Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 66 — Thursday, July 16, 2015 (HTML)

Present: Wm. Scott Hamilton, MLA (Chair); Carole James, MLA (Deputy Chair); Dan Ashton, MLA; Eric Foster, MLA; Simon Gibson, MLA; George Heyman, MLA; Gary Holman, MLA; Mike Morris, MLA; Jane Jae Kyung Shin, MLA; John Yap, MLA

2. The Committee resumed consideration of the following motion moved by George Heyman, MLA on July 8, 2015:

That the Committee accept the recommendation contained in section IX (b) of Mr. Chalke’s July 7, 2015 letter and invite Ramsay Hamdi, Dave Scott, Linda Kayfish (in lieu of the late Roderick MacIssac), Malcolm MacLure, Bob Hart, Rebecca Warburton, Bill Warburton, and Ron Mattson to make submissions in person or in writing to the Committee before the question of whether to make a referral to the Office of the Ombudsperson is decided.

4. It was moved by George Heyman, MLA that the motion be amended by removing the words “in person or” and adding “Further, that the Committee deputize to the Chair and Deputy Chair decisions regarding any request for legal representation by these individuals.”

That the Committee accept the recommendation contained in section IX (b) of Mr. Chalke’s July 7, 2015 letter and invite Ramsay Hamdi, Dave Scott, Linda Kayfish (in lieu of the late Roderick MacIssac), Malcolm MacLure, Bob Hart, Rebecca Warburton, Bill Warburton, and Ron Mattson to make submissions in writing to the Committee before the question of whether to make a referral to the Office of the Ombudsperson is decided. Further, that the Committee deputize to the Chair and Deputy Chair decisions regarding any request for legal representation by these individuals.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS
Page
Correspondence from Minister of Health	1475
Other Business	1483

S. Hamilton (Chair): I want to, first of all, start by thanking the committee. We’ve covered a lot of ground in a very short period of time. I know it’s been somewhat arduous for everyone to rearrange their schedules the way they have, but I do appreciate the fact that we have been able to come together and have these discussions and hopefully expedite ourselves to a reasonable resolution with regard to this matter. Having said that, once again, thank you.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I guess what we’re going to do now is go straight into the motion that was adjourned from our meeting of July 7 with regard to the recommendations contained in Mr. Chalke’s letter and the invitation that was made to the affected employees with respect to submissions in person or in writing to this committee — for the future use of the Ombudsperson, I would assume.

G. Heyman: I understand that one of the significant concerns that you had as Chair was whether there were legal issues about seeking submissions from the people who were fired in the context of the inquiry. If I recall correctly, those have been answered that there aren’t, as long as it is clear that we are seeking information only on why they prefer public inquiry over an Ombudsperson inquiry.

I think the Ombudsperson urged us to not make a decision until we’d heard from them so that we could consider their views. Potentially, issues that they raise in preferring one inquiry over another could be answered, as well, either directly or possibly in the context of our consideration of how we frame the terms of reference.

I believe this is still worth doing. I note we aren’t intending to meet again for another week, so that allows some reasonable notice.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Yes. Carole, I’ll turn it over to you. I was going to reference our discussion from earlier today as well.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I just want to add to that that I think there is an opportunity for us to have some time to be able to get that feedback, I think, as has been said already. The question is very narrow. We’re not asking people to comment on anything to do with the investigation. That’s not what this question is about. This question is related to referral to the Ombudsperson and their views around referral to the Ombudsperson and the rationale for their views around the Ombudsperson referral — support, otherwise, and letting us know their issues.

I believe if we keep that narrow, if we put that out as the very focus that we need to come to the committee, then I think we’ve addressed the legal concerns that you raised as Chair, and we give an opportunity for — as I said in the beginning, when this motion came forward — the kind of respect that needs to be given to individuals who are the key part and the reason that this investigation is going forward, I think — to give them the respect that they deserve to have some time to be able to do that.

