Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 4 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, December 7, 1999
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 4:30 p.m. to consider the question of privilege raised by the Honourable Senator Kinsella.
Senator Normand Grimard (Deputy Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chairman: Last week following our regular meeting we had a steering committee meeting in the presence of Mr. Mark Audcent, Law Clerk of the Senate; Mr. Gary O'Brien, Clerk of the Committee; and Mr. J. Robertson of the Library of Parliament.
We asked Mr. O'Brien to communicate with Mr. Chopra regarding his preference for the meeting to be in public or in camera. Mr. Chopra chose in public. As well, Mr. Chopra stated that he had no objection to the meeting proceeding concurrently with other litigation before the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
All witnesses, with the exception of Senator Kinsella, will be sworn prior to testifying. We will permit counsel to sit at the table with the witness. However, counsel will neither take active part nor answer questions directed to his client.
The mandate of this committee is restricted to a possible contempt of Parliament. Therefore, witnesses and senators will not be allowed to address other topics. The duty of our meetings is to put the facts on record, facts relating to the question of privilege.
Honourable senators, are those guidelines from your steering committee accepted?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chairman: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Kinsella, raised the question of privilege before the Senate. I invite him to make an opening statement on this matter.
Senator Kinsella: Honourable senators, there are three parts to my presentation for the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. Part one includes an outline of the facts pertaining to this matter as I know them to be. Part two includes an observation of procedural literature relating to parliamentary privilege. The third part includes an indication of items for your consideration on this matter of privilege.
The report prepared by the committee staff includes the document, "Question of Privilege Raised by Senator Kinsella". Seven items are listed in the table of contents, which is not dated. That document provides a reproduction of the debates in the Senate on the question of privilege from September 8, 1999.
My comments at that time, contained in Hansard, provide the factual background to the question of privilege, which the Speaker subsequently ruled, on a prima facie basis, to have been established.
By way of recapitulation, on Sunday, August 15, 1999, I was conducting one of my community meetings in Ottawa. The topic of that meeting was citizen participation in civic affairs. I had asked the participants to address the question of the barriers they perceived to citizens' participation in civic affairs.
One of the participants was Dr. Shiv Chopra. In response to this question, he outlined his personal example of a five-day suspension without pay that he had just received from his employer, Health Canada. Dr. Chopra concluded that this five-day suspension without pay was a direct consequence of his testimony before a standing Senate committee.
At that meeting I had a recollection of the work earlier in the year of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, at which Dr. Chopra had appeared as a witness. Thus, as any honourable senator would have been, I was quite concerned about possible consequences a witness might face as a result of appearing before a parliamentary committee. I felt it was a serious matter that he or she would be subject to interference with regard to terms and conditions of employment.
The next day, Monday, August 16, 1999, I wrote a letter to Dr. Chopra's deputy minister, Mr. David Dodge, Deputy Minister of Health. I will read from the letter:
Dear Mr. Dodge:
Yesterday at a "Senator's Roundtable on Participation in Civic Affairs," Dr. Shiv Chopra brought to our attention that he has received a five-day suspension from his position at Health Canada, effective August 18, 1999.
As you are aware, Dr. Chopra appeared as a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture during its study of the Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST). At that time, both in Committee and in the Senate Chamber it was made clear that Parliament wanted to ensure that its witnesses will be free from any retaliation, either direct or indirect, as a result of testimony before a House of Parliament.
It is therefore requested that a moratorium or "cooling off" period be placed on the imposition of Dr. Chopra's disciplinary suspension until such time as we can ascertain that this job action does not constitute a contempt of Parliament.
It was signed by myself, Noël A. Kinsella, Deputy Leader of the Opposition. A copy of it was sent to the Honourable Sharon Carstairs, Deputy Leader of the Government. Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee, I would be happy to table this letter.
On Tuesday, August 17, 1999, I received a letter from the Deputy Minister of Health in which it is provided:
Dear Senator:
This is in response to your letter of August 16, 1999, regarding the five-day suspension that Dr. Shiv Chopra received. I am informed that Dr. Chopra advised our Director of Access to Information and Privacy of his consent to the use of information pertaining to this disciplinary action.
The disciplinary action which was taken was by the appropriate level manager within Health Canada. It was in response to a talk which Dr. Chopra gave as a member of a panel: "The Human Dimension, Workplace Experiences of Visible Minorities". On the meeting's agenda, he was listed as a Drug Evaluator from Health Canada. Mr. Robert Joubert, Director General, Human Resources and Ms Lucille Marleau, Project Manager, Human Resources, Health Canada were listed as guest speakers the day before on the panel: "Best Employment Equity Practices".
During Dr. Chopra's talk, he made the following statement: "...You heard from our Human Resources Director General yesterday, Bob Joubert. Every word, everything I can tell you now, I wasn't there, would be a lie because there is nothing happening in HC, and we at NCARR are considering filing a charge of contempt of court against all three departments, that's Treasury Board, Public Service Commission and Health Canada".
I am informed that the action taken by the Department is pursuant to the rules of conduct which are applicable to all public servants, irrespective of the subject matter. The action had nothing whatever to do with Dr. Chopra's appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Yours sincerely,
David A. Dodge
A copy was sent to the Honourable Sharon Carstairs, Deputy Leader of the Government. I would be pleased to table this letter as well.
As indicated in the debate, at the time the question of privilege was raised in the Senate chamber on September 8, 1999, a letter I had received from Dr. Chopra was placed on the record and tabled. I believe honourable senators have copies of that letter in which Dr. Chopra reiterates in writing that he had received a suspension or job action which he felt was imposed in full or in part as a result of his appearance as a witness before a Senate committee. That letter is in the record of the Senate.
Honourable senators, those are the facts that I have personal knowledge about. As ex officio member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am aware of the debates and the testimony that was given at the time. As a member of the committee, I am aware of the testimony of all the witnesses, including Dr. Chopra and Mr. Dodge. I am also aware of a letter that was received from the Minister of Health. All that information is summarized in the document to which I have been referring, which was prepared by the committee.
I wish to turn to my second series of observations, and that is on the question of parliamentary privilege. Mr. Armitage, Clerk of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and Deputy Principal Clerk of the committee's branch, has prepared a useful document dated August 25, 1999, on the subject matter of protecting witnesses. I am not sure whether this committee has that document before it, but it provides a helpful survey of some of the issues that speak directly to parliamentary privilege.
For example, the document points out that the Bill of Rights, 1689, article 9, is a statutory provision that sets out the rights to freedom of speech given to parliamentarians and witnesses who may appear either at the bar or before a committee. The document also draws our attention to some of the procedural literature. Maingot, second edition, page 160, is cited: "Witnesses and other persons in personal attendance upon the business of Parliament are protected..." From Beauchesne's, 6th edition, paragraph 109:
Witnesses before committees share the same privilege of freedom of speech as Members. Nothing said before a committee (or at the Bar of the House) may be used in a court of law. Thus a witness may not refuse to answer on the grounds of self incrimination.
Reference is also made to Erskine May, twentieth edition, page 165:
Any conduct which is calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or before committees of either House is a breach of privilege.... Upon the same principle any molestation of, or threats against, persons who have given evidence before either House or before committees of either House will be treated by the House concerned as a breach of privilege.
There are other examples. This particular document is a good quick review of the procedural literature on privilege.
