Add nearly $1 million to the toll already taken by the Health Ministry firings. It comes on top of pain and expense that could have been spared 鈥� or at least mitigated 鈥� by sincere apologies and an honest and open admission of error early in the fiasco.
But the apologies came grudgingly and the facts behind the firings continue to be elusive, as the public鈥檚 right to know is subsumed by what appears to be bureaucratic self-preservation.
B.C. ombudsperson Jay Chalke has submitted a supplementary budget for $885,000 to cover the costs of his investigation into the firing of eight Health Ministry drug researchers and contractors in 2012, the termination of research contracts and statements related to the alleged involvement of the RCMP.
That鈥檚 not an unreasonable amount for a process Chalke expects to take a year, but comes on top of what the scandal has already cost, financially and otherwise. It shouldn鈥檛 have been necessary.
In an ideal world, those who ordered the firings would have quickly admitted the error, with the possible explanation that they over-reacted or had incomplete information. Apologies would have been quickly issued, reputations restored and compensation given to those who suffered financially. That would have been the decent thing to do.
But decency has been sadly lacking in this affair. In the normal course of justice, when a person is accused of wrongdoing, the details of the charge must be clearly spelled out and supported by evidence. A hearing before an impartial judge follows, in which guilt or innocence is determined based on the evidence. If the evidence sustains the accusation, a penalty is imposed.
Losing one鈥檚 job, and possibly a career, is a harsh penalty. It should be imposed only after the requirements of proof have been satisfied. When an employer is police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all in one, the reasons for the firings should be valid and clearly stated, especially when the employer is the government.
Those fired were given no evidence, were not allowed to confront their accusers. They were given no hearing, no opportunity to refute the accusations, which were vague at best.
It became abundantly clear that the bureaucracy had erred when fired researchers were exonerated, reinstated and offered apologies. But those apologies did not clear the air, nor did the half-hearted investigation that followed. Matters were only made worse when the investigation of the investigation was so restricted, it accomplished little.
If Chalke鈥檚 probe can sweep away the obfuscations and coverups, his budget will be justified, but he will no doubt encounter many obstacles. Someone knows who ordered the firings and why. Someone could cut through this ugly mess with a clear account of what happened, and damn the consequences.
But the fear of lawsuits and other legal consequences has undoubtedly sealed lips in the Health Ministry. 鈥淣ever admit liability鈥� is the mantra in this age of litigation, when apologies and taking responsibility are not always held in high esteem.
So the truth will have to be pried out one piece at a time, and it will be no less ugly for having been hidden.
鈥淭here are risks to doing and saying things openly,鈥� we wrote in December 2012 in connection with the firings, 鈥渂ut they are not as great as the risks of keeping things hidden.鈥�
We stand by that.