I don’t know whether we need it in the motion, but I think we could give a timeline for people to be able to submit so that we aren’t taking this out through the summer. I think it’s reasonable to give people a week to be able to get information back and to get their feedback. I think it’s possible for us to do that, as I said.

Whether we just do that or whether we need it in a motion, I’ll leave that up to you, Chair.

M. Morris: I just want to throw a cautionary flag out there, I guess, from an investigator’s point of view. The Ombudsperson yesterday made a comment about the similarities between a police investigation and the Ombudsperson’s investigation.

You know, throughout my career as an investigator, oftentimes evidence was tainted in the investigation as a result of overzealous officials or authorities, at the front end of that, probably disclosing information that was harmful to the investigation or that had some kind of an impact — the difference being that these were criminal investigations. It prevented us from taking a lot of those cases forward for prosecution.

So I think we have to be very careful about how we word this to ensure that any of the information that the Ombudsperson obtains in his investigation is not tainted by outside influences on the witnesses. These people are going to be very key witnesses in this investigation.

I just throw that out. I don’t want to influence whatever evidence that they might have to give at this time versus what they might say once they’ve had an opportunity to write a letter or make a submission to this committee.
[ Page 1476 ]

The processes in the investigations are very similar. The confidentiality of a police investigation or the Ombudsperson investigation, in my respectful view, in my professional view, reveals a lot more evidence than a public inquiry does, because people feel a lot freer to discuss issues that they wouldn’t normally discuss in public. In fact, a lot of times we had trouble convincing them that they may have to give testimony in an open court afterwards.

Of course, there are provisions back within the various legislation to address that. So let’s be cautious on how we move forward so that we don’t compromise the investigative outcome that the Ombudsperson is going to have.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Those are fair comments. If I could wade in and maybe reference the discussion that Carole and I had a little earlier today with respect to how the submissions would be received potentially.

What we’re going to consider is retooling the motion that’s on the table so that they be received in writing, that they be received by the Clerk’s office. They could then be reviewed, vetted by the Clerk’s office, potentially redacted — if there is anything that could incriminate, by virtue of an opinion, an investigation or cause problems going forward — and then be submitted to this committee for review as correspondence.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I just wanted to add a couple of pieces. I think one is to remember that the Ombudsperson suggested that this be done, so I think there is some consideration there. This wasn’t something that simply came from us or anybody else. This came forward from the Ombudsperson. He suggested that the former employees’ views are important and be given utmost consideration by inviting the employees to make submissions before the question of whether to make referral is decided. So that’s really the focus: referral or not.

I think the other piece to remember is that many of those researchers and folks involved in this case, obviously, have spoken publicly. And there is nothing, as I said in our meeting this afternoon with the Chair, to prevent the individuals from releasing their letter publicly regardless. They’re providing it to us as a committee. They can release it to anyone they want. They can send it out publicly. They will know that it’s coming in to the public record.

I think it’s important. As long as that’s there and as long as the focus is there around the key question, then I think those concerns are dealt with.

M. Morris: Just on that. I guess a lot of it would deal, then, with the question that’s given to them. So we have to be very careful in crafting that question so that we don’t compromise that.

D. Ashton: Just backing up what Mike said and also yourself, Mr. Chair. I do think it’s important that we hear from these folks, but I think it’s important that we hear in writing, not by individuals coming here. The opportunity…. “Control” isn’t the right word, but at least it’s vetted and vetted properly. So thank you for that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): As well as, potentially, the scope. How broad are we going to make this? That might be some discussion for a minute or two from now.

G. Heyman: If it helps get the motion passed, I have no objection to receiving their input in writing. I think it’s still consistent with the recommendation of the Ombudsperson. I think it makes sense that we notify them by letter, very clearly, what the scope of the issues are that we wish to hear from them about and that any other issues will, ultimately, be up to whomever holds an inquiry, whether it’s the Ombudsperson or some other form of inquiry in the future. Our job is simply to make a decision about referral, and we’re simply seeking their input on that.