Honourable senators, these are my observations on dealing with these kinds of cases. I thought I would express my view. The Speaker has ruled on a prima facie basis that the issue of whether or not a public servant was retaliated against in his employment after speaking at a Senate committee hearing is a matter of privilege. It seem to me, honourable senators, that the issue now is what is a just and reasonable process to establish whether the person was, in fact, retaliated against for speaking to a Senate committee. The question is what standard the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders might utilize to determine whether the person is correct in their allegation. Or, to put it another way: What does that person have to do to convince the committee that an improper act took place?
Honourable senators, the fact situation in this case is similar to several other fact situations in employment law, human rights law and administrative tribunals. Having some familiarity with human rights cases, I can say the case is similar to human rights cases. There, usually, we are dealing with allegations of discrimination and employment. However, it is also similar to labour relations cases where there is an allegation of retaliation against an employee and sometimes further involvement in union activities. It is also similar to employment cases where there is an allegation that an employee was retaliated against for reporting health and safety violations. What these cases have in common is the difficulty of establishing management's improper motive for taking action against the employee in situations where management might be able to point to legitimate reasons for their actions.
As a result of this difficulty, human rights tribunals, courts and other administrative tribunals, in these sorts of situations, have always resorted to a device often referred to as the secondary burden of persuasion. Courts and tribunals have said that at some point in the unfolding narrative the burden of persuasion shifts to the accused person to offer an explanation for their actions.
In all judicial and administrative fora in Canada where the offence of discrimination is dealt with, there has been an acceptance of what is referred to as the McDonnell Douglas test. This flows from the United States Supreme Court judgment in the case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green in 1973. It was a case of alleged discrimination in hiring. Mr. Justice Powell stated that the complainant must carry the initial burden under the statute of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination. That may be done by showing that first, he belongs to a racial minority; second, he applied for and was qualified for a job to which the employer was seeking applicants; third, despite his qualifications he was rejected, and after his rejection the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applications from persons of the complainant's qualifications. The McDonnell Douglas case sets the threshold for establishing the prima facie case. Notwithstanding the subtleties of the assessment as occurs in these cases of the proper balance point, two useful principles emerge from this kind of case law, and I leave those with the honourable members of this committee.
First, where the conduct alleged is particularly abhorrent -- in that case it was race discrimination in hiring -- there is a lower threshold to establish a prima facie case. On the other hand, where the conduct is considered to be less than abhorrent, the threshold will be higher.
In the particular case that is before this committee, what the Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders needs to consider is whether a prima facie case of retaliation has been made out. In trying to decide what facts would satisfy them that a prima facie case is made out, senators might wish to ask themselves how abhorrent it is for the employer to retaliate against an employee for testifying at a Senate committee. They should also ask how easy it would be for this sort of retaliation to be masked by legitimate concerns put forward by the employer to justify their actions, and who would really know? The answers to those two questions, arrived at by individual senators, should guide them in determining at what point they would be persuaded to call on the employer to explain to the committee why the employer's actions were legitimate and were not retaliatory against the employee.
That, honourable senators, respectfully, is my view of the facts. My reference to the procedural literature on parliamentary privilege and the dynamics that operate in labour and human rights law might be helpful to the members of this committee in dealing with the determination of the matter before the committee.
The Deputy Chairman: We will definitely have the document prepared by Mr. Armitage and also the others mentioned in your statement.
For the information of the audience, I should like to tell you that there are a number of other committees sitting at this time. As well, the Senate is also sitting. Therefore, senators will join us as the meeting progresses.
We will start with Mr. Shiv Chopra, drug evaluator, Human Safety Division for Health Canada. Mr. Chopra is accompanied by lawyer David Yazbeck. I will ask the clerk to proceed to the swearing of our first witness, Dr. Chopra.
(Mr. Shiv Chopra: sworn)
The Deputy Chairman: Dr. Chopra, before your evidence is taken, I should like again to clarify two subjects. First, you agreed to proceed in a public meeting of this committee.
Mr. Shiv Chopra, B.V.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D.: Yes, sir.
The Deputy Chairman: Second, you also agreed to proceed in this committee concurrently with the other litigation that you have with the PSSRB.
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir.
The Deputy Chairman: You may make your opening statement and then senators will ask you appropriate questions.
Mr. Chopra: Thank you Mr. Chairman, honourable senators. I come here at your command with a great deal of mixed feelings. These are -- due to on the one hand I feel a great deal of exhilaration and hope for the country in which I live that there is still someone, somewhere in this country that will do justice. Because, as I speak, you will hear my concerns how it has come to the stage where I am.
The other side of my feeling is a great deal of fear and anxiety for what might happen after this evidence that I am supposed to give before you. I have sworn to tell the truth, as I did before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Again, it was not at my request that I appeared at the Senate committee on agriculture. It was after a long, drawn-out request and, to some extent, a resistance because of my fear of what might happen that I eventually did appear, but with written guarantees from the Minister of Health to the chair of the other committee.
The evidence that I will give you today, it is to say that this five-day suspension is only one of the many other instances of retaliation and harassment toward me which are directly related to my evidence before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and the build-up to it.
I should stress that I have been involved in two specific issues at Health Canada since 1988; one is the question of human rights violations and discrimination against the visible minority employees of that department in the hands of Health Canada, Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, jointly. Second, also in the same year, 1988, is my involvement in the review and some decision-making on the recombinant bovine somatotropin -- rBST for short.
It was due to my efforts about employment equity and issues of racial discrimination that two cases were filed against Health Canada in 1992. One on my personal account, the other a collective case as a third party as the president of the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations under section 10 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The first one which was on my own account was filed under section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
My personal case was heard first and it was dismissed. It went to the Federal Court, trial division, where I was -- the judge agreed with me to have the case referred back to the tribunal, and the department then appealed that and went to the Federal Court of Appeal, and again the department lost, and so that that matter is now before another tribunal, is currently being heard.
The second case, which was also filed exactly on the same day, sixteenth of September, 1992, now called NCARR, which stands for the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations versus the Queen, in which case three departments were mentioned: Health Canada, Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission. There were other parties in that case, that is the Canadian Human Rights Commission and my union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. The decision was rendered in 1997. I think it was nineteenth of March 1997.
It was during this period while the hearings were going on is when the case had taken on an immense public focus and eventually the case was decided in our favour. My own case is still being heard, as I mentioned, and there was a critical piece of evidence that was the turning point for both the NCARR case, as well as the re-referral of my own case back to the tribunal. And I would like you to allow me to -- I will, as we proceed. For the time being I just want to mention in the opening statement that I would like to refer to that decision and what led up to both the decisions. There is a critical piece of evidence on the human rights issue.
During this period, because of the focus and because of my personal involvement in both the cases, because in the NCARR case, in the decision, it was recognized that I personally played a key role to bring the complaint to the Human Rights Commission, which meant that the department was very very angry with me from there on. But even before the decision was given, they were doing all sorts of things to keep me -- to isolate me and do things that -- they would present me as a troublemaker for having even raised such issues. They would not give me a promotion, they would not consider me from any application for any position, and due to those things it came to a point, in 1996, that there was a position available in my immediate neighbourhood and I qualified for it and an e-mail message was sent due to which I applied. With a great deal of difficulty, eventually I was given the job in 1996 for a full month period as the Acting Chief of the Central Nervous System, Endocrine and the Anti-Parasitic Drugs Division in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs.
This is a critical time period to note. During these four months, many issues would come to my attention. As the questions develop I will come back to it and put this whole thing into context, how the two things are related, how then eventually I would be called before the Agriculture Committee, and due to that testimony then how the retaliation which was already going on would worsen, and then many other things that would happen as a result, of which the five-day suspension is only the worst of examples.
