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)

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 16, Number 6

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First

Reading of Bills

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy

Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill M204)

H. Bains

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Big Brothers Big Sisters of

Canada

Mayencourt

B. Simpson

Burrard Yacht Club

Whittred

Freegro plant shelters

G. Coons

Ab Seriani

Cantelon

Chloe Hegland

Fleming

Oral Questions

Employment standards for

farmworkers

C. James

Hon. O.

Ilich

Chouhan

Hon. P.

Bell

Puchmayr

C. Evans

Farnworth

H. Lali

A. Dix

Reports from Committees

Special Committee on Sustainable

Aquaculture, first report

Austin

Petitions

N. Simons

Committee of the Whole House

Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)

(continued)

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Ralston

Simpson

A. Dix

C. Wyse

Thorne

Sather

Macdonald

C. Trevena

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Employment

and Income Assistance (continued)

J. Brar

Hon. C.

Richmond

Simpson

[ Page 6149 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted today, in the precinct, to be joined by a group of individuals who are making a difference in the lives of families and children across this province every day. I know that the group will be meeting with a number of MLAs and ministers, and then we'll join together for a reception later today. I hope the House will help me welcome this group of people who are very well recognized and also deeply appreciated.

Today, representing Big Brothers Big Sisters, we have the CEO of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada, Bruce MacDonald, with us. Joining Bruce are a number of other individuals: David Sheach, Gerwyn Mills, Sandy Whitwham, Susan Climie, Mark Ely, Doug Blott, John Houck, Rick Floer, Doug Gibson, Bunny Smith, Debbie Sinclair, Barb Scott, Rhonda Brown, Dan Dagg, Sheila Elworthy and Paul Abra.

I know that every member of this House will join me not only in making them welcome but also in thanking them for a job very well done in our province.

C. James: I have in the gallery today two very special guests. They're constituents of the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, but they are part of my extended family. Would the House please give a warm greeting to Art and Joyce James.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the visitors' gallery we have special visitors from China. Mr. Yang Qiang, the newly appointed consul general in Vancouver is making his first official visit to Victoria, and he is accompanied by Vice-Consul Jiang Yang. Please join me in giving our visitors a warm British Columbia welcome.

J. Kwan: I too would like to welcome Consul General Qiang and his delegation in his visit to the Legislature. I believe it's for the first time. I hope that his delegation had a nice lunch with the Speaker and, courtesy of the Speaker, in welcoming the special delegation from China. Would the House please join me in welcoming Consul General Qiang.

[1335]

B. Simpson: I too would like to welcome some of the Big Brothers Big Sisters delegates. Two individuals from my riding are in the gallery: Maggie Bello, executive director of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Quesnel for the last 14 years; and Lorraine Levitt, the executive director from Williams Lake for the last 15 years.

I was also surprised today, when I met with the delegation, that someone that I hadn't seen for some time, David Sheach, was in the room in a different iteration. David and I keep cycling through our lives in very different circumstances, and it was nice to see David here today. Unfortunately, David has left our region and is now the executive director for Abbotsford, Mission and Ridge Meadows.

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them to the gallery today.

S. Hammell: In the gallery are students, parents and teachers from Kirkbride Elementary School. Kirkbride Elementary is in Surrey–Green Timbers and, in fact, just down from my townhouse. Their focus today is on government — history and parliamentary traditions — so obviously they're in the perfect place. Could the House please make Charlene McGuire and the students welcome.

S. Fraser: One of the challenges of this job is spending much quality time at home with loved ones. Today my wife and loved one, Dolores…. It's her birthday. She's not here, so I am trying to cover for that. I'm hoping that this House will join me in wishing her a very, very happy birthday. Happy birthday, Dolores.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

MANUFACTURED HOME PARK

TENANCY AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

H. Bains presented a bill intituled Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2007.

H. Bains: I move introduction of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, notice of which is on the order paper for first reading .

Motion approved.

H. Bains: The Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act amends

section 42, 44, of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act by: (1) requiring that a park owner provide 12 months' notice of eviction when the park is redeveloped for uses other than a manufactured home park under any former tenancy agreement; (2) requiring that a park owner at the time of eviction pay a tenant 12 months' rent or $10,000, whichever is greater, for relocation expenses; (3) requiring that a park owner pay those tenants who are unable to relocate their home because their home failed to meet the transportation safety standards or local building standards an amount equal to the fair market value of the manufactured home as compensation.

The act was amended in 2003, and the changes made were viewed as one-sided and left many elderly who built this country and those on disability worried sick and vulnerable, especially at the time when the real estate values are going through the roof. We as a society have an obligation to not only look after these

[ Page 6150 ]

folks, but we must put in legislative safeguards so they can live and enjoy the last few years of their lives without the fear of becoming homeless.

This bill does that, and it brings back fairness in dealing with the situation where the park owner decides to develop the land for other uses. I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill M204, Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF CANADA

L. Mayencourt: For more than 80 years Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada have been providing support to kids around Canada, including and through 20 agencies in B.C. Currently there are over 23,000 kids that benefit from the one-on-one mentorship that is provided by this program, and the challenge that they face is finding mentors for the 10,000 kids they have on their waiting list.

Research shows that the positive adult role model will directly contribute to increased academic achievement, better family and peer relationships, a substantially lower reliance on social services and a more successful transition from school to work. Children who spend time with the mentor gain confidence, self-esteem and new skills, and develop their ability to relate to others.

[1340]

Mentors also benefit, experiencing a sense of discovery and enjoyment as they see a world of possibility opening up for these kids. Each mentor acts as a role model to one student. Their relationship offers friendship, guidance and sharing, which help to build the child's self-esteem.

Some of the other programs worth mentioning are the Big Sisters Study Buddy program. It matches little sisters with volunteer tutors who offer them educational guidance and support. With the support of a study buddy, little sisters are encouraged and equipped to improve their educational performance and meet their academic goals.

Kids and Cops brings police officers in to volunteer and mentor a group of children by teaching them many of the aspects of their work, and Digital Heroes allows people in remote or rural areas to benefit from the program as well. Couples for Kid matches a couple to a child, and their two-to-one mentoring relationship forms the basis for a friendship that can help broaden the life of a child and provide support and guidance and acceptance.

Will the House please join me in acknowledging the good work of Big Brothers and Big Sisters in Canada.

B. Simpson: I will follow straight through with the member for Vancouver-Burrard in recognizing the role that Big Brothers and Big Sisters play in our communities. These agencies play a vital role in many B.C. communities by fostering networks of support for young people and by facilitating the building of meaningful long-term one-on-one relationships between adults and youth.

However, many think of Big Brothers Big Sisters as an organization that matches adults with children and youth on a one-on-one basis. While this is the foundation program of the organization, Big Brothers Big Sisters offers much more diverse volunteer opportunities, and as such, these agencies play a larger role in supporting children and youth in our communities.

For example, they provide opportunities for in-school mentoring programs. The volunteer mentor spends one hour per week doing a fun activity or just talking with a child who could use a friend. In some communities this in-school mentoring program is also made available to high school students who, by acting as mentors, can learn the value of volunteering while broadening their own social skills.

Some agencies also offer aboriginal in-school mentoring opportunities in their community. The aboriginal volunteer spends one hour per week with an aboriginal child who could use a friend. There are also opportunities for couples to be matched to a little brother or a little sister and for volunteers to be matched with two to four children at the same time. Where the group program is available, the volunteers and children participate in group activities on a regular basis, gain valuable social interaction with new friends and experience new activities.

This wide array of volunteer opportunities offered by Big Brothers Big Sisters provides valuable support to children and youth who might otherwise not obtain this level of support through social service or other youth programs.

I ask the House today to join me in recognizing the important contribution that Big Brothers Big Sisters plays in the development of our youth in our communities.

BURRARD YACHT CLUB

K. Whittred: I'm pleased today to offer congratulations in this House to the Burrard Yacht Club. This year they'll be celebrating their 75th anniversary. Established on May 5, 1932, the Burrard Yacht Club grew out of the Vancouver Rowing Club. In 1977, after suitable land was found and purchased, the club moved to its current location on Gostick Place in North Vancouver. As a testament to the quality of facilities and services, over 98 percent of members followed the club across the water to North Vancouver.

Today, with about 300 current members, Burrard Yacht Club is an active club with a focus on cruising. The club has both power and sailing vessels from 25 to 60 feet in length. But Burrard Yacht Club offers more than just moorage. The club is dedicated to the development and encouragement of yachting and provides

[ Page 6151 ]

sailing lessons for the young and the young at heart. They actively participate in regattas and other group boating events, both within their club and in the boating community at large.

The club also extols the virtues of cruising on the waters of British Columbia. I cannot think of a better location to start a cruise along the Pacific Northwest than in the splendour of North Vancouver, with the Lions and Grouse Mountain as a backdrop. What a way to showcase our beautiful province.

[1345]

I look forward to taking part, with Burrard Yacht Club, in their anniversary celebrations coming up soon. Congratulations again, and keep on cruising.

FREEGRO PLANT SHELTERS

G. Coons: I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about Freegro plant shelters. We've seen them as we walk down the streets of Victoria. They may look like vertically staked windsocks, but a new kind of plant shelter is involved in a massive cover-up.

Freegro Enterprises has designed Freegro plant shelters. These strange-looking open-mesh fabric socks are designed to protect vulnerable seedlings from animals, to be easy to transport and to be cheap to install. When their job is done, the shelters may be left to degrade on their own and disappear. Alternatively, they enhance the growth of new seedlings so well that they may be easily retrieved and reused, making them both economical and environmentally friendly.

Neil Forman, who oversees the assembly at Certified Plant Shelters in Prince Rupert, says: "For a long time, foresters have sought better ways to protect newly planted tree seedlings." In operation since 1998, the company employs about a dozen people banding, sewing and packaging the plant shelters. It takes about ten seconds to install the shelters, which are customized to growing conditions and tree species. It costs about 30 to 60 percent less compared to other types of protectors.

John Disney, the economic development officer for the village of Old Massett, who is awaiting the necessary permits for the Haida Gwaii carbon forest pilot project, is a strong, strong advocate for Freegro. He indicates that close to six million foreign plastic shelters in current use on Haida Gwaii will have to be removed and transported to the nearest landfill, causing considerable environmental impact along with high cost.

This would not be the case with the Freegro product. Freegro plant shelters are designed and assembled in B.C., yet we have the tendency to go to cheaper, foreign, non-biodegradable products that in the long run cost more in both price and in damage to the environment.

Two local initiatives working together, Haida Gwaii carbon forest pilot project and Freegro, are demonstrating that local solutions to the issue of…

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Member.

