Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 6 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 22, 2000
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 6:05 p.m. to consider the question of privilege raised by the Honourable Senator Kinsella.
Senator Jack Austin (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a busy evening ahead of us. The order of the evening is to continue with the examination of witnesses under the question of privilege raised on October 13, 1999, by Senator Kinsella, under which the speaker pro tempore found a prima facie case to have been made, the matter then being referred to this committee for examination.
I have spoken to one person who was in the room distributing documents. I want to make it clear to everyone that no documents, other than those that are placed before us by the witnesses, can be distributed in this room. I just want to be very clear on that. The committee controls the whole order of procedure. It is not like a town hall meeting. This is a serious issue that we are looking into, and we want to follow our procedures carefully.
The three witnesses who will appear tonight are Dr. Margaret Haydon, Dr. Gérard Lambert and Dr. Rajinder Sharma. They have all written in response to a letter from myself inquiring whether they had evidence to offer us following the evidence given by Dr. Chopra on Tuesday, December 7, 1999. Their letters were held confidential until permission from the witnesses to distribute them was received, which we now have.
I wish to respond also to the request made of the committee by these witnesses to receive an assurance from the committee that their circumstances would not be worsened, in terms of their employment, as a result of appearing before this committee. The committee anticipated that request. In response to a letter written by me on February 9, 2000, to the Deputy Minister of Health, David A. Dodge, I received the following reply:
Dear Senator Austin:
Thank you for your letter of February 9, 2000 in which you advise that the Standing Committee is of the view that it is appropriate that the fact-finding investigation, being undertaken by Dr. George Hunter, proceed.
Your letter also shares some views and concerns with respect to the appropriate scope and purpose of the fact-finding. First, you have indicated that the fact-finding should not extend to the proceedings of the Committee itself, rather, it should deal with actions in the department. I wish to assure the Committee that this is the intention of the fact-finding. The link to the Committee is simply that the further and other allegations, made under oath, that a named Health Canada manager had made retaliatory statements, came to light in the testimony of December 7, 1999. The mandate given to Mr. Hunter is restricted to fact-finding, within Health Canada, in reference to these allegations.
The Committee has also raised the concern that no statement made by Dr. Chopra in the Committee's proceedings should be used against him in any disciplinary or other proceeding and the Committee has asked us for a re-assurance to be given to Dr. Chopra that the Department has no intention of using the results of the investigation to cause adverse consequences to him as a result of his testimony before the Committee. I assure the Committee that Health Canada will not use statements made by any witness in the Committee's proceedings against any such person in disciplinary or other proceedings. Further, no employee need fear any retaliation or adverse consequences by reason of their appearance before the Committee. Indeed, the very basis for the fact-finding I have requested is to investigate allegations of retaliatory conduct in the workplace. If found, the Department will not tolerate such conduct.
It is also important to recognize that, in the course of the fact-finding investigation being conducted within the Department, individuals must be clear that statements made in that process may, where appropriate, be used in disciplinary or other proceedings. Individuals who provide information in that context must be responsible for what they say and understand that these allegations are being investigated by the Department in order to allow any appropriate action to be taken.
The Committee has indicated it may wish to call Mr. Hunter as a witness after he has completed his report and would wish him to freely speak to his mandate and findings. While the fact of Mr. Hunter being a highly respected and capable member of the Bar was important in his choice as fact-finder, his mandate does not extend to providing legal advice to Health Canada. I can assure the Committee that I would support Mr. Hunter appearing before the Committee, after completion of his report, should the Committee believe this to be useful. Consistent with Mr. Hunter's mandate, and my letter to you of January 21, 2000, it is my view that, while recognizing that there may be issues of privacy involved, the report should be made public to the extent that it can, while respecting privacy concerns, and Mr. Hunter should be able to speak to his mandate and findings on the same basis.
I have copied this letter to, among others, both Mr. Hunter and Dr. Chopra, so that they will be aware of my response to you.
With that letter, honourable senators, I believe this committee has received the assurance from the deputy minister that it requested with respect to the interests and protection of the witnesses.
I would invite you, Dr. Haydon, to be sworn in, if you are satisfied with the circumstances of this proceeding.
Dr. Margaret Haydon, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Health Canada: Yes, I am.
(Dr. Margaret Haydon: sworn)
The Chairman: Thank you. Would you please be seated.
I should like to report to the committee, before Dr. Haydon is invited to begin, that two of the eight persons to whom we sent invitations to appear have replied, both offering to appear but indicating that they had no evidence they thought was relevant to this committee. I would just read these two short letters into the record so that they appear as part of our record.
The first is from Mark Feeley, Bureau of Chemical Safety, Health Canada, and is dated January 6.
