Health Care Worker Investigation (ctd)...The Publicly Inquiring Irony In The Ombudsman's Letter.

AllTheInquiriesThatDon'tQuiteFitInsideTheBellyOfA
LimitedHangoutVille


I noted, with interest, that once again the good Mr. Palmer of the VSun was telling us, just last night, that the independent public inquiry route could turn out to be a stinker in terms of getting to the bottom of the health worker firing business, especially in comparison  to a fast and efficient look-see by the Ombudsman:

...Taking aim at one of the leading conspiracy theories surrounding the case, (Former Health Ministry worker and whistleblower Alana) James denied the fired workers were targeted for retribution because of their involvement in the therapeutics initiative, the provincially funded drug-vetting program. “A red herring,” she called the notion that Big Pharma was behind the concerns she raised.

James pledged cooperation “if it were a proper inquiry,” suggesting something “similar to the Charbonneau Commission” — Quebec’s ongoing inquiry into corruption in the construction industry.

In that regard, I note that the Charbonneau Commission, appointed in late 2011, has yet to deliver a final report. Lately it has been meeting under a publication ban, amid a legal imbroglio over whether the commissioner can name and blame various individuals. The Montreal Gazette recently estimated the tab for the commission at $50 million and counting.

Against that prospect, there’s the possibility, being aired Wednesday by a legislature committee, of calling on the ombudsperson. The office has the necessary powers to summon witnesses, obtain documents and take testimony under oath and to do so behind closed doors, avoiding many of the costs and delays associated with public inquiries...


And then, this morning the new Ombudsman, Mr. Chalke, released a letter explaining why, at least under the current rules  (see, for example, section 18 of the Ombudsman's Act, scroll down), he and his office members might not be the best guys and gals for job, as noted by the VSun's Rob Shaw:

B.C.’s Ombudsperson says he doesn’t want to probe the botched firings of eight government health researchers unless government changes the law to give him more power.

Jay Chalke told MLAs in a letter released Wednesday that he has serious concerns about taking the case, including:

- Limitations that prevent him from compelling testimony from people who have previously signed confidentiality agreements.

- Possible limited access to cabinet documents.

- A desire by the fired researchers that the government instead pursue a full public inquiry, which Chalke said MLAs should give serious consideration...


Which is all well and good and has certainly raised my level of respect for Mr. Chalke.

But then things got really interesting in Mr. Shaw's piece:

...Chalke’s biggest concern centered on how he’s unable to compel evidence from anyone who has been bound to maintain confidentiality, according to powers under his legislation.

That’s a “serious impediment to any referred investigation,” wrote Chalke, in a case that involves confidentiality clauses for health researchers who have settled court cases with the government, as well as confidentiality related to public health data.

Chalke said his powers should mirror those of other legislative officers, such as the Representative of Children and Youth, who don’t have the same problems as his office.

“My concern about this issue is so significant that I would formally ask that the Committee not refer this matter to my office unless it is accompanied by a recommendation to government for an urgent legislative amendment,” Chalke wrote.

Either the Ombudsperson should get the same powers as the Representative for Children and Youth, or any referral from MLAs should be clear that any person is required to provide information despite confidentiality or solicitor client privilege, wrote Chalk (sic)...


Why interesting?

Well, because....

If not for an independent inquiry run by a fellow named Mr. Ted Hughes we, the public, would NOT even HAVE a 'Representative for Children and Youth' position with the power to do what Mr. Chalke wants to get to the bottom of things.

If you get my drift.



________
Mr. Chalke's letter to the Finance Committee can be read, in full....Here.
I remind readers that the whole 'Ombudsman Solution' to the messy/expensive/icky Public Inquiry 'problem' seems to have been pretty much simultaneously breech-birthed by the good Mr. Palmer and the current Clarklandian Health Minister, Mr. Lake a couple of weeks ago....Seriously.
Merv Adey has more, including comments on developments stemming from Linda Kayfish's letter to the Premier....Here.


.