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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Securities Transfer Act (Bill 9)

Supply Act (No. 1), 2007 (Bill 13)

Hon. C. Taylor

Child and Youth Statutes

(Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 7)

Hon. W. Oppal

Coroners Act (Bill 8)

Hon. J. Les

Motorcycle Noise Control Act (Bill

M203)

L. Mayencourt

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

International Women's Day

K. Whittred

C. James

Bras for a Cause fundraiser in Langley

M. Polak

International Women's Day

C. Trevena

Royal Canadian Legion

R. Hawes

Ann Meraw

M. Sather

Oral Questions

Government action on farmworker safety

C. James

Hon. J. Les

R. Chouhan

C. Puchmayr

Hon. O. Ilich

H. Lali

M. Farnworth

Immigrant sponsorship debts in family

violence situations

S. Simpson

Hon. C.

Richmond

C. Trevena

Home support services for Heather

Vaughan

D. Routley

Hon. G. Abbott

Housing for individual with mental

illness

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Abbott

Care of developmentally disabled adults

M. Karagianis

Hon. T.

Christensen

Student financial assistance

R. Fleming

Hon. M. Coell

Second Reading of Bills

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

(continued)

C. Wyse

N. Simons

G. Gentner

M. Karagianis

R. Fleming

M. Farnworth

S. Simpson

L. Mayencourt

J. Horgan

Proceedings in

the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture and

Lands (continued)

M. Sather

Hon. P. Bell

C. Evans

G. Robertson

[ Page 5983 ]

THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2007

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

SECURITIES TRANSFER ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Securities Transfer Act.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm pleased to introduce the Securities

Transfer Act. The Securities Transfer Act is commercial property law that

governs the transfer and holding of investment securities. It's modelled on the

Uniform Securities Transfer Act that was approved by the Uniform Law Conference

of Canada. It's the product of an interprovincial effort at uniformity. The

legislation was proclaimed into force January 1, 2007, in both Ontario and

Alberta and is planned for Saskatchewan later this spring.

The Securities Transfer Act does not affect regulatory compliance

or impose regulatory change. It is framework legislation to provide legal

certainty to current market practices. The Securities Transfer Act will remove

uncertainty about the law applying to securities transactions. It will harmonize

our law with that of the United States and international recommendations and

will provide the legal underpinning to support current commercial practices.

Providing this legal certainty will enhance our market's competitiveness with

the U.S. and global markets.

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Securities Transfer Act, 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.

[1335]

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2007

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2007.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. C. Taylor: This supply bill is introduced to provide

supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's

estimates for 2007-2008 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly. The

bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the

initial two months of the 2007-2008 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate

and pass the estimates. This interim supply is required because existing voted

appropriations will expire on March 31, 2007.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing

requirements. This bill seeks supply for two-thirds of the year's financing

transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and loans and

investments and 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for

revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow time

to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because

existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2007.

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

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

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 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.

CHILD AND YOUTH STATUTES

(REPRESENTATION IMPROVEMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Child and Youth Statutes (Representation

Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read

a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm pleased to introduce the Child and Youth

Statutes (Representation Improvement) Amendment Act, 2007. The provisions in

this bill complete the government's implementation of the Hughes review

recommendations to establish the representative as a new officer of the

Legislature, to wind up the office for children and youth, and to facilitate an

orderly and timely transition from that office to the new office of the

representative. The bill also completes the government's response to Mr.

Hughes's recommendations for amendments to the Child, Family and Community

Service Act.

A great deal has happened since the Representative for Children

and Youth Act was passed in May 2006. We voted unanimously in this House in

November 2006 to appoint Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as this province's first

Representative for Children and Youth. Under the leadership of the Deputy

Attorney General and the child

[ Page 5984 ]

and youth transition team, we have consulted widely with government's

external partners and service providers. We have met with the public agencies

and officials who play a vital role in child welfare and protection. We have

listened to their concerns and addressed their issues in this legislation.

The amendments in this bill confirm the representative has

jurisdiction to oversee services provided by delegated directors under the

Child, Family and Community Service Act, including directors within delegated

aboriginal agencies. In this bill we have addressed the public disclosure of

personal information for both the representative and director under the Child,

Family and Community Service Act.

The bill that I introduce today marks the fulfilment of the

government's commitment to implement key recommendations in the Hughes review

and provides the framework for the new representative to carry out her

responsibilities for the benefit and well-being of all children and youth in

British Columbia.

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.

[1340]

Bill 7, Child and Youth Statutes (Representation Improvement)

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.

CORONERS ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Coroners 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 the new Coroners Act,

which replaces the existing Coroners Act, which was drafted more than 30 years

ago. The coroner's role has changed over the last 30 years and now plays a

significant

part in enhancing public safety through the prevention of future

deaths.

This report, B.C. Children and Youth Review , which was

conducted by the hon. Ted Hughes, made three recommendations relating to the

B.C. Coroners Service. Firstly is that the child death investigation function be

continued, secondly is that the child death review unit continue with the

Coroners Service, and thirdly is that the Coroners Act be updated to bring it in

line with the coroner's role today. This legislation addresses these

recommendations.

The Coroners Service has always had the explicit mandate to

investigate all sudden, unexpected deaths of both children and adults. In 2003

it was given additional responsibilities to undertake the review of all child

deaths in British Columbia. This new act gives the child death review unit the

explicit and independent authority to perform comprehensive reviews of all child

and youth deaths in British Columbia. The reviews, which may be of an individual

death or an aggregate review of several deaths, will allow the unit to make

recommendations that will prevent future deaths and promote the health,

well-being and safety of all B.C. children.

Other significant improvements have been made in the act,

including updating and clarifying provisions that set out when a coroner must

hold an inquest and the coroner's ability to empanel and direct a jury by

incorporation of relevant sections of the Jury Act and the powers of a coroner

to control an inquest in a manner consistent with powers given to other

government bodies holding public inquiries.

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 8, Coroners Act, 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.

MOTORCYCLE NOISE CONTROL ACT

L. Mayencourt presented a bill intituled Motorcycle Noise Control

Act.

L. Mayencourt: I move this bill be introduced now and read

a first time.

Motion approved.

L. Mayencourt: The Motorcycle Noise Control Act strengthens

already established legislation under the Motor Vehicle Act in order to curb

excessive noise caused by motorcycles in residential areas. This act requires

motorcyclists to have a muffler that cools and expels exhaust without exceeding

the maximum sound pressure level of 85 decibels in residential areas.

Current regulations permit up to 91 decibels, but many have stated

that noise levels from automobiles and motorcycles should be more closely

aligned. In my community, noise complaints about loud motorcycles are reaching

an all-time high. This bill will benefit not just Vancouverites but all British

Columbians.

The city of Edmonton recently introduced bylaws similar to the

proposed legislation, also at 85 decibels — a move being considered in

Vancouver. However, it has been repeatedly reported that the city of Vancouver

has had great difficulty collecting bylaw fines, due to a lack of bylaw

enforcement personnel. This bill will create a level playing field across the

province and allow police to inspect motorcycles and fine individuals that

operate motorcycles that contravene this law.

Additionally, the bill, in creating a provincial offence, will

assist municipalities in collecting unpaid fines when an individual renews their

B.C. driver's licence or insures their motorcycle. Since 2005 this government

has returned all traffic fine revenue to the municipality

[ Page 5985 ]

where the law is being enforced and the tickets are issued.

A further consideration to be mindful of here is the impact of

increasing noise levels on residents and their hearing. More than ever before,

citizens are concerned with the levels of so-called noise pollution. Medical

specialists have consistently warned about the dangers associated with high

noise and decibel levels as well as their potential consequences on long-term

hearing abilities.

[1345]

In addition to bringing this bill forward, I will work with the

Vancouver police department and the B.C. Coalition of Motorcyclists to establish

an annual motorcycle noise awareness campaign. This campaign will ensure that

all motorcyclists are properly licensed, that motorcycles have unmodified

mufflers, and will allow for roadside safety inspections.

Most motorcyclists are law-abiding citizens who share an

appreciation of the need to minimize the impact of excessive noise along with

the love for riding their motorcycles.

I move that the bill be placed on the order paper for second

reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M203, Motorcycle Noise Control Act, 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.

Mr. Speaker: I think we've got some introductions that

people missed.

Introductions by Members

S. Hammell: We have two guests in the gallery today,

Maj.-Gen. John Woods and Mrs. Carol Woods. General Woods is the colonel

commandant of the military engineers branch of the Canadian Forces and is

visiting military engineers serving at CFB Esquimalt. He is in the gallery as a

guest of the Sergeant-at-Arms. Could we all please make him welcome.

D. Routley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

welcome two constituents, Mary Fox and her partner, who are visiting the

Legislature to hear us discuss the issues of health care and home support that

affect them so deeply.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation has a guest.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the opportunity to make an

introduction. I'm pleased to be joined today by some children from one of my

very important employees. Mike Long is my communications director, who has the

real big challenge of trying to make what I say into something perhaps a little

more understandable to the public.

Mike couldn't be here because he's busy probably trying to sort

out some of the latest statements I've made. But we are joined by his children,

Julia, who is ten years old, and Michael, who is eight years old. They are avid

watchers of the news and political events, as is their neighbour Sandra Young,

who is also here today with the kids. She's joined by her son Coady, who is also

ten years old.

Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

K. Whittred: On the wall of my office hangs a poster of

Canada's famous five: Emily Murphy, Henrietta Edwards, Louise McKinney, Irene

Parlby and Nellie McClung — women from my native province who, through their

leadership, challenged the status quo. Their courage and temerity forever

changed opportunities for women in Canada and around the world.

Today as we celebrate International Women's Day, British Columbia

women are able to reflect on their achievements and be confident about their

future. From university enrolment to participating in the workforce, to owning

businesses, to working in the trades, women in B.C. are increasingly at the

forefront.

Now 61 percent of B.C. women participate in the workforce. In the

public service, women now make up more than 39 percent of senior positions, a

6-percent increase in the past five years. We're in the top three in the country

for small businesses owned by women.

But there is much work to be done internationally. There are still

places where female children are not valued. There are too many places where war

continues to take its toll on women and children. There are way too many

instances where women and their children live in fear, often hungry and without

shelter.

So today let us all pause and celebrate International Women's Day

in our own way, but let each of us resolve to show leadership, to challenge the

status quo, to show temerity, to help ensure that every little girl grows up

with the opportunity to achieve her full potential.

[1350]

C. James: I'd also like to ask the House to join me to

recognize International Women's Day. Over 30 years ago the United Nations set

aside March 8 as the day to pause and consider the condition of women in our

society.

Many speeches have been given in this House to mark the occasion.