I should also mention I am not alone against whom these things are happening, although I am the worst recipient of the department's anger. My other colleagues, who were also witnesses on that Committee on Agriculture, have also been harassed, but not to the same extent.
Therefore, I would urge the committee, as I finish my opening statement that, as a victim, I do not have all the information, I do not have complete information. Much of the information is with the department, which is not available to me and which is not being made available to me.
In the relevant case of the actual five-day suspension due to my presentation at Canadian Heritage, again there is evidence which is critical, which is entirely in the purview of Health Canada, or also at Canadian Heritage, which is not accessible to me. Therefore, I would request that the pertinent information be obtained from all the relevant witnesses -- from the managers of Health Canada, from Canadian heritage, and indeed some of my colleagues who are also being harassed, not quite to the same extent.
Mr. Chairman, I can only stress again today's information that I will provide you, I was asked to bring any documents and I have quite a volume of documents which I can leave with you. I hope, when you deliberate upon those and my evidence, that you will decide to call other witnesses to get to the depth of the problem because it is very involved and serious.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Chopra, I should like you to put on the record of this committee the facts that led up to your suspension -- all the facts that led up to your suspension -- and why you believe it is related to your appearance before the Agriculture Committee.
Do you understand?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir.
The Deputy Chairman: I think it is very important to have more details, and this is my question.
Mr. Chopra: Thank you, sir. I will attempt to do exactly that.
In these documents you will find my CV; my background; the kinds of things I do, both in the department and outside as a community leader on human rights issues and discrimination in the workplace; studies done by me; media write-ups; awards that I have received in that area, particularly my initial study on employment equity of the visible minority personnel in the federal public service of Canada -- this goes back to 1988; some recommendations; and also the actions that I took, a story written up here from my organization, the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations, what happened in that story that nothing would happen. I was writing to the Prime Minister; I was writing to the ministers; I was writing to the Human Rights Commission. I was writing to every person responsible, but nothing would be done and eventually it was the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Maxwell Yalden, who ultimately took this request from me seriously and started to have my complaints registered and investigated.
Here is what happened. The critical turning point in those complaints was a complaint that I filed under the normal procedures of grievance as an employee of Health Canada that I had been in the department at that time for almost 20 years and I had never received a promotion and, in fact, one had occurred due to a reclassification that was taken away by red circling.
Honourable Senator Kinsella was talking about the burden of proof. Once you say that I think this is my plea, that this could be the reason, that I am of a different ethnic origin and that I am being treated differently despite my qualifications, which in my belief are equal or better to the others who are being treated better than I am, then at that point the burden of proof should shift to the other side.
That is exactly what I went through, sir. I took my grievance to the Deputy Minister of Health Canada in August of 1992 and I raised exactly that question with her. I said, "In my opinion, I'm the best; but that's my opinion. I want to know why is it that I do not make it, because I want to know from you what should I be doing to get promoted." She said, "Why do you say it's racism?" I said, "Because up to 25 per cent of the employees in Health Canada, especially scientists with eminent qualifications, are visible minority and none of them makes it into management and they have been there for up to 20 years, and there is nothing wrong with them. So knowing that background, I must now ask you that you tell me why is it not happening." She found that to be at least a legitimate question.
This was the Deputy Minister, Madam Margaret Catley-Carlson. She designated a senior human resources official who was attending at that grievance hearing to go and speak to the concerned Assistant Deputy Minister, Dr. Albert J. Liston of the Health Protection Branch. During that meeting, a document was produced from the notes taken by this officer named Shirley Cuddihy, and that document was sent to the deputy minister.
I do not know what happened to the assistant deputy minister, but a few days after that he left the department. He was not due for retirement. But my grievance was dismissed and they said there was no racism.
However, this document that was produced was obtained by me, with a great deal of difficulty, under Access to Information, which came out with many documents. That is in my notes, but I will read just a few lines from that.
The question was asked of Dr. Liston to say that there are two aspects to my complaint. One is of a general nature talking about all visible minorities, and one about me. And he should answer why is it that no visible minority makes up the management line and what about Shiv Chopra himself.
This is what he said. Employees who are being considered solely for technical positions seem to do fair, better than when being considered for management positions. The cultural differences are minimized when you are only looking for the scientific approach. However, when we start looking for the soft skills, such as communicating, influencing, negotiating, quite often their cultural heritage is not emphasized -- these areas that are as a disadvantage.
Ability to interact with a number of stakeholders, such as the industry, as internally with peers, subordinates and superiors are important. As well, we do business in the North American way of doing business, that is the consensus reaching model, which for some cultures is very foreign.
And he goes on to say that visible minorities have to be brought to the mirror to look at themselves, and say because of your cultural background, you need to communicate better, adopt a less authoritarian style. It is not a colour but a culture problem. Nor is it a branch or even a department problem, but appears to be most common in departments such as ours which are technically, scientifically oriented.
Senator Kroft: Could I get absolutely clear what is being quoted from -- was it a letter or was it a formal decision?
Mr. Chopra: These are notes taken by a representative of the deputy minister. As a result of my grievance, human resources official who was sent to speak to the assistant deputy minister to address my grievance at the final level in the department, and these were notes taken from the interview from the Assistant Deputy Minister, Dr. Albert J. Liston.
The first portion that I have just completed reading was about a generic problem in Health Canada. The next part I will address is my personal situation and then Dr. Liston will speak about me personally.
Senator Kroft: Thank you.
Mr. Chopra: Dr. Liston -- prior to giving this report in 1992, I had worked with Dr. Liston personally as his management consultant from 1974 to 1978, so he knew about me, my style, whatever I did and my qualifications, my CV, and everything else I had done. So, therefore, I was reporting to him personally and his executive committee when he was the director general of the drugs directorate.
This is what he had to say: He saw in Shiv Chopra a great textbook knowledge and thought he could build on the soft skills -- the words "soft skills" is brought back here; and, in his opinion, I lacked those soft skills, such as the North American way of doing business, even though he had no problem in working with me, never did he complain, and I will come to that shortly.
He also went on to say: Shiv Chopra is not a negotiator. He does not make allies easily, and some of this information came to his knowledge much after I had left working with him. So, then he would say, "It is his fault because he has not been applying for jobs." So it is the victim's own fault, after he has already now put this on the record. The interesting thing is that the department, having received this information, hid this from me and dismissed my grievance that there was no discrimination.
It is only when I obtain it under access to information and take it to the Canadian Human Rights Commission is when the Canadian Human Rights Commission turned its own opinion that there is something very serious going on here. This is -- a document like this, a smoking gun, you do not find, nobody admits to discriminate, on paper, and here is a document that is available to Health Canada's deputy minister and yet they are still hiding it. That is when the Canadian Human Rights Commission moved with this complaint.
The Deputy Chairman: Dr. Chopra, I hesitate to interrupt you, but I think it would be helpful to the committee if you related your allegations specifically to your appearance before the Agriculture Committee. Remember what I said at the beginning. I said that our mandate is restricted to a possible contempt of Parliament. Therefore, witnesses and senators will not be allowed to touch other topics. I understand that it is part of your life. However, you said at the beginning that you had problems since 1988.
The Senate has cause to study if there is a breach of privilege due to the fact that you testified two times before the Agriculture Committee. That is the mandate that we have received. Personally, I think we are now too far from the problem that we have received a mandate to study.
Mr. Chopra: I quite understand, sir; but you have to understand the context in which this thing happened. The five-day suspension is against the department's forbiddance to attend meetings, to speak to the media on any matter, whether it is food safety, human rights, or anything else that is happening to me.