G. Coons: …global climate change can be developed.

AB SERIANI

R. Cantelon: I rise to tell a remarkable story of heroism and bravery. It was indeed a dark and stormy night during a recent rain and windstorm in Nanaimo. An 84-year-old woman was alone in her apartment when the power went out. To brighten the gloom, she lit a few candles. Unfortunately, they were either knocked or they fell on their own, and a fire started. The woman quickly succumbed to the smoke and fell to the floor.

Fortunately, down the hall lived a retired captain from the Nanaimo firefighters, a young and fit 80-year-old, Ab Seriani. Ab smelled the smoke and raised the alarm. He knew he had to act fast. He went out in the hallway and quickly found the source of the flames.

He entered the woman's apartment. It was dark and smoky, and that's a risky procedure for anyone, but as a trained and experienced firefighter, Ab knew what to do. He entered the room, found the woman on the floor unconscious but alive, and pulled her out into the relative safety of the hallway.

But he didn't stop there, because the fire was still going and put the occupants of the entire building at risk. So he took the emergency firehose off the wall, re-entered the fiery room and put out the fire.

When the firefighters arrived, Ab was calmly refolding the firehose back up into its place on the wall. He thought nothing of it. He was kind of nonplussed and modest about the event. As he said: "Main thing is, we got the old gal out alive."

Well, I ask this House to join with me in saluting a real hero, Ab Seriani, and all of the firefighters who put their lives at risk to enter burning buildings to save lives.

CHLOE HEGLAND

R. Fleming: I want to give recognition to a very special young soccer star in the capital region named Chloe Hegland, who I think will almost certainly represent her country one day on the women's national soccer team.

Recently Chloe managed her way into the Guinness Book of World Records by scoring the most successive touches of a soccer ball without the ball touching the ground. The task in soccer, of course, is known as juggling. Chloe's 155 touches get entered into the record female category, although she bettered the world record by a male — 147 — as well.

[1350]

Chloe's world record is all the more remarkable because she is ten years old. Chloe accomplished the task on December 12 in front of her father Bob Hegland and two key witnesses — a local notary and one of the biggest names in Vancouver Island soccer, Alan Churchard, who is part of the coaching staff at the Lower Island Soccer Association.

Recently Chloe received confirmation that she'd receive her well-deserved official Guinness world record certificate. That was just this past month. What makes her achievement even more significant is that

[ Page 6152 ]

Chloe has only been playing organized soccer for two years.

While we aspire to show the world that Canadian soccer has made great strides this summer when we host the men's FIFA U-20 World Cup in Victoria and Vancouver, two of the six Canadian host cities for that, I think members can take some comfort that for now a young Canadian girl — not a professional player from Brazil or Argentina or France — holds a world record in a truly global sport right here in British Columbia. I hope the House will join me in applauding and congratulating Chloe Hegland on her accomplishment.

Oral Questions

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS FOR

FARMWORKERS

C. James: Yesterday in question period the Minister of Labour failed to defend her government's policy to strip farmworkers of basic rights like minimum wage. She and the Minister of Agriculture gave conflicting answers that showed that the B.C. Liberals can't be trusted to protect these vulnerable workers.

To the Minister of Labour: has her ministry conducted an analysis of the pick rate for workers? How many are actually getting minimum wage, and how many are being exploited by this government's policies?

Hon. O. Ilich: As a matter of fact, the changes that were made in 2001 did not have anything to do with what workers were paid or how they were paid. The piece rate for workers was introduced in 1981. It was the same the whole time that the members opposite were in government.

What we did do was that we went to a direct-deposit system in 2001, which means that workers actually got paid and they got paid on time. The rate in 2001 was also increased by 23 percent. That was something our government did, not their government.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: Once again, the minister is without the facts. Direct deposit does nothing for farmworkers if they're not making minimum wage. Yesterday….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

C. James: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture said that minimum wage, overtime and holiday pay were built into the piecework rates. Today the Minister of Labour can't even answer a basic question, which is about how many workers are actually making minimum wage. And she certainly doesn't seem to care about how workers are being exploited by her government's policies.

So my question to the Minister of Labour is: does she know how many pounds of blueberries a worker has to pick to be able to make minimum wage?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think that the members opposite should get their facts straight. Today the average minimum wage for workers in the agricultural industry is almost $14 an hour.

[1355]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very clear that the minister has not spoken to anybody who actually works on the farm. I'd actually like to give the information to the minister. Workers out in the field picking blueberries must collect 22.1 pounds of blueberries every hour to be able to make minimum wage — every hour. That's almost 200 pounds of blueberries in eight hours. Many of these workers are women and seniors.

It was this government that eliminated the minimum wage for farmworkers. It's this government that doesn't care about workers being exploited.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Let's listen to the question, please.

C. James: My question again to the Minister of Labour: will she commit today to reinstate the basic rights that workers deserve, which her government took away?

Hon. O. Ilich: The piece rate for farmworkers has been in effect since 1981. Their government did nothing about it, did not make any changes for ten years. We increased it in November of 2001 by 23 percent.

R. Chouhan: Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture stated in the House: "The agricultural workers in B.C. are some of the highest-paid agricultural workers anywhere in Canada — $12 and $13 an hour." Now, after 24 hours, the wages have gone up to $14 an hour.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

R. Chouhan: My question is to the Minister of Labour. If farmworkers are making that much, will she make the necessary amendments to the Employment Standards Act to ensure that the farmworkers are paid the guaranteed minimum wage?

[ Page 6153 ]

Hon. P. Bell: I'm not sure what part of this the members opposite don't get. This was the government that in 2001 lifted the piece rate by 23 percent.

What did the NDP do during the 1990s? Let's analyze that. They presided over the largest decrease in ag workers' wages in the history of British Columbia — a drop of 21 percent in a single year.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members from both sides. We're not going to start question period until there's silence.

Member has a supplemental.

R. Chouhan: Mr. Speaker, I do. I hope that in the same loud voice the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour will confirm today that farmworkers will be paid guaranteed minimum wage as of today.

Yesterday the Minister of Labour tried to deflect her terrible record and blame a past government. She accused the NDP of shutting down the agricultural compliance team. She was wrong. She was wrong like her other colleagues. The program was established in 1997, not shut down. The team had the power to inspect vehicles on site during unannounced inspections.

Once again we cannot trust this government to represent the workers. When is the Minister of Labour going to stop blaming others for her failed policies and reinstate the rights and protections they stripped away from farmworkers?

[1400]

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, you know, this is just typical NDP. It's about supporting their big labour friends. Do you know what? I think that they're getting….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture still has the floor. Continue.

Hon. P. Bell: This is about the NDP just wanting to support their big labour friends. Let's look at the history. Let's look at the history of what happened. There was rampant UI fraud during the 1990s. Workers were having go cap in hand to their employers to try and get paid. We put in mandatory direct deposits. Workers get paid a fair wage right now in this province, and they're the third-highest-paid ag workers in all of Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

C. Puchmayr: In 2002 former Labour Minister Graham Bruce directed the employment standards compliance staff to "reduce their presence in the fields during the harvest." Yesterday the Minister of Labour agreed with Mr. Bruce. She stated in this House: "We obviously know that inspections are not what is required." Well, I say to this House: she is wrong.

Can the Minister of Labour tell this House today how many WorkSafe inspections, how many WorkSafe compliances, how many workplace orders and penalties were written in 2005 and 2006?

Hon. P. Bell: Mr. Speaker, you know, I'm not sure why it is that the opposition just thinks the entire agriculture industry is so disparaged. I can't believe that the members opposite would think this isn't an honourable industry — an industry that has an incredible reputation over the years.

Let's look at the facts, because I think that's appropriate. If we look at the inspections, in the year 2000 under that government there were 20,000 inspections that occurred in the province of British Columbia in the agricultural sector. In 2006 there were 26,000. That's a 30-percent increase.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. I remind members: through the Chair when you're speaking. The member has a supplemental.

C. Puchmayr: Less than 1 percent of all inspections in industry in British Columbia were done on farms in 2006 — less than 1 percent. Do you know how many penalties there were? In 2005 there was one penalty issued; in 2006 there were none.

Will the Minister of Labour stand up and tell this House that she will increase the inspections and look at the regime that is left by this government — that this government has left behind and is no longer respecting farmworkers?

Hon. P. Bell: Clearly, the NDP are living in Wonderland out there somewhere, because they can't transpose the numbers. They don't have a mathematician amongst them. In the year 2000 there were 34,000 orders written; in the year 2006, 46,000 orders — a 35-percent increase and $1.5 million worth of orders written. Those are the facts; those are the numbers.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I don't live in a wonderland. I live in British Columbia, and as every farmworker knows, this is no wonderland.

[1405]

I find it somewhat offensive that this debate tends, especially from folks on the other side, to be, "We're the

[ Page 6154 ]

best, and you're the worst" or "You're the worst, and we're the best," and….

Interjection.

C. Evans: Just hang on. You'll get your chance, Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

C. Evans: I find it somewhat offensive….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: The real issue isn't which government is the best. The real issue is whether or not farmworkers, as a class of citizen, are denied what everybody else in this building and everyone in the gallery and what we expect for all of our children…. In fact, if you take politics out of it, you want to say: "We stand up for farmworkers."

Will the Minister of Agriculture please agree to simply give farmworkers the same guarantees under the Labour Code and the laws of British Columbia that every other worker in the province has?

Hon. P. Bell: I can actually do better than that. I can guarantee this member that British Columbia ag workers have the same rights and privileges as in every one of the other nine provinces in Canada. Our regulations are exactly the same. They all work under piece-rate legislation opportunities. Our rules are the same as every province in Canada.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental?

C. Evans: Sure. Do you see how the bafflegab works, hon. Speaker? We ask…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. Evans: …if agriculture workers could be treated like every other worker in British Columbia, and the hon. minister says: "Oh, we treat them like farmworkers in every other province."

What we're asking is that every citizen here be treated the same — every worker. Whatever you expect for your children, give the same protection to farmworkers — not what works in Canada.

Will the Minister of Agriculture give farmworkers, regardless of what language they speak or where they came from or their citizenship status, the same rights and privileges as every other worker in the province today?

Hon. P. Bell: I find that a little tough to take from the minister of the day who actually cancelled the compliance team in 1997 when he was the minister. Yesterday he got up and gave us a little outburst in the House that showed a passion for ag workers.

Well, you know what, Mr. Speaker? Accidents and fatalities have decreased dramatically under this government. In 1997 in the agricultural sector, 1,300 injuries. In the year 2005 in the agricultural sector, 500 accidents. In the year 1997, 12 fatalities. In the year 2005, three.

We deliver real results. We look after farmworkers in British Columbia.