But like many commemorative days, International Women's Day can become a bit of

a habit, a routine. We all need to resist that. Every March 8

[ Page 5986 ]

we can't just go through the motions, because although women have made great

strides — from voting rights and abortion rights to participation in politics

and the economy — gender inequality and injustice still scar our province and

our world.

The international trafficking of women and children is on the

rise, poverty continues to inflict its toll, and thousands of women are

victimized every day in war and armed conflict. Here at home, British Columbia

has the highest child poverty rate in the country. One in four children lives

below the poverty line. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing faster

than anywhere else in Canada, and the wage and employment gap between women and

men is still far from being closed.

The condition of women in a society is a good indication of the

overall health of that society. Yesterday's tragic accident that killed three

women farmworkers on their way to the fields is a reminder of how far we still

have to come in British Columbia. This International Women's Day, let's reflect

again on the struggle for gender equality, and let's celebrate progress toward

that aim. But more than that, let's commit ourselves to positive change.

BRAS FOR A CAUSE

FUNDRAISER IN LANGLEY

M. Polak: Every year at this time the good citizens of

Langley prepare for an evening of audacious fun in support of a very good cause.

I'm referring, of course, to the annual Bras for a Cause benefit hosted by

Soroptimists International of the Langleys.

In the next few weeks Langley residents and businesses will work

feverishly to create theme bras to be auctioned off in support of individuals

battling cancer. In the past these artistic and outrageously decorated theme

bras have raised tens of thousands of dollars in support of a variety of

cancer-related charities. This year proceeds of the auction will be directed

toward Ovarian Cancer Canada for the foundation of a Fraser Valley support group

and to the western Canada

chapter of the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of

Canada.

The annual Bras for a Cause benefit dinner and auction has become

a highly anticipated annual event, because it combines support for a good cause

with a healthy dose of humour. Many of the decorated bras incorporate humour in

their design and in their theme titles. Others are ornately adorned and framed

and include tribute statements that memorialize loved ones lost to cancer. Bras

autographed by celebrities, such as Robin Williams and Pierce Brosnan, often

fetch a substantial auction price. Even a bra autographed by the B.C. Liberal

caucus received a modest bid. Regardless of the final auction value, every

contribution is important as our community comes together to show our support

for those battling this disease.

I'm certain the members of this House join me in thanking

Soroptimists International of the Langleys for their hard work and dedication in

making this annual event a great success.

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

C. Trevena: I too would like to talk about International

Women's Day, because I look around this House, and I guess I sigh. There aren't

that many women here, and there aren't many women in politics in Canada.

A recent survey of women in politics by the Inter-Parliamentary

Union has put Canada at a ranking of 47th. On this International Women's Day, I

note that Rwanda has the most women parliamentarians at 48.8 percent, followed

by Sweden and Costa Rica. Canada is flanked by Pakistan and Portugal, who do

better, and Serbia and Poland, who do worse.

We all have different reasons for entering politics, and we enter

it at different stages of our lives. But in those countries in which women are

well represented, there's a quota system. The system is fixed towards equality.

[1355]

I've been travelling around the province from Campbell River to

Cranbrook these last months, listening to women — to their concerns and their

issues. It's like looking around this House today. I come away from it asking:

where's the progress? I've been hearing from women who are still getting paid

less than men; women who are struggling, caring for children, for home, for

parents and working; women who fear old age because they see poverty, women who

are marginalized; aboriginal women and immigrant women; women working in the

caring professions carrying a load; women in business who can't access finance;

women who feel their voices have been silenced; women who have tried calling out

but now look around them and feel their voices were not heard.

On this International Women's Day, I'd like to acknowledge those

many women I met on the road. I would like to thank them. I'd like to say that I

have heard you.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

R. Hawes: The highest honour that a municipality can bestow

on a military unit is Freedom of the City. This ceremonial honour allows the

unit to march through the streets of the city with weapons drawn and bayonets

fixed.

In recognition of their wonderful community volunteerism and the

great sacrifice many of their members made in wars past, I'm extremely proud

that about ten years ago the district of Mission granted Freedom of the City to

the Royal Canadian Legion and branch 57. They were the first legion in North

America to receive such a symbolic honour.

Freedom of the City has been exercised several times in Mission,

with military parades featuring the New Westminster regiment and veteran legion

members from across B.C. and through Washington State.

March 3, 2007, marked the 80th anniversary of the founding of

Mission branch 57, and this year numerous other legions throughout B.C. will

also celebrate their 80th anniversary.

[ Page 5987 ]

I ask all members of the House to recognize this anniversary and

honour the great work and sacrifice that our veteran legion members have made by

helping me complete the legion act of remembrance:

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning

We will remember them."

Some Hon. Members: "We will remember them."

ANN MERAW

M. Sather: On this occasion of International Women's Day, I

want to acknowledge the contributions of a truly remarkable woman in my

community, Ann Meraw. Fondly known as the marathon swimmer, Ann has written a

book of the same title where she talks about her many years as a swimmer.

Born in Powell River, Ann learned to swim at age one after falling

off a log at a local lake. At the age of ten she swam five miles across Howe

Sound and five miles back. In 1934 she swam across Georgia Strait. Ann swam the

length of Okanagan Lake in 1958, setting four world records and an endurance

record for women and men.

Ann set seven world records, and four of these still stand today.

Ann put it, "I didn't want to be torpedoed," she became Canada's first female

lifeguard.

Moving to Maple Ridge in 1970, Ann remains active. She was up till

11 last night planning her many community activities for today. Ann founded the

Ridge Meadows Hall of Fame to honour others from our communities who have their

own outstanding achievements. Ann has coached numerous swimming teams and is a

very active volunteer. She drives patients to the cancer clinic, holds wellness

workshops, writes for a local magazine and patrols the streets of Maple Ridge

every day for community policing.

Ann's life is fuller than full, and there is not enough time to

list all of her accomplishments. I ask everyone to join me in congratulating Ann

for all she has done for her community and our province. Ann celebrated her 90th

birthday on the 23rd of February.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

FARMWORKER SAFETY

C. James: On July 13, 2003, Mohinder Sunar was killed when

the van she was travelling in crashed on the Trans-Canada Highway. She was one

of 19 farmworkers heading to the fields in a van designated to hold 15. The

coroner's report stated: "The use of seatbelts in this incident may have

prevented the death of Mohinder Sunar."

[1400]

My question is to the Solicitor General. Can the Solicitor General

confirm that a recommendation was made to review and clarify the use of

seatbelts in these cases, and can he explain why his government did nothing?

Hon. J. Les: The event, of course, that gives rise to the

opposition leader's question is the tragic accident of yesterday. I would remind

members again that other accidents that have happened in the past do not

necessarily have any relationship at all with respect to the accident of

yesterday. It is, I would submit, wrong to draw analogies and parallels between

yesterday's accident and other accidents that have occurred.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we refrain from drawing those

parallels, as there is an investigation underway, and the circumstances of

yesterday's accident are going to be fully explored and fully reported upon in

due course.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a

supplemental?

C. James: I do, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Solicitor

General. I'm talking about a report from 2003. Not only did this government

ignore that coroner's report, but they also ignored the findings and

recommendations from WCB. This government chose not to act — no new regulations,

no new enforcement measures, nothing coming out of the 2003 report. This

government chose to ignore the risks that are faced by farmworkers every single

day in British Columbia.

Again to the Solicitor General: will the government finally, four

years after Mohinder Sunar's death, take action on these critical

recommendations to prevent future tragedies?

Hon. J. Les: Road safety is an ongoing preoccupation of our

government. We have made numerous changes over the years that have the effect of

making our roads safer in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, just in this

past year I think the number of fatalities was down by about 40. That means we

obviously have work yet to do.

With respect to the coroner's report of 2003, ICBC in fact

followed up and gave direction to its brokers to give effect to the coroner's

recommendation with respect to the issue of seatbelts in buses. The member

opposite may well be aware that that has been a matter of debate not only within

British Columbia but across North America, in fact. It is a matter of ongoing

review within my ministry.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further

supplemental?

C. James: I do. It is shameful — shameful that this government

has ignored the coroner's report. It's shameful that this government ignored

repeated calls for a public inquiry into Mohinder Sunar's death. Now the

province is reeling after another tragic accident where three women died.

[ Page 5988 ]

Again, my question to the Solicitor General: how many more tragic

accidents do farmworkers have to endure before this government will finally,

finally act on their behalf?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite premises her question on a

set of conclusions that she has obviously reached. I have not reached any

conclusions as to the causes of yesterday's accident, nor should anyone else

jump to those conclusions. There is a full and thorough investigation underway.

When that investigation is complete, hopefully we will have all of the answers,

and we will allow the chips to fall where they may.

R. Chouhan: The Solicitor General and this government can

ignore, if they want to, answering all these questions, but British Columbians

and farmworkers are demanding answers. The inaction of this government is

inexcusable. Four years after Mohinder Sunar's death, nothing has been done.

This government ignored their own reports. This government is treating

farmworkers like second-class citizens. Why?

[1405]

Can the Solicitor General explain why he ignored the WCB's 2003

request to reinstate joint roadside inspections?

Hon. J. Les: Well, the member opposite can use all of the

pejorative language he likes. Along with his leader, apparently he has reached

all kinds of conclusions as to what happened yesterday and why. I'm not that

clairvoyant, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we wait for the results of the

investigation and see exactly what happened. We will follow through with any

appropriate actions that might be required as a result.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: I find it really appalling. This answer was no

answer. I'm asking about the report of 2003, not about this accident which

occurred yesterday.

The coroner's report into Mohinder Sunar's death is clear.

Reinstate joint roadside inspections. Review the use of seatbelts. Close the

loophole between employment standards and the Motor Vehicle Act. Three key

recommendations, and this government ignored them all.

Again to the Solicitor General: why did this government choose

inaction over lives?

Hon. J. Les: On the one hand the member opposite says he's

not talking about yesterday's tragic accident, and then he finishes off his

question by referring directly to that accident. He really needs to sort himself

out, Mr. Speaker. I think, frankly, it is appalling that we use a tragic

accident to further our political advantage.

C. Puchmayr: The coroner's report of 2003. That coroner's

report on Mohinder Sunar's death went to the Ministry of Labour, went to the

Solicitor General, and it went to the Attorney General. I'm talking about the

coroner's report of 2003.

Why did three individual cabinet ministers and this entire

government do nothing to address that report?

Hon. J. Les: I've already outlined that ICBC was active in

encouraging and requiring of its brokers that they take specific action with

respect to the appropriate registration of those vehicles. As I said earlier to

an earlier question, the matter of seatbelts within buses is a question that

really hasn't been settled anywhere, to our knowledge, in North America. So it

is under active review within my ministry. We may in fact be able to bring

forward some recommendations with respect to that in the months ahead.

