member —

that this goes well beyond what would be acceptable to any government, any

modern civilized democracy in this continent and, in fact, perhaps even in the

world.

[1440]

Public inquiry acts should be open, transparent and available for

all to see. There were news stories over the weekend that said the Frank Paul

inquiry, which was announced last week, will be conducted under the new act.

Well, I thought that the supremacy of parliament — the act that we pass at the

start of each session — meant that we would fully debate these bills. We would

fully debate what the government brings forward, and after exhaustive debate, we

would either pass or reject the legislation.

But I read in the public press that the next public inquiry

brought forward by this government will be conducted under the new act. Well,

there is no new act. There's a bill before this place — the second time around,

to boot. It's not like this is clean and green and ready to go. It's been kicked

around a little bit. It went away. It came back, and it's no better.

On this side of the House we're going to stay here and debate it

as long as is humanly possible. So I hope that doesn't get in the way of the

government's desire to make public pronouncements, talk about bills on one day

and call them acts the next, without due process and full debate in this

Legislature.

Again, one of the fundamental reasons why we're here is to have

these discussions. I know the Attorney is going to take great care in reviewing

the discussions

[ Page 6073 ]

that have taken place in here. He may well go back, and after sober second

thought, after a principled debate at second reading of this legislation, he may

well say: "You know, you're right. I mean, the member from Malahat and members

on this side of the House have brought up some very, very good points,

particularly around the fact that there's no time limit."

No time limit — I find that unbelievable, hon. Speaker. I know

you're probably saying: "Oh, the member from Malahat finds something

unbelievable. That's hardly ever happened in this place."

Hon. G. Abbott: I wouldn't say that.

J. Horgan: My friend from Shuswap again corrects me. I have

been found surprised and startled many, many times in this place. And it's at

the gall of the government on the other side — that they could bring forward a

second time…. It's not a first time, not "let's try this and see how it looks."

They've done this once before. This is the second go-round. How do you do that?

I know that's probably a question for committee stage — how do you do that? But

it seems unconscionable.

I go through the various quotations. I know some of my colleagues

have done that, and I know that the minister would want to hear them again. In

the New Era document back in 2001: "It's time for a new era of

accountability. Our plan will deliver transparent, accountable government" —

until 2007 when we change the Public Inquiry Act and allow political hacks,

unelected individuals, to sanitize and cleanse and take out any adverse findings

in public inquiries. It's in the act.

I'll read it again. I know the members in the gallery are going:

"How could that possibly be? Surely the member from Malahat is off his nut. It

wouldn't actually be in a bill." But it says right here: "On receiving the

report, the Executive Council may direct the minister to withhold portions of

the report…." Ow. That seems pretty straightforward.

I have no formal legal training, but I've been around the block a

couple of times. I've had to meet with lawyers now and again. I think they'd say

that was pretty clear — "may direct the minister to withhold portions of the

report for any reason…." Wow. Transparency. That's the new era. The most

accountable government until 2007, and then it all stopped — the day the music

died here at the Legislature of British Columbia. The Public Inquiry Act says

that the government can withhold information.

Now, there are dozens and dozens of clauses in here, hon. Speaker.

I know you've gone through the bill very closely, and you probably stopped at

section 28, as well, and said to yourself: "Well, if in 1897, if a public

inquiry…." I don't even think they had Gestetners back then. They certainly

didn't have photocopy machines. They didn't have Bill Gates to help them out

here. You couldn't click and search for information in these reports.

But at that time, 1897 — we could have had quill pens then, for

all I know — 15 days. That was the requirement. A public inquiry would take

place. The commissioner, whoever he or she may be, would have had to table the

report within 15 days for the public to see. Now, that strikes me as openness

and accountability, albeit 100-plus years ago.

L. Mayencourt: It's shortened to ten days.

J. Horgan: I don't see ten days in here. I get some help

from my friend from Burrard, but I've gone through this. I see nowhere in here

about final report that there is any time line at all — none whatsoever. So I

stand to be corrected. I'm sure he'll send me a note if I've missed the mark. I

see nothing in the document that gives a time limit.

[1445]

At the turn of the century, we hadn't gone into the Boer War yet.

Laurier was Prime Minister of Canada. I think it was Dick McBride — would it

have been? — in 1897. Help me out.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: It wasn't that much later. It was 1903 for sure.

Interjection.

J. Horgan: Sixteen years later. Okay. I thought it was

In any event, a long, long time ago. Many Premiers have come and

gone since then, many Prime Ministers, and the Public Inquiry Act has put us in

fairly good stead. We had a public inquiry, the hon. Ted Hughes…. I mentioned

this last Thursday. I got a verbal correction from the Attorney. Maybe he'll put

it in writing for me.

My understanding of that public inquiry was that the hon. Ted

Hughes said: "I'm done." Phoned the Premier's office and phoned the Leader of

the Opposition and said: "I'm done. I'm tabling it right now." No sanitizing by

political hacks. No one hand-over by the political appointees, whose job depends

on protecting their ministers who may well be part of the public inquiry. None

of that.

So I'm curious, and I know the minister will send me that in

writing so that I've got it for my records. But that strikes me as open and

transparent. You find a very capable individual like Mr. Hughes, and he's

appointed. He's given terms of reference. He conducts his inquiry. He says:

"Here it is. I'm done."

The member from Burrard was concerned about freedom-of-information

and privacy concerns as a result of public inquiries, and that's a legitimate

concern. But I'm fairly confident that when we appoint a learned individual to

conduct a public inquiry, he or she will do so cognizant of all the laws of

British Columbia and will do so with the view of protecting individuals, if

that's required.

I know that whenever you hear the term "public inquiry," everybody

lawyers up. That's the order of the day. Everybody is there protecting their

interests, protecting their rights. How long did it take with Air India? How

long is that — 20 years, 22 years? A long, long time.

[ Page 6074 ]

There are a host of good reasons. I certainly don't want to get

into that today. But the challenges of this legislation are such that I believe

it would be appropriate for the Attorney to take another look, pull it back and,

at a minimum, take a look at

section 28 — the final report section. Give us a

time line, and give us the individuals who are going to be involved.