As I said earlier, the five-day suspension is only one of the things that happened, and that matter is now still being heard before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. They go behind all of this and they can try this thing of the five-day suspension and pretend that I was given instructions. I am sure the department will come and say to you, "Well, because he had received instructions and so therefore he now defied the instruction and, therefore, he has been suspended."
Sir, it is my humble submission that unless you get the total facts which are relevant to the suspension, and which are also relevant to my appearance at the rBST committee of the Senate, you will not be able to get the total picture because that has to be put in the proper context.
What I said, the department was very mad that I spoke the way I spoke and I revealed all the truths before the Senate committee on agriculture because during that committee, let us not forget, the committee did not deal only with rBST. The committee asked me many, many other questions. I appeared there three times and all of those things were maddening to the department. They, therefore, have been wanting to find just about anything to pin on me so that, eventually, they will build up a case to eventually dismiss me. That is the case that we have. This is a preliminary to eliminate from the department.
So unless we look at all the evidence, which I am bringing here -- I am sorry to have taken a little, perhaps, longer, but that context has to be understood how this builds up at the same time concurrently -- on the one hard, the human rights issue; on the other hand, the rBST issue.
I will now jump to the rBST issue and, therefore, try to give you a picture of how they were mad about that from the beginning also. That, in 1988, several companies filed submissions at Health Canada on rBST. There were four companies; eventually two companies were left. One of them was Monsanto, the other was Elanco. In Canada, we have several ways of introducing a drug under the Food and Drugs Act. One is called a new drug submission where a company says: "We've got all the data from wherever it's obtained, anywhere in the world. Here is our submission. Consider it under the Food and Drugs Act. If it satisfies, give us a notice of compliance." That is called a new drug submission.
There is another way, which will build up to that. A company can also bring, under the Food and Drugs Act, another kind of a submission. It is called investigational new drug submission. Monsanto filed a new drug submission. Elanco which is a subsidiary of Eli Lilly, filed an investigational new drug submission on the same thing. To give you why the two kinds of submissions came that way, because we are in the new era of genetically modified products. BST, rBST, is one of them. That is why it is called recombinant bovine somatotropin.
In the United States alone, there is a law that for genetically modified or genetically engineered products, there can be only one patent given to the very first company that comes. No other company can apply for genetically modified products or genetically engineered products. As a result of this situation in the United States, there was a litigation, there was a court battle between the two companies in the United States, and there was an out-of-court settlement between the two.
But that law of the United States did not apply to Canada. So, the process that Elanco followed, that, "Let's apply for an investigational new drug submission for the same product in Canada. If it gets approved, then we'll sell it everywhere else in the world, even if it is not in the United States." Then they narrowed it down. The submission that came to -- for me to look at --
The Deputy Chairman: Doctor, this is the second time that I am obliged to intervene. I will ask you again: What evidence do you have that your department suspended you because of your appearance before the Agriculture Committee? For example, did one of your supervisors say anything negative following your appearance before that committee?
Mr. Chopra: No, sir.
The Deputy Chairman: Did one of your superiors speak to you about your evidence before the Agriculture Committee? What did he tell you? Was he the only one? When you were notified about your five-day disciplinary suspension, which I understand took place on August 18 this year, how long before your suspension were you notified? What reason was given for that suspension? I am trying to give you questions, and we want answers for those questions.
I understand that you appeared as a panellist at a Heritage Canada workshop on March 26, 1999, on visible minorities in the workplace.
When you were notified about your five-day suspension, was there a mention, in writing or verbally, that you were suspended because of your appearance in front of the Agriculture Committee?
You see, when we read the letter that you sent to Senator Kinsella, you mention in the third paragraph:
...Health Canada, imposed against me and which I stressed was, in fact, the latest of a series of retaliatory actions.
Then you add a little bit on almost the last paragraph:
I should add that the position that Health Canada management insist upon is that in reference to my address at Heritage Canada conference, on March 26, 1999, I should have obtained a prior authorization because I was listed as "Drug Evaluator, Health Canada". However, they are not willing to consider that my appearance there was in the capacity of being the President of the Federation of the Race Relations Organizations of Ontario (FRROO) and as the Immediate Past President and Board Member of the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations.
This I understand perfectly, but the problem that we have in front of us -- and I repeat it -- is: Was there any breach of your privilege to testify before or in front of a Senate committee? Was there somebody, a supervisor or an employer, who said to you, "Well, you should not testify," or, "You have badly testified and this is why we suspend you"?
This is what we have to decide, Dr. Chopra. I am trying to be very polite, and I do not want to interfere again. It is with great pleasure that we give you a chance to testify in the presence of your lawyer, and we asked you if you were all right that the evidence be done publicly. You said yes. We had no objection if you were accompanied by a lawyer. We will give you all the chance and we are here to help you if there was something wrong, but please try to help us because this is the problem that we have to decide. If you have questions, please ask me and I will try to explain to you, and I would ask other senators, members of this committee, if they disagree with me, please say so.
Mr. Chopra: Mr. Chairman, you asked me a question: Did they say anything to me directly or indirectly whether I should appear before the Senate Committee on Agriculture or to say certain things or not say certain things. I would like to address that first.
Sir, when I was called by that committee, it was not at my request that I should appear before the Senate Committee on Agriculture. It was they who asked me to appear. That is number one. In fact, I showed a great reluctance to appear there. And then guarantees were given. Then, within that context, Health Canada, Assistant Deputy Minister at the time, Dr. Losos, sent me a letter, along with the other witnesses, how to appear, what to say and what not to say at that committee. In fact, they sent to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and to me, a report which I was part of, from which critical pieces, portions of information, was deleted. And they said, "Now, go and speak from this." Also, they said -- prior to even doing that, the newest director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, when I was -- when I prepared the report, so-called "gaps analysis" report, which was the subject of the Senate investigation -- I have it with me -- the director asked in writing, asked to change the report, to modify it. We declined to do so. That evidence is before the Agriculture Committee.
When the report was given to us, it was already tabled at a grievance hearing that we had taken forward to the PSSRB, following the grievances to Health Canada management itself, that we were being pressured to pass drugs of questionable safety. That matter had gone before the PSSRB. It was from the PSSRB hearings that the Senate Committee on Agriculture learned that there were scientists in Health Canada who were objecting to the very product that they themselves were investigating, so they wanted to hear from us.
Second, many NGOs in Canada, particularly the National Farmers Union, Council of Canadians, and Sierra Club, and the Canadian Health Coalition, they were writing to the Senate committee to hear from the scientists in Health Canada in order to make a determination for themselves.
It was that that brought us before the Senate Committee on Agriculture. We were still reluctant to appear. The department would not give even our own report, the "gaps analysis" report, to the Senate.
And on top of it, when they agreed that we should go, they brought people from the Privy Council and from inside the department, except our managers, and telling us how to appear under oath before the Senate committee. We were told that we might be in conflict of two oaths: one, our existing oath to the public service and the oath that we would take before the Senate Committee on Agriculture. We were told that the only person who can give evidence is the minister or his delegate, and so we will have to be careful.
We had to obtain legal opinion, and we got differing legal opinions -- what are the rights and privileges of parliamentary witnesses, how to appear, what to say, under oath. And, therefore, under oath, I stated what was necessary, what was in my knowledge, what was in my own report, and what the committee wanted to hear.
As a matter of fact, I appeared there three times. They kept calling me back. I answered their questions truthfully on BGH as well as related matters. According to whatever questions they asked, I answered.
Now, the second question: You say, did the department tell you that they were going to retaliate against me because of the way in which I gave my testimony. That is an unfair question.
