A Liberal MLA is attacking an amendment to B.C.'s freedom-of-information law that was introduced by his own government on April 27.

Blair Lekstrom, who represents Peace River South, told the Georgia Straight that he is particularly bothered with the proposal to add a new section, 21(1), to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. “I do have a significant concern with 21(1),” Lekstrom said. “I've raised that with my colleagues.”

The new provision would permit the Labour and Citizens' Services minister, presently Mike de Jong, to designate a project of the provincial government or any other public body as a “joint solution project”. That designation, in turn, requires the public body to refuse to disclose a wide range of financial, labour- relations, and other information.

Lekstrom said that he can see the justification for some other proposed FOI amendments. He added that he plans to make his views on section 21(1) known when the bill comes forward to the committee stage. “I'm certainly looking forward to the discussion on the floor.”

Lekstrom chaired a legislature committee that spent almost a year reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. After hearing 29 oral submissions and receiving 50 written submissions, it presented its report to the legislature on May 19, 2004. However, the government failed to act on the report's 28 recommendations.

MLA Harry Lali, the NDP FOI critic, told the Straight that another provision of last week's bill, to permit limited, temporary access of personal information outside of Canada, merely legalizes current practice.

The change makes the personal information of British Columbians subject to the USA PATRIOT Act, Lali claimed. “British Columbians should be lighting their hair on fire as a result of any changes that the Liberals want to make,” he said.

In a written analysis of the bill, B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association executive director Darrell Evans said the “joint solution project” designation would draw a “veil of secrecy” across the growing number of public-private partnerships (P3s) and other forms of “alternative service delivery”, as the government calls them.

In an April 27 letter to de Jong, B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis said he is “deeply concerned” about section 21(1), adding it would “turn back the clock on access to information and accountability in British Columbia.”

An audit of the contracting processes used by two ministries raises questions about whether or not taxpayers always get value for money when the government contracts out for goods or services. Report on Contract Review was completed by the Finance Ministry's internal audit division on August 8, 2005, and obtained last week by the Straight under a freedom-of-information request.

The auditors examined 64 contracts let by the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General during the year ending March 31, 2005. The contracts ranged in value from $2,250 to more than $22 million.

The audit found that the ministries performed cost-benefit analyses for only eight of the 64 contracts, despite the fact that government policy requires such analyses for all contracts. The government's rules also require that for all contracts worth $100,000 or more, the contract price must be compared with the cost of providing the service in-house. However, the audit reported that this was done for only two of the 20 $100,000-or-more contracts examined.

The auditors found problems with some contracts that were awarded without competitive bidding, a practice the Liberals railed against when in Opposition. When contracts are unnecessarily limited to one supplier, “contractor rates may not be competitive,” the audit reported. The two ministries signed 1,408 contracts worth a total of $106 million during the 2003–04 fiscal year.