If you named the Information and Privacy Commissioner as the

individual who would be tasked with reviewing the document for privacy reasons,

I would have some comfort. Here's an officer of the Legislature. Who could be

beyond reproach, other than that? The person that's accountable for the act in

this place. Why not have that individual named in here? It doesn't name who

would be reviewing the document.

I have every right to believe that the ministers on that side of

the House would want to have independent, impartial public servants do that

vetting. But quite often, every now and again, an order-in-council appointee —

there are so many in the public affairs bureau — might pass their hand over the

document. They might find something that's politically challenging. Absent a

time line, absent a date at which we can expect this to be made public, that

document could be held.

Let's assume that we have a public inquiry called next year, 2008,

and in the lead-up to the next provincial election, there's some adverse finding

found by the commissioner. The cabinet receives that report 90 days before an

election. They look at it, and someone directs the minister to withhold portions

of the report for any reason.

Why would the public take comfort in that? Why would the public

see that as enhancing democracy, as the Premier said he wanted to do? Why would

the people see that? The night of the victory in 2001, the now Premier said: "We

will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada."

Wow. Six years later, and that's all down the tubes. We used to

have open cabinet meetings, hon. Speaker. You might remember that, as a member

of executive council. We were going to have those all the time. I think the last

one was…. When was that? January 2005, I think. Certainly two years ago. A long,

long time ago. Those open and accountable cabinet meetings — they're all gone.

I wonder if you take a public inquiry finding to your open cabinet

meeting and then direct a minister to withhold it. I don't think so, hon.

Speaker. Second time around for the Attorney General on this legislation, and it

didn't get any better. They were calling it the secret inquiries act, some

members on this side of the House.

[1450]

That's humorous, but Les Leyne, a noted journalist here in

Victoria, had an even better name. I can't find it in my notes, but it was even

better than the secret inquiry act. He gave it a second name this time around,

and it was the "public when we say so" inquiry act. That's what he called it —

Les Leyne in the Victoria Times Colonist — the "public when we say so"

inquiry act.

One thing my mother told me is that if they're calling you names,

that's okay, but when they start to laugh at you, you're in trouble. I think in

the case of the Attorney's legislation, we are at that stage. It's gone from

concern to ridicule, and when the ridicule sets in, it's very, very difficult

for the public to take any comfort whatsoever in the state of the documentation.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'll conclude my remarks. I certainly

look forward particularly to the Attorney's defence of

section 28 when we get to

committee stage and the other sections of the act.

I'll finish by reminding the Attorney that the commitments that

the Premier made to openness and accountability certainly resonated with the

public. There was some hope at that time that there would be openness and

transparency in government. I encourage him to reflect on those remarks and try

and instil some of that openness and accountability in this piece of legislation

before we pass it into law.

J. Kwan: We're debating Bill 6 in this House this

afternoon, the Public Inquiry Act, and I have the act before me. As is the case

when we look at these bills — and these are often complicated bills with lots of

information — the government sometimes would have what's called explanatory

notes in the bill, and that tends to explain

section by

section what the changes

are with respect to this bill.

I went to the explanatory notes of this bill, and here's what it

says:

"This Bill repeals and replaces the Inquiry Act, R.S.B.C

1996…with a new Public Inquiry Act. The new Act provides powers to establish 2

types of commissions of inquiry: study commissions and hearing commissions. A

hearing commission has a broader range of powers and duties than a study

commission, including special powers to compel witnesses and order disclosure,

and to find a person in contempt. However, these powers may be extended to study

commissions, or 2 types of commissions may be combined."

That's the explanatory note. If you look through the bill, you would

not be able to find any other explanatory note, and I find that curious from

this perspective. There are significant changes being proposed in this act that

we're debating in second reading, yet it does not outline that in this bill. I

have to ask the question: why is that?

I'm just going to set that aside for one minute and go back to

actually looking at the history of how we've come to this place and, perhaps

more importantly, look at what comments have been made particularly by the now

Premier when he was in opposition — some of his statements around the importance

of openness, transparency and accountability to which the Public Inquiry Act is

central to issues of great public interest for British Columbians.

Here's what the then opposition leader, the now Premier, had to

say. Back on July 22, 1998, this was a letter written by the Premier to the

Freedom of Information Association:

"Open government is the hallmark of a free and democratic

society. Access to government information helps us as the official opposition

and others hold the government to account, and accountability enhances

democracy.

[ Page 6075 ]

"Secrecy feeds distrust and dishonesty. Openness builds

trust and integrity. The fundamental principle must be this: government

information belongs to the people, not to government.

"This means, among other things, that all

citizens

must have timely, effective and affordable access to the documents which

governments make and keep. Governments should facilitate access, not obstruct

it."

I haven't quoted the entire letter. I've only taken pieces

that I think are most relevant to the debate before us today.

[1455]

Fast-forward to today, and what have we got? We have a Public

Inquiry Act whereby the government is doing way more than introducing two types

of commissions of inquiry. The government is giving the power to the executive

council, to the cabinet of the government, to withhold the results of a public

inquiry — in other words, to not table the findings of a public inquiry in this

very Legislature. In fact, the government is proposing that we change that to

allow, first of all, for the findings to go to the executive council, to go to

the minister before it comes to the Legislature.

That change is significant. It is very significant, and I would

argue that it is absolutely contrary to what the Premier, when he was in

opposition, advocated for. The Premier and in fact many of the government bench

were campaigning on this back in 2001 — what they called the New Era document. It says: "It's time for a new era of accountability. Our plan will

deliver transparent, accountable government. B.C. Liberals will reform how

government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and

accountable government in Canada."

How are we doing on that score? The government has undertaken

tremendous measures to keep information from the public and has actually, in my

view, dismantled the Freedom of Information Act and disallowed the information

that would otherwise be made public under their term. That's what this

government has done.

It's interesting to note that here in this House, the government

will pretend that they are trying to protect the public's interest with this

act. But are they really? That's the question before us. I would challenge the

Premier to speak in this House around this act. Does he think that the Public

Inquiry Act as it is being proposed in this bill meets the spirit of what he had

committed to British Columbians in the 2001 election — when he was in

opposition, when he wrote the letter to the B.C. Freedom of Information

Association?

