When the health minister announced the firings of several Health Ministry employees in September 2012, she said she was 鈥渟hocked鈥� and 鈥渄eeply troubled.鈥� She should have been, but it turns out that her shock should have been directed at the flawed investigation that led to the firings, a blunder unprecedented in sa国际传媒鈥檚 civil-service history.
A review of that investigation has answered some questions, but more than two years after the firings, the most important questions remain unanswered: Who ordered the firings and why?
Margaret MacDiarmid was only one day into her new portfolio as health minister when she announced that an internal investigation had revealed data breaches and contracting irregularities on the part of researchers using data on patients for drug research. Seven employees were fired, and a contractor lost his job.
鈥淭his was the first thing I was briefed on, and my reaction was disbelief. I was shocked,鈥� she said. She offered no details, no explanations.
It was as if she was in a movie, staring in horror at some terrible monster off-screen. Any minute now, it seemed, and the audience would see what was so frightening, so terrible. But that particular monster never materialized.
Three lawsuits were launched and settled; two more are pending. Three grievances have been settled. One person, seeing his career ruined, killed himself in despair, having never been told what he was accused of. Three researchers were publicly cleared and praised for their work; two were reinstated and another retired. Premier Christy Clark and current Health Minister Terry Lake have apologized to the family of Rod MacIsaac, the researcher who took his own life.
Labour lawyer Marcia McNeil was appointed to conduct an independent review of the government investigation that prompted the firings. Her report, released last week, confirmed what was becoming increasingly clear 鈥� the initial investigation was seriously flawed, the process was unfair and the consequences have been far more serious than any alleged data breaches could have been.
Seldom in government is more than one person fired with cause; the firing of seven at once is virtually unheard of in the history of Canadian public service. To depart so far from normalcy implies compelling reasons, and no reasons 鈥� other than vague generalities 鈥� have been offered.
McNeil鈥檚 focus was the government investigation, not the actions of those who were fired, but she found no one assessed the evidence to see if it supported the decision to dismiss for just cause.
The absence of information leaves a great vacuum into which a flood of speculation and rumour has poured. Allegations abound about various complicities and conspiracies, none favourable toward the sa国际传媒 Liberals. The government鈥檚 discomfort with drug research was well known in the Health Ministry. Did that raise fears among managers, who then over-reacted in the interests of their own job safety?
Deputy health minister Graham Whitmarsh was fired, but was he merely the government鈥檚 scapegoat? He says he wasn鈥檛 aware interviews were conducted improperly.
McNeil鈥檚 review has moved the issue a step forward, but it is far from resolved. She has answered the 鈥渨hat鈥� and 鈥渉ow鈥� questions, but not the 鈥渨ho鈥� and 鈥渨hy.鈥�
Those questions need to be answered, not to exact revenge, but to cleanse the civil service of the poison that has infected the system.
The trouble is, a lot of people can be hurt by ricocheting rumours. A compelling reason to discover who was responsible for the mess is to protect those who weren鈥檛.
We still do not know why this witch hunt occurred and we don鈥檛 know who conducted it. Given the sheer magnitude of this massacre, that won鈥檛 do. McNeil鈥檚 review doesn鈥檛 end the matter; rather, it points to the need for a strong, honest assessment.