Dear Senator Austin:
In response to your request of Dec. 16, 1999 regarding the matter of Dr. Shiv Chopra's suspension, I can offer the following:
I'm not aware that any direct threats or intimidation were used againstme personally with respect to my appearing before the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry for the rBST issue;
No negative statements were made to me in writing or verbally that I am aware of;
I had surprisingly little feed-back from upper management at the time regarding my appearance;
I have not experienced any direct disciplinary action as a result of my appearing before the Senate Standing Committee;
It would be difficult for me to state with certainty whether my career has been affected, either positively or negatively, by my participation in this matter;
I am not aware of the circumstances behind the suspension of Dr. Shiv Chopra and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on whether individuals in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs may have experienced threats, retaliation or intimidation with respect to their assisting the Senate Standing Committee with the rBST matter.
During my testimony before the Senate Committee, I had attempted to describe that there appeared to be a number of human resource-related "conflicts" which existed in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs which, from my perspective, were unique to that organization and contributed in part to the problems with the evaluation of the rBST submission. Unfortunately, I have not been requested to further participate in the rBST review since the topic was referred to the two external expert committees and therefore do not think that I could be of further assistance to your committee.
The other letter is from Thea Meuller, Drug Evaluator, Bureau of Pharmaceutical Assessment, Therapeutic Products Program, dated January 14.
I am in receipt of the letter from the Hon. Jack Austin, P.C., Q.C., dated December 16, 1999, inquiring as to whether I had experienced or perceived any threats or intimidation as a consequence of my testifying before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. I am pleased to inform you that I have never been subjected to any such measures, either overtly or covertly, by any of my immediate supervisors or senior management. During both the course of my review of the scientific evaluations conducted by the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine with respect to rBST and the actual testimony, management always maintained a "hands-off" position unless I explicitly sought their advice or comments. The answer to all of the questions posed in your letter is a resounding "no".
In particular, I have no personal knowledge that Dr. Shiv Chopra, or any of my colleagues who testified with me, have experienced harassment, disciplinary action, barriers to career progression or any suggestion of bias or retaliation as a consequence of our two appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Forestry and Agriculture during the course of its deliberations on the issues surrounding the marketing of rBST in Canada. I would like to clarify that I am not an employee of the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine and, consequently, would not have intimate knowledge of the situation in that Bureau.
My role was to provide an outsider assessment of the Bureau of Veterinary Medicine's scientific evaluation of rBST. I therefore believe that I have nothing further to contribute to the deliberations of the Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders regarding the case of Dr. Shiv Chopra....
I think with all that on the record, which was necessary to do, we are ready to have you address the issue, Dr. Haydon. I want, just before you start, to say to you and the other witnesses who will be sworn tonight that our mandate is narrow but deep. We are concerned with parliamentary privilege, and that is the right to have before Parliament free testimony that is truthful and that is not the subject of any form of intimidation or duress or any attempt to compromise the witnesses.
This is a point of great public policy on which the vitality and credibility of the Parliament of Canada depends; so what we are looking for here is not an employment history of people in the department, or a whole series of events that may have occurred in the personal history of any person, unless there is a chain of linkage that brings us to the concern that we have: the direct interference, either before or afterwards, of a witness called before us to tell the truth.
I know you understand that, so please proceed to give us what evidence you have.
Dr. Haydon: Mr. Chairman. Honourable senators, before I start, I should like to comment that I brought copies of my presentation just as speaking notes. I apologize that they are only in English; however, I do have a binder to leave with the Senate that has tab numbers which I will refer to as I go through my document.
The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt, but I should point out that sitting next to Dr. Haydon is David Yazbeck, a lawyer in Ottawa who also accompanied Dr. Chopra when he gave evidence. I have said to each of our three witnesses that they can have anyone they wish sitting next to them, but Mr. Yazbeck knows that he is not a participant in the evidence.
Dr. Haydon, would you like to distribute your paper?
Dr. Haydon: I believe copies have already been distributed, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: They have? If it is in one language only, we must have the consent of the senators present to receive this paper. Is there any objection? No?
There being no objection, I will allow the distribution of your evidence.
Dr. Haydon: Thank you.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Dr. Haydon: Honourable senators, I am here tonight at your request to testify before this Standing Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders, which is investigating allegations that a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was interfered with or threatened.
My colleague Dr. Shiv Chopra testified before you on December 7, 1999, that a five-day suspension from Health Canada in August 1999 was due to his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry during its study on recombinant bovine somatotropin.
Further threats, intimidation and retaliatory statements and actions were made towards him subsequent to his appearances before that committee. I would also add that it continues as well since his appearance before this committee.
I received a letter from the Honourable Senator Jack Austin concerning the investigation being conducted by this committee. In his letter, Senator Austin indicated this committee's interest by asking a number of questions. I will address most of your questions with only a few brief examples and, where applicable, I will indicate the appropriate tab numbers where copies of documentation can be located in the binder.