Senator Kroft: Mr. Chopra, could I just take you back 30 seconds to where you were talking about the instructions that you were given as to what was an appropriate way of appearing and cautions as to -- I am just not clear how you are characterizing those. Did your counsel advise you? I am not sure whether counsel was involved. You said they were. Is it your point that those were inappropriate briefings or advice? I wonder if you could help me with that.
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir. Two things. First of all, they gave me a report to speak from, which was my own report and from which portions had been deleted. Critical portions. They said, "Now go and speak from this, and speak truthfully." My statement to the Senate Committee on Agriculture was, "If I am speaking under oath, what truth shall I tell? What is in my head, or what the minister tells me to tell?" I did not know what to do. If I am speaking under oath to God, then I am supposed to tell all the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, which is what I did. But the department told me, "Speak from this report from which we have deleted portions, and it is your own report." I did not know what to do.
It was eventually under a great deal of pressure from the Agriculture Committee to the department that they eventually released the report. Now at least we could speak from what was in the report.
Senator Kroft: That was prior to your appearing.
Mr. Chopra: That was prior to my agreeing or appearing at the Senate Committee on Agriculture.
The Deputy Chairman: Can you produce that letter that you received from Mr. Losos before your appearance before the Agriculture Committee?
Mr. Chopra: It is in my documents. I will leave them with you. And there are many more documents which I have not brought, which were all part of the other Senate Committee on Agriculture. So there are a lot of documents.
Senator Kinsella: I think I had the same point that Senator Kroft is raising. Why do not you continue, Senator Kroft?
Senator Kroft: I was limiting myself to that one specific point.
Senator Kinsella: If we could just recapitulate a little bit here, is it your testimony that Dr. Losos gave you a letter that describes what a witness before a parliamentary committee ought to do? Was that the first communication you had from Dr. Losos? Is there a letter or some kind of a document?
Mr. Chopra: There is a letter from Dr. Losos.
Senator Kinsella: Addressed to whom?
Mr. Chopra: To me personally.
Senator Kinsella: Do you have a copy of that letter?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir. It's in my documents. Do you want me to table that?
Senator Kinsella: Could you read that document or the first lines of it? Perhaps we can get that later.
The Deputy Chairman: That is very important.
Mr. Chopra: This is addressed to me. "Dear Dr. Chopra" --
Senator Kinsella: Is there a date on it?
Mr. Chopra: From Dr. Losos. Strangely, it does not have a date, but the context is there. It was hand delivered, special delivery, to me and the other people who appeared at the Senate committee as well.
Senator Kinsella: Could we have your testimony as to approximately when that letter or document was sent to you? Was it prior to your appearance before the committee?
Mr. Chopra: It is prior to my appearance, before October 22. I appeared three times. October 22 --
Senator Kinsella: 1998?
Mr. Chopra: 1998, then April 26, 1999, and May 3, 1999.
Senator Kinsella: Would you read your letter, then.
Mr. Chopra:
Dear Dr. Chopra:
The Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has requested that you appear before it "to discuss the findings contained in the Gaps Analysis Report on the rBST Internal Review Team and the Internal rBST Review."
I have been advised by the Deputy Minister that the Department will fully cooperate with the Senate Committee in its investigation into rBST. As a public servant, you have the obligation to appear when requested by a House of Commons or Senate Committee. To assist you in preparing for your appearance, you will find enclosed a Privy Council publication entitled Notes on the Responsibilities of Public Servants in Relation to Parliamentary Committees as well as a copy of the "Gaps Analysis reports" from which information protected under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act was deleted.
To help you in preparing for your appearance before the Committee, a briefing session will be organized by the Department's Parliamentary Relations Office. At that meeting, officials from the Privy Council Office will be present to review with you the roles and responsibilities of public servants appearing as witnesses before Parliamentary committees.
I request that you attend this meeting. The Department's Parliamentary Relations Office will be contacting you to schedule it.
Yours sincerely,
J.Z. Losos
Senator Kinsella: Did that meeting take place?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir.
Senator Kinsella: Did you attend that meeting?
Mr. Chopra: I attended that meeting.
Senator Kinsella: And during that meeting, was there any discussion other than a discussion around the obligation of public servants to be helpful to committees?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir. In fact, a document was given, an explanation. It was attended by three people from the Privy Council and -- two or three people from the Privy Council and two or three people from the Media Relations Office in the Department of Health. No supervisor, not --
Senator Kinsella: At any time during that meeting did any official from the Privy Council Office or your superiors in the Department of Health give you instructions, either directly or indirectly, as to what your testimony -- the content, the substantive part of your testimony -- before the Senate committee should be?
Mr. Chopra: It was understood that we were to speak from the deleted report and also that we would have to be careful because of the conflict in the two oaths. Yeah, those were the instructions. Our question was, and my specific question was, "Where is Dr. Losos or where is department management? Are they authorizing us to go or not?"
Senator Kinsella: Were you told that you could not testify about issues that you had knowledge of which you knew to be in the deleted part of the report?
Mr. Chopra: It was implicit in the letter that we cannot speak about matters which had been deleted because those are privy to --
Senator Kinsella: Where is that implicitness?
Mr. Chopra: It says the report, which was a "gaps analysis" report, a copy of which has been provided to the Senate committee and to me, from which information -- Here it is: "...from which information protected under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act was deleted. So, in other words, we were now to speak from the deleted report. The very information --
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Kroft.
Senator Kroft: I am intrigued. The question of the deleted report, it has the danger of sounding perhaps not as bad as it is or worse than it is. I should like to understand. It was explained to you that there were deletions made in accordance with these legal conditions, the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
Now, did you question -- did you raise the question as to the dilemma you found yourself in? Was it explained to you that you were bound by the provisions of these acts? What took place between you and the Privy Council officials on that point?
Mr. Chopra: We did raise this question: How can we speak from a deleted report which we had written ourselves under oath? There are critical areas damning the product, which was hidden, which was in the hands of the department. Both in Health Canada and the U.S. FDA, there was a critical report called "Three-month Rat Toxicology Study", conducted by Monsanto. That was the pivotal study that eventually became the demise of this product. Because that was the report -- that was the report that we found and commented upon and they did not want us to speak from.
Senator Kroft: I understand. So you were very disturbed to find that you were being put in this position. However, did you accept that that was a legal reality, that you were bound by those two pieces of legislation?
Mr. Chopra: No, sir. My position was that if I have to speak under oath, then deletions had to be removed.
Senator Kroft: Is that what you told the Privy Council officials?
Mr. Chopra: Yes.
Senator Kroft: What did they say to you?
Mr. Chopra: They said, "We'll get back to you."
Senator Kroft: Then what happened?
Mr. Chopra: Then afterwards, they actually released the full report and then we went and spoke from the report.
Senator Kroft: So by the time you got to the committee, then, those legal inhibitions had been removed?
Mr. Chopra: Yes.
Senator Robichaud: That is quite clear and helpful. However, at one point, if I understand correctly, you were under the impression, you were convinced that there was a conflict in the two oaths. Were you convinced that one way or the other you were going to commit perjury?
Mr. Chopra: Absolutely, sir, because what am I going to do? If I am speaking under oath, and I am also being prevented not to go into another area which is under oath to remain faithful to my employer, my problem was what am I going to do?
In fact, my union took another legal opinion which was available, a document was available that, in fact, what Health Canada and Privy Council was telling us was not quite accurate: You have to speak under oath and you have to tell the whole truth.
Senator Robichaud: At this moment, do you think that you have committed or could have committed perjury?
