1. The Act stipulates FOI access requests be answered within a month. In this instance, this makes ICBC some 14 months in arrears and running. This contains the connotation of the AG having no qualms about being a de facto accomplice in this blatant violation of the law ...
2. That there is an 18 to 24 month lineup for FOI access to ICBC information manifests to ICBC being run secretively, operating from the dungeon. But the ICBC, more than many other public bodies, touches the lives of virtually the whole populace. This imposes on it a correspondingly large obligation to operate in the open. There is no conceivable legitimate defense for ICBC trampling the fundamental principle of transparency incumbent on it managing this large and important public enterprise.
It is the duty of the AG to cause the ICBC to cease and desist operating secretly, from that “flammable dumpster” if you will. It is also a duty of the AG to ensure that the ICBC operate transparently forthwith.
3. It is also incumbent on the AG to endeavour to ameliorate the consequences from the ICBC having operated secretively in the past. This includes but is not limited to explaining to society why the AG was withholding from the public the knowledge of the boosting of lawyers pay while publically engaging in bravado about distancing the lawyers from the ICBC “feeding trough”.
4. The ICBC evasion of an honest response to Helme’s FOI query sustains the presumption that the truth of the matter is unfit for public consumption.
Now, after Helme has informed us that there is a cat in the bag, it is imperative it be let out for us to see what the ICBC actively hides from us. One thing leads to another and there may be more “cats of interest” in the ICBC bag.
5. We need to know what triggered a pay increase for the ICBC lawyers; and how “hefty” the pay increase was; and the yearly cost of the increase; to learn why ICBC entertained the lawyers pay increase while in a “burning Dumpster” situation, all transpiring on the watch of AG Eby; and we need Eby and Horgan to explain why they did not mention the pay boost when they were bragging that they were rendering the ICBC efficient.
6. We need to know how many are the ICBC “inside” Lawyers, the tally to include all, regardless of how they may be “associated” with the ICBC;
7. Recently Eby and Horgan introduced “no fault insurance” for ICBC. We need to know how many “inside” Lawyers were terminated by the ICBC due to resulting reduction of the need for their services.