B.C. Attorney General Suzanne Anton will introduce legislation next week to change a section of the Ombudsperson Act that had become an obstacle for an investigation into the 2012 health firings scandal.
“Work is underway to have a draft of the proposed legislative amendment available,” Anton wrote to the legislature’s finance committee on Thursday.
“I am advised that the Government House Leader is prepared to arrange for the introduction of the legislative amendment early next week and to seek the consent necessary to move the amendment expeditiously through all stages of debate.”
The move comes after B.C. Ombudsperson Jay Chalke addressed the committee Wednesday asking it not to refer to his office a 2012 Health Ministry investigation that led to the firing of eight drug researchers unless an amendment to a section of the Ombudsperson Act was made.
Deputy Attorney General Richard Fyfe advised the committee the change was unnecessary as it was unlikely to become a problem in a probe of witnesses in the case .
Anton initially agreed with her deputy minister and said in the B.C. legislature Wednesday that the change wasn’t needed.
Today, committee chairman Scott Hamilton wrote to the attorney general explaining the section of the act in question was “an outstanding impediment” to the Ombudsperson’s ability to ensure a timely and effective investigation.”
“We are writing to advise you section 19(2) has been identified as a key obstacle to the committee’s ability to reaching a swift and consensus-based decision on the Minister of Health’s request,” the letter said.
In the wake of calls for a public inquiry, B.C. Health Minister Terry Lake asked the all-party legislative committee to instead refer the probe to the ombudsperson, which the government believes will lead to an equally effective but faster and cheaper review.
Hamilton wrote that with support from government on changing the legislation, “we believe the committee will be better able to continue to work on the Minister of Health’s request in an expeditious manner.”
The committee is debating that request — another meeting is scheduled for 1 p.m. today. The majority of Liberals on the committee could push the referral through, and the ombudsperson can’t legally refuse to do it, but in addition to the legislative change, Chalke has asked that the committee make a unanimous decision, or none at all.
“If we deliver an investigation report, even a high-quality investigation, into an environment that has been so polarized that it is not perceived as credible, then what’s the point? Nothing would have been gained,” Chalke said on Wednesday.
The section of the Ombudsperson Act that has become controversial relates to “statutory confidentiality provisions” pertaining to health data protection and privacy protection statutes such as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Chalke argues if that section of the act is left unchanged, it could lead to lengthy litigation, and prevent him from interviewing necessary witnesses.
“In my view, it’s simply unwise and unworkable to proceed with a review of this magnitude and significance with one’s fingers crossed in the hope that this issue will never come up or will work itself out somehow through the expensive, time-consuming and uncertain litigation process, or that we should risk the release of a report that may, once again, lack important information and full disclosure,” Chalke told the committee on Wednesday.
This story was first reported by the Times Colonist.