I’m a little concerned about the suggestion of redaction. First of all, Carole said that if they want people to know stuff, they’ll talk; they’ll release it. But I think as a committee — with no disrespect to the Clerk’s office or judgment — we do, if we invite a submission, need to see what they have to say to us. Bearing in mind that…. I mean, perhaps you’re talking about redaction because…. Is it a consideration that once we receive the letter, we have to release it publicly?

S. Hamilton (Chair): That would be my concern, and for their own protection as much as the protection of the investigation. That’s why I brought it up. We could always reference the legal opinion that we received from Pearlman Lindholm last week, for their benefit, so they understand the framework in which they should submit.

G. Heyman: They will undoubtedly, I think, seek legal advice themselves. At least some of them will.

I would suggest that in framing the communication to them, the Clerk seek any further advice that she deems necessary to make the point clearly. But I’m pretty nervous about redactions. Hopefully, they won’t be a consideration, in any event.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): For the clarification of members, I think if the committee did consider a review of a written submission with a view to a possible redaction, it would only be in the instance where
[ Page 1477 ]
the committee then decided to put those documents in the public domain. I would not hesitate to share the information received with members of this committee. But the advice that we had received was that the written submission process would fulfil the intention, I think, of Mr. Chalke’s recommendation to you.

The invitation, which I have a very preliminary draft of in hand, would stress, as well, that the employees would certainly be under no obligation to provide a submission, but they would be invited to do so if they so wish. Just as the Chair and the Deputy Chair discussed earlier today, the intention would be to inquire if they would support a referral and what their rationale is. It’s a fairly clear draft. Other matters relating to any potential investigation would not be addressed at that time through the written submission process.

C. James (Deputy Chair): Just to add to that and to echo the comments that had been made, I think that if we’re clear and, as the Clerk has said, if we’ve dealt with the issue by being narrow in the comment and they’re sending it in writing, I certainly don’t see any need.

The individuals have been involved in the case for a long period of time. They certainly know that everything that is involved in this case has to do with legalities and otherwise. I don’t think it’s up to the committee to make a determination for them around whether something is going to be a risk to them or not. That’s the individual’s issue, not our issue.

I think our issue is to be respectful, to ask to hear their voice and then see their voice. From my perspective, I think the submissions that come in should be submissions that are tabled with the committee, and then we have our discussion.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Just as a matter of process, Madam Clerk, if I could ask you: would it then make any sense for us to initially meet in camera to receive the correspondence and then make a motion to release it from in camera in the general meeting, just to protect ourselves and protect the individuals? Is there any value there?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Certainly, if it’s the wish of the committee, it would be appropriate to have an in-camera review or discussion of the input that has been received to date and then also discuss your options pursuant to the intent to assess the level of support for a referral and the rationale for that. Our office also, from time to time, will produce a summary of submissions received, and we’re happy to do that with the focus on key questions that are important to support your decision-making.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Having said that, I’m reluctant to go into camera at all, because this has been a pretty open process up until now. But I’ll put it out to the floor for comment.

M. Morris: I just wanted to comment further just on this whole process. I refer back to Mr. Farquhar’s letter of July 13 in paragraph 2: “Nevertheless, because it is anticipated that there will be a hearing either before the Ombudsperson or in some other form, it would be disrespectful to that anticipated process for the committee to entertain discussion with the employees about the merits of their concern.” That’s one comment that I think we need to be very mindful of.

The other one should be that “the committee should not involve itself in the very issues that a hearing will be charged with addressing.” I’m emphasizing this just from the perspective of an investigator. Again, I’m just going back to my original comments. There are a lot of investigations that have been derailed as a result of good intentions or otherwise by over-involvement of various committees or authorities.

G. Heyman: I think you asked a question related to your reluctance to go in camera. I think I share your view, and frankly, I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it. If the direction to them in the letter is very clear and specific, hopefully there’ll be no need to even have the discussion.

