Oppal Trapped in Partisan Role

September 22, 2005

Oppal Trapped in Partisan Role

Sean Holman, publisher of Public Eye Online and contributor to 24 Hours, has once again broken major news missed by the high priced media. Holman's website contains an interview with David Young, the former civil servant who was responsible for changing the terms of reference in the investigation into the death of Sherry Charlie. Young is quoted in Public Eye Online saying:

"What that term of reference would have provided is a mandate for the reviewer to look at the actions of the (ministry) district office involved with the family," as opposed to the entire ministry."
"Now, in this particular case, there was no district office involved with the family. The aboriginal agency delivered (the service). So that term of reference shouldn't have been included in the first place."

Holman went on to quote Young on crucial information that will cause big problems for BC's Attorney General:

"Would that term of reference actually have led to an examination of budget and staffing - and I see (assistant deputy minister) Jeremy Berland is suggesting it would? The answer is no. And he should (have) known better."

In question period on September 20th, the Opposition hammered Stan Hagen, Minister of Children and Family Development, after he announced in a ministerial statement that the Child and Youth Officer would be directed to conduct an investigation under the terms of three specific instructions. It was clear that those instructions would not allow the Officer's investigation to look at the role budget and staffing played in the death. Legally it is the Attorney General that instructs the Child and Youth Officer under Section 6 of the relevant legislation, not the Minister of Children and Family Development.

In question period on September 21st, the Opposition focused on the Attorney General, and asked who interfered with his independence and told him what directions to give to the Child and Youth Officer. He repeatedly said "read the Act", which gives him exclusive authority to issue the directions; he added that after listening to the debate on September 20th he decided to widen the directions to include a new paragraph:

"If in the course of conducting your investigation you determine that the time lines and the change in the terms of reference materially affected the outcome of the director's case review, I would ask you to review how the outcome was materially affected and make recommendations to address any such impacts."

If the Child and Youth Officer is truly independent, why would it be necessary for the Attorney General to add to her instructions in order to enable a broader investigation? The announcement that the terms were amended with an additional paragraph confirms that the Officer is limited to those terms. That makes the legal wording of the additional instructions crucial in light of the remarks made by David Young to Sean Holman.

The original terms of reference for the investigation into the death would not, according to Young, have allowed an examination of the effect of cuts to budgets and staffing. That means that the Child and Youth Officer will also be prohibited from examining the effect of cuts to budgets and staffing. The draft guidelines for kith & kin placements fell far short of what is required to approve a foster home; they were high risk social work on the cheap.

In his September 21st column, the Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer described Hagen as being like a man "locked in a message box" who is unable to get out. Wally Oppal gave the same impression on Wednesday as he repeated time and time again that critics should read the Act to see that he is the only one with the authority to direct the Child and Youth Officer to conduct an investigation. Unfortunately for Oppal, he was interviewed by Rafe Mair at 9:37 AM on September 20th. Just four and a half hours before Stan Hagen announced that the Child and Youth Officer would be directed by the Attorney General to conduct an investigation, Oppal told Mair that the matter came under Hagen's ministry and he was not fully informed on the file. That is why the supposedly independent Attorney General is accused of having the Premier's multi-million issues management team tell him what to do.

Hagen and Oppal both appealed for a nonpartisan approach to the questions surrounding Sherry Charlie's death. They make it partisan when they refuse to allow an investigation that looks at the effects of cuts to budgets and staffing. The additional words Oppal added to the instructions to the Officer do not allow essential questions to be asked. An Attorney General who was acting independently and who believed the high sounding words he uttered with respect to finding out what happened would not use legal trickery to limit the scope of an investigation. Holman quoted Young as saying:

"Should one do a review of the impact of all the changes going on in the ministry and the budget reductions we were facing and the impact that had on practice in general? I think that would be an excellent idea."