M. Farnworth: What has become patently clear in this House over the last six days is that when it comes to farmworkers, there is no Minister of Labour in this province.

I'm going to give the Minister of Labour a chance to redeem herself. Does she believe that women and seniors who pick berries for eight hours a day without a break are big labour? Or does she believe that they should stop being treated like second-class citizens and get the rights and protections that everybody else deserves?

[1410]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. P. Bell: I'll tell you what this government doesn't believe is appropriate for ag workers: a 23-percent wage decrease in the years 1999-2000. That's not what this government supports.

What did we do? First year in government, we raised the piece rates by 21 percent. That's looking after agricultural workers.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: I noticed there was some confusion over there as to who is the Minister of Labour, so I'm going to give the person who is supposed to be the Minister of Labour for British Columbia — who is supposed to be the Minister of Labour for farmworkers in this province — the opportunity to answer a question.

Does the Minister of Labour believe that seniors and women who work a minimum of eight and sometimes 12 or 13 hours a day in this province picking crops after machines have done all the easy work…? Does she consider them to be big labour?

Hon. O. Ilich: It is plainly obvious that the members opposite are not interested in the facts, and they only want to score cheap political points based on a tragic accident.

This government has been committed since 2001. I will continue to work on making sure that farmworkers are paid the proper amount and on time, that they are paid when they should be, that they're educated as to their rights, that employers know their obligations and that we have the safest work environment, because that is the right thing to do.

[ Page 6155 ]

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

H. Lali: There's a pattern that has been forming with this government since 2001. They have systematically discriminated against the lowest-paid workers in this province. They went after the HEU, where the members are mostly women and people who are immigrants — people of colour. And it's the same thing they've done here with farmworkers….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Member for Yale-Lillooet has the floor.

H. Lali: Then this Liberal government has systematically discriminated against farmworkers, most of whom are women, seniors, immigrants and people of colour. They have….

Interjections.

H. Lali: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Does the Minister of Labour still believe that the lowest-paid workers in this province, the farmworkers, are big business? And what is she going to do to give them their rights back?

Hon. O. Ilich: The members opposite may think that they are defenders of the workers, but in fact we have done more for workers since we've been in power than they have ever done. Today there are jobs. We have….

[1415]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, until I can hear…. Members. Listen to the questions. Listen to the answer.

Minister of Labour, proceed.

Hon. O. Ilich: Today the unemployment rate is 4 percent. When they were in power….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. O. Ilich: When they were in power, the unemployment rate was over 10 percent.

A. Dix: We talk about respect for workers. It was this government, after the Premier personally promised hospital workers, that engaged in the largest layoff of female workers in the history of Canada.

I say to the Minister of Labour that the government's decision to take away minimum-wage protections and to take away overtime protections from farmworkers was irresponsible. It targeted the workers in society the least able to defend themselves. I suggest to her that it's her job as Minister of Labour to defend those workers and not make excuses for the actions of the Premier.

So my question to the Minister of Labour is very simple. Will she reverse course? Will she ensure that farmworkers in British Columbia get access to the same minimum-wage protections?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Member.

A. Dix: The Government House Leader….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

A. Dix: I think it's shameful that the Government House Leader, who stood in this House and stripped farmworkers of their rights, should try to shout down questions from the opposition. My question to you: were they braying and sneering when they stripped farmworkers of their rights? Was the Government House Leader braying and sneering when he took away the rights from farmworkers in British Columbia? Was that the attitude that led to those terrible decisions?

My question is to the Minister of Labour. Why not restore those protections today? Why not restore minimum-wage and overtime protections to farmworkers?

Hon. P. Bell: I know that, actually, the member likes to revisit history. In fact, often he likes to postdate the history.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1420]

Hon. P. Bell: I have a question for the member opposite. I'm wondering: in 1999-2000, when the wages for ag workers dropped by 21 percent, was that their attempt to make sure that people earned minimum wage? I'm not sure.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue.

A. Dix: Well, the members over there will know that when farmworkers come here from Mexico, they're guaranteed minimum-wage protections that farmworkers in British Columbia don't get today.

[ Page 6156 ]

I think that what we're talking about here is a group of workers who had their rights stripped. No amount of yelling, no number of insults will take away the record of this government, which took away minimum wage, overtime and basic protections from farmworkers. They can yell, and they can scream. They can cheer, and they can do whatever they like, but we're talking about workers who work terribly hard for very little money and deserve more respect from a government than this.

My question to the Minister of Labour is: how about some respect? How about some respectful behaviour for people who work hard and deserve the protections of the law? Why not apply the same laws in British Columbia that you would apply to other workers? Why not give farmworkers back the rights that your government stripped?

Hon. P. Bell: You know, obviously the numbers are painfully obvious to the members opposite. In 2002 when we made the adjustments to the structure of agriculture worker programs, the average wage rates went from $11.83 an hour to $12.77 an hour. That's an 8-percent increase as a result of those changes.

Respecting agricultural workers means that B.C. has the third-highest-paid agriculture workers in all of Canada. You know, if they really want to know if the way we're treating ag workers is appropriate, maybe they should go talk to their cousins in Saskatchewan where the rules are exactly the same as they are in British Columbia.

[End of question period.]

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind members that maybe after today, they might want to go back and watch the tape of what took place today. The decorum of this House has been something that I think, as members, we've been pretty proud of, and I've been proud as a Speaker going across Canada. But I think all members should go back and watch exactly what took place today.

Reports from Committees

R. Austin: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture for the second session of the 38th parliament, which covers the committee's activities from November 2005 to December 2006. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

R. Austin: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

R. Austin: I move that the report be adopted, and in doing so, I would like to make some brief comments.

Over the past year the committee has held 21 public hearings throughout the province, conducted 15 site visits, held a number of briefings and collected over 800 written submissions. The first report, which I'm presenting today, lists the work of the committee completed to date as we now move forward to enter our deliberation phase. In the coming months the special committee will continue its inquiry into sustainable aquaculture in British Columbia.

Evidence submitted by the public, both through the public consultation and written submission processes, will be fully considered, along with the information provided by senior government officials, scientists, academics, industry and environmental associations. I look forward to presenting our final report, including recommendations, by May 31.

Today I would like to thank all British Columbians who took the time to provide us with their thoughts, as well as officials and invited witnesses who have gone to great lengths to provide us with relevant and up-to-date information on issues pertaining to our mandate. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to all members of the committee for their continued input and dedication throughout this important process.

Motion approved.

[1425]

Hon. K. Falcon: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

Hon. K. Falcon: On behalf of the member for Surrey-Tynehead, today I would like to recognize in the precinct that we are joined by some grade 5 students from the Surrey Christian School. They are joined by their teachers Ms. Janice MacDonald, Ms. Jackie Hofstede, Ms. Janice Vanderleek and Ms. Kara Bisschop. I would ask all the members to please make them welcome today.

K. Conroy: I'd like to welcome Gerard Janssen, the former member for Alberni-Qualicum, back to the chambers here for a brief visit. It's a great honour to have him here as a mentor and a former member. Please join me in making him welcome.

Petitions

N. Simons: On behalf of approximately 600 residents of the lower Sunshine Coast and in particular, Area E…. They petition the government to pay special attention to the highway needs of the Sunshine Coast.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued committee stage debate on Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the

[ Page 6157 ]

information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

Committee of the Whole House

PUBLIC INQUIRY ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 6; S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:29 p.m.

The Chair: I call the committee to order on Bill 6. I understand the Attorney General is going to take some questions on

section 5.

section 5 (continued) .

L. Krog: The Attorney General was going to consult over the lunch break, and I presume he has a response now that he'd be prepared to give to the House.

Hon. W. Oppal: Unfortunately, the

Interpretation Act doesn't assist us at all.

The best I can do is go back to the wording of

section 5. It's apparent from the words of that

section that if more than one commissioner is appointed, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must designate the commissioner who is to act as chief commissioner as well.

[1430]

Unless the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council states otherwise in the appointment order, a commissioner may rely on all of the decisions made and information received by any former or current commissioner of the inquiry to which the commissioner is appointed.

Going back to subsection (1) again, cabinet must appoint a commissioner to conduct an inquiry and may appoint other commissioners in the circumstances.

I think the best you can do in interpreting this

section is that it allows some degree of flexibility to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council where the circumstances may be appropriate and contingencies may arise.

L. Krog: I take it, then, having listened to the Attorney General's response, that essentially under the existing wording it gives a completely open opportunity to cabinet to appoint any number of commissioners at any time, either at the commencement or the establishment of the commission or at any time thereafter.

Hon. W. Oppal: With the greatest of respect, that would be a completely unrealistic

interpretation of the legislation. The fact is that the

section gives some flexibility where appropriate circumstances may arise. The examples I can think of are where there is illness or if there's some other circumstance that may arise that would prevent a commissioner from continuing with the task at hand.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the Attorney General suggests it's unlikely, but I take his answer to mean, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, that he reads the

section as I do — that the

section allows complete freedom to cabinet to appoint at any time replacement commissioners, additional commissioners or any commissioners. Even though it may be unlikely, the wording of the

section as it stands, as I read it, would indicate that.

Does the Attorney General agree with that

interpretation?

Hon. W. Oppal: I will refer to the words of

section 22 of the

Interpretation Act. It may be of some assistance. It states as follows: "Words in an enactment authorizing the appointment of a public officer include power to do the following: (

e) appoint another in his or her place or to act in his or her place."

I would assume from that that a commonsense

interpretation would be that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council would not be appointing someone to act in his or her place unless the need so arises.

L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney General, if there is no restriction in this

section — notwithstanding the quote from the

Interpretation Act — it appears to me very clearly that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can appoint whoever, whenever and for whatever reason they wish. It is not restrictive. It is broad and open, that section.

I appreciate that the Attorney General may be stating what he believes the practice will be and that we are being asked to trust the government in this. But I think the

interpretation, even as the Attorney General has read the section, is fairly clear: that in fact cabinet will have an unrestrained right.

Does the Attorney General agree or disagree that cabinet has unrestrained right to appoint under this section?

Hon. W. Oppal: With the greatest of respect, that is not at all a reasonable

interpretation of the legislation.

L. Krog: I would read this

section to provide that even after the presentment of an interim report under the terms of the bill, a new commissioner could be appointed. Does the Attorney General agree that that is correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is no.

[1435]

L. Krog: Can the Attorney General point out any provision in the act, then, that restricts the power of the government, Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to appoint a commissioner after an interim report has been received?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is no provision to that. Again, I have to rely on a commonsense

interpretation that once an interim report is received by the Lieutenant-Governor, there is no provision in the act to appoint another commissioner. I would assume from that that there would be no power or authority to appoint another commissioner.