A corollary to that is…. I asked a question yesterday of the Deputy Attorney General with respect to a number of the fired employees who have raised, at different times, whether legal fees they might incur — especially for two of them who have ongoing litigation — with respect to an Ombudsperson inquiry would be covered.

The answer of the Deputy Attorney General was that that would be a matter for the Ombudsperson and he would likely consider that as part of his budget, should he get a referral. They may well also have that question of us with respect to making a submission to us.

I’m not a lawyer, but I suspect that if it is clear in what we’re asking — that we’re simply asking their views on the forum in which the issues surrounding the firings should be heard — it’s difficult for me, at least, to contemplate how something could come up that would require them to seek counsel or advice with respect to what they said. But they may still have that question when they receive the letter. I just want to raise that. I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m not sure whether to address that up front in the letter or see what the response is.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I share that concern. I mean, we have no control once they decide to put the pen to the piece of paper and what they say comes in front of this committee. As much for their own protection, I would
[ Page 1478 ]
like to make sure that they stick to the subject matter. But essentially, again, we don’t have control over that. So I’m not quite sure how to address that, other than potentially going in camera to receive the information and accept any redaction that might be necessary before it comes to the committee in open form.

G. Heyman: I have two follow-up questions. One of them is whether, in crafting the letter, the Clerk is going to seek a legal review of the letter that’s being sent from the same people who offered the opinion — if that was your intention.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): The draft that I have in hand this afternoon, pursuant to the adoption of an amended motion, has been crafted with the assistance of legal counsel.

G. Heyman: My corollary is whether it is worth asking that same counsel whether he or she can conceive of a circumstance in which it is legitimate for the employees to wish some legal advice before they make a submission to us, notwithstanding the limitations that we’ve placed on the question we’re asking, and then if the answer to that is yes, if we have the capacity to offer that.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I’d be happy to explore that further with legal counsel, if that’s the wish of the committee. I know that our counsel has flagged, of course, the whole engagement with the employees as a very sensitive matter. There are legal repercussions, potentially, for the employees themselves. Others might be affected by any statements that are made — and even their ongoing working relationship, possibly, with the Ombudsperson, should he receive a referral and if, perhaps in their comments to the committee, they are deemed to be critical in some way of the Ombudsperson. There are many layers upon layers here.

I can certainly engage with legal counsel to confirm my understanding of the advice that we have received and provide you with an update. I would suggest that if the committee is interested in proceeding, we might use that as a goal — to acquire that information in conjunction with the process — so that we can adapt as need be, based on the advice that we receive.

G. Heyman: Are we perhaps in a position, dependent upon the answer received by the Clerk, to leave any further discussion, if necessary, to the Chair and Deputy Chair? They can determine amongst themselves if they need to consult with the committee further.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I would have no problem with that, personally. Carole? Yes? Thank you.

C. James (Deputy Chair): And you asked about the in camera. I just want to follow up, Chair, on the in camera issue. I guess I echo comments that have been made. If the letter is clear…. This is a public committee. The letter is clear that we are looking at an open and transparent process. These letters will be part of the public record as they are submitted. Then, I think we’ve addressed the issue.

Obviously, if there was an extreme circumstance — like there always is — a committee legally has the ability to be able to go in camera or not. So that option is always there for us as a committee, if an extreme circumstance came forward. Otherwise, I think the view of this committee should be public, public, public. We inform the people when they’re sending in submissions that they are public documents, and the committee then has them as public documents.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We could, essentially then…. Providing the fact that we agree that they’re going to go through the Clerk’s office, if the Clerk has those concerns, through any legal advice they might seek, then they can approach us and suggest a future course.

J. Yap: I want to, first of all, thank the Chair and vice-Chair for doing the additional work in getting us to this point.

First of all, I support the move to a motion that amends it so that it’s by letter — that the submissions will be by letter from the employees. I want to echo what Mike has said about proceeding with caution. I think that in that letter to those individuals, we should have some reference to….

It’s obvious, and it goes without saying, but we should say it — that they should seek legal counsel for themselves to ensure that they’re not placing themselves, legally, in a position that might cause difficulties.