In your letter you indicated that the committee would be interested in knowing whether I had experienced or perceived any threats or intimidation regarding my appearance either before, during or after my appearance. Senator Austin asked whether any negative statements had been made to me verbally or in writing. My reply to both questions 1 and 2 in your letter is yes.
As honourable senators are aware, I appeared as a witness on October 22, 1998 and on May 3, 1999. At tab 1-2(a) I have provided some context for you, but I will not read that.
Going on to tab 1-2(b), the Director General, Dr. George Paterson's e-mail of March 23, 1998 indicates that he was concerned about my being interviewed by the "BST Internal Review Team" prior to that team's writing the "rBST Gaps Analysis Report." I quote from George Paterson's e-mail to the BST internal review team.
... I am concerned about two issues:
... Dr. Alexander has informed me now that you intend to conduct interviews with individuals who have in the past been connected to animal safety and efficacy reviews.
At tab 1-2(c), at a May 26, 1998 Bureau of Veterinary Drugs staff meeting where management presented the KPMG report, we were advised in an angry tone of voice by the director, Dr. A. Lachance, of the possibility of being broken up, moved to other parts of the government, and that we might never be heard of again.
This intimidating verbal threat is documented in a letter dated June 3, 1998, signed by our union steward, Dr. S. S. Malik, and addressed to our union employment relations officer, Mr. Jock Hazeldean, and I quote:
... When requested, Dr. A. Lachance, Director, BVD, disallowed a tape recording and written minutes of the proceedings. The staff were also advised of the possibility of being broken up, moved to other parts of the government and might never be heard of again.
Ms. Liska informed the staff that 15 out of a staff of 24 were interviewed for the purposes of the KPMG report. However, according to unofficial estimates, majority of the professional scientific staff did not volunteer for interview with the KPMG for a variety of reasons.
Page 4 of the KPMG report makes reference to "troublemakers".
At tab 1-2(d), I received a letter of instruction dated July 21, 1998, from my director, amounting to a written reprimand as a result of statements about myself which I had made to the media.
Dr. Chopra received a written reprimand and another letter forbidding him from attending a 7:00 p.m. meeting at the YMCA. These matters are now before the Federal Court.
We are fully supported by our union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, referred to as PIPSC. The four interveners also on the side of PIPSC in this Federal Court case are the National Farmers Union, the Canadian Health Coalition, the Council of Canadians and Sierra Legal.
Our Federal Court hearing against Health Canada managers, who are represented by Treasury Board, is scheduled to be heard on June 20 and 21, 2000.
The Chairman: Dr. Haydon, you are referring to an event up to July 21, 1998, am I correct? Those are the events you are addressing at the moment. Your appearances were on October 22, 1998 and May 3, 1999; so these events were prior to your appearances.
Dr. Haydon: Yes, that is correct. My only concern is that I understand that the initial motion in the Senate to hear the BST issue was, I believe, May 5, 1998. I felt that this might fall into that time frame.
The Chairman: Had you agreed by July 21, 1998, to appear? Had you been invited to appear?
Dr. Haydon: No. The first information I received was in late September 1998.
The Chairman: Please continue.
Dr. Haydon: The following is an abstract by our legal counsel, Mr. David Yazbeck, which was printed in the PIPSC national capital region newsletter, September, 1999, and I quote:
The applications for a judicial review initiated on behalf of Drs. Chopra and Haydon in the Federal Court deal with the serious and significant issue of whether employees in the public service who personally speak on matters which impact on the public interest at large are protected by the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, the cases are not only concerned with the rights and obligations of public service employees to disclose information where the public is at risk, but also relate to the interest of the public itself in having the benefit of the disclosure of such information.
Tab 1-2(e). On October 27, 1999, Mr. D. Dodge, Deputy Minister, spoke to Food Directorate staff, and we found comments made about us to be inaccurate and offensive. Please refer to our letter of November 1, 1999, to Mr. Dodge, and signed by seven members of the professional scientific staff of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs.
In response to your third question, which asked whether I had perceived any disapproval regarding my appearance, my reply is yes. At tab 3(a), I had been invited to appear before the standing Senate committee on October 1, 1998, which was a public forum. However, I had received a letter of instruction dated July 21, 1998, from my director, which amounted to a written reprimand as a result of statements that I had made in the media. I could not comply with the standing Senate committee's invitation.
On October 1, 1998, we -- that is, Drs. Chopra, Lambert and I -- received a letter from Dr. Losos, ADM, advising us how to prepare to discuss the findings of the Gaps Analysis Report on rBST. There were many deletions from the report, including the complete appendix, which contained information pertaining to my involvement.