[ Page 6158 ]

L. Krog: The Attorney General indicates that he thinks it unlikely, that it wouldn't happen, that he doesn't agree the power is there. But the

section says "may appoint" and has no restriction on time limits. Therefore, this bill gives that power to cabinet.

Having given that power, unless that power is restricted, then surely the cabinet has that ability. There is nothing in this act or in this

section that restricts the timing of the appointments.

Therefore, if the

section says the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, on establishing a commission, may appoint and may appoint other commissioners without restriction, then surely interpreting the legislation broadly, as one must — that is, provide remedies and all of those interesting legal points…. Surely what this means is that there is an unrestricted power given under this

section to appoint commissioners at any time, whether before or after the receiving of an interim report.

Hon. W. Oppal: Any legislation must be interpreted reasonably and logically. If I were to accept the argument of the member opposite and take it to its logical extension, I suppose the legislation is silent on the fact that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could appoint somebody from Mars. That's a logical explanation, too, is it not? There has to be some reasonable

interpretation of the legislation.

L. Krog: I hate to disagree with the Attorney General, but looking at the definition

section for "commissioner," it says that it means a person appointed to the commission, so I think, under the

Interpretation Act, that would exclude the member for Mars from actually being appointed to head the commission in question.

Subsection (3) talks about: "Unless the Lieutenant Governor in Council states otherwise in the appointment order, a commissioner may rely on all decisions made and information received by any former or current commissioner of the inquiry to which the commissioner is appointed."

I think that is extremely clear. It indicates that there is an opportunity at any time, as long as the commission is alive, so to speak, to appoint alternate commissioners, which presumably includes after the preparation and submission of an interim report.

Does the Attorney General agree or not agree with that statement?

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, the appointment process in this act is the same as the previous act, save and except for there's a provision in the prior act that refers to death or other…. It's

section 9. The previous act said: "If any of the appointed commissioners dies, resigns or becomes incapable of acting, the remaining commissioners may continue to act in the inquiry." That's the only difference between the prior act and this act.

[1440]

L. Krog: With respect to the Attorney General's comments, if that is what is intended by this legislation — that it is to allow for the appointment process when someone dies, etc., as exists in the current act — then why is that language not in this section?

Hon. W. Oppal: Because it's not necessary.

L. Krog: If the language is not necessary, then it is presumably because the government intends, with

section 5, to allow an expanded power of appointment as opposed to a more restricted power of appointment, which exists under the present legislation. Surely that's the intent.

If the government, through this bill, had intended to restrict it to those situations covered in the existing Inquiry Act, then why do we have this

section now which does not have those restrictions?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not so sure that I can make myself any more clear than I already have. The member opposite has chosen a particular

interpretation that I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, defies commonsense logic. I don't know if I can enlighten the member opposite any more than I've already tried to.

L. Krog:

Section 5 was passed subject to my right to question the Attorney General on this particular section. I think I have made my point, but I must say, if procedurally we're entitled to another vote on this section, I'd appreciate that opportunity.

Section 5 approved.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

L. Krog:

Section 8 states: "Commissioners must faithfully, honestly and impartially perform their duties and, except in the proper performance of those duties, must not disclose to any person any information obtained as a commissioner."

If we rely on the Attorney General's commonsense view of what this act is supposed to mean, notwithstanding my serious concerns about the wording of it, can the Attorney General explain what the proper performance of those duties would be? Does that term only apply while they are appointed as a commissioner? Are they entitled to talk about it afterwards?

The reason I raise this particular issue is because public inquiries and the people who conduct them have become, to some extent, the new media stars of television. There is great press interest. Justice Krever's

[ Page 6159 ]

inquiry, the Gomery inquiry — there's a great deal of reportage around these issues.

The pressure to speak publicly on these issues will be enormous, particularly any inquiry into any act of alleged wrongdoing by government officials or employees of government.

I'd appreciate hearing the Attorney General's comments on that particular section, what he believes "except in the proper performance of those duties…." What period of time that covers and what sort of activities that would cover.

Hon. W. Oppal: My reading of the

section is that this makes reference to the disclosure of information obtained as a commissioner during the course of the inquiry, but after the inquiry report is released, then obviously it would be the subject of public comment. That would be the logical

interpretation of the section.

This

section parallels

section 30 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and that states that commissioners must be faithful, honest and impartial while executing their duties and must treat information in confidence as required.

[1445]

L. Krog: The

section requiring that they must faithfully, honestly and impartially perform their duties, I would suggest — with great respect to the Attorney General — is somewhat inconsistent with the other provisions of the act that we've already discussed earlier today around appointment and managing the money and the process by which they become appointed. They're going to have to engage in a great deal of discussion with government about their budget and what they can possibly do within the terms of reference.

It seems to me that places them somewhat in a conflict by virtue of this provision, when in fact they have to do all those administrative things — satisfy government, make sure the budget is met, hire people appropriately — and at the same time impartially perform their duties when they have had to be intimately involved, arguably, in the very process which led to their appointment.

Can the Attorney General comment on that?

Hon. W. Oppal: It is the duty of the commissioner who is appointed by cabinet to manage the inquiry. But the non-disclosure that's referred to in

section 8 refers to any other information obtained as a commissioner. It doesn't necessarily refer to matters referring to budgets and administration and matters of that nature. That's something that's separate and apart.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's comments, but I think he has perhaps misinterpreted the point I was driving at.

If the commissioner is to perform their duties impartially and, by the Attorney General's own words here in this chamber earlier today, has already had to participate in the process of their selection by agreeing to or talking about or discussing budgets and constraints and has been consulted around the terms of reference…. I just have some difficulty understanding how one can be impartial in those circumstances.

That's my question to the Attorney General. If you've participated in the process which led to your selection or your agreement to accept the appointment as a commissioner, then how can you remain impartial?

Hon. W. Oppal: Impartial and….

You know, I don't understand the question. I'd ask the member to repeat the question. I really don't understand the question.

L. Krog: I thought the process worked where I had to ask the questions and the Attorney General had to respond, but…

An Hon. Member: New rules.

L. Krog: One member comments on new rules. This must be…

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, Members, please.

L. Krog: …part of the attainment of the great goals.

My point to the Attorney General is, I suggest with great respect, that when you involve commissioners in the administrative side in the way that this act does, it makes it difficult for them to perform their role in an impartial way because they've already become fairly seriously involved in the process.

As the Attorney General well understands, when a judge walks into a courtroom to hear a trial, in essence that judge knows nothing about the case or should know nothing; will not be involved with the parties; and if they were, would have to recuse themselves.

My point is that by expanding the role of the commissioner in

section 6, when you then say that the commissioner has to act impartially, I suggest with great respect that that creates some difficulties around impartiality.

Hon. W. Oppal: There's a distinction between impartiality and responsibility — those responsibilities of a chief commissioner. I think the member may be confusing the two terms.

Section 8 approved.

The Chair: Just for the record, Members, I want to state that

section 6 was passed this morning.

[1450]

section 9.

L. Krog:

Section 9 gives the commissioner and the commission's terms of reference significant power over its processes. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can advise what this

section is based on. Are we talking about precedents that are used across Canada? Is this

[ Page 6160 ]

the result of some uniform law reform commission, or is this just the brilliant work of the Attorney General's ministry?

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 9 is similar to sections 11 to 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, and what this does is authorize a commission to make its own rules of practice and procedure. The rules will assist any commission in discharging its mandate.

The commissions have the power and the authority to modify those

rules made in exceptional circumstances, and they must make all those rules

accessible to the public, particularly the public who may be appearing before a

commission of inquiry. There's a process by which a commissioner has the power to make all the rules that are necessary in order to conduct, in an orderly fashion, the terms of reference of a commission of inquiry.

L. Krog: In reference to

section 9(3), which reads: "For any matter under this Act for which a commission may make directives, the commission may, for different persons or classes of persons, (

a) make different directives, and (

b) waive or modify one or more of its directives as necessary…." The statute is giving, in essence, the power to the commissioner to discriminate around the issue of directives. I'm wondering what the Attorney General interprets that to mean.

Hon. W. Oppal: The example that comes to mind is…. First of all, this subsection obviously gives the commission of inquiry a certain amount of flexibility in order to deal with particular and unique circumstances.

Let's assume for a minute that there's a commission of inquiry into sexual misconduct at a residential school. This provision would give the commissioner the authority to close the hearing so that a victim can be heard in private as opposed to in an open hearing. That's an example of the flexibility that's intended to be conferred upon the commissioners under subsection (3).

L. Krog: I'm wondering. I'm not sure procedurally whether I'm correct in this. If one goes to

section 15 — which we haven't come to — with respect to severance for privacy and protection rights, etc., surely that's the

section that deals with the example the Attorney General has raised.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can provide any other examples of how this is proposed to work out. It is the opposition's job to consider all the possibilities that arise from this bill and how it will impact on the public in practice, so I'm very interested in knowing if the Attorney General can offer an example that doesn't appear to be covered already by a

section we haven't come to yet.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll give you two examples. Let's assume for a minute that a person has a limited

Let's assume for a minute that the commission of inquiry, in advance, has set out procedural rules wherein they have set a time limit as to when written submissions may be received. This

section here,

section 9, would give the commission the necessary flexibility to waive the time period in order to meet the ends of justice.

Those are two examples. There may be a myriad other examples.

Section 9 approved.

[1455]

section 10.

L. Krog: This

section gives the power to inspect subject to the commission's terms of reference in any public place, including copying of records, and with the permission of the owner or occupier, any private place, "including copying any records found in that place."

I presume that the act provides the power to the commissioner to go to court to obtain the right to examine private documents or, rather, what we would call documents in a private place.

Hon. W. Oppal: The

section here authorizes a commission, as the words state, to inspect a public place and copy any records and, with the permission of the owner, a private place. This is a standard provision in public inquiry statutes, and it's an important part of any evidence-gathering process. This is not an unusual procedure. It's a standard type of provision.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering how that would be distinguished from the power to subpoena.

Hon. W. Oppal: The difference is that subpoena is the order of the court to compel evidence to come to you, as opposed to going to another place to inspect the evidence.

Section 10 would be analogous to a viewing in a trial where a judge and/or jury may attend upon a particular scene in order to better understand the scene of a crime, for instance, which is done periodically in criminal civil cases.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

L. Krog: I do appreciate the enthusiasm of the backbench members this morning, who likewise are very hot to get through this bill. However, notwithstanding that, I do intend to ask a few more questions.

With respect to

section 11, this deals with a very difficult issue around the results of inquiries and persons who may be involved in a finding of misconduct against them. The

section provides that in order to be a participant, they have to have a "reasonable notice" and "notice of how that person may respond to the allegations."