But again I would underline that if members opposite are

attempting to speculate as to what happened yesterday, I suggest we leave that

for another day when all investigations are complete.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: There are over 5,000 farms in British

Columbia, and on those 5,000 farms last year there were only 250 WorkSafe

inspections. There were 82 employment standards branch inspections. Out of those

82, over half of them resulted in penalties — 5,000 farms, 82 inspections, and

half of them result in penalties.

Will the minister commit to take action immediately so that

farmworkers are not only safe going to and from work but also safe while they

are working in those fields?

Hon. O. Ilich: I want to say that WorkSafe has more

inspectors now than at any time in the past and does more comprehensive

inspections than at any time in the past.

[1410]

H. Lali: It was this Liberal government that actually

slashed the enforcement of employment standards for farmworkers in 2001. It was

this Liberal government that stripped away farmworkers' rights for overtime and

minimum-wage protection in 2003 — a hard-won right that it took them 100 years

to win. It was this Liberal government that actually disbanded the teams that

protected farmworkers from across British Columbia.

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Will you learn from

these tragic incidents and commit to reinstating the rights of farmworkers in

British Columbia?

Hon. O. Ilich: Since the member brought up the accident

yesterday, obviously I want to also express my condolences to the family. It was

a very tragic traffic accident.

To just speak to the point that the member opposite is making…. He

is wrong, and they don't have their facts. The agricultural compliance team that

was changed in 2001 was a team of federal government people from the Canada

Revenue Agency and the employment insurance office who looked around wages and

taxes and not safety issues.

[ Page 5989 ]

Our teams are still in place and, as I said, doing more

inspections than ever before.

M. Farnworth: What is appalling is not this government's

lack of clairvoyance but its excuses and its lack of action. In 2003 they

stripped away farmworkers' rights. In 2003 they ignored the coroner's

recommendations that could have kept those same workers safe.

It is 2007, and still they have done nothing — nothing. So my

question to the Solicitor General is clear. Why won't he call a public inquiry

into the state of farmworkers in British Columbia, and when will he enact those

2003 coroner's recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite, like several members

opposite, is jumping to conclusions as to the reasons and the causes of

yesterday's accident. That is inappropriate. We should allow the investigation

to proceed. We should allow that investigation to come to the appropriate

conclusions.

If and when inquiries are necessary, that will be determined in

the future. Today is not the day to be making those kinds of decisions, and

today is certainly not the day to be playing political football with this kind

of issue.

IMMIGRANT SPONSORSHIP DEBTS

IN FAMILY VIOLENCE SITUATIONS

S. Simpson: Nadia Grunwel is a constituent of mine, and

she's a victim of the current provincial administration of the sponsorship

section of the Immigration Act. After sponsoring her husband to Canada, Ms.

Grunwell faced years of documented physical and emotional violence before she

left her husband and escaped the ordeal. Unknown to her, her husband went on

welfare in 2004, and Ms. Grunwell received a bill from the province for $18,000

to repay his welfare payments. The province put a lien on her home to secure

that debt.

To make women pay for their abusers is unacceptable. My question

is to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. Will he permanently

suspend the payment and interest charges for Nadia and other women in her

situation under the sponsorship program?

Hon. C. Richmond: First of all, just to refresh everyone's

memory, the sponsorship act is a federal act under the family class

section of

the federal Immigration Act. Sponsors sign a legally binding agreement with the

federal government to financially support sponsored individuals from three to

ten years. I quote from the agreement: "I promise that the sponsored person and

his or her family members will not need to apply for social assistance

benefits."

[1415]

At the moment the outstanding amount for those who are in the

default is in the neighbourhood of $47 million or $48 million. It is money that

is owed to the taxpayers of B.C. However, we have undertaken that in specific

instances where violence or the threat of violence can be substantiated by a

third party, we will look at those cases and suspend collection on an individual

basis.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

S. Simpson: What the minister doesn't say…. And I'd concur;

we're not talking about the broad sponsorship issue here. We're talking about a

relatively small number of cases where women are victims of abuse and what

happens there. The situation is that the minister wrote me on December 21, 2006,

stating that debt collection will be suspended in cases where abuse can be

substantiated, but only until individual circumstances change.

I quote the letter: "We will review the individual circumstances

at least once a year. Suspension of collection does not cancel the debt and does

not prevent additional debt and interest from accruing."

Nadia Grunwel and others have now discovered that they either stay

in an abusive situation, or they will ultimately have to pay for their abuser's

keep. This victimizes women over and over again.

My question again to the minister is: will he do the right thing

and permanently suspend the payment and interest obligations for Nadia Grunwel

and others in her situation, and will he call on the federal government to amend

the Immigration Act to deal with this flaw in the legislation?

Hon. C. Richmond: I thought I made it very plain that on an

individual, case-by-case basis we will gladly review every situation. We just

ask the people, such as the person that the member just mentioned, to come

forward and talk with us, and we will deal with that on an individual basis, as

I said.

However, that doesn't guarantee that we will suspend collection

permanently. Situations change. The person may not be in a threatening situation

in the future, and the debt is still owing to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: We're talking about extraordinarily vulnerable

women. We're talking about women who are faced with violence from a spouse or

destitution. There may be an individual, case-by-case basis, but there is also

an annual review.

I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and Income

Assistance: does he expect women to face destitution or face violence?

Hon. C. Richmond: We don't expect women to face either. We

expect them to come and talk to us and explain their case to us so that we may

deal with them on an individual basis.

HOME SUPPORT SERVICES

FOR HEATHER VAUGHAN

D. Routley: My question is to the Minister of Health. The

Minister of Health should be aware of the case of Mary Fox and Heather Vaughan,

who are constituents

[ Page 5990 ]

of mine. Heather needs constant care, and only a few months ago, in July

2006, she was receiving home support.

Even though her condition is worsening, her home hours are being

cut. She must cut back her hours at work in order to care for her partner, but

if she does so, she'll be unable to pay for their basic needs. This horrible

catch-22 offers Mary no choice.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Will he commit to

restoring Heather Vaughan's home support?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am well aware of this issue that the

member raises. This has been the object of very considerable discussion between

the Vancouver Island Health Authority, the Ministry of Health and the patient

and her caregiver.

I have to say first of all that the best-practices level of home

support is established at 30 hours per week, 120 hours per month. That is the

support that had up until July been provided in this case.

[1420]

However, in response to requests for respite support, Vancouver

Island Health Authority did, for a period of close to three months, increase the

number of hours to 120. That has now been returned to the originally agreed-to

level of 30 hours per week, 120 hours per month. There have been no cuts to home

care. We spend well over half a billion dollars a year on home care, and it is a

great system that we have in British Columbia.

D. Routley: It's unfortunate that the minister should take

this tack, because working with VIHA has so far borne no results for Heather or

Mary. Heather's doctor has recommended against institutional care for Heather

because of her delicate and unique condition, her unique needs, but it seems

this is the only choice that VIHA is offering or will consider.

If VIHA cannot do what their head should be telling them, won't

the minister find in his heart the reason to help? Why does the minister think

that this situation is acceptable?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the Vancouver Island Health

Authority does an excellent job of providing services to the citizens of

Vancouver Island that they serve. This is an organization which, from my reading

of the case provided here, has gone to great lengths in order to try to meet the

care needs of the individual in question here.

As I noted, they in fact doubled the number of hours over a

three-month period in order to provide respite support. That was again well

above and indeed double the best-practices hours around this. I don't see any

reason to question or criticize the Vancouver Island Health Authority in respect

of this matter.

HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUAL

WITH MENTAL ILLNESS

J. Kwan: Ms. Tara Fynn's mother is on disability and has

borderline personality disorder. She is not violent, and she has no addiction

issues. No mental health support was offered to her, and she was evicted from

B.C. Housing. Her file was closed permanently on February 26, 2007.

She has been homeless for two years, and to make matters worse,

Ms. Fynn's mother suffered from heart failure in October 2006. According to her

physician, she requires open-heart surgery, and if she doesn't get it, she will

most certainly die. She needs safe, secure, affordable housing before she can

get her surgery.

The government is on record to say that housing provides the

foundation from which mental health and addiction services can be provided. This

is the case for Ms. Fynn's mother. Will the Health Minister commit today to find

appropriate housing for her mother and mental health support for her so that she

can get the life-saving open-heart surgery that her mother needs?

Hon. G. Abbott: I would be very happy to work with the

Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing to try to

find an appropriate accommodation for the individual. If the member could

provide me with details with respect to that, we certainly would commit to do

that.

I do have to say that our government has made not only

unprecedented investments in housing support for the most vulnerable but

unprecedented investments in terms of the number of surgeries in this province

and the resources that are devoted to mental health and addictions issues in

this province. We have come a long, long way in terms of providing supports that

are needed by the most vulnerable in this province.

CARE OF DEVELOPMENTALLY

DISABLED ADULTS

M. Karagianis: Very recently an ad ran in Salmon Arm. The

ad said: "Roommate wanted for the care of up to two developmentally challenged

adults." The roommate could work full- or part-time. They needed to provide

minimal support, and the only qualifications that were required were first aid,

a criminal check and FoodSafe.

[1425]

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Does the minister consider these to be adequate qualifications for the complex

care needs of developmentally challenged adults?

Hon. T. Christensen: I find the question very interesting.

The member provides no indication of who ran the ad, why the ad was there and

what the situation is.

I can tell the member that the ministry works very closely with

Community Living B.C. to ensure that they're able to meet the needs of the

clients they serve. Never before have developmentally disabled adults and their

families had a greater role in determining the types of services that should be

available for that clientele. That's a direct result of the board structure for

Community Living B.C., and we're very proud of being the government that

actually established that opportunity for the developmentally disabled in this

province.

[ Page 5991 ]

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I do, thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

The minister asked who ran the ad. Well, I'll tell you who ran the

ad. It was a family, because, in fact, this government is closing down group

homes across this province. More and more families are having to seek some kind

of alternative care because group home care will not be available for their

families.

Again, my question to the minister is: if in fact the minister

finds that the qualifications here of FoodSafe and first aid are adequate for

looking after the very complex needs of developmentally challenged adults, then

I'm asking if the minister is going to assume the liability and protect the

safety of these individuals in these situations.

Hon. T. Christensen: The opposition critic's suggestion

that group homes are being closed down in this province is absolutely false. As

I indicated, the province is working closely with Community Living B.C.

Community Living B.C. is looking at various residential options

for the population that they serve. They are being responsive to the population

they serve, and they are, when asking what is the best arrangement for a

particular individual…. That is what is guiding the decisions of where people

should live.

STUDENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

R. Fleming: Taxpayers well remember that it was this

government that wasted $14 million of their dollars in 2005 on partisan,

pre-election "Best place on earth" ad campaigns. Apparently the spending

continues. Last week the government told Canada's second most indebted students

that the 30-year-old B.C. student assistance program had been rebranded as

StudentAid B.C.

The 2007 budget cut student financial assistance by $23 million.

Can the minister tell this House how much the rebranding cost and if it was paid

for by the cuts to student financial assistance in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm pleased to tell the member that it was

done in-house. It cost $1,300.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

R. Fleming: Maybe the minister can tell us why this

government, given that B.C. students are the second most indebted in Canada….

They now pay 15 percent more for tuition fees than other Canadian students in

other jurisdictions. Can he tell us when students can expect some tuition fee

relief and when they can expect some relief from this government — if not now,

in this year now?

[1430]

Hon. M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, if I can tell the member what

we've done for students — 25,000 new seats for students, 2,500 new graduate

seats for students. A billion dollars' worth of construction on campuses…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Coell: …for students. And you know, Mr. Speaker,

they voted against it all.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

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

reading debate on the Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6, and in the small House,

Committee A, the Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued

debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

Second Reading of Bills

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

(continued)

C. Wyse: It is indeed my pleasure this afternoon to get up

in the House and address Bill 6, the Public Inquiry Act.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I have a number of comments that I would like to direct to the

Attorney General.

The issue that we have in front of the Legislature today is one

for the consideration of all 79 of us as legislators here in the House, and

that's within which I wish to enter into the discussion and the debate here. You

see, in actual fact, we have in Bill 6 legislation that is being put in front of

us that will increase the power of the cabinet to determine when and how

information is released from a public inquiry.

To the Attorney General: that is a phenomenal carrot to be holding

out to government, and to give them that power…. Assuredly, whoever is

government will end up using that power. We know from history that, in actual

fact, that is what comes with increased power. It increases the use of power in

a corrupt form.

When we look at the present situation here in British Columbia

that has been in practice for over 100 years, once an inquiry is set up, then

the result of that inquiry is brought to this Legislature, and then the public

themselves determine what the intent and the effect of the inquiry is.

This legislation, in

section 28, changes that profoundly. It

empowers the cabinet with that authority to determine how and when that

information is brought forward. When I look upon us collectively here as a

government, all 79 of us….

[1435]

That is the capacity that I am standing up in front of the House

today — as a legislator. I am here doing my

[ Page 5992 ]

duty, my responsibility, to bring my caution to this House, to this

government. To give power of that strength and that magnitude to government — it

is a phenomenally dangerous empowerment that is being put in front of this

House.

What I am strongly recommending to this House is that they

consider withdrawing the legislation, or at least amend

section 28 — the most

offensive

part contained within this legislation, in my judgment.

Now, I wish to take a little bit of time in the House here and

make up an example or two. I do want to underline to the House that my examples

are meant to be exactly that — an example or two to help make the point of

giving cabinet too much power. Before we do that, I would like to share a

learning experience that I obtained here as a rookie MLA a short time ago.

My colleague the Attorney General, likewise a rookie to this

responsibility of being in the Legislature…. Inadvertently, I got to learn a

very, very valuable lesson privately. Unfortunately, the lesson that I learned

privately was a lesson the Attorney General had to learn publicly, and that was

the distinction between cabinet and the Legislature.

It's a huge difference. Likewise, it is that same difference about

where the report is released — having it go to the cabinet. The cabinet

determines, if this bill is passed, the how and the when of what is released to

the public.

Presently what exists here in British Columbia is the opposite.

The report is released to the Legislature. It is released to all 79 duly elected

representatives of the four million–plus British Columbians. We get it equally

at the same time.

Equally importantly…. As a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, I'd like

you to take those words and allow me to take them back. Not equally importantly,

maybe even more importantly, all the people of British Columbia get that same

information unfettered, unsanctioned, as was written. The public gets to decide

the pros and cons of what their public interest is — a vastly different set of

circumstances than what is being introduced here in front of this House.

Earlier in my very short political career, the government decided

in their wisdom that they wanted to do something around the Inquiry Act. They had the wisdom to withdraw poor legislation. They took it back and

re-examined it. They have worked on it, and they have now reintroduced it.

But history…. It is to the Attorney General, on behalf of the

government, that I am making this presentation for his consideration, on behalf

of all 79 of us — all 4.4 million people here in British Columbia.

[1440]

The point is: where do we stop? A government that has been in

power too long begins to believe that they have the right not only to govern but

also to determine when and what and how information is presented to people. As

time passes, year in and year out, history tells us that. History tells us that

governments change. One of the signs of a government that is ready to be removed

by the people is a government that shows continued and increased arrogance on

how the business of the people of British Columbia is enacted.

I would like to return to my examples, and I do wish to emphasize

here that they are meant to be examples. I am making them up. I want to

underline that aspect of it.

Just suppose that a government decided that there should be a

public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail, for example. Or another possibility,

just suppose a government decided that a public inquiry was required for looking

into the development of fast ferries, for example, or for cost overruns on the

Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre. Let's just suppose that an inquiry was

determined to be necessary to investigate those two sets of conditions, on

behalf of the public good.

Where do the politics come into play?

Section 28 would empower the

cabinet to determine when and what parts of those public inquiries would be

released. In my story — and remember that it is my story, trying to look after

and convince the Attorney General not to pass this, not to give government this

power — just suppose that this was 2009. Guess what. I don't think it's too

far-fetched in my story that that report might not come out until 2010 under

this existing legislation. I don't just presume that it would be the government

opposite that would be subject to that temptation. I suggest to this House, to

all 79 of us, that any government would be tempted to use

section 28 like that.

That's my suggestion, as one of 79 people here in this House.

Because this piece of legislation has been introduced by the

government opposite, I'm going to give some examples of where the track record

has been around this issue, remembering this general concept of

article 28 and

the power that it gives — the power to determine when and what and how the

information is released. Let's have a look at some examples of the government's

record on releasing information. I'm going to give just a few to give a flavour

of how any government might be tempted.

Let's have a look at some examples of information release. After

signing the federal early learning and child care agreement in 2005, the B.C.

Liberals refused to release their child care action plan information — within

their right not to do so. But remember, underneath the present situation for the

Public Inquiry Act, that information has to come forward.

[1445]

Another example: the B.C. Liberals have failed to release the key

B.C. Rail documents, such as the revitalization agreement and information on the

990-year lease. Where I'm from, that type of information would prove to be very

interesting, to say the least.

The B.C. Liberals are currently sitting on a report that they

commissioned that is critical of the Oil and Gas Commission — only critical of

the Oil and Gas Commission — but the information is not available to the House.

A public inquiry report would come forward, and we would have that information,

all of us here in British Columbia.

Likewise, we remember going back to 2005, when we were dealing

with situations involving child death

[ Page 5993 ]

reviews. Only after severe public pressure was an edited version of a report

on child care released, and then underneath that pressure the full information

around that report was released.

Now let's have a look at the aspect of the content contained

within a potential public inquiry report, and compare the record of the Liberal

government on the releasing of documents. A freedom-of-information request,

fielded by us on this side of the bench, requested the House binder on the

Minister of Small Business and Revenue. The information that was received —

almost completely severed, almost completely blank. As a matter of fact, even

the government's own five great goals were removed. At that period of time, even

those were considered to be too sensitive to be released, at least in that

document.

Back to my story, and I do remind this House that it is my story.

I'm making it up to drive my point: the importance of removing

section 28 from

this legislation so that government, whoever it may be, is not given this power.

In early February of this year we likewise had a situation where

the Ministry of Health released a heavily censored version of the resignation

letter of Keith Purchase, chair of the Fraser health region. Now, a full version

of the letter revealed that the government had edited references to "bed

closures and service cuts as well as a crisis situation in the Fraser health

region."

Somebody would have to ask the Attorney General why it was deemed

appropriate to remove references to something that was politically sensitive to

the government. The example I use here suggests how easy it would be if any

government in power had all the empowerment given underneath

section 28 to

withhold information underneath the guise of public interest, when in actual

fact it is possibly nothing more than the interest of the government party and

their embarrassment.

A handwritten note sent to the opposition by mistake last November

caught the B.C. government red-handed in an attempt to cover up facts that

contradicted the government claims about child death reviews. The handwritten

memo contained a senior political staff suggestion to delete politically

sensitive information from the requested document under the pretext that it was

advice. The real reason was that some of the information contradicted what we

have said to this point.

Audits triggered by financial irregularities involving public

funds in B.C. student loans that were requested by the opposition have come back

almost entirely blank.

[1450]

Now, I have attempted to use examples of my period of time here in

office. Where I'm sitting, I have history from all over the place, so I've tried

to keep the examples around more recent events that have occurred here in the

House. I also want to emphasize here once more that in my story, any party that

is government will be tempted to use this

section of this act to protect their

political well-being — not the interests of British Columbians.

Once more, it's important now that we would examine the change of

attitude that has been demonstrated here over the last several years. I will go

back to the '90s to start with using my examples and move through how, with any

government that's been around a long, long time, arrogance begins to creep in.

That's what the political scientists tell me, and I'm not one of those. I happen

to be just an old-fashioned, earth science geology teacher — down to the earth

and get my hands dirty.

If we go back to the 1990s, on July 22, 1998, the now Premier of

the province, at that time the Leader of the Opposition…. I hope I did that

correctly, Madam Speaker. As a member of this Legislature, I hope I followed all

the rules correctly because, again, it's my story. I don't wish to embarrass or

do anything incorrectly.

Quoting from a letter to the B.C. Freedom of Information

Association, the now Premier, at that time the opposition leader: "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."

Still quoting — I must quote exactly: "Secrecy feeds distrust and

dishonesty. Openness builds trust and integrity. The fundamental principle must

be this: government information belongs to the people, not to the government."

Now moving closer to my period of time, in 2001. "It's time for a

new era of accountability. Our plan will deliver transparent, accountable

government. The B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to

bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government in

Canada."

The victory speech of 2001. The now Premier of the province: "We

will bring in the most open and accountable government in Canada. I know some

people say we'll soon forget about that, but I promise we won't."

The swearing-in speech of 2001: "This cabinet is founded on two

fundamental principles: political accountability and improved public access."

Finally, in the estimates of 2001: "We think openness beats hiddenness every

time, and we want to make sure that people can see what's taking place."

Madam Speaker, this is how we started off — open cabinet meetings,

open to the public and televised across British Columbia. People may judge

whether those items were anything more than a public image action. However,

taking it on face value, they were announced as open public cabinet meetings.

That practice has stopped as we begin to move away from 2001. Cabinet meetings

have gone back to secret meetings.