In addition, I received a Privy Council publication, "Notes on the Responsibilities of Public Servants in Relation to Parliamentary Committees".
On October 8, 1998, I was invited by Mr. B. Houston, Director, Parliamentary Relations Office, to attend a briefing session on October 15, 1998, with officials from the Privy Council Office.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Dr. Haydon, I am trying to understand. I have been puzzling over your statement, two paragraphs back, that you "could not comply with the standing Senate committee's invitation." That has gone unexplained. Are you able to give us an explanation of that point?
Dr. Haydon: Yes. Earlier, in a letter to me on the 21st of July, 1998, I had received a letter of instruction from my director advising me that I could not speak in public or to the media.
The Chairman: It was a blanket instruction.
Dr. Haydon: Basically, yes.
The Chairman: Did it refer to parliamentary committees?
Dr. Haydon: Not specifically, but --
The Chairman: Not specifically. Thank you.
Dr. Haydon: Tab 3 (b). The e-mail dated the 23rd of October 1998, and received from a parliamentary relations officer at Health Canada on the day after our first Senate appearance, had a particularly revealing attachment. The attachment, entitled "rBST UPDATE, October 20, 1998," contained the following information on page 3:
... no response yet to request that Juneau and Losos (plus Paterson and BVD senior managers) appear as well.
. new strategy is that Losos only will appear
. Minister's Office will try to engineer
On page 5 under the heading, "Senate Committee Strategy," I quote:
DMs have directed that ADM/HPB, lead scientists at hearing --whether he is invited or not:
-- ADM would facilitate responses to questions and intervene as required.
-- ADM would be available to on-site media and later in the day.
The senator's next question, No. 4, was: "Have you experienced any disciplinary action since your appearance?"
Tab 4(a): A recent development is an intimidating letter dated February 4, 2000, which I received from Mr. George D. Hunter of the law firm Borden, Elliott, Scott & Aylen. It is regarding "Allegations to Senate Standing Committee." I am including a copy of the letter and also a copy of the deputy minister's message to all Health Canada employees concerning this matter.
I later learned that only three of the six witnesses named by Dr. Chopra in his December 7, 1999 testimony have received this letter with explicit implications for disciplinary action. The three of us who received the letter are Drs. Lambert, Vilim and myself. The three of our colleagues who did not receive the letter are Drs. Basudde, Malik and R. Sharma. I find it curious that all three of these colleagues were excluded, considering that a part of this investigation emanates from racial discrimination and employment equity. These are matters that may be dealt with by these colleagues, particularly Drs. Basudde and R. Sharma who I understand have active complaints at the Human Rights Commission.
So-called "external investigations" like this one to be conducted by Mr. Hunter are a common occurrence at Health Canada. In my opinion, these so-called "external investigations" are only done to maintain control over the real issues and continue to intimidate staff at the same time.
The senator's question No. 5 was:
Do you believe that statements or actions in unrelated matters resulted from your appearance before the committee?
My reply is yes. Tab 5(a): I received a "conflict of interest" letter dated April 22, 1999, from Dr. G. Paterson, Director General, Food Directorate, Health Canada, because of my involvement on an organizing committee sponsored by our union. I refer you to tab 7(b) for further information on our involvement in organizing the PIPSC public forum, "Is Your Food Safe?"
Tab 5(b): I received a "Whistleblower Award" on June 17, 1999, from the British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association in Vancouver, B.C., and my union, PIPSC, supported me completely for this trip.
Upon my return to work, I was immediately questioned about a newspaper article that had appeared in the Vancouver Province on Friday, June 18, 1999. I met with Dr. A. Lachance, Director, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, at his request, where I was further questioned about the same newspaper article and also about a radio program that had been aired on May 4, 1999. Co-incidentally, that was the day after my appearance before the Senate committee studying rBST.
I received another letter dated July 23, 1999, from the director, requesting me to "confirm" the accuracy of statements that were referred to me in that British Columbia newspaper. Attached was a two-page draft letter to the editor prepared by Miles Kirvan, Legal Services, Health Canada, for my consideration and written response.
Just to make a note, with all due respect to the newspaper, I believe the correct name is The Province.
The senator's sixth question was:
Do you feel that your career has been adversely affected or have you experienced any apprehensions or suggestions of bias?
My reply is yes. Tab 6: I have never been appointed or approached to act as Chief of the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division. Dr. Kelly Butler was brought from outside the bureau to serve in a managerial capacity in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. Complaints on this matter have been brought to the attention of the department, the Public Service Commission and the Human Rights Commission. No action has been taken. All we get are departmentally managed, so-called "external investigations."
The senator's seventh and final question was:
Do you have any personal knowledge that Dr. Chopra or any of the other individuals who testified with respect to rBST have experienced threats, retaliation, or intimidation arising out of their appearance?
