CHRISTY CLARK’S BC CONSERVATIVE LIBERALS STACKING THE HARPER GOVERNMENTS ELECTION DECK
Christy Clark’s BC CONSERVATIVE LIBERALS are at it again. Why did they hijack the LIBERAL name in the first place, we all know they belong to the CONSERVATIVE PARTY.
Now they have discontinued the MONTHLY GOVERNMENT STUBS for the POOR and the DISABLED in B.C.
For most of the POOR and DISABLED in B.C. it is the only form of IDENTIFICATION they have to use on VOTING DAY. Now alot of the POOR and DISABLED of B.C. will lose their VOTE in the FEDERAL ELECTION this year. Just when you think they can’t stoop lower than they already have they pull this CRAP on the most vulnerable in our society. SHAME ON THEM AGAIN
CHRISTY CLARK’S CONSERVATIVE LIBERALS DESTROYING FAMILIES FOR NO REASON EXCEPT POLITICS – WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHY
Vaughn Palmer: Lack of co-operation blights health firings review
Whose to blame? Opposition calls for full-blown public inquiry
Vancouver Sun January 7, 2015
VICTORIA — For all of Premier Christy Clark’s promise to “get to the bottom” of those botched firings in the health ministry, the review commissioned by her government last year did nothing of the kind.
The final report, released a few days before Christmas, identified the obvious failings of a flawed-from-the-outset process that ruined reputations and damaged lives. But the most telling passages in the report saw the author of the review, Victoria lawyer Marcia McNeil, acknowledge the limitations of the whole exercise right up front.
“This report is not intended to, and does not, answer questions regarding the specific allegations against the employees,” wrote McNeil in a covering message. “Nor does it answer any lingering questions regarding whether any decision made about the employees was legally or factually sound.”
Moreover “any comments made in this report regarding flaws in the investigation process are not to be interpreted as conclusions about the merits of the disciplinary decisions or any fault on the part of individuals involved in the process.”
Nor did she leave any doubts about the source of those limitations. They were “in accordance with the terms of reference,” drafted by some of the same officials who were involved in the firings in the first place.
The McNeil findings also challenged something else the premier had said, namely that there was no need to order a full-blown public inquiry into the affair because the government and its employees would co-operate fully with the review.
Instead, McNeil encountered a lot of ducking and covering among the three dozen or so unnamed officials interviewed. “Many of those I spoke to articulated their concerns that the significant public attention focused on this report would lead to the name, at least in the public’s mind, of a scapegoat,” she wrote. “As a result, participants did not acknowledge their role in any decision making.”
Nor did she get the full story in terms of documentation because in key instances the paperwork didn’t exist.
“This case is lacking in the reports, briefing notes, meeting notes or other documents which are frequently prepared in situations where discipline may be contemplated,” wrote McNeil, drawing on her own legal expertise in matters of employment law and terminations.
“This dearth of documents has granted the decision makers — whoever he/she or they may have been — an opportunity to avoid taking ownership of the decision,” she added in one of the most critical passages of her report.
The gaps in the record combined with the lack of cooperation meant that she was unable to determine who made the decisions to dismiss and what factors were considered.
“No one has taken responsibility for making the effective recommendation to dismiss the employees,” she reported. “Instead those most likely to have made the effective recommendation all pointed to someone else.”
She nevertheless reached some conclusions within the confines of her terms of reference, leaving no doubt about why the government has had to reinstate, rehire and otherwise rehabilitate most of those who were fired. (One ousted staffer committed suicide; two wrongful dismissal lawsuits remain outstanding.)
“The investigation was flawed from the outset,” she wrote, citing a process characterized by premature assumptions of wrongdoing and blindsiding of the accused.
One of the more disturbing lapses in due process was disclosed in a footnote to the report: “At no time before the termination decisions were made was (legal) advice with respect to whether there was just cause to dismiss the six ministry employees either sought or provided.”
That passage drew a rebuttal from former deputy minister of health Graham Whitmarsh, who’d signed off on the dismissals back in 2012. “The statement was very surprising to him,” wrote his lawyer in an open letter to government. “Mr. Whitmarsh’s understanding at the time was that legal advice had been sought and was being provided with respect to whether there was just cause for the dismissal of the employees.”
Whitmarsh declined to cooperate in the McNeil review, suspecting that the narrow terms of reference were crafted in part to make him the scapegoat. For her part, McNeil says in the report that she “reviewed records from counsel with the ministry of justice which are confidential and/or privileged in nature.”
So it would appear that if the legal advice cited by Whitmarsh exists in written form, it was not included in the records shared with McNeil. One more loose end in a report that, for all of McNeil’s effort to do her best within the government-imposed limitations, contains far too many them.
Highlighting two more gaps in the record Wednesday, Opposition MLA Adrian Dix called on the Liberals to release details from the redacted-by-government appendices to the report.
The whited-out passages excluded key details of the flawed internal review that led to the firings as well as a chronology of the legal advice provided to government in the affair. Dix also repeated Opposition calls for a full-blown public inquiry with the power to call witnesses, compel testimony, secure all documents, and offer full legal protection to any whistleblowers.
Not likely will either the details or the inquiry be forthcoming. As the record to date suggests, the last thing the Clark government really wants is to get to the bottom of this affair.