[1455]

I'm coming back, of course, and indirectly leading to

section 28

of Bill 6. Moving back to my period of time now, what I'm sharing here with this

House, as a member of the Legislature, is the concern about giving this power to

any government. Taking how things have moved in the last while, the government

opposite, the

[ Page 5994 ]

members opposite, unilaterally decided last fall to simply cancel the fall

session. They did that on their own. This session we're no sooner out of the

blocks and the side opposite unilaterally breaks another longstanding tradition

and decides on their own, without consultation with the opposition, which is the

tradition, to change how the House on a day-to-day basis does its business.

Where does that leave us then? At this bill, with the continued

development of putting more and more power into the hands of the government and

into the governing part of government, the cabinet, where it is done in secret.

Now let's have a look specifically at

section 28, where some time

ago I started my story, as a member of this Legislature attempting to convince

this House not to give any government this unprecedented power of determining

how and when things are released.

Since 1897 — that's even before the '90s that we often talk about

in this House; it's the '90s of an entirely different era — the government of

British Columbia has had the practice that public inquiry documents are released

to this House, where the public and all the legislators get that information

unfettered at the same time. Now, underneath this act, that will change. The

cabinet will receive the authority to determine when it is released.

There is a

section 28(4) that tries to pretty this up by saying

that within ten days the cabinet has to bring it forward. But being a bit of a

down-to-earth type of individual — not a political scientist but an earth

scientist — I go back to session 28(3), where it sets no time limits upon when

the cabinet begins the review. So the control of when it gets released is in

there. It's in the detail.

The other

part is the cabinet's ability to sever the report —

unheard of. They will be able to determine what they believe…. They, being the

cabinet, all locked up by themselves in some little room somewhere, presumably

with the midnight oil burning, will determine if and what parts of the report

are going to be released. Then they will make up a bunch of reasons why they

didn't release it, but I'm not even certain at this moment in time that I'll

even know, as a member of the Legislature, what was not released. Therefore,

where does that leave the people of British Columbia in knowing what was

contained in the report?

[1500]

Frankly, to the Attorney General, a very significant point in our

democratic system is that the 79 of us here in this House are empowered by the

people of British Columbia to be informed, to know what is going on, to look

after their public interest and to defend it — all of us. To do that job, we

require the information in order to be able to make a reasoned, informed

decision. Information is required, and

section 28 of Bill 6 does not permit that

to necessarily happen. It gives the government unheard-of powers. Government,

whoever they may be, can only be tempted to use that power to look after their

interests.

Madam Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, on behalf of

everyone that may be in government: you, by leaving this

section in, put the

cabinet of any government in a position of conflict of interest. In my opinion,

you now leave them in a position, in looking at a public inquiry document, to

determine on that information what protects the government's interests and their

political interests, not the people of British Columbia's interests.

Withdraw Bill 6,

section 28, and I would be able to consider

voting for it.

N. Simons: Thank you to my colleagues and all those who are

interested in this debate. I think it's an important one.

For those in the gallery or watching at home, what we're doing is

debating a bill that the Attorney General has put before the House. The bill

becomes law once it's voted on, and what we're doing in opposition is pointing

out its flaws and appealing to the good sense of the government to reconsider

some of the aspects of this bill in order to make it semi-palatable to the

people of British Columbia. What I mean by semi-palatable is that it is in the

best interests of the British Columbia population, and it reflects our values

and the needs that we have of our government.

The bill is called Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act. What it does is set

out the rules on how government can look into issues, events or circumstances of

significant interest to the community, of significant interest in finding

resolutions or answers to situations that have occurred.

When inquiries are called, they're called for very serious

reasons: to find out if something's gone wrong either in practice — how someone

does their job — or potentially in the systemic problems that might underlie how

that individual may have done their job. Inquiries really are an important

opportunity for government to do self-analysis and for the population to be part

of that, as the government is the representation of the people.

In this particular bill I have some very strong concerns. I had to

look closely, but it didn't take me long to realize that what is being presented

under the guise of a tool for British Columbians to have to look at government's

actions and their policies is in fact almost that — except that there is a part

of this act that says: "We get to decide what's in that report ultimately, and

we get to decide when that report is released."

[1505]

Some people talk about three strikes and you're out. In this case,

two strikes and you're out. They tell us what we get to hear or read about, and

they tell us when. I find that a little bit contradictory to the intent, which I

believe the hon. Attorney General may not have foreseen. However, far be it from

me to question the motives. All I can see is that in the act itself, it raises a

number of questions that I think may lead to the questioning of motives.

I'm not speaking of individuals in government, but the culture of

this government since 2001 has been to react to situations that are embarrassing

or harmful to them by first denying their existence, then delaying the

inevitable and finally releasing a bit of information to

[ Page 5995 ]

the public long after the bright lights of scrutiny have passed on.

As a person intimately involved in analyzing government actions, I

can see how the culture of government can actually be somewhat like a protective

shell around itself. While perhaps that meets their needs, it doesn't meet the

needs of the population of British Columbia.

I think it's important that the two issues on the table in front

of us today…. This bill was tabled. What we have is the ability of government

not only to sever the report but to delay the report being released to the

public. Having been involved in an inquiry process that took five years in order

to determine that in fact government policy led — indirectly perhaps — to the

putting into danger of little toddlers in foster care…. The length of time it

took for that information to become public was not only shocking; it potentially

left a lot of other kids at risk.

In my opinion, the purpose of inquiry, the purpose of

self-analysis, is to improve practice. It's not to cover up bad practice. It's

not to make excuses for things that have gone wrong. It's to do a careful

analysis of one's ability to meet the needs of the population.

For example, if you delay letting people know the reasons why a

child might have been placed in an inappropriate home, subsequently to die…. If

we know that this could very much be part of the problem and if you know you

have a way of figuring it out early, you do that.

You don't let a situation fester. You don't let a bad policy

continue to exist if you know that it's a bad policy and a potentially dangerous

policy. The problem with inquiries that take so long is that not only is it not

in the public interest to delay learning about things that we need to know

about, but the effect is only to protect government interests.

The delay of releasing reports is obviously something that

government can use to shield themselves from the scorn of community. I'm not

suggesting for a moment that government will delay reporting, nor am I

suggesting that they're going to cut all the important stuff out of a report.

But they have that ability. They have the ability to do this. As I've stated on

previous occasions, if we are ever saddled with a meaner government, a crueller

government or a more tightly controlled and single-minded government, we may

have concerns about how they have made laws to protect themselves from oversight

from the public.

[1510]

I'm not suggesting that this law is necessarily bad for the

government currently in power, but it's bad for government from here on in. It's

bad for the population of British Columbia from here on in. It's bad for the

opposition. It's bad for anyone who would think that perhaps a public inquiry

might actually benefit British Columbians.

My first report, which was an internal government report, was kept

from the public for a number of years. Subsequently, it was determined that it

shouldn't have been kept from the public for those number of years, because its

original form was very close to its final form. It found serious flaws in the

way government operated — serious flaws in their deregulation, their zeal for

reducing regulations and costs.

Well, their zeal for reducing regulations and costs put children

at risk, and we have a problem with that. They figured it out eventually, five

years later. But throughout that whole space of time, the badly thought-out

policy which nobody tested before they implemented it, nobody figured out how to

fund it before they implemented it…. None of that was determined.

Shouldn't we try to learn from the failures of our past? We're

taught that. I was taught that in school, and I think that for the most

part I'm

getting it right. But the fact of the matter is that I don't think the

population of British Columbia is going to feel like, "Oh, we've got a

government we can trust," when that same government says: "We want to have the

ability to hide or change documents" — documents which are the results of

inquiries into their actions or into actions related to government.

That's not openness. That's not accountability. While I understand

my own personal desire to deflect blame for anything that I might do, and

talking about a government that represents the four million–plus residents of

British Columbia whose interests are protected by the 79 people they elected.

My issue with this bill, as the hon. Attorney General may know by

now, is

section 28(3) and 28(4). The issue, besides the fact that government

will be allowed to sever the report…. And "sever the report" means taking a

roller and basically covering up the words on the page paragraph by paragraph,

saying: "This isn't good for you to know. We know better. You shouldn't really

see this. It's not good for you to see this."

Well, I happen to know there's a lot of stuff that I wrote about,

which the public is still not aware of. In my inquiry, there a lot that is left

unknown to the public. The

summary of the report that I wrote was written by the

government. The report that I released was severed by the government. Even in

just minor internal inquiries, the government has a zeal to make sure that the

information is all very well controlled.

I see a relationship between a government that wants to hide facts

and a government that wants to institutionalize the legality of hiding facts as

a problem. What we have here is a government saying: "We really believe in

making sure that we look after the interests of the population. We want to make

sure that we protect their interests, whatever they are. And when things go

wrong, we need to make sure we get to the bottom of it. We need to investigate.

We need to analyze. We need to make recommendations to make things better.

That's our goal as government." I would applaud it.

Then in small letters or buried deep in difficult-to-read

legislation, they say: "Yeah, but if we don't think this information would be

good for you to know or if we think it'd be better if we waited a while for you

[ Page 5996 ]

know this information, we're allowed to do it. We don't have to tell anybody.

We're government. We won. You lost. It's all about that."

[1515]

The fact of the matter, I believe, is that as legislators, as 79

people in this House, we should be discussing legislation with an open enough

mind to realize that we do represent a very significant population of British

Columbia. We are 33 MLAs representing 33 constituencies across the province.

These are issues of concern to our communities as well as to the members

opposite.

The words that I'm speaking today are geared towards hoping that

the government will have another look at this, another examination of the

appropriateness of that particular clause. Perhaps there's an opportunity to

word it in another way so as to eliminate the cynicism that might have been

developed after reading it the first time.

I think it's an opportunity for us, in fact, to see evidence that

the promises of openness and accountability aren't just being followed but

aren't being contradicted. I would say this is a contradiction of the claim of

openness and accountability. It's not neutral. It goes against the numerous

promises or statements that have been made. But you know, if they're just

statements and clichés, then we're back to the basis of the government — sort of

slogans and platitudes.

I believe that open government is an important aspect of a free

and democratic society and that access to government information helps everybody

and that secrecy feeds distrust. Secrecy feeds distrust; it nourishes distrust.

It probably nourishes dishonesty. A culture of secrecy expects dishonesty. I

think you can almost jump to that conclusion — that an institution that is built

on protecting its internal integrity at the expense of the public good is not

somewhere British Columbians want to go.

Oh, by the way, those quotes were from the Premier before he was

the Premier. I guess it sounded good at the time. It sounded a lot better at the

time. But you know, when their position changed, the words seemed to evaporate.