[ Page 6161 ]

With respect to this process, how does the Attorney General see it working in practice, and has any thought been given to the regulations around this?

Hon. W. Oppal: The

section is a wide-ranging

section that really places in the hands of the commissioners the authority to determine who may participate. The

section permits people to apply to participate in a commission — whether in circumstances where their personal interests are affected by the findings, whether the participation of an applicant would further the conduct of the inquiry, whether the participation would contribute to the fairness of an inquiry insofar as it may shed light on evidence that may otherwise not be available or would qualify evidence that they heard on an earlier occasion.

The

section accords with the functional approach for the determination of procedural fairness. The Supreme Court of Canada made that ruling in a case called Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) in 1999. So the

section really deals with the production of evidence and examination of witnesses, which obviously is in the discretion of the commissioners. It's a furtherance and gives more power to the commission to discharging the commission's responsibilities.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the Attorney General could advise whether this

section or a variant thereof has actually passed a court test or if this is the response to the Supreme Court of Canada. In other words, does this

section exist in other inquiry acts across the country? Does it represent, again, the uniform code?

[1500]

Hon. W. Oppal: The court in Baker said that an applicant must have the ability to lead evidence where that evidence will lead to a just result.

Section 11 contemplates that, as far as participation in the process is concerned. What the

section does is permit the commission of inquiry to allow the participation of people — participants who would eventually lead to a just and fair result.

B. Ralston: Under the general power that we've discussed in

section 9, the commission has power to make directives. Sometimes when interveners apply to participate in a commission, the issue arises of whether their expenses for participating or counsel expenses might be paid. I just wanted to confirm that under the general powers in

section 9 it would be open to a commission to make such an order if they deemed it just for facilitating the participation of interveners.

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 11, as I stated earlier, deals with persons who may participate in a commission of inquiry. That obviously has to be read in conjunction with

section 9.

I'm not prepared to say whether a commission would have the authority to finance or to fund someone's appearance there. Suffice to say that the commissioners have a wide discretion in determining the rules of procedural fairness.

It may be that in particular circumstances a commissioner may come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to fund the participation of a particular person in order to achieve fairness and a just result at the end of the day. It certainly would be premature and speculative for me to state that at this time — that it's applicable in all cases.

B. Ralston: I'm not asking for a definitive answer in the sense that it would always be the case, but because it does arise when the public interest is touched. I'm thinking of some of the federal inquiries — the so-called Morin commission into the trial of Guy Paul Morin, for example. There were a number of legal interveners — an association representing people wrongfully convicted.

The ability to participate in a commission, especially one that's dealing with an important public matter and that may be lengthy, sometimes places a financial burden upon the participants, but that may be outweighed by the public interest in having them participate. I just wanted to confirm that these directives and the general power in

section 9 and the responsibilities of the chief commissioner in

section 6 don't forbid or foreclose a commission from, in the appropriate circumstances, making that kind of order to fund participation.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I would agree, with respect, with what the member has said. It may be that in the circumstances that would be an appropriate order to make.

[1505]

Section 11 approved.

section 12.

L. Krog: This section, which sets out powers respecting participants, gives the commission significant authority to "make orders respecting (

a) the manner and extent of a participant's participation, (

b) the rights and responsibilities of a participant…and (

c) any limits or conditions on a participant's participation."

In some respects, the way I interpret this section, it gives a commissioner more authority than a Supreme Court judge hearing a trial. That's the way I read it. We have terms of reference. We then have powers to make orders respecting manner and extent of participation, rights and responsibilities, limits or conditions on their participation, etc.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can comment on that.

Hon. W. Oppal: I must disagree with that. In fact, commissions of inquiry are generally more informal in nature in that they're not bound by the same procedural rules of evidence that a Supreme Court judge would have. The Supreme Court judge is bound by rules of evidence, be they under the provincial act or the federal act, or by the common law,

whereas under commissions of inquiry, hearsay is generally admitted, and other evidence which may be considered to be unreliable is admitted.

[ Page 6162 ]

We saw that in the Gomery inquiry where allegations were made and certain statements were made. I'm not so sure they were ever tested by serious cross-examination. I'm digressing here. But the point is that in any commission of inquiry the rules of admissibility are generally relaxed.

L. Krog: I'm sorry, but I think the hon. Attorney General might have misheard my comments. My suggestion was indeed just that, that in terms of a process and the authority given, the commissioner has greater authority, if you will, and greater flexibility than any Supreme Court judge hearing a trial. That's my very point.

Because this is such a broad authority, as a chief commissioner one gets to establish the rules of the game, the admissibility, who gets to participate, and can limit their extent and the manner of participation and their rights and responsibilities. You can make orders respecting that and set any limits or conditions on their participation.

I'm just wondering: is there precedent for this particular

section in other statutes? Does this represent any product of a uniform law or commission or something of that nature? It seems to me that this is a pretty wide-ranging authority given to a commissioner.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yeah. The discretion under

section 12, in my respectful view, is entirely reasonable because there may be matters of relevance that participants need to be confined to. I'm not putting it very clearly.

You simply can't have an inquiry where participants come before a commissioner and want to make reference to matters that may not be within the terms of reference and would not meet the rules of relevance. This

section would give the commission the necessary discretion to determine the manner and the extent of participation.

[1510]

But if you look at subsection (3), it states that where the commission makes a finding of misconduct against a participant, then in those circumstances there is a full opportunity to be heard. If that is to be understood under the common law, that includes the right to present evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses.

In my view, it's a fairer

section in that on the one hand, what it does is it imposes order or it gives the commissioners a power to have order placed on and the necessary constraints placed on a commission of inquiry to keep it under control, so to speak. But where there will be a finding of fault or a finding of misconduct, then there will be a right for an applicant or a participant to be fully heard, with counsel if necessary.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

L. Krog: This

section is the one that guarantees the right of a participant to participate on his or her own behalf after they have qualified under

section 11. They can be "represented by counsel or, with the approval of the commission, by an agent." I'm wondering what the Attorney General is contemplating in terms of appearing by an agent in the circumstances. In other words, are we opening up the possibility for paralegals to appear and act on behalf of individuals, and if so, has there been any discussion with the Law Society of British Columbia respecting this section?

Hon. W. Oppal: This gives added flexibility to not only the commission — to permit people to appear not only with counsel but by an agent — but it also assists a participant who may not wish to retain counsel and may wish to be represented by someone else. Or it may refer to a director or an agent of a company. A person may want to come and testify on his or her behalf, and it says: "with the approval of the commission." So it gives discretion to the commission to permit that type of procedure.

L. Krog: I just wish to ask again if in fact this particular

section and its reference to agent have been discussed with either the Law Society of British Columbia or the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association or another organization representing lawyers in the province.

Hon. W. Oppal: I cannot say if the Canadian Bar Association, the Law Society or any other group approves or disapproves or was the source of this particular section.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

L. Krog: This

section says the "commission may receive and accept information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not that information would be admissible in any court," which gives it again broad powers to accept, as the Attorney General has already pointed out, hearsay evidence or other forms of evidence.

The commission has power to exclude anything unduly repetitious — much like the line of questioning, no doubt, from me this afternoon. The Attorney General smiles at that comment. It also provides that nothing "overrides the provisions of any Act expressly limiting the extent to which or purposes for…oral testimony, records or things may be admitted or used in evidence." Again, this is a very broad

section allowing the commission to receive information, and I do note that the use of the word "information," I presume, is a deliberate one. It is not talking about evidence. It does not talk about documents. It talks about information.

I'm mindful of the biblical quote that one could come down like Nicodemus in the night and whisper something in the commissioner's ear. That's what would almost apply here. I'm just wondering what the Attorney General understands this

section to mean, because the way I read it, it almost sounds like you can receive anything in any form.

[1515]

[ Page 6163 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: There's no question that the evidence or information…. As the member quite properly noted, there is a distinction between the two. The commission of inquiry would have the authority to allow itself to accept information whether or not it would be admissible in court, and I would assume that that's based on fairness and the right to be heard.

The commission, in its wisdom, could place the necessary reliability on the evidence or information that it receives. At the same time, subsection (3) states that that type of flexibility…. The

section would not override any act which may deal with illegal evidence or something of that nature that would by itself be inadmissible.

L. Krog: The concern I have is that in the acceptance of that information, which may obviously have an impact on the outcome of the commission's work, it appears that arguably it would not be subject to any cross-examination or criticism or comment from others. That's the way the

section sounds, and that is my concern.

I don't want to sound terribly legalistic, but the opportunity to cross-examine and to question the relevance of evidence in a court proceeding or a tribunal hearing is pretty basic. But this

section is talking about: "A commission may receive and accept" — and accept, very clear — "information…whether or not the information would be admissible in any court."

So again, this strikes me as a very dramatic power. Is there some legal precedent for this? Is there case law that the Attorney General can justify this

section with? Again, as I've asked many times before, does it reflect the results of a uniform law commission report or some other recommendation, some line of court decisions? Because this is a pretty dramatic section.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, there's nothing dramatic about it, with the greatest of respect. This is always the case. That's the difference between a trial and an inquiry. The reason we have commissions of inquiry is to have more evidence or information elicited that would otherwise not be admissible in a court of law. So the member is quite right in that that information may not have the same test or indicia of reliability that evidence in a courtroom does, but that's what's contemplated in any commission of inquiry.

A moment ago I made reference to the Gomery inquiry, where there was a plethora of evidence or information given that was not subject to proper cross-examination. The whole purpose of a commission of inquiry is to elicit information and make from the information the necessary recommendations. We don't put the same constraints on commissions of inquiry that we place on judges in courtrooms.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

L. Krog: This

section again gives the power to the commission to "prohibit or restrict a person or a class of persons, or the public, from attending all or part of a meeting or hearing, or from accessing all or part of any information provided to or held by the commission."

Obviously, the commission will have enormous authority to set its own rules, as we've discussed, but the commission in this particular case has the power to restrict the public from appearing. Surely the more appropriate practice would be to restrict anyone from repeating what they had seen or heard at a commission hearing. To exclude the public strikes me as a fairly dramatic power to give to a commissioner.

[1520]

After all, the bill is referred to as the Public Inquiry Act, which is a change from the old title, which is the Inquiry Act. Surely by implication that would indicate that the public interest here is to be supported and encouraged. By restricting the public from attending a meeting, or part of a hearing, more importantly — I'm not so concerned about meetings, arguably, but a hearing — then that goes against a very long tradition of public process.

Now, I appreciate that it's somewhat restricted by sub-subsections (

a) through (c), but it just strikes me that restricting the public from attending is a bit over the top. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can point to precedent elsewhere where restricting the public from a public inquiry process is practised, particularly in Canada.