Yes, I am aware that both Drs. Chopra and Lambert have experienced threats, retaliation and intimidation since their appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry studying rBST.
As you are aware, Dr. Chopra appeared three times: October 22, 1998, April 26, 1999 and May 3, 1999. Dr. Lambert appeared on October 22, 1998, and May 3, 1999.
Tab 7(a): Dr. Chopra is portrayed by Health Canada management to be a leader, and this is emphasized by the media. He has, therefore, received considerably harsher threats, intimidation and retaliation from Health Canada management before, during and after his standing Senate committee appearances.
Tab 7(b): Drs. Chopra, Lambert and I were the only ones from the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs to receive letters of "conflict of interest" dated April 22, 1999, from Dr. G. Paterson, Director General, Food Directorate, Health Canada, because of our involvement on an organizing committee. Several of our colleagues were also involved in organizing the public forum, "Is Your Food Safe," which took place on May 7 and 8, 1999, sponsored by our union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada. However, these colleagues, Dr. R. Sharma and A. Vilim, did not receive "conflict-of-interest" letters from Dr. Paterson.
Tab 7(c): Dr. Chopra's five-day suspension from Health Canada from August 18 to 24, 1999, is in my opinion retaliation against him by Health Canada management as a result of his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry concerning recombinant bovine somatotropin.
Tab 7(d). Both Drs. Chopra and Lambert have been passed over for promotional opportunities in the bureau. Instead, Dr. Ian Alexander, a drug evaluator from the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division, was appointed Acting Chief of the Human Safety Division, May to September 1999. It is interesting to note that the entire rBST file was kept in the confidential custody of this same Dr. Alexander from 1996 until it was released for the rBST Gaps analysis.
Since September 1999, Dr. Kelly Butler, a recent arrival from outside the bureau, has been serving as Chief of the Human Safety Division and continues to do so to this day. She was also appointed, on her arrival in August 1999, as Chief of the new Policy and Program Division.
Tab 1-2(e). On October 27, 1999, Mr. D. Dodge, Deputy Minister, Food Directorate, spoke to directorate staff and we found comments made about us to be inaccurate and offensive, as I had mentioned earlier.
Tab 7(e). Excessive paper shredding has been observed twice in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. The first incident was observed immediately after our first standing Senate committee appearance on October 22, 1998. The most recent excessive paper shredding occurrence was during the first three weeks of September 1999, and I question the manner in which this incident was handled.
The Chairman: The last paragraph of your presentation will remain in your submission. Thank you very much for your statements. Perhaps I could begin the questioning.
I would ask you to return to your statement on page 8 of your submission, in the second paragraph where you refer to tab 7(c):
Dr. Chopra's five day suspension from Health Canada from August 14 to 24, 1999 is, in my opinion, retaliation against him by Health Canada management, as a result of his appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry concerning recombinant bovine somatotropin.
What we need to know, most clearly, is why you have such an opinion. You have given us a great deal of background on the circumstances of working at Health Canada. However, your opinion would be made more valuable if you could quote anyone who related the appearance before the Senate Agriculture Committee to any punishment provided to yourself or Dr. Chopra, or anyone else who appeared as a witness. I wish to zero in on any correspondence, letters, any references by any superiors or officials, who are in a management role and have the power to direct, that would say Dr. Chopra was suspended or some other action was taken against him because he disobeyed their instructions either in appearing before the Senate Agriculture Committee or in what he said to the Senate Agriculture Committee. Can you help us in any of those direct evidentiary ways?
Dr. Haydon: I am sorry, but I have no direct information along that line; that is why I expressed an opinion.
The Chairman: Yes. I understood the qualification.
Senator Grimard: For the time being, I have one question. Mrs. Haydon, on page 4 of your statement, you say, "I received a Letter of Instruction dated July 21, 1998." Further on you say that "these matters are now before the Federal Court".
When you say "these matters", do you mean matters that happened before July 21, 1998?
Dr. Haydon: This is related to the written letter that I had received, and also Dr. Chopra had received a written reprimand as well as another letter.
Senator Grimard: That was before your appearance in front of the Agriculture Committee.
Dr. Haydon: Yes, but, as I mentioned earlier, when I was given the questions to reply to my understanding was that the motion for the investigation of rBST by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was made on the fifth of May, 1998, so taking that as a start I felt that maybe this would fit in, because definitely the department knew that the standing committee was investigating rBST.
Senator Grafstein: I am interested in time lines as well. Dealing with the period before May 5, were there concerns that you had with respect to unfair treatment within the department prior to the notice of the Senate committee about to deal with this subject matter? Were there concerns that you had with respect to the unfair treatment within the department prior to the May 5 date, which you said was the trigger date that corresponded with public notice within the department that the Senate committee was going to deal with the subject matter?