J. Yap: Yeah. Who pays for the legal fees? My thinking is that as part of the submission from the Ombudsperson, if we do go to a referral, there will be some aspect of legal fees, including representation for the individuals, that would need to be part of that. I just mention that, as we probably should proceed with caution here.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’ll continue discussion regarding our motion at hand with respect to the employees and the status of the letters that they would submit to this committee.

G. Heyman: If the Chair would consider a further amendment in order, I would amend the motion by adding to it that the committee deputize the Chair and Deputy Chair to respond to any requests for counsel by the invited submittees.

D. Ashton: I think it’s a good amendment, but I also think it needs to be stated that…. I just think they need to be advised that everything that they say will become part of the public record. I mean, respectfully, there is a process that is about to start one way or another. There is a time and place, so just be advised.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I’m sorry. If I could clarify, you’re saying to not put any reference to seeking legal counsel and just tell them that whatever they’re putting….

D. Ashton: It will become part of a public process. I concur wholeheartedly with George that Carole and yourself have the opportunity if there are any further questions on that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. Any discussion on that? We’re talking about the content of the letter that will solicit the responses from the employees to this committee. I’ll make sure I have this straight — that there be no reference to advising them to seek legal counsel, but there be a reference to the fact that anything they provide us will form part of a public record and, as such, could be used.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Perhaps it might be helpful to consider the wording of that to note that it would be the committee’s intention to make public the documents. I think you would still want to retain some flexibility in the event that something that is not helpful to a future process is provided so that you would still retain some measure of discretion there. The wording would reflect that it’s your intention to sustain an ongoing public process.

G. Heyman: I take Dan’s comment to be an addition to the letter that goes to them just to strengthen the point that we’re seeking submissions on a narrow question, and that whatever they submit will be part of the public record in all likelihood.

I think the question of whether there’s reference to counsel in the letter or not is moot. The motion in this discussion is public record, and I’m quite sure they will be aware of what we say and pass.

S. Hamilton (Chair): And on that, the Clerk had forwarded both the Deputy Chair and myself a draft invitation that she worded to the employees. She’s just going to circulate that to everyone now for your information.

S. Hamilton (Chair): This would be a proposed letter to the employees inviting them to make submissions, yes. Just take a moment to familiarize yourself with it, and we can continue our discussion.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes. I would be pleased to incorporate any suggestions or additions from the committee today. This was drafted with the assistance of legal counsel, and I would certainly share with our counsel the final draft prior to distribution.

E. Foster: For clarification, is somebody going to read out the triple-amended motion that we have on the floor now?

S. Hamilton (Chair): All right. I’ll leave that to the Clerk, because she’s got all her notes on that one.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I welcome members’ clarification. Based on the discussion thus far, I think that the motion would include an amendment to strike the words “in person” — so it would be, in essence, the middle of the section — then following the names of those individuals, “to make submissions in writing to the committee.” So the words “in person or” would be removed.

I had written down a further notation that the committee address the question of legal representation within the text of the motion. But following the other conversation that flowed, if that’s still the wish of the committee…. I think that was the intention of the mover of the motion so that, further, the committee deputize to the Chair and the Deputy Chair the decisions required to address any requests for legal representation by these individuals.

E. Foster: So we’re going to build this in to one motion, then, as opposed to…? Okay. That’s fine. Perfect. Easy.
[ Page 1480 ]

G. Heyman: You’ve circulated the letter. I do have a comment on it, but it’s not necessarily germane to the motion itself. If you think we should hear it before we deal with the motion….

S. Hamilton (Chair): I think we’re kind of wordsmithing it now, so by all means.

G. Heyman: My only comment would be that potentially they may be seeking legal advice. I presume that when we say “no later than Friday, July 24,” we’re saying end of day, so why not say by noon on Monday the seventh, because we’re not meeting until the ninth. That gives a little bit more leeway for them.