Hon. W. Oppal: As I said yesterday, the concept of openness is never absolute. There may be times when the right to privacy outweighs the right to openness. These are conflicting values, and the courts have wrestled with these for years.

It's instructive to make reference to the Uniform Public Inquiries Act.

Section 8(2) reads as follows: "Where a commission holds an oral hearing it shall be conducted in public, but a commission may exclude the public from a hearing, or from part of it, where it decides that the public interest in holding the hearing, or a part of it, in public is outweighed by another consideration, including the consequences of possible disclosure of personal matters, public security or the right of any person to a fair trial."

Let's assume for a minute that a public inquiry is being held on a matter that's somewhat sensitive and that the information that's gleaned as a result of an inquiry is subsequently used in a prosecution. That may be an example of where the information is closed.

section 29, if the government asserts privilege or immunity over information, there is a power and authority by the commissioners to suppress that evidence. Similarly, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is another governing factor where the rights of a person to privacy — rights of innocent persons to privacy — may outweigh the rights of the public to know. We see that in courtrooms where judges are permitted to ban the publication of certain types of evidence and, in certain cases, ban the public from attending a courtroom.

L. Krog:

Section 13 deals with the rights of participants, and it gives the participant immunities as a wit-

[ Page 6164 ]

ness who would appear before any court, etc.

Section 15 talks about restricting a person or a class of persons or the public from attending any part of the meeting, etc., or accessing all or any other part of information provided to or held by the commission for any reason.

The Attorney General talked about the example of someone giving evidence and it not being able to be used in a criminal proceeding. I'm wondering: is that the way he views

section 15 — that it is going to give the commission power to protect a witness? Am I understanding him?

[1525]

Hon. W. Oppal: It's clearly not limited to that. There are a myriad other issues that may arise where private interests, private information, the rights of an innocent party are at stake. We saw that in the Ellison case, where a person made an application before the judge in a closed courtroom to have her name expunged from any reference at all to the media, beyond the normal rules of bans and publications. So these interests that are private in nature that protect innocent third parties are always subject to the right to an open and fair hearing.

The real import of

section 15 here is that under appropriate circumstances, a commissioner has the necessary power to deal with certain information in confidence. This would encourage participation in a commission of inquiry. If we didn't have the provision that would protect private interests and privacy, then there would be a limited amount of participation. There would be a discouragement for people to come and participate in inquiries.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

L. Krog: It's fairly clear from the act that the government has a great interest in restraining cost and expenses of commissions. Indeed, the chief commissioner is responsible under

section 8 for its effective management and operation, etc., and ensuring that the commission is financially responsible and accountable.

Section 18 provides that a commission may transcribe or record its meetings or hearings, and if it does, then it must be considered to be correct, etc., to be part of the record, etc. If, by a mechanical failure or accident, blah, blah, blah….

What this essentially is doing is allowing the commission to proceed without a record. That's my understanding — without a record in the normal sense, the way Hansard records what we say here today, the way a court reporter transcribes what we hear in a courtroom.

Hon. W. Oppal: What this

section really does is…. It means that you do not have to transcribe or record its meetings or hearings. A hearing commission may transcribe its hearings, where a study commission may not. A study commission may call in a number of experts and talk to the experts. I can tell you that when we did the commission of inquiry into policing, we did not record our proceedings. We took voluminous notes and received something like 1,500 written submissions, but we didn't do it.

As long as the interests of justice prevail at the end of the day, it's not always necessary to transcribe proceedings. In fact, certain arguments in civil trials are not recorded. Closing arguments are never recorded in a civil trial in the Supreme Court. So transcription of evidence in hearings is not always done.

L. Krog: The Attorney General has commented about the two different types of commissions — study commissions and hearing commissions. Obviously, it may not be necessary or appropriate or conducive to the work of a study commission to transcribe its hearings. But it strikes me that if one is having a hearing commission under the terms of Bill 6, one would want to have a record.

I'm just wondering why

section 18 doesn't provide that one may for study commissions but one must for hearing commissions. Wouldn't that be a perhaps appropriate way to deal with this? Clearly, if a public inquiry has been appointed, it's a matter of public interest. The public would probably like to be able to read and review.

Hon. W. Oppal: This

section doesn't prevent or preclude a commission from ordering a transcription. All the

section states is that it is permissive, and it may not be appropriate in the circumstances.

[1530]

Section 18 approved.

section 19.

L. Krog:

Section 19(2) provides that: "An order of a commission under this Act or its terms of reference on a matter in respect of which the commission has exclusive jurisdiction is final and conclusive and is not open to question or review in any court."

What I read this

section to mean is that whatever the commission decides, there is no appeal whatsoever. No matter how patently wrong, unjust, unfair or unreasonable an order may be, pursuant to this section, there would be no opportunity to review it in any court. Can the Attorney General confirm that my

interpretation as stated is correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: I must correct the member. The

section here grants the…. It's a privative clause. What happens in a privative clause is that the decision of any tribunal is not open to question or review by any court — subject, of course, to the question of jurisdiction. Except, if there's a question of jurisdiction, a question of law or the decision is patently unreasonable, then that goes to jurisdiction, and it is reviewable by a court of law.

B. Ralston: Just to confirm, then. This privative clause is likely to be as successful in insulating the

[ Page 6165 ]

commission from review as any other privative clause. In other words, a court may take it upon itself to interpret that in a way that permits a judicial review of the decision of the commission. Is that right?

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

Hon. W. Oppal: The member is a lawyer, and I'm sure you know about the success of privative clauses and their powers of review as well as anyone else. If you're able to convince a court that the tribunal or commission has exceeded its jurisdiction or has made an error of law or is patently unreasonable, then the review would be successful.

L. Krog: The existing Inquiry Act has no similar section. There is no similar provision in the existing Inquiry Act, and there was certainly no similar provision in the Inquiry Act of 1897.

One reforms law or makes change in order to deal with an issue or a problem or to make some kind of change that's seen as beneficial. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can advise the committee: has a commission of inquiry in this province ever gone so far off the rails that we require this privative clause, which doesn't exist in the existing statute?

[1535]

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, this is a standard clause that's throughout administrative law, as I'm sure the member knows. The 1897 legislation is not really a good example — I say this with respect — because in 1897 there was no administrative law. There was no privacy legislation. I know that the members opposite have relied in this House on the 1897 act, but I'm not so sure that we learn a lot by relying on that legislation.

L. Krog: I thank the Attorney General. But again, my question is: if one is providing this restriction, which doesn't exist in the existing statute, the Inquiry Act as set out — it's the Revised Statutes of B.C. ,

chapter 224 — is there some mischief or problem that the Attorney General can point to whereby we require this now? In other words, can he point to a commission of inquiry in this province where this has proved an issue such that the Legislature, in its wisdom, now must pass

section 19 in order to prevent some kind of mischief or problem occurring?

Hon. W. Oppal: The inclusion of a privative clause is put there in all legislation governing administrative tribunals so as to give them some degree of independence and the power to manage their own procedural affairs. You may recall from the Gomery inquiry that a former Prime Minister challenged it, tried to challenge its jurisdiction. You see, if they had the privative clause, that application would have been ruled out of order immediately. Instead, the commissioner had to deal with that type of mischief, and I say that with respect.

L. Krog: Again, to the Attorney General: I asked if there was any example in British Columbia that warrants bringing this in. The reason I ask is that this government brags constantly about the elimination of useless laws, the elimination of regulation, the heavy hand of bureaucracy stifling the economy and all of those things. Yet we are now being asked to pass

section 19, to bring into place a privative clause which does not exist in the existing legislation.

I'm asking the Attorney General again. If we're doing it, then I hope we're doing it because there is some problem to deal with. So can the Attorney General, again, for the third time, please advise the House, this committee, if there is any example in British Columbia of a commission's conduct that would warrant bringing in this privative clause, as opposed to just because we've got it in a bunch of other statutes.

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, we have to step back and ask ourselves why we have commissions of inquiry. We have commissions of inquiry so that government, the public, can get advice on certain matters of public interest. We don't need those inquiries to be derailed by legal manoeuvring. That can be done in a courtroom. The purpose of having commissions of inquiry, with their relaxed rules of evidence and relaxed procedural issues, is to give more flexibility to commissions so that they can gather more information so as to assist governments and members of the public. That's the reason why we have these.

[1540]

I gave you the example of the Gomery inquiry as to what can happen if you don't have a privative clause, and I'm not so sure anything is gained by me searching to see if any similar example can be found in this province. Suffice it to say that it's our objective to pass legislation that would assist commissions of inquiry, governments and the public.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

L. Krog: This is the very new

section which provides for a study commission as opposed to a hearing commission as set out in

section 21. This commission would have interesting powers relating to conducting research, interviews and surveys, etc., and may make directives regarding participation, etc. A study commission may not exercise the powers of the hearing commission set out in

section 21, 22 and 23 unless designated, etc.

I'm wondering what the Attorney General contemplates as being the kinds of things that we would want to have a study commission for as opposed to simply asking for a report.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, it would depend upon the intent or the circumstances for which a commission of inquiry is established. The commission of inquiry that I presided over, the policing inquiry, was an example of that, where government sought our advice on certain matters related to policing.

[ Page 6166 ]

The Hughes review that we experienced here recently would have been a study commission had it been conducted under the Inquiry Act. Those are two examples that — if government is seeking advice, seeking assistance on matters of public policy — would be cases where a study commission would be appropriate as opposed to a hearing commission.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering: is there precedent for this division between study and hearing commissions in other legislation in Canada? Again, my standard question: does it represent the recommendations of a uniform law commission or some other such body?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's exactly the source — the Uniform Law Conference.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

L. Krog: This is the

section that deals with what I'll call the big brother as opposed to the little brother commission. This is the full hearing commission that provides that it may do anything, including holding written, oral or electronic hearings, receiving submissions, etc., and a number of other powers. But it does provide that a hearing commission must not exercise the powers of a study commission as set out in

section 21 unless the commission is also designated as a study commission.

I wonder if the Attorney General could advise what sort of example he would see where you wouldn't want to have a hearing commission that in fact did some research or conducted interviews and surveys.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the intent of subsection (3) is to ensure that a hearing commission does not lapse into a study commission by relaxing its procedural rules of fairness. As the member called it a big brother of commissions, it necessarily means that it can receive evidence either under affirmation or under oath. The hearing commission is designed for more serious matters, if I may use that term — for investigations, making recommendations, finding fault or liability.

As such, its task may well be more serious than the study commission's task. For that reason, the functions and the powers under which it operates must be different.

[1545]

B. Ralston: In

section 21(2)(

a) there's reference to pre-hearing conferences. Could the Attorney General please briefly set out what a pre-hearing conference might be and what might be the utility of such a conference?