I believe that in a parliamentary democracy, we need to have the

checks and balances that are always there to govern our actions and allow us to

do some reflection. I wouldn't want this legislation even for my own government,

and the time, I guess, is soon when we'll be on that side of the House. The fact

of the matter is that the issue isn't so much what would we do to protect

ourselves when we're in government as: what do we do to protect the interests of

British Columbians? That should be the first question, not the second question.

The first question is: is this legislation in the best interests

of British Columbians? The first question should not be: is this legislation in

the best interests of this government? Clearly, it is. Clearly, they'd love it

if this was passed, but I don't believe that necessarily translates into the

best interests of British Columbians.

We've seen numerous examples of other things that are best for

this government but not in the best interests of British Columbians, and I can

just go through a series of labels or statements that aren't really backed up by

activities or actions of government.

If we think about what the government could possibly want to

protect themselves against by blocking out words and taking out paragraphs and

severing pages from documents, it's like…. Why would you expect a government to

want to do that? Well, it's a question that we'd all ask.

How are we going to define under what circumstances we are allowed

to wipe information off a piece of paper? We've seen documents severed. We've

seen documents censored for reasons that are not legitimate. We know that people

remove information in order to protect their interests, and here we have

privacy, business interests, law enforcement concerns or public interest. People

talk about: here are the five categories, and then there's one more category to

catch everything else.

[1520]

Who is responsible for determining if in fact it's really in the

public interest not to know that the government has lost control of child and

family services or whatever the case may be? Who determines if it's in the

public interest for law enforcement? Are we going to ensure that law enforcement

is part of that decision-making process? Are we going to ensure that business

interests are protected?

This leaves the door wide open, in my opinion, for abuses.

Government should not pass bad laws. Ultimately, government should be concerned

with ensuring that the legislative framework that decides on what we do in this

province — whether it's land use, law enforcement or what have you — that those

laws are appropriate and that those laws reflect our values.

Nothing makes the public more upset and nothing gets the media

more worked up than catching government doing something wrong. You know what?

Their ability to hide things is probably commensurate with the finances they

afford themselves in the budget. But that doesn't excuse them from enacting new

legislation to reinforce that secrecy.

As legislators and as government, government shouldn't be trying

to find new tools to protect itself from scrutiny. We need scrutiny. We've seen

the failures of government. We've seen failures of government for generations

past. The failures have often had to do with protecting something that they

shouldn't be protecting and going boldly forward without stopping and thinking

and considering and figuring out if it's the appropriate action.

In my opinion, this process is about making law better. This

process of second reading is about a fulsome analysis of the legislation and an

opportunity to attempt to make that legislation slightly better — better,

slightly better, way better? It's a significant part of this act, I believe.

As much as there is a need for some renewal in legislation…. I

have no quarrel with the fact that we

[ Page 5997 ]

need to modernize and update legislation, but there are certain values that

were ensconced in the earliest forms of legislation dealing with this issue, and

I'm talking about 1897. The principles of openness and reporting to the

Legislature were instituted. That's a historical precedent that I believe needs

to be respected. We don't know the reasons they used, maybe, back in 1897.

Unlike some, I wasn't around.

An Hon. Member: Neither was I.

N. Simons: And I duly note that the minister opposite was

not either.

An Hon. Member: I don't know about that. Are you sure?

N. Simons: It's a dangerous temptation. It's almost an

invitation to heckle, but I'm standing, so I can't heckle.

An Hon. Member: You can't heckle yourself.

N. Simons: Well, I could.

But in 1897 it was understood that depending on the generosity of

government or the level of…. I have to just gather my thoughts. Depending on the

government's attitude towards the general community, one would expect that

oversight is welcome. One would expect that a government whose citizens trust it

don't expect that government to build up barriers, to block the possibility of

some insight into government's workings….

For that reason on its own, once again, it's an opportunity to

reflects government's concern for governing fairly and for the entire population

— not just for this group of individuals, not just for that group of

individuals, but for everyone all the time and all at once.

[1525]

We see kind of like segments. This government has governed in

segments — almost like a sitcom, in a way. I'm just saying that for the segment

part. You know, you have the segments and then the ads and the segment and the

ad. Well, we did have that in a way, but we started with the ads here.

What this government is trying to promote is an image of openness

and accountability, and here is the ultimate contradiction of that. We see those

two ideas coming together and finding very little way around each other. Once

again, the statement that they're open and accountable, versus

section 28, says:

"Yeah, except for when we feel like it."

As far as I'm concerned, that contradiction borders closely on

hypocrisy, and I believe that my responsibility to my constituents is to point

out what is therefore a flaw; if not a flaw, a hypocrisy; if not bad

legislation, then wilful legislation.

I want to make sure that in my opportunity to respond, I'm open to

the possibility that this was an oversight. I'm generous. However, I say that

because I believe that changes to this act are necessary before it can be seen

as quality legislation that benefits British Columbians.

As is the case on a number of occasions standing in this House,

it's not all negative. It's not all about finding only the flaws, and obviously

we recognize that there are members of this House who share values. In fact, we

probably share a lot more than we will let on in here. But the principal value

of openness, of a democratic government that's responsive to its citizens, needs

to be protected.

We already know that actions of previous governments have resulted

in low voter turnouts today — in the last election and the election before,

hovering in the 60 percent, 50 percent, up to 70 percent in some places. I

believe that has to do with the public's understanding of the relevance of this

place. If they realized that every law that's passed in this House has an impact

on them, then I think they would look very closely at this legislation and ask

why.

Why would this particular part of this legislation be necessary?

Was it put in there quickly? Was there an attempt to get it through without

anyone noticing? Has anyone pointed out to the government that numerous public

interest groups have said that this is the flaw?

This is the flaw. It could be better, but you need to remove

section 28 or amend it significantly. Is there the opportunity to do that? Yes,

there is. In a situation where the debate can be true and fair and full, we

should have the opportunity to recommend amendments, and government should have

the opportunity to consider those amendments.

I'm hoping, in closing, that government and the Attorney General

will see fit to review in a thoughtful manner, as is his way, this particular

section and make the appropriate changes in order for this side of the House to

be able to consider supporting it.

With that, I will cede my space to my colleague.

[1530]

G. Gentner: I rise in an unfortunate situation, because I

just got word about an hour ago that a very deep friend of mine passed on — Mr.

Arne Knudsen, who just recently received the Freedom of Delta award for his

gallant fight against fascism and for the rights of all of us here today. Arne

was in the tank division that liberated Italy. He was my friend, and he was a

friend of democracy. I think Arne would be ashamed today to know what this

government is trying to ram through.

He gave his life, and so did many. He was wounded. It affected his

life in many ways. Many veterans, as well, came back from that gallant fight,

and they have stories to tell. They can talk at great length about why they

fought. They fought against regimes that believe in secrecy.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

The real power rests in information. It's information that makes

people strong, and the right to utilize that

[ Page 5998 ]

information is what this country was built on, not barriers put in the way

that seem to be arbitrary.

I rise with that in mind, with my dear friend Arne, who was my

what they're up to. Make sure you read the fine lines and read your footnotes,

because that's where the real history is. It's not the secondary sources; it's

the primary sources. It's those primary sources that this government wants to

shelve — the ability for all of us to interpret what truly is. It's a matter of

circumventing process itself.

The Public Inquiry Act is this government's Heart of Darkness

— you know, the novel whereby the further up the river you go, the further you

discover the deeper, darker side of the human condition with all it entails. The

further you go up, the baseness, the vileness found up the river, the dark side

of the human condition, the horror, the nasty business, the wicked aspect of the

human condition….

This government believes that if you just trust the cabinet and

trust the people who entail the laws, everything's going to be fine. But we have

laws and conditions and regulations and openness for a reason — just in case

there is that darker side found in any one of us. No matter what political

conviction you may have, what religious conviction you have, there is a tendency

and an opportunity, if given, for the human condition to wane off track, to go

off rails, to go into that dark side. That is what this base, vile act is all

about.

Now the government introduced a version of the Public Inquiry Act

for first reading last spring. It was highly criticized by the official

opposition and, of course, other stakeholders — they're on line; you can find

them: the human rights groups, even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation — for

severely limiting the transparency and accountability of the public inquiry

process itself.

It's not just a small group on this side that's opposed. There's a

whole host of groups out there who spend many hours and time and days studying

the law and are really quite outraged with where this government's going.

Now faced with stiff opposition, the Liberal government first

introduced amendments to the bill and then agreed to carry it forward to this

session. We didn't fully understand what those implications were until the

Attorney General came forward with his bill.

[1535]

I would also at this time like to thank the Attorney General for

at least putting his time in here this afternoon and being one of the few

members opposite who is willing to listen.

But, you know….

Deputy Speaker: Member.

G. Gentner: I'm sure many members of this House are here to

listen to the debate.

The current version of the bill does not go far enough to address

the issues raised last year by us on this side. In particular, the bill allows

cabinet to interfere with how and when findings from public inquiries are

released to this assembly.

We heard earlier from the member for Nanaimo, who really gave

quite a remarkable, scathing attack on where we were going with this bill. The

bill erodes the transparency and the accountability of the public inquiry

process. There's no question about it. The public gets to see it in 15 days with

current legislation.

Now the bill allows cabinet to decide when the report of a public

inquiry is made public. That's very arbitrary — extremely arbitrary. Under the

existing Inquiry Act, the report from a public inquiry is tabled directly in the

Legislature. This has been the case, as was argued, since 1897.

Under the current bill, the report of a public inquiry would be

released to cabinet, who would then be able to review it for an indefinite

period of time before it was tabled in the Legislature.

This bill allows cabinet to sever the report of a public inquiry.

The existing Inquiry Act has no provision for the severing of information from

the final report of a public inquiry. Now under the current bill, cabinet would

be able to sever the report based on privacy rights, business interests, law

enforcement concerns or under the guise of the public interest. Giving cabinet

the power to sever the report of a public inquiry could be viewed as a conflict

of interest because there may be a strong motive to prevent the release of

damaging information.

We all know that the contentious parts are, of course, in

section

28, where cabinet could withhold any information for any reason. It can hide

misconduct, corruption and bungled government programs in order to cover up an

embarrassment of information.

The new Public Inquiry Act is part of this government's agenda of

helping their friends and supporters while leaving working families in the dark.

This government has a record that clearly shows that it wants to help corporate

friends, such as Alcan and insiders like Mr. Ken Dobell, rather than ordinary

British Columbians.

This government cannot be trusted to do what is right. It must

hide its information through this act and deny people their real power, which is

the right to seek and use information. It's what has built this nation. By

restricting public inquiries, this government hopes to keep their real agenda

secret. Secrecy is what this government is all about.