Madam Clerk, that still doesn’t squeeze your office too tightly, does it, in terms of timing?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): No, absolutely. Be happy to accommodate that in the letter of invitation.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): May I just note, not to complicate things…. There was a footnote there at the bottom of the page. I’m not sure if there’s any clarification required. I think the text of the motion, as it currently is framed, is quite specific to the named individuals, and we did….

S. Hamilton (Chair): Oh, one was a contractor, and the others being employees. Right.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Sure. There is also another individual who has expressed an interest in making a submission. So I’m not sure if we want to incorporate that into the text of the motion.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Okay. I’ll just make note of that, and we’ll come back to that issue.

M. Morris: In my view, I think this is too much. I’ll refer to…. “The purpose of the committee’s invitation is to receive your input on a possible referral to the Ombudsperson, pursuant to section 10.3 of the Ombudsperson Act. The committee would like to know if you would support a referral and what your rationale is for this view.” I think we’re treading into some dangerous water with “what your rationale is for this view.”

I was thinking that this letter would…. “Based on the public information that’s out there now as a result of this committee’s hearing, would you prefer the investigation to be done by the Ombudsperson or public inquiry?” Just keep it at that. Nothing more and very succinct and not any supporting rationale for either one. I think that’s where we could get into some trouble there.

G. Heyman: I appreciate Mike’s caution, but if we just ask a straight, “Do you support it or no?” question, we know what the answer is. They’re already on record. I think the Ombudsperson himself suggested that we wanted to know the reasons.

I understand the concern, and I think the Clerk could have further consultation with her counsel to address your concern within the wording. I think if we do know the reasons for their concerns, we’re in a better position to know, either directly or in consultation with the Ombudsperson, if the concerns can be addressed within a certain context. For that reason, I would support retaining the language, although perhaps adding a sentence for further clarity about the limitations that need to be placed around that.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Can you elaborate on that a little, George — the limitations?

G. Heyman: Basically, the limitations we talked about earlier. We’re talking about the nature of the forum, not the nature of what they think happened.

G. Holman: Just to continue this conversation. Technically, if you don’t have the reason why — it’s just yes or no — that doesn’t seem particularly helpful to the committee.

As far as making a qualification, ensuring that the answers are strictly on the referral issue, the next sentence says: “Other matters relating to any potential investigation should not be addressed.” I mean, it’s pretty clear.

On the timing. George dealt with that. But my concern was if we were mailing these out, by the time they get them, and depending on the vagaries of the mail system, there is a concern that they might get them three days before. That might be viewed rather badly by some of the recipients, depending on when they get it.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Or we could courier them. I don’t know what our options are.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): We would certainly expedite the distribution of these. If I’m able to acquire an e-mail address, ideally, that would be my
[ Page 1481 ]
preference. But I concur. I would not want to rely on the postal service for delivery of this letter.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I want to echo that. I think we need to remember this was done with legal counsel, with the advice of legal counsel — the letter. I think if you, again, go back to Chalke’s letter, to the Ombudsperson’s letter, and take a look at the wording, it talks about: “Give those views the utmost consideration.” So I think we have to hear the views.

Just to speak to Mike’s point, we’re not asking them the choice of referral or a public inquiry. We, in fact, don’t have the option of talking about a public inquiry as a committee. We were asked to refer to the Ombudsperson. That is our responsibility.

I would vote for a public inquiry. That’s the first choice, and I’ve said from the beginning that I think that’s the best option. But that’s not an option at our committee. Our responsibility — our committee — is to deal with the issue of referring to the Ombudsperson or not. Therefore, we have to ask the individuals to respond to the Ombudsperson or not. I think that’s why it’s worded the way it is, and that’s why it’s so clear. That’s our mandate. Therefore, that’s the place that they have the ability to be able to respond.

D. Ashton: I guess, as we go down this path — whatever path we’re choosing at this time — there’s something that I want to throw in. There have been some settlements in this. This is, to me, an inquiry to get to why, but there have been settlements in this. I have that in the back of my mind — that all of a sudden we’re talking about re-engaging possible solicitors to be involved in submissions.

