What Was Really Going on in BC's Ministry of Health?

Fired staffer fights back in B.C. research scandal: Lawsuit sheds light on government allegations against researchers

The Canadian Press/CBC News, Oct 25, 2012

Seven workers who were either fired or suspended in a health research scandal now no longer work for the government, but one of them is fighting back.

Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid, B.C.'s health minister, announced in September that the ministry had launched an investigation into the relationship between university researchers seeking grants and some employees in the ministry division that decides what drugs B.C.'s Pharmacare program covers.

At that time three employees had been fired and four had been suspended.

MacDiarmid said Wednesday all the employees are now gone, including one who was suspended and later filed a defamation suit against her ministry.

Once anyone goes forward and says they've been constructively dismissed, then they don't work for the employer anymore," MacDiarmid said.

"None of them any longer work for the ministry."

In September, MacDiarmid said she was "deeply troubled" over the allegations within her ministry, but she said Wednesday she can't give any further details in order to protect the privacy of those involved.

But the ministry filed a statement of defence earlier this month in response to a defamation lawsuit from Malcolm Maclure, who was a director of research and evidence development with the ministry's pharmaceutical services division.

'Preferential treatment' alleged

The statement of claim and the statement of defence contain allegations and claims yet to be proven in court.

The statement of defence denies all of Maclure's allegations and also sheds some light on the issues involved in the scandal.

The statement of defence said that Maclure was suspended for failing to comply with policies and procedures by "giving preferential treatment to his preferred candidate and member of his extended family."

It also alleged Maclure disclosed confidential information and accused him of "facilitating or knowingly failing to prevent the unauthorized access to data by employees and/or third parties."

The statement of defence argued that Maclure ended his employment himself by having his lawyers notify the ministry that Maclure considered his employment to be at an end.

Maclure said in his suit filed Sept. 14 that he enjoyed an "exemplary" reputation as a "world leading authority" in the field of health services epidemiology and had served as a "distinguished scholar" at Harvard's school of public health and at the school of health information science at the University of Victoria.

Claims defamation

"He was at all times during his employment, scrupulous in avoiding conflicts of interest and diligent in preserving and improving data privacy," state the documents.

He said in his suit that he was on holiday with his family in Europe in June when his government email account was shut down and he was sent a letter through his wife's email account informing him he had been suspended.

His suit said his suspension was made known within the Health Ministry and was made worse by media stories about the allegations of inappropriate access to medical information.

Maclure's suit alleged he was identified and the implication was that he was involved in the misuse of health data, was involved in breaches of patient privacy and is guilty of serious employment misconduct.

"The high-handed and callous conduct of the defendant, as set out herein, which has defamed the plaintiff, is ongoing and entitles the plaintiff to punitive and exemplary damages," the suit noted. 

MacDiarmid said Wednesday she isn't sure how long it will take for the investigation.

Canadian Government Whistleblowers are ignored, sidelined and silenced

Whistleblowers are ignored, sidelined and silenced

By Allan Cutler and Martin McGreal | Oct 16, 2012 3:54 pm | 0 Comments 

 

One of Ottawa’s open secrets is on the table again.

The people mandated to help and protect whistleblowers within the federal public service evidently do the opposite.

This conclusion should be drawn from the recent Federal Court decision that underscores how whistleblowers are ignored, sidelined and silenced by the very body whose mandate it is to protect them and to expose wrongdoing.

The Hon. Madam Justice Mactavish ruled in El-Helou v. Courts Administration Service et al. that the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner (OPSIC) failed in its duty, under the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA), “…to ensure that the right to procedural fairness and natural justice of all persons involved in investigations is respected, including persons making disclosures…” 

The first PSDA allegation to ever be referred by the Integrity Commissioner to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal was “Mr. El-Helou’s allegation of reprisal relating to the withholding of his Top Secret security clearance…”

OPSIC’s investigation was undertaken by three different investigators over a 21 month period. Mr. El‑Helou was assured in writing by investigators:

a) that he would be made aware of the substance of evidence obtained by the investigation and provided an opportunity to respond to findings;

b) that his allegation – that he was threatened with another security check unless he complied with his employer’s “wishes” – was investigated and would be included in the investigator’s report; and

c) that the former Chief Administrator of the Courts Administration Service (CAS), David Power, would be interviewed.

The Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner broke all three promises.

The Hon. Madam Justice Mactavish judged that:

a) not to give Mr. El‑Helou the opportunity to respond to the investigator’s findings “…is a clear breach of the common law duty of procedural fairness”;

b) the investigator’s failure to report her investigation of Mr. El-Helou’s allegation regarding a second security check meant this allegation was never considered by the Commissioner in his decision; and

c) David Power, the former CAS Chief Administrator, was never interviewed.

Her Lordship concluded that Mr. El‑Helou’s legitimate expectation of procedural fairness had been thwarted, and that “the investigator failed to investigate obviously crucial evidence.”

Her Lordship compared the framework of the Public Sector Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA) to that of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) and referred to CHRA case law in her judgment, noting that “…the public interest plays a role in each process…”
The public interest is clearly at stake here. The Courts Administration Service serves the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada and the Tax Court of Canada. Any report of wrongdoing in this Service is a very serious matter as it could speak to the functioning of our judiciary at the highest levels.

Members of Canadians for Accountability believe that how Mr. El‑Helou was treated is typical. We see a pattern of punishing and trampling the rights of public servants for doing the right thing or for exercising legitimate recourse open to them when they become aware of wrongdoing.

The first Integrity Commissioner, Christiane Ouimet, was appointed by the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2007 and retired in October 2010 with a severance of approximately $544,000 and a “Departure Agreement” wherein she promised “to keep all information acquired by her or disclosed to her regarding the business of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner strictly confidential”.

This was after a scathing report by the Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, signalled serious mismanagement issues, including the fact that all 228 complaints to the Office since its creation had been rejected. Mario Dion, our current Integrity Commissioner, was appointed by the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2010.

This Office should be about trust. Employees are not going to come forward readily unless they trust the system to work. As this Federal Court decision clearly demonstrates, the current system does not appear to be working.

Allan Cutler is President of Canadians for Accountability; Martin McGreal is a Director of Canadians for Accountability. Canadians for Accountability is a not-for-profit group which aims to promote a culture of truth, transparency and integrity in Canada’s public and private sector institutions and Canadian society in general.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

© 2012 iPolitics Inc.

Whistleblower forced investigation of TransCanada pipeline

Engineer Evan Vokes repeatedly raised concerns with company behind Keystone XL pipeline

By Charles Rusnell, Timothy Sawa and Joseph Loiero, CBC News, Oct 17, 2012.

A former TransCanada engineer says he reported its substandard practices to the federal energy regulator because he believed the company’s management, right up to the chief executive officer, refused to act on his complaints.

In an exclusive television interview with CBC News, Evan Vokes said he raised concerns about the competency of some pipeline inspectors and the company’s lack of compliance with welding regulations set by the National Energy Board (NEB), the federal energy industry regulator.

"I wrote a series of emails to a series of project managers saying, 'We can't do this practice, we can’t do this practice, we can’t do this practice,'" Vokes said. "And I received increasingly pressured emails about how things were OK to do it that way."

Vokes said he refused to back down and the workplace friction eventually took its toll. "It was unbelievable the effect it was having on my health," Vokes told CBC News chief investigative correspondent Diana Swain. "I was certainly on my way to a heart attack, or a stroke, for sure. There is no doubt about it."

Vokes said he met with the Calgary-based company's vice-president of operations, and he also wrote a detailed letter to TransCanada Corp. chief executive officer Russ Girling. Frustrated, he finally made a formal complaint to the NEB, a version of events confirmed in an interview by the board's chief engineer.

"We understand he went right through the chain of command to the top in [TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.]," Iain Colquhoun said in an interview.

"Evan Vokes took the initiative to try and resolve the problem using the internal procedures and we would encourage people to do that,” Colquhoun said. "But having not got there, he took the extra step of involving the regulator, and we would certainly encourage that."

TransCanada reprimanded

Vokes went on stress leave in November 2011. In March 2012, he met with top National Energy Board officials and on May 1, he filed a formal written complaint with the NEB. TransCanada fired him on May 8.