Let me quote the Premier's victory night speech in 2001. Here's

what he said: "We will bring in the most open and accountable government in

Canada. I know some of you will say we will soon forget about that. I promise we

won't" — a direct quote from the now Premier. Maybe the Premier can tell us in

this Legislature whether or not he's forgotten his promise on victory night in

2001. Maybe he can tell us in this House whether or not Bill 6 violates the very

statement that he made in 2001.

The Premier went on to say in his swearing-in ceremony: "This

government is founded on two fundamental principles, political accountability

and improved public access." Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, that this bill

allows the cabinet to decide when the report of a public inquiry is made public.

This bill changes what was the Public Inquiry Act, where the report from the

public inquiry is directly tabled to the Legislature for all members of the

House at the same time. This has been the case since 1897.

[1500]

Now fast-forward to 2007. What's changed? What's changed to drive

the government to bring forward this bill, to change the spirit of the Public

Inquiry Act so that the report would no longer be tabled directly to the

Legislature — other than maybe that is to say that this Premier is now in office

and that there's much information that he wants to ensure his cabinet has an

opportunity to review and perhaps censor before it comes before this House? Is

that the real reason? Is the real reason that this act is before us so this

government can actually protect themselves politically on policy decisions that

negatively impact British Columbians, that beg a public inquiry?

This bill, Bill 6, allows cabinet to sever the report. How could

it be that it would actually give authority to the government to sever a report

of a public inquiry? The existing Inquiry Act has no provision for severing of

information from the final report of a public inquiry — none whatsoever.

Under this bill, Bill 6, which we're now debating, the cabinet

would be able to sever the report based on what they call privacy rights,

business interests, law enforcement concerns or under the guise of public

interest. Giving the cabinet the power to sever the report of a public inquiry,

in my view, could be viewed as a conflict of interest because there may be a

strong motive to prevent the release of damaging information.

In fact, there is a possibility that the result of a public

inquiry may not be made public at all. The government, the executive council

will get to decide that. It raises tremendous concerns around accountability,

issues of discretionary powers of the executive council over the results of a

public inquiry. I have to say that it is absolutely contradictory to what the

Premier had promised when he was in opposition, what the Premier had promised in

his own victory night speech and what the Premier had promised, in fact, when he

was being sworn in as the head of this executive council.

I just want to take a moment to talk about a case that took years

for the government to act on. It is the Frank Paul case. It happened in my

riding. The situation there is worth reviewing for the purpose of this debate.

The Frank Paul case, many people will know. An aboriginal man was left to die in

an alley of the downtown east side by a police officer in the city of Vancouver.

At the time when this happened, people were shocked and astounded.

The family of Frank Paul demanded a public inquiry. The aboriginal community

demanded a public inquiry. In fact, two former Police Complaint Commissioners

asked for a public inquiry — all of which were turned down by the current

Solicitor General, the former Attorney General.

[1505]

[ Page 6076 ]

Let me just quote from the

Vancouver Sun back in 2004:

"Police and Frank Paul's Death. Police Complaint

Commissioner Dirk Ryneveld's plea in January for a public inquiry into the death

of Frank Paul has fallen on deaf ears. The Solicitor General says that there is

nothing to be gained in a public airing of the circumstances surrounding the

fate of the man who died of exposure to the elements after being dumped by

Vancouver police in an alley on a rainy winter night five years ago. He is

wrong, and we urge him to reconsider. We do so because we need to restore

confidence in the Vancouver police department."

"Shocking video of Mr. Paul made public

last year shows the wet smear left by his soaked clothes on the floor of a Vancouver

police station after the 40-year-old…man from Big Cove, New Brunswick, who

appeared to have passed out from drinking, was dragged out and left to die.

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of the video was the simple fact that such a

galling act was considered such a normal procedure that it could be carried out

in full view of the cameras.

"This is the second time that the Solicitor

General has rejected an inquiry into Mr. Paul's death. Mr. Ryneveld's predecessor had

asked for a coroner's inquest…."

Deputy Speaker: Member.

Hon. G. Abbott: I do appreciate that in the context of

second reading debate on a bill, there is some discretion in terms of the

content of the debate. However, I think it fair to point out to the member that

the points she is making should be reflected in her analysis of the bill rather

than the wide-ranging discussion of an issue which is going to be the subject of

a public inquiry presently.

Deputy Speaker: Members, I would remind you that second

reading is debate on the principle of the bill.

J. Kwan: Absolutely it's debated on the principle of the

bill. There's no doubt about it around the Frank Paul case and what could

happen. The government has just said that the Frank Paul case is now going to be

under this new act when it's passed through this House.

I want to speak to the core of the issue here and the

ramifications of what that really means. It took years and years for the

community to fight for that. The Solicitor General returned twice and said that

there was no need for an inquiry because it was against the public's interest.

Now the government expects the public to somehow trust them.

They're going to do the right thing by the Frank Paul inquiry under this new

act? I think not.

Let me just say this. I'm not going to prejudge what the

government is going to do. I'm simply going to raise the concerns that I have

relative to this case and relative to this new act.

Let me continue. The Solicitor General:

"…refused, citing the possibility that such an inquest

might be dragged into issues of culpability and racism. 'Public acrimony would

almost certainly follow,' the Solicitor General said in a letter written in

December 2001 that was made public just last week.

"The Paul case, the Stanley Park assault of

two men

by six officers and a number of untested allegations have left serious clouds

hanging over the Vancouver police department. It is time to let some sunshine

in. If there's racism, let's root it out. If there is public acrimony, let's get

the facts so it can at least be aimed in the right direction."

That was in an editorial written in the Vancouver Sun back on

March 23, 2004. The Solicitor General of today is on record saying that he's

against the public inquiry, and he turned down two requests for a public inquiry

by former Police Complaint Commissioners — two separate requests — because he

deemed it to be against the public's interest.

What have we got in this act? The government can in fact sever

information that they deem to be against the public's interest. That's the nut

of it. I have grave difficulties with this act and what it allows the government

to do.

[1510]

On the Frank Paul case, there was another

article written on March

18, 2004. Headlined "No Public Inquiry into Death of Man Dumped by Police," this

was in The Province . It goes on to say on record that the Solicitor

General disagrees that an inquiry would serve the public's interest; that the

former commissioner, Don Morrison, asked the Solicitor General to order a

coroner's inquest into Paul's case; that the Solicitor General refused, citing

political reasons.