I would just raise it and caution, before we start writing cheques for solicitors, that we realize we’re asking them a question about this. These are individuals that are fully aware of a process that, hopefully, will start very quickly, but they’re also fully aware that they have been involved with solicitors — i.e., lawyers — before.

I’m just cognizant of the fact that we’re asking a question right now which should be very easily responded to. Here’s my idea, without involving a bunch of legal work at this point in time.

S. Gibson: Yeah, I kind of share Mike’s view a little bit. This is a fairly rambling letter. If you received the letter, it takes you a while to figure out what we’re looking for. My preference is to put the request right at the beginning. You’ve got these two paragraphs here. They’re actually connected. You know, why not join them together? I don’t know.

Also, I would recommend a heading so the first thing you read is the headline. You have to really squirrel your way down into the text to figure out what we’re looking for. I would suggest putting something like “re: your possible written submission regarding a referral to the Ombudsman” — something like that so there’s a headline on it and they can see what it’s all about.

The other thing is that you’ve got something really important here. “Please note that you are not obligated to provide a submission.” You’ll notice that’s down here. That should be moved. That’s very important, in my view.

I think that all the information is in here, and it’s well written in many ways, but I think it’s a bit wordy, in my view. Remember, these are folks that we’re trying to…. With phrases like “pursuant,” we’re putting legalese in a letter to folks that are just reading this.

Those are my only comments. I think the letter has all the content that’s necessary, and I don’t want to be critical, but I think it could be tightened up a little bit, in my view.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I agree. I would suggest, for example, the third paragraph be merged with the final paragraph. That’s more of an informational piece, and I’d be happy to review it again, with an eye to simplicity and clarity of message based on the comments that have been received today.

I just want to confirm where we’re at here. If we’re comfortable with the amendments…. I think we’ve identified the letter to the employees, and we are comfortable with potentially two different versions, or even three different versions of this letter — one directed to a contractor, another directed to Alana James. And we are clear that we will be adding a comment regarding this information they provide — that it will form part of a public record. We’re not going to emphasize to them any recommendation that they seek legal counsel. I think that would be up to them. I think we’re on the same page with that. I think we’ve said that by saying: “This is a public record, so figure it out if you want to seek that.” Then we’re okay, potentially, with the way the letter is going to be written and then sent out.

I’m canvassing here, sort of a soft show of hands. Is everybody okay with that? Okay.

G. Holman: I wondered if you used the term “researchers,” if you get away from “employees” and “contractors.” Just an editorial comment.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Well, one of them wasn’t. Alana James — was she a researcher, Madam Clerk?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): No. Just for the clarification of members, the committee did receive a request from Ms. Alana James, who had been a previous employee at the Ministry of Health and a self-described whistle-blower in this case, who has requested that she, too, be given the opportunity to provide a statement to the committee if one is provided to the researchers. That is the reference just noted by the Chair.
[ Page 1482 ]

If the committee is of the view that Ms. James and any others who have an interest may be able to provide a written submission, this is certainly not equivalent to a typical committee open call for public input. There may be other individuals who have, potentially, an interest and a direct connection to the circumstances who may, again, with your permission, perhaps through the Chair and the Deputy Chair, be permitted to have a submission formally considered.

S. Hamilton (Chair): If I may point out, if you were privy to the e-mail sent by Alana James dated July 9, much of what’s contained in this e-mail has nothing to do with referral one way or another. She makes some comments specific to the situation, how she had been treated, subsequent problems that she’d had and some of the reasons she had left when she did. It really doesn’t have to do with referral, so I’m a little concerned about what we’re going to get from her. Nevertheless, I’ll just put it out there for consideration here.

E. Foster: I don’t think there’s any need whatsoever for her to make a submission to this committee. I support the employees making a submission. If she wants to make a submission, she could make it to whatever form of inquiry goes forward. There’s absolutely no need for her to get involved in this at this stage.