Hon. W. Oppal: My reading of that is that a pre-hearing conference would be similar to conferences now being held in the Supreme Court where there would be a narrowing of issues, where prior to the actual hearing inquiry itself, the parties could get together in order to expedite matters and make certain admissions prior to the actual commencement of the inquiry.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

L. Krog: In

section 22 it says:

"

(3) A hearing commission may, (

a) if a person was summoned to appear before the commission at the request of a participant, order the participant to pay appearance fees and expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred by the person summoned, other than fees and expenses incurred by the person in respect of legal representation or advice, and (

b) in any case, pay appearance fees" reasonably and necessarily expended, and so on. "

(4) A hearing commission may apportion fees and expenses under subsection (3) between 2 or more participants…."

I take it, and I read that

section to mean, that it is not to include the costs of counsel under any circumstances. Is that correct? By "counsel," I'm referring to lawyers.

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, the words are quite clear that it makes an exception for lawyers.

L. Krog: My concern is that in order to potentially defend oneself appropriately at a commission of inquiry, it may well be appropriate to have legal counsel. A participant who brings someone to the commission at their own request will only face a sanction of paying, essentially, witness costs. That is the way I read it.

My concern would be that it means there would be no encouragement to participants to defend themselves, if you will, or to act in their own interest before the commission in a reasonable manner. In other words, there's no disincentive if you know that you can haul witnesses in without worrying about paying any legal costs. It's not much of a disincentive if the only cost you're looking at is the hearing cost. I just wonder if the Attorney General has a comment on that.

Hon. W. Oppal: We're not speaking here of participants. We're speaking here of witnesses. Under normal circumstances, we don't pay the legal fees of witnesses. We do pay the legal fees of participants in criminal trials, but not of witnesses. If there is a possibility, as the member suggests, of a person being charged or being under jeopardy, then obviously, that person can apply to be a participant and then would fall into a different category.

[1550]

L. Krog: The Attorney General has my point: it applies to witnesses, not to participants, but as a result of this process, a person may have some interest in becoming a participant or may have to make that difficult decision as to whether or not they wish to participate and in fact place themselves in some jeopardy as a witness by not hiring counsel.

[ Page 6167 ]

Hon. W. Oppal: I repeat my earlier answer that where a person is a witness, then that person can rely on commission counsel. But if there is any possibility that the person may be the subject of fault-finding or may be the subject of a further inquiry or legal sanctions, then it's up to that person to obtain their legal advice.

At this stage that

section 22 contemplates, we're talking here about the power to compel witnesses. I know of no circumstance in Canada where witnesses are permitted the luxury of having their own lawyers paid at public expense.

N. Macdonald: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

N. Macdonald: Joining us is a group of children who are here to perform in Victoria. They perform ukulele. It's not often that I get a group coming all the way from Invermere, so I ask you to join me in making them welcome. They are Jaydon Meyers, Robyn Tardif, Shawn Raven, Randie Raven and Sierra Dunlop. Please join me in making them welcome.

Debate Continued

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

L. Krog: This

section provides that notice or record to a person by personal service, etc., can be made by ordinary mail; electronic transmission, including fax; and if specified in the hearing commission's directives, another method that allows proof of receipt.

Does this

section contemplate, then, that if a person…? Is this to apply to a person who is going to be subpoenaed as a witness? Does it apply to participants? Does it apply to all of those classes of persons? Does it apply to the general public? In other words, who does this apply to?

Hon. W. Oppal: From my reading of the section, it applies to any person to whom a summons has been served, who's been compelled to appear before the inquiry. If the person fails to appear, then the order may be filed in the Supreme Court and the appropriate remedy would ensue.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, if the postal service is a little slow and I don't appear and it's not personal service and I miss the hearing, then it strikes me that I could arguably be held in contempt. Am I incorrect?

[1555]

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, obviously, if the order is filed in the Supreme Court and there's a wilful disobeyance of that order, then the appropriate remedy would ensue.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

L. Krog:

Section 25 is the

section that says: "Subject to

section 15…a hearing commission must" — and I emphasize must — "(

a) ensure that hearings are open to the public, either in person or through broadcast proceedings, and (

b) give the public access to information submitted in a hearing."

Section 15 is the

section that allows the commission to restrict a class of person or persons or, indeed, all of the public from attending any part of the hearing. I take it that this section, as contrasted with

section 15, establishes the general principle that is to apply: that hearings must always be open.

If that is the case, I do note that it makes reference to hearings, as opposed to meetings or any other activities by which information may be received.

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 25 is fairly clear. It deals with hearing commissions. The

section ensures that a hearing commission must be open to the public.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

section 27.

L. Krog: This is the interesting

section that provides: "If required by the commission's terms of reference" — and I emphasize if required by the commission's terms of reference — "a commission must" — must — "make an interim report to the minister at the times and on the matters stated in the terms of reference."

It goes on to state: "A commission may make an interim report to the minister on any matter relevant to the commission's terms of reference at any time before the commission makes its final report." It then says: "Section 28 (2) to (8) applies to an interim report as if it were a final report."

In other words, as I read this section, the commission has the authority to go back to cabinet on the issue of the terms of reference. If that is the case, do I understand this

section to mean that the terms of reference — because it talks about "any matter relevant to the commission's terms of reference"…? By implication, cabinet would then have the authority to change the terms of reference?

Hon. W. Oppal:

Section 27 states that an interim report must not be released except in accordance with a section. Then it states that "a commission must make an interim report to the minister at the times and on the matters stated in the terms of reference." However, a commission may — permissive — make an interim report in any matter relevant to its terms of reference.

This legislation does not give cabinet the authority to change the terms of reference, although there is a common-law provision that allows you to add terms of reference.

[1600]

[ Page 6168 ]

I harken back to our commission of inquiry, where during the course of the inquiry the Attorney General of the day asked us to consider the issue of private security personnel in addition to public policing. So it can be done under common-law principles.

L. Krog: Just so I'm very clear in my understanding of this, because this is important. What the Attorney General is saying is that under

section 2, when you have established the terms of reference of the inquiry, subject to adding to the terms of reference, there can be no other change in the terms of reference once established. Is that what the Attorney General is saying?

Hon. W. Oppal: This

section really deals with reporting. It really makes no reference at all to adding to the terms of reference or deleting any terms of reference. We're talking here about reporting.

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, would it be possible, with the House's forbearance, for a five-minute break to allow the minister and the opposition critics a moment to refresh?

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:02 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

section 27 (continued) .

L. Krog: The proposition that a commission must make an interim report if required by the terms of reference certainly strikes the opposition as a bit of mischief, frankly. On the one hand, one can see it as an opportunity for the government to receive some advice on an important issue of public interest prior to submission to the public in general. On the other hand, one could see it as an opportunity for cabinet, through a minister, to receive a heads-up about difficulties of a political nature or that may require some political spin, as the term is used, or give an opportunity to prepare for what may be a damning indictment of a cabinet minister or a staffer or a department.

[1610]

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can tell me if I am wrong in that

interpretation. If the terms of reference say that the commission must make the report at the times and on the matters stated in the terms of reference, then surely that opportunity is afforded to cabinet which, at the present time, does not exist under the Inquiry Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, surely the government has a right to receive an interim report. There may be circumstances in which it might be entirely appropriate. It was used in Gomery, where Mr. Justice Gomery filed an interim report and then filed a final report with his recommendations.

Inquiries are held in order to give governments advice. They're done so in a flexible manner so that there may be some matter, some issue, upon which government may need immediate advice or more immediate advice than the terms of reference, under circumstances, may not permit. In other words, the terms of reference may be so wide that it may require a year to two years to complete the commission of inquiry.

On the other hand, there may be some immediate advice that the government may need. So that's the reason why the commissions of inquiry often are ordered to give interim reports.

L. Krog: I completely appreciate what the Attorney General has had to say — that it may well be, when you're dealing with a matter of public interest where some remedy is required, some reform to be undertaken, that to receive an interim report, in fact, makes good common sense.

However, my very specific question to the Attorney General is that if you are dealing with a public inquiry into the conduct of, perhaps, ministers of the Crown, senior political staff, disposition of Crown assets, then by virtue of the terms of reference, cabinet and the government and all the minions who work for it will in fact receive a heads-up in order to prepare for what may be a damning indictment of their behaviour.

Does the Attorney General agree or disagree with what I've just said?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not prepared to speculate as to what may or may not take place. That's purely a speculative question. I'm just not prepared to answer anything — whether something of a political nature could take place or couldn't take place.

The purpose here is for an inquiry to be ordered so that some advice on public policy may be given to the government. It may have to do with health care, education, or the area of public safety. Whether or not that will ever translate into a political answer or a political solution, I'm not really prepared to say or prepared to speculate.

L. Krog: I'm not asking the Attorney General to speculate. I'm asking him to comment whether or not, in fact, under the terms of this section, that kind of political preparation will be made possible. In fact, the terms of reference will require and can require a commissioner to make a report. I'm asking if it's possible under the terms of

section 27.

Hon. W. Oppal: Anything is possible, but it may not be likely.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

The Chair: Shall

section 28 pass?

Some Hon. Members: Aye.

[ Page 6169 ]

L. Krog: Again, I do appreciate the enthusiasm of the backbench members on the government side who wished to get past

section 28.

This

section represents, with great respect, a retrograde step in terms of the public interest. It gives an authority to government, to cabinet, which it has not enjoyed in 100 years of

the existence of an inquiry act or a similar predecessor.

[1615]

In 1897, when the original Public Inquiries Act was passed, its provision was clear as a bell. It said in

section 10(2) that every report which such commissioners make to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council under this Act shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly within 15 days next after such report is made, if the Assembly be then sitting, or if not, then within 15 days next after the opening of the then next session of the Legislative Assembly.

Whatever the results of the commission of inquiry were, no matter how awful they might be or how beneficial they might be to the public interest or to the assistance of government, the taxpayers, the citizens of British Columbia, were entitled to receive those results within 15 days. That is, in essence, the existing provision under the Inquiry Act as it stands. That is essentially

section 14.

What is required now is not simply that the commission makes its report to cabinet and it then goes to the Legislature. The report goes to the minister first, setting out any findings of fact made by the commission that are relevant to the commission's terms of reference, the reasons for those findings and, if required by the commission's terms of reference, any recommendations of the commission.

The minister then has to submit the report to the executive council at its next meeting. So he gets a look at it. Then the executive council gets a look at it. Then the executive council — not the Information and Privacy Commissioner; not a senior, professional, unbiased, impartial public servant….