Mr. Chopra: No, sir, I have not committed any perjury. But if I refused to answer --
Senator Robichaud: Would you have committed a perjury if you had answered the question according to your conscience and not someone else's conscience?
Mr. Chopra: If I had hidden the information, I would have committed perjury, but if I did not answer the questions, then I would be defying the Senate committee. Then I would be saying: I am not going to answer that question, because I have already committed -- I would be defying their order. So, there was a witness.
Senator Kroft: Excuse me, is this not all hypothetical? Because, in fact, by the time you got to the committee, the deletions had been removed.
Mr. Chopra: The question is hypothetical, sir, so I am answering it hypothetically.
Senator Kroft: You can engage in a hypothetical discussion, but I just want to be sure that I am not confused. In fact, this was a hypothetical situation. That dilemma that you had had been removed by the time you got to the committee. I want to come back to this to ensure that there is no misunderstanding.
Mr. Chopra: That is correct.
The Deputy Chairman: You may continue. If we have questions, we will interrupt you. I think it is the best way to do it for the best understanding on both sides.
Mr. Chopra: I am sorry to be trying your patience, but you can understand my situation because it is so involved and so complex.
Therefore, I must do my best to present to you all the evidence that I know, at least all the evidence that I have. Therefore, unless you hear from me all the relevant facts, then I would not be doing justice to my own case. I ask you to allow me that indulgence.
Having now given this evidence, having been told to change the report, having been told to speak from the deleted report, imagine what the department did. In one of the hearings, the department brought an external committee chaired by a physician representing the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. MacLeod, and the Senate committee, on the spur of the moment, qualified me to debate with him about his views of the human safety issues that he had been asked to write upon and then deliberate upon here before the same Senate committee.
Here, the issues were that came out quite clearly, and here you are asking me where else to find, I think all the Senate hearings should be part of this investigation as well. In there you will find that the very committee, the human safety committee external committee that the department hired was not giving full information, was not given full information and yet they were saying rBST would be safe for human use.
They were not even allowed to meet with us, even though it was said during the earlier meetings that we would be asked to meet with this external committee to present our report and discuss it with them, we were not allowed to meet with them. That debate is part of my May 3 testimony before the Agriculture Committee. That, I think, is critical. It should be viewed.
One of their own members of that committee, right here in this room, was calling my colleagues and I "heroes". All I was saying was I do not want to be a hero, I just want to be allowed to do my job. I have done my job and here is this harassment occurring and, because of that, then suddenly the department decided to reject rBST in Canada, but they still to this day have not admitted that there is a problem with the human safety issue.
The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Chopra, I will ask you one question: Are you saying that your suspension of five days is based only on your appearance before the Agriculture Committee?
Mr. Chopra: It is one of the main elements because that is -- now I can get into that. If you look at the dates of the various other actions that Health Canada started to take just before and consequent to my appearances at the Senate committee, then you will note, sir, that I appeared at the Senate committee on October 22, 1998; April 26, 1999; and May 3, 1999.
In between, the department management, including the deputy minister and various other officials were also brought in and a number of other witnesses appeared, which embarrassed the department very very much.
Questions were raised to the Deputy Minister, David Dodge, about all these things that were happening inside Health Canada -- all the charges that were made during the hearings. Deputy Dodge gave an undertaking to get to the bottom of it. That he will go back, investigate it and report back to the Senate committee again. He indeed came back. He said that he looked at all of these things. There is a letter from him saying that he found nothing wrong. As with other consultants, he looked at the PSSRB decision and he just said, "It was dismissed." That is not true. That is a misrepresentation. The PSSRB dismissed the grievances before we appeared before the Agriculture Committee to say that they had no jurisdiction to rule on matters of public interest. However, at the same time, the PSSRB decision also recognized that there were troubling scientific and interpersonal issues. That is in the decision. For Deputy Minister David Dodge to say that the case was dismissed is not accurate.
From there, you go to other consequences that occur. The department has now rejected rBST, but solely on the grounds of its possible damage to animal health but not human health. To this day, they are still insisting that there was no problem with human health because they had already committed to say that there was no problem. There was evidence here going back from 1988 onwards that they were in collusion with the company and that they were hiding the information, both here and at the FDA. Those were the things that were revealed and therefore they were angry, how to get at me.
The Deputy Chairman: Senator DeWare, you had a question?
Senator DeWare: You said that charges were made during the hearings on October 22, April 26, and May 3. Could you elaborate on what those charges were?
Mr. Chopra: The charges were that we, the Health Canada scientists -- there were six of us who had grievances to Deputy Dodge or his predecessor, Michèle Jean -- were being pressured to pass drugs of questionable safety. And they were -- BST was not even an issue at that time in our grievances because that was taken out of our control. There was a special file manager, Dr. Ian Alexander, who alone was responsible for the BST file. No one else in the bureau could touch or look into that file. There were other issues, beef hormones, antibiotics, and various other things that we were being pressured to pass when we thought they were of questionable safety.
We were questioning these things. And during this process, I was the acting chief during that critical period from October 1996 to February of 1997 of this critical division, where the issue of beef hormones particularly surfaced. There was a complaint by Canada at the WTO which, again, they were not sharing with us, saying that there was no problem with the beef hormones. We knew otherwise. Here was a situation of a particular beef hormone that was cleared in 1973.
Senator DeWare: Mr. Chopra, am I getting an answer to my question about the charges that were made during the hearings?
Mr. Chopra: Yes. All that was again revealed at the hearings.
Senator DeWare: All right.
Mr. Chopra: I am giving you the substance of the complaint, but all these things were testified at the Senate hearings.
The Deputy Chairman: Senator Kroft, you have a question?
Senator Kroft: Yes. I am trying to get clear about who is involved here. Now, you were not alone. You had other colleagues who found themselves in the same position. Were you always acting as a group in terms of, for instance, the meetings with the Privy Council officials and the briefing and the concerns about the dilemma? Was this you alone, or was it you and your colleagues who together found yourselves in this position?
Mr. Chopra: No. That was with my colleagues who were asked to appear.
Senator Kroft: You all went through the same experience and, presumably, amongst yourselves you shared these concerns and you appeared as a group with a sort of common front?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir. We expressed the same concerns in writing to the department as well.
Senator Kroft: Can you explain to me what happened in terms of disciplinary action or any other form of departmental action in regard to the others?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir. One of my colleagues, Dr. Margaret Haydon, and I and Dr. Gérard Lambert were the three witnesses from the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. Dr. Lambert and I were two of the authors of this report who refused to change it as ordered by the director.
Dr. Margaret Haydon was in the division where I was acting chief for four months. I was her supervisor. During this time, she filed a grievance, I filed a separate grievance, and the entire staff of the Human Safety Division, in which my normal position is, also filed a joint grievance. All these things were happening which went to the PSSRB. Now, the three of us were selected to appear on the rBST committee before the Agriculture Committee.
Dr. Margaret Haydon revealed some information at the committee which is in this report -- which was also by the way deleted -- which goes back to 1994, when she was evaluator of the animal safety of that drug. Her files were tampered with and stolen and the RCMP were called in.
Senator Kroft: I am interested in this, but I should like to get clear on the specific question. Was there disciplinary action against any of the others besides yourself?
Mr. Chopra: Dr. Haydon and I received -- I received an actual reprimand to speak in the media or attend any meetings, an instruction not to attend any meetings. Dr. Haydon was not given an actual reprimand letter but received instruction not to speak publicly or in the media.