Dr. Haydon: I am not quite sure if I understand what you mean, because my history with recombinant bovine somatotropin goes back about 10 years, to approximately 1984, and so many things have happened to me that trigger lines are sort of difficult to distinguish.
Senator Grafstein: If you are not able to answer this I will understand. You have indicated that you want the materiality of these statements. They look material enough to me for us to at least review them. You chose -- and I think it is an appropriate date -- the date that the ministry would have known, the public would have known, you would have known, that a Senate committee was to be embarking upon a particular study of this the subject matter.
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: I just want to know whether or not there was an unfair pattern of treatment to you and others within the department prior to the Senate's getting involved.
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: There was? Could you just describe briefly the nature of that?
Dr. Haydon: I was involved from the very beginning as the evaluator of the animal safety and efficacy portion of the submissions, and in the early stages it was from three different drug manufacturers. That started in approximately 1984-1985; by 1994, I had had documents stolen from locked file cabinets. I had been in the presence of a meeting with one of the drug companies when a bribe was offered of $1 million to $2 million -- this sort of thing; and then, in 1994, I was taken off the reviews of all the rBST submissions.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, there is a long history that predates the advent of the committee.
Dr. Haydon: That is correct, and I believe the House of Commons committee was also investigating earlier.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that I would ask the witness to answer, not today, but at her leisure.
Dr. Haydon, you have named officials, for instance, of the department, and the PMO and deputies. Are you able to put names to all of those officials?
Dr. Haydon: Yes, I could.
Senator Grafstein: Perhaps it might be useful for us to have a complete list of all those names. The committee can then decide how they want to deal with it. Rather than have officials, I think it is important that we focus on what those individuals might have to tell us if the committee so decides.
Finally, I am not clear about the meaning of the second-last paragraph. The penultimate paragraph states that, "I am aware that Dr. Chopra has a complaint of harassment by Health Canada management through a secretary against him." What exactly do you mean by that? I do not quite understand. Was it the department harassing Dr. Chopra or some allegation that Dr. Chopra was harassing someone within the department?
Dr. Haydon: I did not mention it because I was running out of time. Also, I am not directly involved in this matter. I believe that some of my colleagues may be able to answer your question better than I can, because I only know about it from the periphery. I could not answer any specific questions because I was not at the meetings.
The Chairman: We will be very happy to have any names that you care to submit to us.
Dr. Haydon: All right.
The Chairman: We will take those names in confidence.
Senator Grafstein: I appreciate that. It is important that those names be kept in confidence. We should look at those quite carefully in light of the evidence.
Senator Prud'homme: It should be confidential, yes, but that does not preclude the committee from calling them as witnesses publicly.
The Chairman: No. We will receive the names and we will review their validity in the nature of the evidence that we have.
Senator Prud'homme: I agree.
Senator Kroft: Welcome, Dr. Haydon. I have a few questions to try to get a better understanding of the situation that you are discussing.
You say on page 7 that you are aware that both Drs. Chopra and Lambert have experienced threats of retaliation and intimidation. How would you be aware of that? Is it through conversation or correspondence?
Dr. Haydon: Yes; basically, conversation. If we have all received the same letters that have been addressed to us, that is the basis on which I made that statement.
Senator Kroft: You would regularly be sort of sharing information about the communications?
Dr. Haydon: Dr. Lambert is in the office next to me.
Senator Kroft: If we can go to the paragraph below there, you say that "Dr. Chopra is portrayed by Health Canada management to be a leader." In what sense would you mean that they perceive him to be a leader?
Dr. Haydon: In the binder, I have included a great number of pages from the media that have photographs and articles of him. He is always front and centre, shall we say. That is the reason for that statement. That is what I have included to support that.
Senator Kroft: This would be a leader in terms of guidance to colleagues within the department, or as a spokesperson, or what?
Dr. Haydon: Probably the best way to answer that is that Dr. Chopra is a well-known community leader and is involved in numerous other activities out of the work environment. He is very well known publicly.
Senator Kroft: I should add that my concern for being very clear on this is that we have a very specific focus in terms of Dr. Chopra and problems related to him. We must be careful all the time not to confuse that with other issues in the community or more broadly. The role of being a leader is one that carries a connotation that can be helpful or not helpful. I think it is very important for me to understand that. Within the department and within the work environment, is he seen as a leader in terms of representing the group and in terms of the problems of employees vis-à-vis management?
Dr. Haydon: Dr. Chopra has been teleworking, so he spends the majority of his time at home, where he does his work, and only occasionally comes into the bureau. These have been the circumstances for, I believe, several years now.
Senator Kroft: For several years?
Dr. Haydon: Yes. He is very outspoken, if we do have a meeting that he attends. I hope that answers your questions.
