TIME TO COME CLEAN ON HEALTH MINISTRY FIRINGS

Ombudsperson’s report must be released before we go to the polls

The office of ombudsman Jay Chalke reported this week that he remains on track to wrap up his 18-month-long investigation into those botched firings in the health ministry.

On that basis, British Columbians can expect answers before the election on one of the murkiest scandals in the life of the B.C. Liberal government.

The affair erupted into the headlines in September 2012 with the firing of eight drug researchers from the health ministry, amid allegations of wrongdoing that included data breaches, contractual irregularities and matters that were said to have necessitated referral to the RCMP.

There followed lawsuits, out-of-court settlements, reinstatements, apologies and several investigations, none conclusive.

Before the serial backdown got underway, one of the researchers, Rod MacIsaac, committed suicide.

Afterward, it came out that there never was a proper investigation by police, as they never obtained sufficient evidence from the government to justify it.

Against that devastating combination of tragedy and farce, the Liberals in the summer of 2015 responded to growing calls for a public inquiry by instead recruiting the ombudsman to take on the job.

Chalke initially balked at fielding the political football, concerned that the investigation might divert needed resources from the regular duties of his office. After digging in, he managed to secure a free hand from an overseer committee of the legislature to conduct the investigation as he saw fit. The all-party committee also approved a stand-alone budget of $900,000 for the exercise, later topped up to almost $2 million.

The mandate asks Chalke to produce a full accounting for the firings and subsequent backdown, including any involvement by senior officials, cabinet ministers and/or the premier.

He is supposed to ferret out how the RCMP were brought into the picture and examine any connection to the drug research itself, involving as it did publicly funded scrutiny of private pharmaceuticals.

The initial timeline had the ombudsman completing the investigation within a year.

But in late fall of 2016 he was back before the committee to report delays brought on by unforeseen difficulties.

The first was simply embarrassing. In the course of assembling the paper trail around the firings, staff in the ministry of the attorney general discovered that Chalke himself had briefly handled some of the paperwork around the firings.

It happened in late 2012, before Chalke was appointed ombudsman, when he was serving briefly as deputy attorney general on an acting basis.

The disclosure, coming well after Chalke had agreed to take on the investigation, occasioned a lengthy crossexamination by the New Democrats and Liberals on the committee.

“He had no recollection of his involvement,” the committee reported in a followup report by way of justifying the decision to let him proceed with the investigation.

“He suggested that this role had been brief. ... He characterized his involvement as transitory, resulting in no substantive effect on the investigation.”

Another matter that gave pause to committee members back in November was the staggering weight of documentation he was forced to review in the course of his investigation.

Going in, he’d been advised he would have to sort through 200,000 documents of one kind or another, but that had grown to some four million. Chalke credited the 20-fold increase to his decision to have his own staff vet the all possibilities in the paper trail.

“The ombudsperson did not want others making that assessment of relevance, so had asked for all records and then determined relevance,” as the committee explained.

Still, Chalke assured the committee the approved budget and staffing would be sufficient to complete the work “toward the end of the fiscal year,” meaning March 31.

Notwithstanding complaints from some of the researchers about being denied sufficient access to the process, that is still the goal, as Chalke’s office reaffirmed this week.

Factored into the timeline is said to be enough leeway to contact anyone who might be adversely affected by the findings and allow them to make representations before release of the report.

That still leaves an open question about a date for release to the public.

The legislature committee directed Chalke to “deposit the final report with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly whether it is in session, adjourned or dissolved,” whereupon it can then be made public.

But there’s no obvious precedent for the speaker to act on a report once the house has been dissolved and all the seats vacated for an election.

That happens April 11, with the issuance of the writ for the May 9 vote.

So in practical terms Chalke has about a month to wrap up the investigation, settle any concerns about his findings and deliver the report to Speaker Linda Reid, lest it be at risk of languishing in her inbox pending the outcome of the campaign.

Chalke brushed aside the issue of election timing when he last spoke to the legislature committee last November.

“The election is not my concern,” he told reporters. “My obligation is to release the report as soon as it is finished.

“The committee wants this report to be done as soon as possible and that’s the timeline we’re working toward.”

But the public interest is paramount here.

These firings are rightly considered the most outrageous treatment of staff in the modern-day history of the public service.

They happened before the last election.

British Columbians should not have to go to the polls once again without a proper accounting for the debacle.

My obligation is to release the report as soon as it is finished. The committee wants this report to be done as soon as possible and that’s the timeline we’re working toward. JAY CHALK E, B.C. ombudsman