Both of us have followed those instructions rigorously from then onwards. There will be two exceptions in my case and one in Dr. Haydon's case. I will go into that and I will also describe what happened to the two of us as a result.
Senator Kroft: Was there any disciplinary action to anyone other than yourself?
Mr. Chopra: The disciplinary action, in legal terms, is only against me, but there is an implied action against Dr. Haydon. That matter is now before the Federal Court, under the Charter of Rights, about the ability to speak on matters pertaining to public safety and as citizens of the country. That matter is currently before the Federal Court. It is due to be heard in June of next year.
Senator Robichaud: Is that the Federal Court or the Human Rights Tribunal?
Mr. Chopra: That is the Federal Court.
Senator Kinsella: Dr. Chopra, in your letter to me dated August 19, you stated all these actions were the direct consequence of your testimony, which you were requested to give before the Committee on Agriculture. To rephrase the question of the chair of a few moments ago, referring to the job action that was taken against you on August 18, is it your testimony that the only reason that that job action was given was because of your testimony before this committee, or is it your testimony that the job action was imposed against you in part because of your testimony before the committee and maybe also in part because of other things, including the Heritage Canada conference?
If we could get a clear answer from you as to your testimony. Is the job action against you at least in part because you were a witness before the committee, or is it your testimony that the job action and the discipline were only because of the testimony that you gave?
Mr. Chopra: I believe it is entirely due to my testimony at the Senate committee, because of the department getting mad about it and the consequences that followed from it. If we look at the dates of what happened and the excuse they used to discipline me with the five-day suspension, my presentation at Canadian Heritage was on the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth of March 1999. I am called to explain this to my director in July, that is has come to his attention that I appeared there and so forth. The department knew about it all along because I was not alone. Even the evidence they gave me, they produced before me, to take action. So Bob Joubert, the director general of human resources, was listed there as a speaker. Lucille Marleau was also listed there to speak. I was listed there to speak and, when I was called in July to explain what I spoke about and what I said, I received four lines precisely in the letter: "Explain this."
Senator Kinsella: Who was the letter from?
Mr. Chopra: From Dr. André Lachance to me. It said come and explain this in the presence of a human resources person, official, and I could bring a representative from my union.
Senator Kinsella: At any time between March 26, the last day of the Heritage Canada conference, and July -- that is when you met with Dr. Lachance and others?
Mr. Chopra: Yes.
Senator Kinsella: Between March and July, did anybody in the department raise the question of the propriety of your remarks at the Heritage Canada conference, or that this may be problematic?
Mr. Chopra: No. Never.
Senator Kinsella: Was this roughly early July or late July?
Mr. Chopra: I think the letter indicates that. I think it is early July.
Senator Kinsella: Therefore, it is at least two months after you appeared the last time before the Senate Agriculture Committee?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir.
Senator Kinsella: That is four months after the Heritage Canada conference?
Mr. Chopra: Yes. If I may explain further what happened during that meeting with Dr. Lachance, that he asked me to speak to the four lines in his letter. He said, "Did you say this?" I said, "I do not recall -- I do not know because I do not have a transcript or the tape, so I do not know what I said, and so forth, but if you have a transcript, or a tape or a full speech, and the context, then it is something that I could have, in the proper context, said, but I do not know where and how."
He said to me, "Did you ask for the department's permission, because you are listed there as drug evaluator, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs?" And I informed him that is, in fact, a mistake by the hosts because I have correspondence, when I was invited by the Canadian Heritage organizers to send them a five-line abstract and my designation and I sent that, as well as a small write-up on me. I sent that. I faxed that information. On the faxed letter, I informed them, please, change my address to my home address.
Senator Kinsella: Who were you communicating with at Heritage Canada?
Mr. Chopra: There was a consultant who organized the conference on behalf of Canadian Heritage. It is Mr. Grant McNeil, to whom I sent the five pages of my communication following the invitation to me, which was by telephone.
Senator Kinsella: Were they inviting you to come to the race relations meeting that they are organizing as someone who has been involved in race relations, or were they inviting you as someone who is a scientist in the Department of Health?
Mr. Chopra: No, they are inviting me because of my involvement in the human rights issues and as a community leader who has some fair degree of public presence on these issues for quite a number of years, and personal experience. And it was the personal experience they wanted me to emphasize, because the title of my talk was "The Human Dimension." So therefore I was to speak on the human dimension of employment equity on one hand, and then what actually -- what are the experiences of people who are in that situation personally, or on behalf of others.
That was the context. In fact, I can -- it is a very brief correspondence I write to Mr. McNeil.
This is to confirm my participation on the panel, The Human Dimension..., at your conference on Employment Equity: Looking Forward, on March 25-26, 1999.
Attached please find the required "five lines" introduction to my presentation and also a brief outline of my personal background.
Meanwhile, should you require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
And my home address.
And on the fax cover, I have a note here, "Please note my address in Manotick for all future correspondence." That was given to them. This letter I sent to them on March 8, 1999.
Senator Kinsella: Is there a letterhead on that communication? Did you write that letter to Mr. McNeil on Department of Health letterhead?
Mr. Chopra: No. It is my personal home address on it.
Senator Kinsella: The letter to you from the Department of Canadian Heritage, was that on Department of Canadian Heritage letterhead?
Mr. Chopra: I did not receive it, it was only a telephone call. I do not know where they got my address. It could be in the telephone book or whatever, but when I noticed that my name was listed in the program as drug evaluator it caused me some concern, and I therefore told them to change that and change my address to my home address. In fact the abstract -- I have it with me here -- and the title is "Racism in the Federal Public Service of Canada, Looking Forward." And it says, "Shiv Chopra, President, Federation of Race Relations Organizations, Ontario."
Senator Kinsella: I notice that March 25 and March 26 were a Thursday and a Friday. At least in the Senate, those are workdays. Was that a workday for you and for other people who were attending that conference?
Mr. Chopra: It was a workday. It is a two-day conference organized largely -- or rather, entirely, for the federal public servants, except those who were invited as speakers and so forth. I did not attend the whole conference, or even the whole day of the day when I went. I did not even -- it was around 11:30 I spoke and I did not even stay for lunch.
Senator Kinsella: If an employee of the Department of Health goes off to a conference or seminar at the CCMD or at Touraine where this kind of a workshop is organized, one is not at one's department, obviously, if you are at that conference. Is there a process whereby one has to ask permission, or are there guidelines which determine when you can go off to a conference as opposed to being at your station of work?
Mr. Chopra: There are two issues in your question, sir. One is that one needs permission, and the process, and the other is the actual time. To answer the first question, this was a matter that had nothing to do with Health Canada or my job. In fact, in this particular case, I am their direct opponent due to the NCARR case, and it is in that capacity that I was recognized to appear there, and still bring them up to date on what is actually happening in the context of --
Senator Kinsella: Were you paid that day?
Mr. Chopra: By?
Senator Kinsella: By the Department of Health.
Mr. Chopra: Yes, I was paid, but I only went for the half hour of my lunch time. I did not stay for lunch. I did not attend the rest of the session. I did not go anywhere else.
Senator Kinsella: Therefore, your testimony is that you actually were there in your personal capacity and on your own time?
Mr. Chopra: On my own time, yes.
Senator Kinsella: That is helpful.