Senator Kroft: That is very helpful. Finally, on page 5, you make reference to an invitation you received on October 8 from Mr. Houston to attend a briefing session.
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Kroft: Could you tell us a little bit about what went on at that briefing session, please?
Dr. Haydon: It was a little while ago. I do not have notes with me, so I will try to recall as best I can. At that session, there were, I believe, one or two people from the Privy Council Office and several from the Parliamentary Relations Office of Health Canada were present. My recollection is that we were advised that we were to tell the truth before the Senate committee, but we had been provided with a copy of the recombinant bovine growth hormone Gaps Analysis Report, which had a great many deletions. In my particular case, the complete appendix from that report, which concerned all of my issues, had been deleted. So I was in a very awkward situation, because if the senators were to ask me questions and I could not speak from the documentation that was included in that report --
Senator Kroft: And did you challenge that within the meeting?
Dr. Haydon: I did not, but I had personal thoughts on that. Dr. Chopra did immediately, on behalf of the rest of us that were there.
The Chairman: I think the evidence given by Dr. Chopra shows that before he appeared, and perhaps you appeared, Dr. Haydon, before the Senate Agriculture Committee, the report was restored to its unexpurgated form. Is that correct?
Dr. Haydon: Yes; that is correct. At that point in time, however, we did not know that was going to happen.
The Chairman: Right.
Dr. Haydon: It was a very frustrating situation to be in.
Senator Kroft: Can I just pursue this last point? I would just like to ask, finally, what was the explanation given for the expurgation of parts of the document?
Dr. Haydon: I believe they indicated that there was privacy information that was deleted, but I had not been contacted to ask whether or not my information should be retained in the report. Quite a bit of scientific information that was in that report was deleted, which I did not understand, because that was not concerning a specific individual; it talked about rats. I kind of found that difficult.
The Chairman: Let me turn to Senator Beaudoin as our last questioner in this series.
Senator Beaudoin: At the bottom of page 4, and this follows the question of my colleague Senator Grimard, you refer to your matter that is now before the Federal Court. The hearing is for June of this year. Obviously, the sub judice doctrine might apply. I do not want to get into that, but could you give me, in a very general way, the basis of this appearance in the Federal Court?
According to your legal counsel, David Yazbeck, it is related, to a certain extent, to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Am I to understand that it is based on the question of freedom of expression?
Dr. Haydon: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Beaudoin: That is correct?
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: In other words, it is an action that is based on this in particular?
Dr. Haydon: My understanding is that this will be the first challenge to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Senator Beaudoin: The first challenge?
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: We have had many challenges. Do you mean in this case?
Dr. Haydon: Well, of this document.
Senator Beaudoin: Of this document?
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: And it is related to that?
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: The lawyer is not here, is he?
Dr. Haydon: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: Is that he next to you?
The Chairman: Senator Beaudoin, were you finished or not finished?
Senator Beaudoin: No. I was attempting to ask the question of Mr. Yazbeck.
The Chairman: Mr. Yazbeck is not a witness.
Senator Beaudoin: He has not been sworn in?
The Chairman: And he was not invited to be a witness.
Senator Beaudoin: I respect that.
Senator Prud'homme: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but does the rule not allow the witness to say, "On this question, I would rather not respond, but I pass the question to my lawyer"? I think that would be very regular. Now, your only agony would be whether he is sworn in or not?
The Chairman: You were not here when this meeting began, Senator Prud'homme.
Senator Prud'homme: No, I was at Foreign Affairs.
The Chairman: Of course, you were tied up in other Senate business. I want to make it clear that the lawyer is not here to speak on behalf of the witness but as a courtesy to the witness, to sit beside the witness. I do not want to involve legal counsel in explanations. I want to hear from the witnesses tonight.
Senator Prud'homme: She can consult him.
Senator Beaudoin: I think she has answered the question generally. I do not want to pursue it with the lawyer.
Senator DeWare: At the bottom of page 5, you talk about "Senate Committee Strategy". There are two or three little quotes. One of them is that "DMs have directed that ADM/HPB lead scientists at hearing -- whether he is invited or not;" I just want to know this: Was he there to lead you, to sort of direct you in the hearings?
Dr. Haydon: No.
Senator DeWare: It says he would facilitate responses to questions and intervene if required; but he was not there and did not do that.
Dr. Haydon: No. We learned of this after we had appeared.
Senator DeWare: This was something that the deputy minister wanted to happen, but it did not happen.
Dr. Haydon: That is possible. I believe this was probably sent to us by accident.
Senator DeWare: By accident? Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Just to wind up, Dr. Haydon, I would like to ask you one question: You refer on the top of page 5 to the Deputy Minister, Mr. David Dodge, who spoke on October 27, 1999, to Food Directorate staff and made comments about you, which you found to be inaccurate and offensive. The question I want to ask you is: Did he make any reference to your appearance before the Senate Agriculture Committee?