It's not about openness. It's not about decency. It's not about

being transparent, open. In fact, this act impedes. It introduces a real lack of

integrity. The lack of integrity is often understood not only as a refusal to

engage in behaviour that evades responsibility…. That's what this government is

attempting to do. It's negating its responsibilities by hiding under the cloak

of secrecy.

[1540]

It doesn't want to be responsible to working people in British

Columbia. It doesn't want to be responsible working people in British Columbia.

It doesn't want to be responsible to the labour people, who are working

[ Page 5999 ]

hard every day trying to make a living and pay their taxes. But this is what

this society and government are supposed to be. It's supposed to have some

integrity, one that has an adversarial process, for instance, which has a

certain type of integrity in which those engaged in it commit not only to

advance the cause of their own side but also to reveal, where required, evidence

to the other side — to follow certain rules in the debate and to accept rulings

from a judge or arbitrator.

Those subverting this might appear to lack some integrity, and

that would possibly hurt their case. So the philosophy of law concerns itself

with the integrity of a practical or process style — integrity as a measure of

trust in results, which in turn determines trust in authority itself. It rests

with how open our society can be.

Hon. Speaker, the new Public Inquiry Act is a contrast to what

this government believes in. The Public Inquiry Act, Bill 6, which of course was

introduced by the hon. Attorney General, is going to limit the transparency and

accountability of the public inquiry process.

In particular, it allows cabinet to interfere with how and when

findings from public inquiries are released to the Legislative Assembly. This is

particularly alarming considering this government's record of failing to release

information and severing documents for political reasons.

Let's look at this record. Let's look at the B.C. Liberal

government record, relative to its inability to release and, in particular, its

willingness to hide information. After signing the federal early learning and

child care agreement in 2005, the B.C. Liberal government refused to release

their child care action plan. There's no debate on that one.

The B.C. Liberals have failed to release the key B.C. Rail

documents, such as the revitalization agreement and information on the 990-year

lease. We also know it has failed to release and isn't willing to release

information relative to the Abbotsford P3 hospital. That's a contract that will

be played out in the next 33 years, and the public has no ability to ascertain

what that really means.

The provincial government is currently sitting on a report that

they commissioned that is critical of the Oil and Gas Commission. Can you

imagine that? The boreal forest, as we know, is being destroyed, wiped out. Our

government here is on record through a so-called climate change preventive

measure in the throne speech, and yet the fragile ecosystems that scrub the

atmosphere of carbon — namely, up in the boreal forests — are being destroyed.

But there's no willingness of this government to release the report that was

critical of the Oil and Gas Commission. Not only that, but the types of

appointments that were made in that commission — who got what and why. It's been

very reluctant to release it.

This government has repeatedly promised to release the child death

reviews and only took action on this in the wake of the Hughes report. Where

would we be if we hadn't had the current legislation? Where will we be after

this act has passed?

[1545]

Well, hon. Speaker, it would be a very horrible, horrid, base

place. It would be further up the river in the heart of darkness, closer to the

human condition that can allow itself to do devious things. Openness is the

endeavour of honesty — the never-ending inquiry of keeping sure that we follow

the moral course.

Now, there are other examples of how this government has conducted

itself relative to its inability to share information. The one that comes to

mind mostly, of course, is the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project.

This is an interesting one. The government suggests the overrun is $310 million,

$315 million, but we know it's going to be closer to half a billion dollars. The

question now is: with this new legislation, what type of information will be

released through any inquiry?

We know, for example, that contracts such as cost-plus, which this

government debated vehemently against during the '90s when the government of the

day was putting together the contracts for the ferries…. This government was

adamantly opposed to cost-plus. Here we are now, and what are they adopting?

They're adopting contracts that are exactly the same, but they won't come clean

and admit it.

They're going to hide behind this legislation. They're going to

hide information about who's paying what and how. For example, we have an

adjoining convention centre. How much cost now will be hidden or shifted over to

that convention centre? It's going to be a cat-and-mouse chase with this one to

try and find that information, to understand the concourse that's going to put

those two convention centres — which entity is actually going to pay for it.

We're going to be chasing down information relative to the costs,

of course, of the Olympics. Those inquiries, possibly even freedom of

information, will be sat on. There'll be constraints on time where it was not

politically expedient for the government to come forward and tell the truth.

They will sit on this information, like they will with regards to the media

centre at the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project. This is information

that the public has to know in order to weigh the success of the games, to weigh

the ultimate success of this government and to weigh how much censorship is

really being conducted.

You know, you talk about this half-billion dollar overrun on the

convention centre. It really makes some of the overruns of the previous

government look like a flea market. This government is going to hide its

half-billion dollar overrun. It's going to weasel its way through, and we'll

have to wait probably four or five years, possibly to a time when most of the

members opposite won't even be here. They'll probably be having a great time in

Arizona, hitting that golf ball and thinking about how wonderful it was the day

we sold B.C.

Deputy Speaker: Member, can we keep the discussion related

to the bill, please.

G. Gentner: Playing golf, hon. Chair, I admit may not

appear to be anything relative to this act. I'll grant you that.

[ Page 6000 ]

But B.C. Place is. The roof came down one day, and we saw the

light of day. Now supposing this act was in place two or three years ago and

there was an inquiry…. I know there's a WCB inquiry happening right now to

ascertain what exactly happened there. Inquiries are being made as to who was

responsible, and we know who's going to get the blame. It's going to be one

person that gets the finger. He'll be the whipping post, but if we ask for that

information, we know that cabinet is going to sit on it. It's not going to

release it. Why would it? It's politically expedient. It's here to hide the

truth.

Of course, we can talk about B.C. Rail. Now that's a real mess

that this government would like to cover up. Yesterday I was in here with

estimates talking to the Agriculture Minister, and he literally mocked this side

of the House relative to information that was asked. He refused to answer the

questions. He said: "No, no, throw an FOI our way."

[1550]

Well, freedom of information is going to be jeopardized. I know

there's denial opposite on that one, but when you're able to put on constraints

and circumvent the inquiry, we know that information will not be pending.

Somehow cabinet is perceiving itself as though it's above the law when it's able

to ascertain or put a lid on information.

We know the B.C. Lotteries and the lottery retailers who won 4.4

percent of all lottery prizes — that too is an inquiry. Will that be jeopardized

under this legislation? It very well could. I guess we'll find out.

Now, the government got caught red-handed in its attempt to cover

up facts that contradicted the Solicitor General's claims about child death

reviews. It was caught. Where would we be today, or should we say next year,

with this legislation? It too will be hidden.

Another one that comes to mind is the toxic spill from train

derailments and how it basically can sterilize a river and kill all the fish,

like that up in Squamish — kill salmon and its very habitat for years, if not

decades. We would never know what had happened. There would be no inquiries. And

yes, there could be a cover-up.

A recent freedom of information revealed that 81 RCMP members were

found in misconduct in British Columbia in the last two years. The cases of

misconduct range from falsifying expense account claims to having sex with

prostitutes. Now, where are we going to be when that inquiry comes? Will the

Solicitor General be there to protect all citizens, or will it be politically

expedient to protect the police? Where are we going on that one with this act?

The throne speech has engaged in cleaning up the Greater Victoria

regional district and its primary sewage treatment — unsafe conditions with

extreme levels of toxics. It was the Victoria Times Colonist that

revealed it through an FOI and therefore created a massive public outcry to fix

the problem. Had it not been for that inquiry and the steadfastness of the

newspaper in Victoria, the government wouldn't have acted. It wouldn't have

placed it as a priority in the throne speech. That is how valuable and important

information is in the hands of the public — not information that is squandered

away on a shelf and denied.

What if this government decided that it didn't have the money or

the political will to fix the problem? It would go further down the dark river

of despair, the horror. It would bury any inquiry, because its priorities would

be somewhere else. Well, the priorities of this province are governed by the

openness of information that is shared by everybody in this province, regardless

of how old or their sex or creed. Everybody should have welcomed access to

information. It should not be denied.

I don't say it lightly when there are governments that have been

involved with racial profiling. They've hidden that agenda within, and they've

hidden the rights. What about other rights — patients' rights, religious rights,

women's rights, due process itself? The dark side could take a government to use

this legislation as an instrument of a very dark, dark place. It's the trust

this government is placing in itself, rather than a trust of transparency, which

has built this nation in the course of this country.

[1555]

This act will hide overruns of all capital projects, and it will

be political and arbitrary. Cabinet will hide poor business practices. It will

hide untendered contracts, it will hide improper expense claims, it will hide

conflict-of-interest inquiries, and it will hide rules for contractors.

As I said earlier, there are many organizations that have stood up

to this government. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is one. The Canadian

Taxpayers Federation is another. I have to give special thanks to the B.C.

Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, who are betwixt as to what this

government is doing. They have lost the confidence.

This government has lost the confidence of some of the most astute

and well-acknowledged libertarians of this province. Three recent members of the

B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association come to mind. One of course

is David Suzuki, a world-renowned environmentalist in this province; Rafe Mair,

who is a fishing advocate; and a well-known Liberal member who was also sitting

on this side for many years, Mr. Gordon Gibson. They are members of the B.C.

Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, as are many renowned British

Columbia citizens.

I think they're appalled at where this government is taking us.

Freedom of information is the statutory right of access to government

information. It is a fundamental and essential part of democracy and meaningful

citizenship. When you take your oath to become a citizen of this country, you

think about what it really means. I brought up earlier my dear friend who died

today, 97-year-old Arne Knudsen. He fought in wars and was a well-decorated

citizen, a well-decorated person who was willing to give his life for this

country — for openness, for decency, for a sense of morality.

Freedom of information helps to ensure that a government is

operating with the informed consent of its citizens. That's what it's all about.

Power is information,

[ Page 6001 ]

and without that information we are powerless. More than 46 countries,

including Canada, have recognized this and enacted public inquiries legislation.

But this one is different.

Canada's federal government, the provinces and territories are all

covered by their own version of that freedom of information. It is a principle

that is crucial to the health of our democracy. When we insist on government

transparency and invest the necessary resources to make it happen, we are

rewarded with institutions that are more open, honest and accountable to the

public. Citizens are more able to play a meaningful role in their governance and

have a greater faith in their democratic institutions.

However, like all freedoms, public inquiry is not without costs,

and perhaps this is why the government is going where it is. Governments must

realize that expenditures are a necessary investment in the future health of our

public institutions, and the public must demand this investment.

Freedom of information exists for the purpose of making public

institutions transparent and accountable to the public. When all else fails —

when all else fails — it is a citizen's best hope to pierce the veil of

obstruction that so often hides the work of government and to find out what is

really going on. I don't understand the reluctance of this government to open

its arms and say to its populace: "We are willing to allow you to see what is

really going on."