Mr. Chopra: In fact now, if you actually look at what was summarized -- because I have proceedings of the conference, and it is here -- there is no such reference to what the department alleges I said. They have given me, since then, a tape with precisely those four lines that appears to be my voice -- only those four lines. I am not sure -- I do not know whether they were actually officially taped by the organizers, whether it is coming out of there, and where is the rest of the tape, and where are the tapes for the other speeches. Because I have gone back to the organizers and I was told, both by the chairman as well as by the organizer who was actually taping, that the tapes were being prepared precisely for his benefit to produce the proceedings, not to be released to anyone afterwards and, in fact, they were not released. He handed over the tapes to the chairman of the conference.
Senator Kinsella: Do you know who the person was who had the tapes?
Mr. Chopra: Grant McNeil prepared the tapes and he handed them over to the chairman, Alix Hector, of the conference, and Alix Hector I approached also afterwards about the situation of the tapes.
Senator Kinsella: Just to help me understand the focus, is it your testimony that, from your point of view, the discipline that you got that is attributed by the deputy minister, at least in his letter to me, to your participation at the Heritage Canada conference was unjustifiable and is a matter at another proceeding? Therefore, is it your testimony that, if that is not the case, then, by the process of elimination, the other big irritant was your appearance before the Senate committee?
Mr. Chopra: Because they could not find anything else to discipline me with. Dr. Lachance had called me about another matter when I went to Federal Court on the gag order, and at that time he asked me to explain two statements that appeared from me in The Toronto Star following that action. There were two statements made and he asked me to appear, just prior to this suspension thing, that I should go and explain. The statements were, talking about the Federal Court case, I said something to the effect that as a citizen of the country I had the right to speak on matters relating to food safety, so I am not speaking on behalf of Health Canada. So that was one statement. The other one was, I feel I have an obligation to speak when the department does not do anything.
I was asked to explain both these statements, if they were accurate, and justify them. I said, yes, they are accurate, and I stand by them because I am in the Federal Court and the reporter is asking me what is the case about and I said, as a citizen, that's my position, that as a citizen I had the right to speak on matters pertaining to food safety and the department should not gag me.
The second part was I feel I have an obligation to speak, as a public servant, when the department does not do anything. Dr. Lachance asked me, "What about the second statement?" I said, "Why? What is the problem?" He said, "You say the department does not do anything." I said, "Please read carefully. I did not say that. I said I feel I have an obligation to speak."
The Deputy Chairman: Doctor, can you finish your answer in two minutes, because, as you notice, senators are leaving -- they have other commitments -- and I have two small questions to ask you. Can you finish your answer to Senator Kinsella within one or two minutes, please?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir, if that is your instruction, then I will have to say that, yes, it is a direct retaliation and an excuse which is used to get at me, because the department was so incensed or mad about my testimony before the Senate committee they are finding any excuse.
And by the way, this is not the only thing. There are other matters in here that, if you permit me, or at another occasion you can call me back, but I insist that if your committee wants to get to the depth of this matter, then you have to call me back to explain the total context. You also have to call other witnesses, some of whom are my colleagues. You will have to call witnesses from Canadian Heritage. You will have to call witnesses from the Department of Health other than just human resources people.
There are matters which are related. Unless you get to all those witnesses and get the total testimony, then I feel I would not be done justice. Thank you, sir.
The Deputy Chairman: I will ask you two questions and I would appreciate if you could answer by a "yes" or a "no", if possible.
First, did your supervisor say anything negative following your appearance before the Agriculture Committee; yes or no? If he said something, tell us what he said.
Mr. Chopra: Sir, you will have to qualify it because there have been many instances where he has said, or implied for us, my colleagues and I, as troublemakers, and that he is going to fix us and send us to a place that we will be never heard of again, and various other threats that have been made by him, as well as the --
The Deputy Chairman: What was his name?
Mr. Chopra: Dr. André Lachance. He has made human rights slurs against visible minorities, and that is on the record. All these issues have to be dealt with. And there are complaints about this at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which the department is not investigating or not allowing or not answering.
There are many, many issues, sir, that have to be looked at in the total context.
The Deputy Chairman: I am asking you, doctor, about following your testimony before the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Chopra: Precisely, sir. That is during and after. He has been making threats that we have to conform, to consider our scientific career in the department, otherwise he will do things to us, and he has instructions from the higher management, deputy minister, and that is in evidence as well, even committed by the deputy minister how they are reorganizing, how they have got this director, what he is going to do, and calling us troublemakers.
We have also brought you evidence, face to face, a petition to Deputy Minister David Dodge from 200 people in the food directorate and, following that, a face-to-face meeting with all those people with David Dodge, and also confronting him and writing him a letter.
Senator Kinsella: You stated a few moments ago, in answer to Senator Grimard's question, that Dr. Lachance said things to you after your appearance before the Agriculture Committee. Did he say those things in front of anybody else?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir, at the whole --
Senator Kinsella: Who would be some witnesses to that?
Mr. Chopra: At the whole-bureau meeting, there are my colleagues sitting right here, Dr. Vilim, Dr. Lambert, Dr. Haydon, and there are others who are not here who were present there where the threats were made. And calling us troublemakers and saying he'll ship us off to a place that we'll never be heard of again and also saying that you have to conform --
Senator Kinsella: This was said after your appearance before the Agriculture Committee?
Mr. Chopra: In February of '99, and then written communications afterwards and how they are going to reorganize. And in fact --
Senator Kinsella: Wait now. You said there are written communications that these threats are contained in. Do you have any of those written documents with you?
Mr. Chopra: Not threats in those words, but there are references, implied references, how the department is going to restructure and how they're going to run things and we have to move on. Otherwise, the train has left the station. That was said at a bureau meeting. And we'll have to just now get on and get on -- forget the past and get on with the job. And making appointments of people who are not qualified. All these things are subject of many grievances and complaints from my colleagues and I.
Senator Kinsella: As retaliatory for appearance before the Senate committee?
Mr. Chopra: Precisely.
Senator Kinsella: Would you go over the names again of those who were at the bureau who heard Dr. Lachance say that?
Mr. Chopra: Dr. Margaret Haydon. Dr. Arnost, A-R-N-O-S-T, Vilim, V-I-L-I-M. Dr. Gérard Lambert. Dr. S. S. Malik, M-A-L-I-K. There may be others. These are definitely -- Dr. Rajinder Sharma, S-H-A-R-M-A. Dr. Chris, C-H-R-I-S (sic.), Basudde, B-A-S-U-D-D-E.
All these people have had their own collective and personal threats by the same director.
Senator Kinsella: Yes, but they were present and heard these comments made by Dr. Lachance which you have indicated are of the genre of retaliation?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir.
Senator Kinsella: Because of your appearance and that of your colleagues before the Agriculture Committee?
Mr. Chopra: Yes, sir. The context, sir -- if you will allow me a second -- the context even in the written communications where Mr. Dodge writes that he appeared before the Senate committee and he said such and such, such and such -- there is a letter to that effect. And goes on to giving other commitments, that he will get into other allegations that were made there about hormones and so on, that he will get to the bottom of it. Those are precisely -- all those things have to be heard by this committee to see what that retaliation means.
The Deputy Chairman: If there are no other questions then, Dr. Chopra, we have been with you for more than two hours. You realize that other senators have other commitments, meetings and so on. I understand that you are prepared to leave with us a number of documents that you believe are important in supporting the allegation you made in your letter of August 19, 1999 to Senator Kinsella.
Please be assured that we will consider all those documents very carefully. We thank you for attending this committee.
I will tell honourable senators that, tomorrow, at noon, we will have a meeting in room 356-S. The purpose of this meeting is to consider future work of the committee, the names of other witnesses, frequency of our meetings, et cetera. The committee is adjourned to tomorrow at noon. We will meet in camera. A small lunch will be served.
The committee adjourned.