No, the executive council gets to "direct the minister to withhold portions of the report for any reason for which information could" — not just must, but could, so we open up this whole potential realm — "or must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1: [privacy rights, business interests and public interest] of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ."

Then it goes on. Once cabinet has severed a document — cabinet, not anyone else, has severed the document — as it sees appropriate, carrying out a mandate which, with great respect, it has no particular qualifications to carry out, notwithstanding the brilliance of the members of cabinet, then the cabinet gets to review the report. Subsection 28(4) says: "Following review of the report, the Executive Council must direct the minister to lay the report, except any portion directed to be withheld under subsection (3), before the Legislative Assembly." It doesn't set out any time period.

I ask the Attorney General: with respect to

section 28(4), why is there no provision for a time limit on cabinet's review of the report?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member opposite should know that no other public inquiry act in any other Canadian jurisdiction provides for mandatory release of reports. I'll repeat that. No other jurisdiction requires for a mandatory release of reports — none. We're the only one.

The current British Columbia Inquiry Act that the members opposite allude to was passed in 1897. That act has no consideration at all for privacy legislation. It's outdated. It's badly outdated. The Uniform Law Conference of Canada also provides simply that the minister shall release a report to the public, without any reference at all as to a time.

[1620]

With the greatest of respect, it would be wrong, improper and unrealistic to put a time limit on any release. How do you put a time limit on a report that may be 5,000 pages long? The member opposite has suggested 10 or 15 days. Is that realistic to consider all the privacy issues of all the names and the issues that are involved? It's a rhetorical question.

The members opposite raised some issues regarding federal public inquiries that have been held. The Gomery inquiry, the Krever inquiry, the Maher Arar inquiry, the inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Guy Paul Morin — all of those federal inquiries were silent on the public release of any inquiry report, including any guidance and timing of the release of any inquiry report.

It would be, with all due respect, foolish to expect that once a public inquiry has been called that the public, the media and political scrutiny would not compel government to release an inquiry report in a timely fashion. This government remains committed to honouring our privacy laws by not putting arbitrary time lines on the release of inquiry reports.

With this legislation, British Columbia would be the only province that requires mandatory release of public inquiry reports. The proposed act would protect the public interest and individuals' privacy in a similar manner to which the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act protects those interests by preventing disclosure of information that could harm them.

We're talking here about people who may be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but whose names may come into play during a hearing commission — witnesses who may be completely innocent, but whose names would be made subject to public disclosure if we accept the suggestions and submissions made by the opposition.

Reports that satisfy these requirements would be released in their entirety. Where privacy or the public interest was a concern, only the relevant portions would be withheld, and the rest of the report would be released.

We have a duty to enforce and to adhere to privacy legislation. We also have to be concerned with disclosure that would be harmful to law enforcement. We have to be mindful of information or evidence, the disclosure of which would be harmful to intergovernmental relations or harmful to financial or economic interests.

[ Page 6170 ]

The public's right to know is never absolute. The public's right to know has to be balanced. There are competing interests that are involved here, and as the act states, the report shall be released to the public. As I said a moment ago, it will be released to the public. We'll be the only province in Canada to do so. However, there are other considerations and other issues involved, such as the interests of third parties, that we have to be mindful of.

L. Krog: I very much appreciate the Attorney General's concern — quite appropriate around the issues of privacy. I think it is a very important matter, and the opposition agrees entirely that it is appropriate to withhold portions of a report that would breach the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act or privacy rights or affect public interest, arguably.

However, what is being proposed here is that cabinet, the executive council, will be mandated — and will be the only body mandated — to make those decisions, notwithstanding the fact that the results of a commission of inquiry may, in fact, be entirely critical of members of the cabinet or persons in the employ of cabinet ministers.

[1625]

It is for that reason that I have proposed an amendment to the bill standing under my name on the orders of the day. I would therefore move the amendment, that portion of it at this time, which reads:

[SECTION 28 (1) by adding:

(1.1) (

a) A commission may withhold any portions of the report for any reason for which information must be withheld by a public body under sections 15 to 19 and 21 to 22.1 of the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act .

(

b) A commission must, in the report, identify any withheld portions and, to the extent possible, summarize them. ]

On the amendment.

L. Krog: The opposition is not opposed to protecting the interests of the public. I would remind the Attorney General, and I hardly think he needs reminding, that it was this opposition when it was in government that brought in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act — in its day certainly regarded as the most progressive legislation of its type in the world.

I don't think I exaggerate when I say that. The persons who applied to become the first commissioner were absolutely top-flight, the best in the world. It was an amazing array of talent anxious to be — to mimic the autobiography of the late Dean Acheson — present at the creation. A very important piece of legislation.

The concept was to protect privacy but at the same time allow the public to have access to information that formerly governments routinely withheld. It made the job of opposition easier. It served the public interest. It was everything that a reform-minded government would want to do.

What the

section does, as it reads now in Bill 6, is give authority to executive council, which I respectfully suggest is patently unreasonable. If a public inquiry is focused…. Public inquiries often have been historically focused on the actions of government. That's what they're about.

Imagine a Gomery inquiry, if you will, which the cabinet of the Liberal government in Ottawa gets to sever. Why not support the amendment that I have suggested, which would place that responsibility in the hands of the commission itself, appropriately hiring and using the staff that it is empowered to do?

I refer to the commission's authority that allows it under

section 7 to appoint employees in accordance with the Public Service Act necessary to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a commission. The chief commissioner may engage and retain consultants, investigators, lawyers, expert witnesses or other persons the chief commissioner considers necessary to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a commission.

The Attorney General has raised the issue that it would be unreasonable for the executive council to have a time limit placed on it in order to accomplish this task — that therefore cabinet should, under the legislation, be given an unlimited period of time in which to consider the important task of deciding what to withhold from the report.

[1630]

Surely the simple solution for this is the amendment. Before the report gets to cabinet and cabinet has to consider it, it will be a done deal. We will save the responsibilities and the energy of the executive council from having to make these difficult decisions that might otherwise place them in conflict. We will place it in the hands of the commission because, after all, as the Attorney General has said in this House, we are giving enormously wide powers to the commission to set its rules. We've even given it a privative clause that doesn't exist in law in the existing statute.

We are saying that the person who is appointed a chief commissioner or the only commissioner is a person who has significant authority and ability. We're obviously going to appoint distinguished British Columbians, hopefully, to these positions — intelligent, capable and qualified people who can handle the tasks assigned to them by the executive council — which invites a simple question.

As we've given all these other powers to the chief commissioner under the statute, why not empower the chief commissioner to do what ministries and impartial government public servants do day in, day out or that the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner does day in, day out in this province — that is, to protect the rights to privacy of individuals who may become involved with the commission, whether by way of giving evidence or as participants or in whatever capacity they do?

What could possibly be wrong with giving that authority to the commission itself, if we recognize that the commission presumably has the ability to conduct its affairs, to carry out all of its tasked responsibilities, to comply with its terms of reference and to work towards the purposes that have been defined for it by

[ Page 6171 ]

cabinet? What possible reason is there not to support this reasonable amendment?

[S. Hawkins in the chair.]

In my questioning of the Attorney General earlier today, I heard nothing from him to support taking away this power from cabinet, other than that he thinks cabinet should have an indeterminate period of time in order to perform this task. Why would we want to burden cabinet with that responsibility, particularly where cabinet or cabinet members may find themselves in a conflict unnecessarily that involves either their staff, the actions of previous ministers or the government or sitting ministers who are around the cabinet table?

What the amendment does is allow an opportunity for the commission, who, after all, will be the most expert, the most familiar with and the most cognizant of all of these responsibilities because it is the commission that has been doing the commission's work…. Why would we pass off that responsibility to cabinet? Why would we give it to the executive council? I think the question raises serious public concern about why the government would include this provision in

section 28.

It appears to me and to other members of the opposition that it is giving an opportunity to cabinet to delay unnecessarily the public's right — and it is a right that exists today at law under the existing Inquiry Act — to receive, to review and to hear the results of a public inquiry.

[1635]

Now, in his remarks the Attorney General said we're the only province in Canada which compels the release of the results of a public inquiry. I am actually almost delighted I did not have the time to do the research to determine that myself, because it disappoints me to think that governments across this country would not in this instance wish to follow the wonderful example of the British Columbia Legislature establishing this precedent a hundred years ago — a basic, sound principle of open, honest and transparent government.

The result of public inquiries — no matter how damning they may be to the government, no matter how dangerous they may be to the maintenance of power of those in office, no matter what the result — is that they, in fact, would be entitled as the citizens and taxpayers of the province to see the results.

I say that this is an amendment that relieves the government of a suspicion, shared not just by members of the opposition but by the public of British Columbia, that no politician, no cabinet, should ever be placed in the position of having to sever its own documents in this regard, particularly with reference to a public inquiry and the results of it.

Surely this is an opportunity for the government to step back, to reconsider its position and to accept what I would say is an extremely friendly amendment to the bill that would allow this government to say, without any criticism to be placed on it, that it had heard the opposition, it had heard the concerns of British Columbians, and it was prepared to do the right thing and allow the passage of this amendment, which will not detract from the stated purposes of the Attorney General and the interests of protecting privacy.

All it will do, in fact, is shift that responsibility onto the commission of inquiry, the body most familiar with the evidence and the information, to use the words of the statute, that have been given to it.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to accept the opposition's offer to do the right thing. I encourage the members opposite me to vote in favour of this amendment.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment.

In the process of conducting the commission of inquiry, it's clear that pursuant to

section 15, which we discussed earlier, the commission will be required to make rulings on whether information could or must be withheld by a public body, and it has that power. In the course of conducting a fair hearing, the commission is obliged to take into consideration those parts of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that relate to privacy rights, business interests and the public interest in order to conduct the hearing.

All those issues would have been discussed, litigated and decided by the body during the course of the inquiry, presumably with the assistance of commission counsel and, ultimately, the decision of the commission or the commissioners. Those very issues, which this amendment seeks to address, logically fall — in my view and in the view of the mover of this amendment, the member for Nanaimo — within the powers of the commission.

Given the independence of the commission it is better for all kinds of public interest reasons, but largely for the purposes of public confidence in the process and in the independence of the inquiry, that the independent commission makes those determinations. Given that they are already obliged to do that work, it makes sense that they do it.

The Attorney General has not, in my view, offered a convincing defence for having the cabinet perform that function. There has not been a convincing defence — not at all. To suggest that somehow the opposition is not cognizant of these rights, is sweeping aside these rights, is simply subterfuge. The opposition is focused on who is going to make the edits, not the fact that they're not necessary to make. We agree they're necessary to make. We agree the statute should be followed, but the question is: who is going to do it?

[1640]

This amendment proposes that the very commission who has already decided those issues and consi