M. Morris: Basically, my thoughts as well. I’m still very concerned about the direction that we’re going. In the interest of unanimity here, I’m certainly willing to support it, but I’m still very, very concerned about possible outcomes.

G. Heyman: I just want to ensure that if the members on the other side of the aisle on this committee don’t wish to include or respond positively to Alana James’s request…. It certainly wasn’t indicated by the Ombudsperson that we should hear from her. I just want to ensure that we intend to include Roderick MacIsaac’s sister, Linda Kayfish, in the request for a submission.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, I can confirm that. Flowing from the motion, that is my understanding of your intent.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Thank you for that, George, because I guess that also speaks to the scope. I mean, how broad are we going to make this? If we open this up to the world, the world will come. I think that’s what we’ve concluded in our discussions. It then becomes a concern. Who should come? If we keep the scope narrow, just to the people that we’ve identified — directly affected, so to speak — then I think it’ll make our job a lot easier.

C. James (Deputy Chair): I think we just want to be reminded again — I think George said it as well — that it was the Ombudsperson who suggested that we hear from the researchers directly. That’s the direction the committee is going on. We’re looking at following through with many of the concerns that were raised, and this is another one that we’re following through on.

So we’re good, essentially, for the form of the letter, the way we’ve recrafted it, so to speak. Madam Clerk, I’ll leave that to….

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes. I’m pleased with the direction that you’ve provided me with respect to the text of the letter. I will send all members a final draft today with the aim of getting it out first thing tomorrow morning.

S. Hamilton (Chair): We’ll take a friendly amendment and just roll it into one motion?

I’ll ask the Clerk’s advice here. Can we do that, given that we had a different motion a week ago?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I understand, if I might take the liberty for your minutes this afternoon, that the amendment has been put forward by the mover of the motion. It will stand in his name. So the motion, as amended, is before you now.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I will then call the question on the amendment to the motion.

S. Hamilton (Chair): The motion is carried unanimously. Now on the main motion, as amended.

S. Hamilton (Chair): The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you very much, everyone.
[ Page 1483 ]

If I could also just point out for the record the correspondence that was sent between myself and the Deputy Chair to the Attorney General with respect to the request for legislative amendment to section 19(2) of the Ombudsperson Act and, subsequently, the Attorney General’s reply to this committee. Just for your edification, it looks like good things could happen. You never know.

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): Yes, just to confirm, we just sent out a meeting notice. The date of your next meeting is Wednesday, July 29. It has been scheduled at this time to begin at 10 a.m. and may continue as late as 4 p.m. that day. We will certainly have a better sense of the agenda items in due course as well as how much time may be required. If you could block that time on your calendars, it would be much appreciated.

S. Hamilton (Chair): Yeah. Carole and I pretty much agree that we don’t think it’s going to take nearly that long, but we just wanted to make sure that we had the block of time.

D. Ashton: Mr. Chair, I am unavailable on Wednesday the 29th. Now, is there an opportunity to possibly phone in, if that…?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk of Committees): I’d be happy to provide conference call connection details to any members.

D. Ashton: In case I can. But if I can’t, please accept my apologies. I’m just not available.

S. Hamilton (Chair): I understand. It would nice for you to be here, but we get it.

If there are no further issues to come before the committee, I will entertain a motion to adjourn.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

Chair:	Wm. Scott Hamilton (Delta North BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	Carole James (Victoria–Beacon Hill NDP)
Members:	Dan Ashton (Penticton BC Liberal)
	Eric Foster (Vernon-Monashee BC Liberal)
	Simon Gibson (Abbotsford-Mission BC Liberal)
	George Heyman (Vancouver-Fairview NDP)
	Gary Holman (Saanich North and the Islands NDP)
	Mike Morris (Prince George–Mackenzie BC Liberal)
	Jane Jae Kyung Shin (Burnaby-Lougheed NDP)
	John Yap (Richmond-Steveston BC Liberal)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES