"Public Inquiries" with No Public Access

On June 22, 2001, less than 3 weeks after being sworn into office, the Campbell government shut down the public inquiry into NCHS. Then Attorney General Geoff Plant fired Inquiry Commissioner Smith saying "The cost of the commission to date is about $6 million, and another $2 million could well be spent by year's end, including publicly funded legal fees for some of the people who received notices of adverse findings from the commission."

Some cynics believe that it was to the benefit of the Campbell Liberals to leave their claims about "Bingogate" on the record, rather than having the clarity of what the public inquiry might have reported. Ever since the dismissal of Smith, the government has claimed, and some pundits have accepted, that it is just too expensive to hold public inquires because of the cost of providing legal counsel to people who could be named. It is against that background, that Attorney General Wally Oppal introduced Bill 23 (2006), the Public Inquiry Act, which has since been condemned by the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation, the BC Freedom of Information Association (FIPA), and the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).

BCCLA's president Jason Gratl said: "This act takes both the 'public' and the 'inquiry' out of public inquiry. It's nothing more than a scheme to thwart independent oversight and government accountability." Previously, reports from public inquiries had to be tabled in the legislature for all the public to see, but under Section 29 of Bill 23: "A commission must not release its report to any person other than the minister." A report of a commission only becomes public if Cabinet approves its release, and then Section 29(5)(b) gives Cabinet the authority to withhold sections of any report. So much for transparent government!

Don't believe the Campbell government if it claims that the only alternative to the Draconian powers it wants to give itself in Bill 23 is to cease holding public inquires because of their expense. There is a price to justice; sometimes that can be a high price. Who, other than the Campbell government, would have said that spending $2 million more to complete the Smith inquiry would not have been worth the cost? In the folklore over NCHS it may be forgotten that the cancelled inquiry was to report on the "adequacy of past and present rules and restrictions given the proceeds of licensed gambling". In addition to possibly wanting to preserve its spin on NCHS, the Campbell government may have been motivated by its desire to expand gambling to the full extent that the market will bear, as we have seen over the past five years.

Some issues demand answers that can only be obtained from public inquiries. When that need arises, inquires should report to the public and they should be adequately funded.