In a letter to Mr. Morrison dated December 20, 2001, the Solicitor

General wrote: "I'm significantly concerned with the possibility of opening a

coroner's inquest during which culpability, liability and issues of racial

discrimination are likely to become the central features of attempted

cross-examination. Public acrimony will almost certainly follow."

Mr. Morrison said that both he and Mr. Ryneveld tried to push the

government to take action. Quoting Mr. Morrison in the newspaper article, it

says: "I think it deserves a proper investigation."

The government had also promised to evaluate police practices

surrounding the detention and release of people unable to care for themselves.

In the 2001 letter to Mr. Morrison, the Solicitor General said he had assigned

the police services division director to conduct a provincewide review, and the

study was never done. Then after reopening the case last year, Mr. Ryneveld

discovered two witnesses who had never been interviewed by internal

investigators — one of them a prison guard who helped drag Paul into the police

wagon before he died.

That's the nature of a case that the Solicitor General had refused

to act on back in 2004 — to the dismay of Frank Paul's family, the aboriginal

community and all those who wanted a public inquiry to shed some light on what

happened to this man so that we can learn from it, so that we can root out the

problems with the system and get on with doing the fair and just thing. In 2004

the Solicitor General refused to do that, and this government and this Premier

refused to act.

Now the case has been brought back once again, and the issue that

brought it back wasn't necessarily new information but, rather, forceful

information by

[ Page 6077 ]

the jail guard who said that nobody to this date had interviewed him

regarding Frank Paul's death. Finally, the current Solicitor General decides

that he will actually call an inquiry. What do we have? Under a different set of

rules, for which

an act has not yet even been passed, the presumption of the

government is that Bill 6 would be passed and that therefore Bill 6 would apply

to the inquiry of Frank Paul.

The concern about this focuses on the importance of getting at the

truth of the matter. The fear that I know many in the community — including the

Pivot Legal Society…. They have been relentless in trying to advocate for the

people who are most marginalized in our community, to get a voice for them. They

have raised the issue with their concerns around Bill 6 as it impacts Frank

Paul's case, and I certainly share that.

I'm very concerned that somehow the truth would not be tabled in

this Legislature, that somehow the inquiry and the information that comes out of

the inquiry would find its way to being severed under Bill 6 of the Inquiry Act,

that somehow the information arising from that inquiry would not be tabled in

this Legislature in a timely manner. The family, in Frank Paul's case, had to

wait for years and years to finally get that inquiry, and now they face yet

another hurdle called Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act.

[1515]

The other thing that I will say is this: the concern around the

Public Inquiry Act is around these two types of commissions of inquiry. On the

issue around Frank Paul, we have yet to receive a commitment from the government

that this won't be a study inquiry — a study inquiry that would not provide

powers of compulsion that would be required to get the police officers to

testify. The experience for many in our community is that the police officers

may not necessarily voluntarily participate in an investigative process and that

they must be legally compelled.

If the Frank Paul case falls under what the government would deem

to be a study inquiry, then I would argue that the inquiry and the truth that we

need to get at around the inquiry would be hugely compromised. The guidelines

from the OPCC, binding on police to cooperate with the investigators under the

Police Act, were not sufficient to result in cooperation from the Vancouver

police department officers. There were issues with respect to that.

If the Frank Paul case becomes a study commission, then we may

never find out what happened that night. In the broad wording of

section 15 of

FOIPPA, matters harmful to law enforcement could mean that much of the

information in the Frank Paul inquiry could be severed or be restricted from

public access as it may be deemed to be "harmful to law enforcement." That's

another hurdle that, under this new act, the Frank Paul inquiry would yet have

to jump over, Madam Speaker.

The extent to which… The ramification of this is enormous. I have

to say, in all good consciousness, that I don't know how the Premier, when he

said and committed to transparency and openness and accountability, would allow

his executive council to bring this bill before this House. It absolutely is

contrary, I believe, to his intentions.

Maybe his intentions were always different. When he said

transparency and openness, he actually meant the opposite. Maybe he was just

trying to fool the public with those words. Maybe he didn't mean those words at

all.

Well, here's the test for the Premier and for this executive

council. The rubber hits the road. This Public Inquiry Act, I would say,

challenges the integrity of the members according to the Premier's own words

when he says that when a government is trying to hide information, it hurts the

integrity of the government. That's what the Premier said then.

Now before us is this act. Is this act not giving the government

the authority to hide information from the public, which has never been done

before? Frankly, the answer has to be yes. You don't have to go far to figure it

out.

The other aspect is that the commissioner's power under this new

act — the ability to restrict access to information — has also been

significantly changed. Under the proposed bill, a commissioner may prevent a

person or a class of persons from attending a hearing or prevent the release of

any information held by or provided to the commission "if the commission has

reason to believe that the order is necessary for the effective and efficient

fulfillment of the commissioner's terms of reference."

[1520]

This provision is particularly troubling. What constitutes

"effective and efficient fulfillment" of the terms of the reference is not

defined in the act. Given the exclusive jurisdiction of the commissioner to make

all findings of law and fact arising under the act, any decisions made about the

meaning of those terms could never be subject to review. So it is conceivable

that this

section could be used fairly widely to restrict access to hearings and

to material held by the commissioner.

That's equally troubling to me as the other sections of the bill,

where it allows for the executive council to sever information from a public

inquiry and where, instead of being tabled in the Legislature, a public inquiry

is given to the minister responsible and to the government.

I would challenge all members of this House to rise up and to own

up to the commitments that the Premier made, when he was in opposition, to an

open and accountable government and to speak against this bill and to support

amendments to this bill so that British Columbians have

an act that actually has

teeth and would allow for the truth to come out.

G. Coons: Thank you for the opportunity, and thank you from

the opposite side there.

I rise to speak against Bill 6, the old Bill 23. It's been

recycled, it seems. It's had numerous names: the Public Inquiries Act, the

secrecy act. I see it as a "hold on to it until we have a long weekend" act.

It's an attack. It's an attack on openness and transparency, an attack on

British Columbians.

I look at the press release, back on March 5, 2007: "B.C.

Modernizes Public Inquiry Act." Now I believe, as do most British Columbians,

that to modernize you

[ Page 6078 ]

move forward. I would hope that this government, the members on the opposite

side, see us as moving forward with our public inquiries. But no. We seem to be

moving backwards.

I remember back when the B.C. Liberals and their supporters were

running their ads claiming that B.C. is back. Unfortunately, they were right in

some aspects. B.C. is back. They've moved back — far back. It's disturbing to

realize how far this government has moved us back.

B.C. is back to 1993, the last year the minimum wage was $6 per

hour. B.C. is back to 1979, the last time people had to work more than 40 hours

a week without overtime. Also, B.C. is back to 1927, the last time employers

could hire 12-year-old children. This government has brought us back, and now

we're back to 1897.

The members seem to savour the '90s.

Deputy Speaker: Member, take your seat.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I would ask that you remind the

member that while there is a relatively free-ranging character to second reading

debate, it should have application to the bill at hand. I have heard nothing in

the comments of the member to date that reflects a second reading consideration

of the bill.

Deputy Speaker: Again, I would remind members that second

reading is a debate on the core principles in the bill.

G. Coons: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The core

principles will be coming out. Unfortunately, as I said…

Deputy Speaker: Tie your comments, Member, to the

principles in the bill.

G. Coons: Thank you so much.

As I said, we seem to be savouring the '90s. We're back to the

1890s. Bill 6, the secret inquiry act, replaces the existing Public Inquiries

Act, which this government says is "outdated and unclear" and does not address a

number of matters that arise as far as respect to public inquiries. The concern

that many British Columbians have…. I go back to my constituency, I talk to my

constituents, and I bring up Bill 23 — the new Bill 6.

We talked about it before. We're still talking about it. We

thought perhaps it would be improved and better.

[1525]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker:

Order, please, Members. Let's hear the

speaker.

G. Coons: The concern that we have for this government is

that they're covering their past history — their mistruths, their attacks on

working families — and this bill realizes that they want to hide how they're

degrading our environment. The bill intends to thwart independent oversight and

government accountability in respect to public inquiries.

Bill 6, as I said, amends the Inquiry Act so that reports from

public inquiries are to be released to the relevant minister and to cabinet

rather than to this Legislative Assembly. This bill allows the Liberal insider

cabinet to decide when a report is to be made public. Under the existing

legislation the report from a public inquiry is tabled directly to this

Legislature, and it should be tabled to this Legislature. This has been the case

since 1897. My reference earlier to the '90s is referring to the previous

legislation.

Under the framework of this archaic bill, the Premier and the

executive council would be able to hold on to it under the pretence of reviewing

it, siphoning through it for an indefinite period of time before it's tabled in

this Legislature. As you've heard, Madam Speaker,

section 28(4) states that

following the review of the report, the executive council must direct the

minister to lay the report before the Legislative Assembly within ten days. In

the former act the report, upon completion, had to be issued to the Legislature,

to the public within 15 days. Now the executive council can hold on to it.

There's no time limit at all for the cabinet review.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

There's a huge potential to use this provision to delay the

release of reports, of any public report. Madam Speaker, this is unacceptable,

and most British Columbians would see that as an attack on openness and

transparency. This bill not only provides that the cabinet will decide if and

when the report will be released to the public, it allows this government to

terminate a public inquiry or change its terms of reference at any time before a

commission issues its final report.

This act, this secret inquiries act, eliminates openness and the

trust of our government process. We look at the act, at

section 28(3): on

reviewing the report, the executive council may direct the minister to withhold

portions of the report for any reason — any reason. We have the executive

cabinet in a situation of filtering and severing and deciding which portions of

the public report that they may find damaging — a definite potential for

conflict of interest, and it must be eliminated from this legislation.

Madam Speaker, public inquiries are for the public, paid for by

the public and must be released to the public, not dallied around the back rooms

of the executive cabinet deciding what they want to filter and sever so that the

public can't see it — the most secretive cabinet right here in Canadian history.

The proposal of this government to assert more control over public

inquiries once again defines this government and the Premier of this province —

secrecy, lack of openness, no transparency, no accountability. As we all know,

government secrecy is dangerous to all of those that believe in democracy. I

believe

[ Page 6079 ]

all members in this House believe in democracy. This bill, as I'm trying to

convince the member opposite, tramples on those rights of openness and

transparency.

[1530]

Interjections.

G. Coons:

It's okay, Madam Speaker. I can speak louder than

the guys on the other side.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Member, through the Chair.

G. Coons: Madam Speaker, secrecy breeds distrust, mistrust

between citizens and their elected representatives, and we've seen that. We have

a big distrust of this current government. We've seen that. We've heard that.

Secrecy prevents media, organizations and citizens from being able

to understand and question government intentions, government decisions. Bill 6,

this secrecy act, leads us right down the road of British Columbians mistrusting

government.

In an age when we need to build trust, in an age when we need to

build up the confidence in elected members, we have this government with their

secrecy bill — this "Let's hold on to it until it's a long weekend" bill so that

nobody can read into what they're really doing to the public and to British

Columbians.

Secrecy also puts this government, any government, at risk of

creating expensive mistakes. No person or group possesses all the information

necessary to make effective and responsible decisions. Obviously, the members on

this side are not in the position to make effective and responsible decisions.

They need to bring in Bill 6 to keep their actions and their decisions secret —

the consequences of their actions and decisions and intentions secret. That's

the purpose of this bill.

I believe British Columbians want transparency and openness, and

this government is trampling upon their rights for that.

Interjections.

G. Coons: What were the Liberals elected on? You were

elected on the promise to be — I'm glad you brought up why you were elected —

the most open, accountable and democratic government in Canada.

But over the last five years they have….

Interjections.

G. Coons: This is the only group of people that I know will

clap for their lack of openness, lack of transparency, lack of support for

working people, lack of support for farmworkers. They're clapping away on the

other side.

This bill tramples on the rights of British Columbians. They were

elected on promises that they never kept. Over the last five years….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order.

G. Coons: Over the last five years this government has

steadily dismantled the Freedom of Information Act, depriving citizens of the

right to know. This legislation blatantly — this blatant move to assert control

over public inquiries — again highlights where this government has been going

and continues to go in an era of secrecy and lack of transparency.

The Canadian Taxpayers Association, the B.C. Freedom of

Information and Privacy Association and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association

have joined forces to oppose this flagrant, blatant move by this B.C. Liberal

government to assert strict control over future public inquiries.

B.C. Civil Liberties Association president Jason Gratl said: "This

act takes both the public and the inquiry out of public inquiry, and it's

nothing more than a scheme to thwart independent oversight and government

accountability." We need to hold this government accountable. We need to have

transparency, and we need public inquiries to be public.

Also, executive director Darrell Evans of the B.C. Freedom of

Information and Privacy Association stated: "Under this legislation, it is

unlikely there could be a report on the child care system such as the Hughes

report that just came out. Apparently the B.C. Liberals will no longer tolerate

such independent scrutiny."

[1535]

That's shameful. We're looking at

an act that…. After a public

inquiry is done, it can be filtered, can be severed, can be saying, nudge,

nudge, wink, wink: "We don't think we want that in there. We don't think we want

people to know that about us." That's shameful, Madam Speaker. That's shameful.

I also see this as when this passes, and we call for a public

inquiry, they'll go nudge, nudge, wink, wink: "Yeah, let's have one — a dime a

dozen. We can grab it. We can filter it. We can release it to executive council.

We can have it sitting around for a month, four months, maybe after the next

election. Nobody will know about it."

Interjection.

G. Coons: "I hope so," says the member opposite. Exactly.

And that's what British Columbians are fighting against — that type of arrogance

where you hope so — that they're a dime a dozen. When we ask for a public

inquiry, you take it into the executive council, you filter it, and you release

it when you want. Unacceptable. British Columbians think that's shameful.

Deputy Speaker: Member. Member. Through the Chair.

G. Coons: This bill, Madam Speaker…. As I said, I asked

recently — and I see the Minister of Health isn't here — for a public….

[ Page 6080 ]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Member.

G. Coons: Yeah. I apologize. I take that back.

I recently asked about a public inquiry about how seniors are

being treated in the Northern Health. When we pass this, I can see members on

the other side looking at each other and saying: "Yeah, we can have a public

inquiry. Let's have one, and then we can't talk about it anymore." When it's

done, they'll be taking it behind the back doors, and it will be filtered, and

it will be severed. There will be whiteout all over it. It'll be released, to

the detriment of British Columbians, to the detriment of transparency and

openness.

This government found a simple way to cope with painful truths and

incompetence. Just bury them. Just bury them. Get the big shovel out and bury it

— bury it under this new legislation.

Now, if we look back and if we had Bill 6 previously, what could

have been behind closed doors and kept in the executive chambers, the executive

parlour? What public interest matters might have been missed if we did? In 1987

a public inquiry into the Coquihalla Highway construction overrun. The highway

cost two-thirds more than budgeted. That report, under Bill 6, could have been

filtered, could have been severed, could have been held on to from 1987 to

perhaps the next election — 2009. Who knows?

In 1991 a former Premier…. It was a conflict-of-interest report by

Commissioner Ted Hughes that led to the Premier's resignation. That report could

have been.

Interjections.

G. Coons: We're talking about Premier Bill Vander Zalm.

Other public inquiries — leaky condo inquiries that came out with truth for the

public. Again….

Interestingly enough, in 1994 the current Attorney General, when

he was B.C. Court of Appeal justice…

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members.

[1540]

G. Coons: …headed a public inquiry into policing and issued

his own reported entitled — I'm sure we remember it — Closing the Gap:

Policing and the Community . Ironically, it's the same Attorney General that

is now pressing for Bill 6 through this House, which could have been used to

bury his own policing report. Ironically, we have the same Attorney General

pushing forward the secrecy act, and it could have been burying his own report

from years past.

I see this as pretty confusing to most British Columbians,

especially the next quote. The next quote, "Open government," is one of my

favourite quotes. It's on my wall at home, Members.

"Open government is the hallmark of a free and democratic

society. Access to government information helps us as the official opposition

and others hold the government to account, and accountability enhances

democracy.

"When government does its business behind

closed

doors, people will…believe that government has something to hide. Secrecy feeds

distrust and dishonesty. Openness builds trust and integrity."

Madam Speaker, we all know who said that on July 22, 1998, in a

letter to Darrell Evans of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy

Association. It was the Premier of this province, when he was in opposition.

Pretty confusing, when he now takes his words and says that open government is a

hallmark of a free and democratic society. He rips that out of the heart of

British Columbians with this act, the secret inquiries act.

Access to government information helps us hold the government to

account, and I guess in the last four or five years he doesn't like that. The

members opposite don't like being held to account. They don't like being

transparent. They don't like to build trust and integrity. They would rather

tear down walls, and they would rather hide behind this act. That's shameful in

this province.

What we have here is this new Public Inquiry Act encompassing a

dark component, a very dark component, of this Liberal agenda — of helping their

friends, helping their insiders, their supporters and anyone else who thinks

that money will pave the way to getting their interests to the front burner

while leaving working families and the rest of British Columbians in the dark.

This government seems to only want to help their corporate friends

— whether it's Alcan, CN, Liberal investors, insiders — rather than looking out

for the needs of British Columbians. This government can't be trusted to do

what's right. The most secretive government in Canada contradicts the Premier's

promise of open and accountable government, and by restricting public inquiries,

this government intends to hide their true agenda of selling out this province.

The opposition and many British Columbians have been calling for a

public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail because of the numerous questions

around the sale, around the raid that happened upon the offices of this

Legislature and around how we were able to sell off valuable assets for garage

sale prices. This act contradicts the transparency and the openness we need to

see what happened in that secret deal. This government wants to have the power

to decide what happens as a result of such an inquiry, and this bill would allow

them to be secret and to keep the report secret.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

G. Coons: Why am I speaking against Bill 6, the secret

inquiries act? This bill transports us back to the dark ages of public

accountability. The public must question why this government wants to limit the

scope and the role of public inquiries.

[ Page 6081 ]

What's their motive? I believe it's to hide behind the

legislation. They don't have to be open; they don't have to be transparent; they

don't have to be accountable — just another example of B.C. Liberal broken

commitments and promises.

[1545]

In closing, we on this side are opposed to the secrecy act, and

we'll hold the government accountable to its promises of openness, transparency

and accountability, despite any action by those members on that side to thwart

the democratic process.

M. Sather: It gives me pleasure to get up and respond at

second reading to Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act. It's a very important piece of

legislation. Anytime we're talking about the right of the public to know about

the activities related in any way to government — that's an important part of

our democracy.

It is an important piece of legislation but a very disappointing

one. Members have mentioned that this year is the 100th anniversary of public

inquiries legislation in this province. The Attorney General talked about

modernizing the public inquiries process in this province and bringing it up to

snuff. One would hope and one would expect that the new act would have benefits

beyond the old legislation — that it would be an advance, that it would be a

progression of openness, something that we could all look forward to and be

proud of. But I don't feel, and this opposition doesn't feel that's the case

with this piece of legislation.

We should take a look at legislation that we had 100 years ago and

compare it to what's being proposed in this House today. The legislation 100

years ago said that a report of the inquiry must be laid before the Legislative

Assembly within 15 days of the assembly if it's sitting or within 15 days after

the opening of the next session. That's a reasonable amount of time. That's a

definitive amount of time. That lets everyone know that the report will be made

public and that it will be made public in a timely fashion.

Bill 6 says, however, under

section 28(5):

"On receiving a direction under subsection (4)" — the

release of the report — "the minister must remove any portions to be withheld."

That's fine. "In the report, identify any withheld portions and, to the extent

possible, summarize them." That's fine. "And (

c) either (

i) if the Legislative

Assembly is in session, or will be within 10 days of receiving the direction,

promptly lay the report before the Legislative Assembly, or (ii) in any other

case, promptly file the report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly."

Well, the problem is that law is about the meaning of

every word. I looked in the legislation, and I wanted to see a definition of

what "promptly" means. Sadly, there is no definition in this bill of promptly,

so it's up to the discretion of the government to determine what promptly is. In

fact, there is no legislated time limit on when information from a public

inquiry must be brought forward to this House, and that is a real problem.

That is the fundamental thing that's wrong with this bill. That is

the reason we argued against a very similar bill last spring, and the government

put it off until the fall session that we never had. Then when they brought it

back now, it still does not meet the expectations of the public and the

requirement for openness and honesty that this government says they are so proud

of.

The cabinet gets to review the document for an undetermined period

of time. That is a concern. That is a concern because we have a government body

— i.e., the legislative council, the cabinet — that is reviewing this document

for an undetermined period of time. Comments from other bodies such as the

Uniform Law Conference of Canada recommended of public inquiries, that "once

transmitted, inquiry reports should be tabled in the Legislature within a

specified time."

[1550]

That's understandable. That's what should be happening here. There

should be specific time lines around the period in which this legislation will

be tabled in this House, and that's not there. It's not there, and it's a grave

miscarriage of legislation that this government is proposing to bring forward

and to pass into law.

The bill says that it will modernize, reduce uncertainty and

vagueness. Well, it doesn't reduce vagueness at all. In fact, it increases

vagueness. Specificity is what we're asking for, and this legislation is all

about vagueness — discretion of the government. Those are the kinds of things

that the public does not want to hear. They want to know that they will have

access to information that's in the public interest in a timely fashion.

Now, as this House will know, the opposition called just recently

for a public inquiry into issues surrounding the sale of B.C. Rail to CN. That's

an issue of extreme importance to this House and to this province. The

government declined to do that.

Section 8 of the current act that we have now refers to a public

inquiry being called for: "Payments or contributions for campaign or other

political purposes or for the purpose of obtaining legislation or obtaining

influence and support for franchises, charters or any other rights or

privileges." That sounds an awful lot like what the opposition is looking for in

terms of information on the sale of B.C. Rail. But what does the current

legislation say? It simply says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council" — that is,

the cabinet — "may, by order, establish a commission to inquire into and report

on a matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers to be of public

interest."

That says far less than the current legislation, but I can

understand, for the purposes of the government, that perhaps it's preferable.

Vagueness is the preference in this case, because it gives the government

discretion. I suspect that around an issue like B.C. Rail this government is

looking for a lot of discretion — a lot of wiggle room to move and to be able to

keep things under wraps. That's the concern of the public, and that's the

concern we're bringing forward. This legislation keeps matters of interest to

the public under wraps.

Would the public feel comfortable with cabinet having the power to

review the document for an undetermined period of time? I don't think so. That's

something that I hope this Attorney General and this gov-

[ Page 6082 ]

ernment will reflect upon and will recognize — that it's not going to meet

the test of openness and accountability. The government tells us over and over

again that they're proponents of openness and accountability, but this act

doesn't live up to those tenets at all.

We can only hope that the Attorney General will see the light of

that, will see the need to improve this legislation and will act to do that.

There's still time to improve this legislation, to remove the offending parts

and to bring in parts that are truly open, honest and accountable.

The bill before the House also allows the cabinet to sever the

report of the inquiry commissioner. That capacity was not there under the

previous legislation. Again, is the public going to feel confidence in a

government that's going to allow their executive branch to sever the report of

an inquiry commissioner?

How would they sever that report? According to the new bill, they

can sever the report on the basis of a number of aspects, including business

interests. I don't think that business interests should be the measuring stick

by which a government can sever the report of an inquiry commissioner.

It's difficult now, with the amount of privatization that this

government has brought in, to get information about what's going on in

government. Whenever you try to do so, the government responds: "No, that's a

private contract, and you, the public, have no right to know what's going on."

[1555]

It may be of interest to the public. It may be the public's

assets. But you don't have the right to know, because it's a business interest.

Now we're talking about a public inquiry being restrained by the same measure of

business interest. It doesn't measure up. It does not measure up that this

government talks over and over again about honest and open government, but we

see just the opposite.

We see increasing restrictions on the public's ability to know

what this government is doing. That's not good for democracy, whether it's this

government or any government that might follow. This is not the kind of

legislation, the kind of modus operandi that we want to see. It's not what the

public of this province wants to see. They really do want to see open and honest

government, but they're not seeing the openness from this government that they

require.

It puts a chill on the whole process of democracy. It's like

there's a cloak of secrecy that's fallen over this government and over the

ability of the public to know what this government is doing. That's of great

concern to me, and I would think that should be of great concern to the

government themselves.

Although it may serve short-term interests, sometimes, to keep the

public in the dark, and certainly to keep the opposition in the dark…. It serves

a short-term purpose, but it's not in the interest of democracy. It's not in the

interest of openness and accountability. I think that the public wants this

government to be open and accountable. We are trying to hold the government to

that standard, which they say is the measure by which they operate.

Having business interest be a measure by which the cabinet can

sever can also clearly result in a conflict. One has to be careful about that.

The government has to be careful of any conflict or appearance of conflict.

Governments have relationships with business interests. This government has, and

previous governments have had. One needs to be very clear that one is not

severing information on business interests that might be embarrassing to the

government.

How does the public get to know? They don't. They don't get to

know what's going on. They have to trust. How can they trust the government if

the government is not being as open and as honest as they possibly can be?

It's interesting, too, that we went from an inquiry act to a

public inquiry act. It sounds good — public — including the public in the

processes of this government. It sounds like an open and accountable kind of

thing to talk about, but that's what I'm finding over and over again with this

government. They say one thing, but what they do is the opposite. When they talk

about public accountability and openness in government, that's not what they are

actually doing. It's actually a lot more secrecy and lack of accountability —

but it's good spin.

I guess it's the way you sell your product. If the product is not

totally palatable, one of the ways of selling it is to say it's something it

isn't so that people will buy it. I don't think that the people of this province

are going to buy this legislation. I hope that the Attorney General will

recognize that and will act accordingly.

The Attorney General suggests that there's a little too much

leeway for commissioners of inquiry and that we have to tighten up on that. What

have other people and other bodies said about that? The Ontario Law Reform

Commission said that the independence of public inquiries from the executive and

the Legislature should be recognized. That's the point: the independence is

being compromised. The independence of the inquiry commission should be

absolute. It shouldn't be compromised by government's right to sever, by

government's right to delay, by government's right to put off.

As I mentioned about the B.C. Rail public inquiry that we called

for, I'm sure it's one that is of some sensitivity to members of this

government. They may not necessarily want to have it subject to a public

inquiry. Or if they feel that they have to, should the results of legal

undertakings lead them to that conclusion, when are we going hear about the

results of that public inquiry?

[1600]

What is going to be a prompt response? Is it going to be after

2009? Is that the temptation that the government is apt to become subject to or

fall to? I'm afraid that it might. That's a real concern, because it's not in

the public's interest when their right to know is restrained and constrained.

That's what this legislation does, and it's not a positive step. It's on the

100th anniversary of public inquiry legislation. It's not something that the

government can really be proud of, in my view.

Under Bill 6 the commissioner must make an interim report to

cabinet. They must make an interim report to cabinet. That's like getting the

results of your test in advance, I guess. It's pretty handy, I suppose, for

[ Page 6083 ]

government to get an interim report, to know what's coming down — so that

they can get their ducks in a row and act accordingly to mend the fences that

need to be mended, to get the spin out there that they want to get out there, to

get the public relations out there that they want. Again, that's not in the

interest of openness, honesty and accountable government. It's not in the

interest of the public; it's not in the interest of democracy.

I would hope that the government will act to take a sober second

look at this legislation, because a number of features about it need to be

looked at. There are things about it, as the member for Nanaimo has said, that

we can agree with, but there are parts that we really disagree with and that

we're hopeful this government will take another look at.

I want to have a little look, Madam Speaker. I spoke somewhat

already about the record of this government in releasing information, because

it's related. A public inquiry is about getting information to the public, about

finding out what's going on.

How has the government been doing so far in terms of releasing

information to the public? Not very well. For example, the government signed the

federal early learning and child care agreement in 2005 with the federal

government, the Martin government of the time, but they refused to release their

child care action plan. We waited, we asked, we cajoled, and we encouraged, but

no go. The government would not release that information.

Again, it's a bit of an impediment to the opposition, but it's a

real disservice to the public. That's the most important part here. It's not so

much that it makes our job more difficult, although our job being made more

difficult also makes it more difficult for the public to know what's happening

and what's going on.

The government failed to release key B.C. Rail documents, such as

the revitalization agreement and the information on the 900-year lease. Well, I

was really interested in that. I think a lot of people are interested in a

900-year lease. People would like to know more about that. It's a lack of

detail, a lack of information, a lack of openness from this government.

The government is currently sitting on a report that is critical

of the Oil and Gas Commission. We would like to hear about it; the public would

like to know. The forthcomingness, if you will, of this government — they've

been remiss in that regard.

The child death reviews. The House will remember, members will

recall that we had an in-depth discussion about child deaths last year, I

believe it was. We called for the child death reviews over and over again, and

it took the Hughes report and the recommendations thereof for the government to

cough up, to come forward with the information. Holding back public information,

information that the public should have, is not the way to go, but

unfortunately, we've seen all too often that that's the way this government

works.

Now, freedom of information and the protection of privacy are

paramount to democracy — legislation that we brought in, that we're very proud

of. This government, though, has not lived up to the spirit or the detail of

that information. Often freedom-of-information requests that we make as an

opposition come back entirely blank. There's nothing there. We've even seen the

five great goals of this government having been severed from an FOI request.

Now, that's going too far. I should think the government would want to be sure

that they get those five great goals out there. Even that has been severed.

[1605]

Members will remember the discussion we had not too long ago about

the resignation of Keith Purchase as chair of the Fraser Health Authority and

how heavily censored that report was. Fortunately, we were able to get some

further information on it that the government wasn't particularly keen on us

having. They had edited references to bed closures, service cuts, a crisis

situation in the Fraser health region — all very embarrassing information indeed

for the government. Again, it's the right of the public to know what's at stake

here, not the right of the government to protect their political backsides. It's

the right of the public to know.

We at one point received a handwritten note that actually

contradicted the government's claims about child death reviews. A senior

political staffer had suggested deleting politically sensitive information from

the requested documents under the pretext that it was advice. Well, freedom of

information and protection of privacy depend entirely upon the public, the

opposition or anyone else that's making a request getting the maximum amount of

information that's available to them.

It's simply not right for government to delete some of that

information. In fact I expect it's illegal to do so, but that is what this note

was suggesting that the government do. We're concerned when we read about that

kind of behaviour from this government, and we really wonder what their

commitment to openness and honesty is.

Other members have referred to comments made by this government —

in particular, the Premier — about openness and honesty. A lot of those comments

were made in 2001 after this government was elected. I'm sure — I would hope, at

least — that they were made in all sincerity before the people of British

Columbia. But where have they gone over these last six years? Where