Vokes, 46, had been a machinist and a welder before he returned to the University of Alberta at age 30 to become a metallurgical engineer. Barry Patchett, a retired metallurgy professor, said he knows his former student as an engineer who is technically proficient, honest and responsible.

Patchett said if Vokes made a complaint, "you can take that seriously; take it to the bank, because from what I know, he takes his responsibility, his work seriously."

Last Friday, the NEB issued a public letter to TransCanada. Without naming Vokes, it said "many of the allegations of regulatory non-compliance identified by the complainant were verified by TransCanada’s internal audit."

The NEB said it was “concerned by TransCanada’s non-compliance with NEB regulations, as well as its own internal management systems and procedures.”

Pipeline safety of 'paramount importance'

The regulator warned the company it would not tolerate further infractions of regulations related to welding inspections, the training of pipeline inspectors and internal engineering standards. It also announced a further audit of the company’s inspection and engineering procedures.

'We are confident that any remaining concerns the regulator has about compliance and pipeline safety will be unwarranted.'—TransCanada statement

"Pipeline safety is of paramount importance to the NEB, and it will take all available actions to protect Canadians and the environment," the regulator stated.
The board, however, said the deficiencies "do not represent immediate threats to the safety of people or the environment.”

In an email statement to CBC News, TransCanada said “our reviews concluded that the items raised by the former employee were identified and addressed through routine quality control processes well before any facilities went into service.

"We are confident that any remaining concerns the regulator has about compliance and pipeline safety will be unwarranted," the TransCanada statement said.

The NEB is continuing its investigation of TransCanada and warned that if the company doesn't fix the identified problems, it "will not hesitate to impose appropriate corrective actions."

Lack of independent inspection questioned

Many of the complaints by Vokes focused on TransCanada's practice of allowing its pipeline and fabrication contractors to hire the inspectors that would be inspecting the contractors' work.

In 1999, the NEB imposed a regulation which requires the companies contracting the work, such as TransCanada, to supply independent inspectors to inspect the contractors' work.

"There is an inherent conflict when a prime contractor does his own inspections," Vokes said, especially when the project involves gas pipelines under high pressure because the consequence could be greater since it relates to public safety.

"In pipelining, there is a huge amount of stress for a very thin pipe," he said. "You certainly should be paying attention to what is wrong with your pipe, making sure nothing happens to it, and there are no injurious defects to your pipe as it is being put into the ground."

Vokes said the NEB regulation ensures contractors can’t pressure inspectors to sign off on work that is not up to code.

TransCanada has publicly admitted it did not always follow this regulation in the past, but said it was industry standard. Vokes said TransCanada believed independent inspection slowed production, driving up construction costs.

Keystone XL pipeline a U.S. election issue

These latest revelations about TransCanada's substandard practices come in the midst of a U.S. presidential election campaign in which the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is an issue.

The Keystone XL pipeline project would extend an existing pipeline that carries oil from northern Alberta to refineries in the United States. (TransCanada Corp.)

 

 A subsidiary of Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. is proposing to build the controversial $12-billion pipeline to transport 830,000 barrels a day of mostly Alberta oilsands crude to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
U.S. President Barack Obama rejected the application by TransCanada in November 2011, saying more time was required to assess its environmental risks.

The firm resubmitted its proposal for an altered northern segment of the route in May. It said the proposal addressed concerns about potential damage to a massive aquifer beneath the environmentally sensitive Nebraska Sandhills. The pipeline, however, is also facing strong public opposition in Texas from landowners and others.

The New York Times published a letter to the editor in May from TransCanada Corp. CEO Russ Girling in support of its Keystone XL application. In it, Girling said TransCanada had “safely and reliably operated pipelines and other energy infrastructure across North America for more than 60 years."

"Our existing 2,154-mile Keystone pipeline from Alberta to Cushing, Okla., has delivered 240 million barrels of Canadian oil safely to American markets since 2010," Girling wrote.
TransCanada Corp. is one of North America's biggest pipeline companies, with approximately 57,000 kilometres of natural gas pipelines, plus storage facilities and power plants in Canada and the U.S.

If you have more information on this story, or other investigative tips, please email investigations@cbc.ca.