[1600]

M. Karagianis: It's very interesting how things come around

and go around and how you find yourself often back at the same place a year

later that you thought you had addressed and moved on from. It's interesting

that we're back to the drawing board here today.

Looking at the new proposed legislative changes here in the Public

Inquiry Act, it's very apparent that once again the government just hasn't quite

got it right, despite the postponement of this last year. The postponement was

very clearly in response to the inadequacies of the act when it was presented in

the House last year.

The opposition stood up and made some very compelling comments and

debate about what was missing from the act and about what needed to be put into

the act in order to make it acceptable and workable — and in fact, a real public

inquiry act. Despite that, government has gone back and spent a year here

chewing away on the act and obviously, I guess, examining the entrails to

determine what needed to be changed here in order to reintroduce this and try to

portray it as some kind of new, better, more open and accountable public

inquiries act.

In fact, once again we see that government actually can't quite

get there. Despite their best efforts, they cannot develop a transparent and

open act without wanting to constrain it, without wanting to tamper with it,

without wanting in some way to put in restrictions and conditions that make the

whole thing the opposite of what it is supposed to be trying to do.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

It continues to be with a sense of great curiosity that I watch

how this government is unfolding its legislative acts here in an attempt to try

and achieve their great branding, their great logo and their great promotional

declaration that they are open, transparent and accountable. But, you know, as

with many things, Madam Speaker, actions always speak louder than words. Despite

the great promotional slogan that the government likes to march out and declaim

at every moment and attach to every single thing they do or say — about the kind

of open and transparent and accountable government they are — this act shows us

clearly that they have no intention of following through with that.

I find it quite laughable, because if I didn't laugh, I would

probably want to cry for the inability of this government to follow through on

the promise of openness and accountability. Instead, we see

an act here that

does the very opposite of opening up this act for full accountability and that

limits the transparency, the accountability and the openness. I'm always

astonished that the government actually has the cheek to bring it forward, to

look the public straight in the eye and say: "Here we are; we're being so

accountable. We're living up to one of our great goals here."

By bringing forward

an act that has all the mechanisms built into

it for this government to continue to tamper with information and to roll it out

— not only when and as government wishes but in a manner that can reduce things

that are unflattering — it can reduce the potential for information that would

show government for its failings. That's what I see happening in this act as

it's been written now.

You know, considering the years that the Premier spent in

opposition vilifying the government of the day — basically grandstanding on what

kind of government he would bring to the province of British Columbia, and

untold promises about the kind of government that he would provide — it's very

interesting to see what has actually occurred and what began to occur from the

moment this government took office.

[1605]

I look back here to a quote from the Premier, in fact, from the

victory speech of winning the election in 2001. Literally, the moment that it

was evident the Premier was going to take office, he said: "We will bring in the

most open and accountable government in Canada." Then he said, and this is the

best part: "I know some people will say we'll soon forget, but I promise we

won't."

I think that that particular slogan is deserving of much more

publicity, because it's very evident that the government forgot the very next

day what it had promised to the public throughout its campaign, throughout the

years in opposition, and right there on election night. In fact, the government

proceeded to rip this province from one end to the other — broken promises;

policies that went in favour of only one side of the issue and did not serve the

broader public in this

[ Page 6002 ]

province — and proceeded to systematically eliminate public scrutiny on

almost every single level within government.

That has been systematic. It has continued from day one and

continues even to this day. In the time that I spent as the Small Business

critic, it was very evident that even the whole system of regulatory reform was

about finding ways to remove language, to alter language and to change the

perception of things that were going on within government.

We've continued to see that throughout all of government's

actions. Early on, one of the results of regulatory reform was that government

went through every single policy in every single ministry and gave themselves

permission to restrain information from public scrutiny — gave themselves

permission to restrict the amount of information that the public could gain

access to. It gave itself permission, in fact, to run roughshod over the public

and do it quietly and stealthily in the background.

Government changed language throughout policies where it was

indicated they must do something for the public of British Columbia. They then

altered the language to say that, well, they may do something. What an

incredible shift the change of one simple word has on the outcome of openness

and accountability and public scrutiny.

Now government was no longer required to provide openness and

scrutiny, no longer required to provide open documentation to the public, no

longer required to be accountable directly to the public. In fact, it had the

discretion that it may, it might, at its own will, under its own timing with its

own purposes, with its own ulterior motives, communicate with the public.

These attempts since then to try and incorporate even more

language that prevents the public from truly seeing what is going on within

government, and to truly understand and perceive the results of these subtle

changes throughout the legislation, continue right through until today, when we

are now seeing a public inquiry act which very clearly does the very opposite of

openness and accountability.

This bill gives cabinet the carte blanche to interfere on every

level with public inquiries without any kind of censure whatsoever. It negates

the whole purpose of a public inquiry if cabinet and a secretive body, a

secretive decision-making organization of government, can determine when and how

public information is released, how it's severed.

[1610]

My experience with government on trying to get information has

been particularly disappointing. I have had occasion several times to put in

freedom-of-information requests, both as the Small Business critic and now as

the critic for Children and Family Development. I frequently put in

freedom-of-information requests because, of course, information is very hard to

come by. Government is not forthcoming with the kind of information that they

should be, upon request, and so you have to go through quite a process here.

Again, as part of government's endeavours to constrain the flow of

information and to prevent people from clearly seeing and understanding the

thread of activities that have taken place, it has become more and more

difficult to even get information under the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act. Often documents have arrived back in my hands so

severely severed as to actually be a waste of paper — a waste of the paper that

it was printed on. I received at one point a document that was something like 37

pages with a header and nothing else. Everything else had been severed beyond

meaning.

What is the purpose of

an act, what is the purpose of a

declaration of openness and accountability if, in fact, you cannot get the

information, when you do get the information it is meaningless, and all actions

under the Freedom of Information Act are being contrived to hold information

away from both the people and the legislative process here?

When I see that the government in power tells a completely

different story than a government in waiting, it is no surprise to see that this

act is going to give us no comfort whatsoever, that the public will be allowed

to access information or see reports in a timely manner and that the whole idea

of constituting a public inquiry into a situation is going to be a complete

mockery.

You know, we talk often in this House about tragedies that have

occurred within government, about ill-fated spending projects, about ill-timed

projects and about what the true actions of government are that are going on

behind the scenes. So we frequently call for public inquiries, and it's pretty

common nowadays across this country to call for a public inquiry where an issue

is so large and has such impact on the public, on the safety of the public, on

the well-being of the public, on the education and edification of the public on

what their government officials are doing. We call for public inquiries. We do

it frequently.

Now here we have

an act which says that we can call for all the

public inquiries we want, but they will be tampered with. They will be at the

whim of the political process on every level. So we can call for a public

inquiry, we can spend taxpayers' money to hold a public inquiry and do the

investigations. We could have long, protracted processes around that, and at the

end of the day all of that information can simply be reduced by severing,

reduced by tampering to the point that it will be not only a waste of time and a

waste of money, but a complete injustice to what the public expects and deserves

from these inquiries.

I'm not entirely sure why the government feels that they're

bringing forward something here that is worth supporting. When I look at clauses

in here where it says: "On receiving the report" — the public inquiry report —

"the Executive Council may direct the minister to withhold portions of the

report for any reason…."

If we look at that and say: what is that language actually

saying…? The executive council can direct a minister, so even if a minister

calls for his own public inquiry, he doesn't even have the right to determine

the outcome or the release of that information. Secondly, he could be directed

to withhold portions of the report.

[ Page 6003 ]

So what is the purpose of a public inquiry act that is about crushing and

hiding and destroying information?

[1615]

It defies my imagination why we would even be discussing this if

in fact all the language in here is about constraining and destroying a public

inquiry's full impact, its information. It says here that the minister could be

directed for any reason. Now if that doesn't beg for political tampering, I

don't know what does.

Certainly, this is a government that has politically tampered with

so many of the very protective aspects of government's watchdogs — our Human

Rights Commission and many of the commissions that have been put in place, like

the independent Children's Commission. They were put in place as the result,

often, of public inquiries, of tragedies, of government's attempts to try to

make right and do right for the citizens of this province.

All of those were removed, and now we are seeing a Public Inquiry

Act that is making a mockery of the whole process around trying to find out what

government has done wrong, do it better, provide better service and be a better

government for our citizens of British Columbia. In fact, this Public Inquiry

Act here is taking us backwards in time.

It is in many ways, I guess, an attempt to fool the people of

British Columbia into a false sense that what you see is what you get with

government, and we know that nothing could be further from the truth.

In looking at all of the language around this, I would have to say

that the government's record alone of failure on so many aspects of releasing

information — of providing open information to the public, of being accountable

to the public — gives me no confidence whatsoever in their ability to abide by

the letter of the act, even if it didn't contain many of the most nefarious

tampering clauses. I have no faith whatsoever that the government would honour

this, would stand by this document and would give us the kind of public

accountability that we all deserve.

The existing act in fact gives us more comfort and has no language

in it that allows this kind of stealthy control of information — this negating

of embarrassing or inflammatory or, I guess, unpopular information from being

released. So why are we again making an attempt to fix something that is not

broken, to rectify something that doesn't need to be rectified?

The existing act — which has been around for a very long time,

granted — gives all British Columbians some measure of confidence that when a

public inquiry is done, the information will be released here to the Legislature

automatically, produced here in this chamber where then the process of

government is open, accountable and debatable and where both sides of the House

will see exactly what the results of the public inquiry produced, so that we can

all learn something from that and do a better job.

You know, we saw the Hughes report as being a very productive

process, albeit one government was forced to call because of their own tragic

mishandling of children's protection and of reviewing children's deaths in this

province. Nonetheless, it was a process that we all took some comfort in: that

this report was appropriate, that it was necessary and that those

recommendations that came out of that were about making government better.

In fact, the Premier stood up when that report was delivered and

said: "I stand by this report. I support this report. I applaud this report. I

will follow all the recommendations in this report." There we had a clear

example of a public reporting and inquiry process delivered here into the House

for everyone to see the recommendations.

[1620]

The 62 recommendations that Mr. Hughes made were there for

everyone to see, for everyone to take comfort in — for the families that had

been affected, for all the families that had been waiting for information, for

everyone who had been tainted in some way by the pre-existing tragedy and the

circumstances around that. All had some comfort.

There we had, straight from Ted Hughes, an untampered, unsevered,

unadulterated report that clearly outlined in no equivocal language whatsoever —

in very clear terms — where government had gone wrong and where recommendations

needed to be adopted by government in order to better protect children, in order

to make government a better functioning government for the people of British

Columbia.

Can you imagine if the Hughes report had been tabled under this

legislation? Would government have allowed that report to come forward with the

kind of…?

Interjection.

M. Karagianis: Yeah, it would have been shredded, as my