Dr. Haydon: Not that I recall in specific comments at the time.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, I notice that there is on that same page a reference to a publication that the witness received from someone. It is entitled, "Notes on the Responsibilities of Public Servants in Relation to Parliamentary Committees." It might be useful, Mr. Chairman, if we had that to see what guidelines there are there that might help us get to some understanding about this.
The Chairman: I will certainly make a request for it. It is a public document of the Privy Council Office. It is the general nature of guidelines to witnesses before parliamentary committees.
Yes, Dr. Haydon?
Dr. Haydon: I can address that. I have copies in both English and French in the binder that I am going to leave with you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We look forward to reviewing your binder, which you will leave with us.
Senator Sparrow: Mr. Chairman, before the witness leaves, could she tell us if she was present at the Senate hearings when Mr. Dodge was there making his representations to the Agriculture Committee?
Dr. Haydon: I was at some. I am not sure if I was at all of them.
Senator Sparrow: Mr. Dodge made the statement at the committee that, no, there would be no retaliation against the witnesses. Is that your understanding?
The Chairman: At the beginning of this evening's session I read a letter into the record from David Dodge with that explicit assurance.
Thank you very much, Dr. Haydon. We very much appreciate your appearance here. Thank you for the hard work in presenting your comments.
We will now call Dr. Rajinder Sharma.
(Dr. Rajinder Sharma: sworn)
The Chairman: I gather from watching the activity in the room that you have a statement in writing to submit to us.
Dr. Sharma, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Health Canada: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Again, is it in both languages?
Dr. Sharma: Just English.
The Chairman: Is it agreeable to the committee to receive the evidence in only one language?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, honourable senators.
Please proceed, Dr. Sharma.
Senator Beaudoin: On the rule about both official languages, Mr. Chairman, I am ready from time to time to suspend my objection, but let us not forget that there is a regulation that it should be in both languages.
The Chairman: I am prepared not to have the document circulated. I am quite happy not to have it circulated, because when he reads his English statement into the record we will have a translation shortly.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, and it is a special day today also in the sense that it is something like an inquiry. I can understand that it has not been translated.
The Chairman: I appreciate your comments. I entirely support the rule that all documents be submitted in both official languages. It is very much up to this committee whether it believes that it can be waived in the current circumstances. It is certainly nothing we encourage.
[Translation]
Senator Prud'homme: Dr. Sharma, I would like to make it clear to you that, as a Canadian, you are under no obligation to produce your document in both official languages. It is entirely up to you. You may do it in either of the two official languages. It is always a sensitive point. This always leads to unnecessary conflict. Do not feel that these requests to apply the rules are directed to you. You have been invited to appear before our committee, and you are giving your testimony to those concerned. It is the job of these people to see to the translation. From time to time, someone has to rise and ask for the rules to be applied. It is always unpleasant because we are seen as trying to swim against the current.
[English]
Any Canadian can submit documents in either of the two official languages. It is your right to speak in the official language of your choice and to produce documents in that language. However, the rule is there and it sometimes causes embarrassment. Although, especially in the Senate, everyone wants to be gentle and nice and therefore people do not raise the issue of the rule, nevertheless the rule is very clear. However, it does not apply to you; it applies to us.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Dr. Sharma: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honourable senators. I thank you for inviting me to state my impressions of the testimony that Dr. Shiv Chopra led before this committee on December 7, 1999.
Mr. Chairman, in your letter of December 16, 1999, you asked me to state specifically if any statements or threats were made toward him in my presence, their context and whether I found them to be threatening and intimidating, and also whether they were directed at Dr. Chopra. In addition, you asked me to state if I "feel that these statements were the result of the testimony of Dr. Chopra on rBST study."
I have prepared this written statement, but, because of the time constraint, I will summarize my views. The summary of my response, which I affirmed to you in writing, was submitted on January 12, 2000. The statement that follows is to provide a more complete confirmation of same.
I understand that Dr. Chopra has worked at Health Canada since 1969, although I have personally known him since only 1988. This is when he joined as a drug evaluator, like me, in the Human Safety Division of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. Throughout this time I have found him to be a very able, hardworking and conscientious scientist. He firmly believes, as I do, that the primary responsibility of BVD is to ensure the human safety of veterinary drugs as provided under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. I vouch, without a doubt, that neither I nor anyone else at Health Canada has ever found these duties to lack in Dr. Chopra.
Dr. Chopra is an extremely well-regarded community activist on issues relating to employment equity and human rights in the workplace. His work in these areas traces back to the study on the "Employment Equity of Visible Minority Personnel in the Public Service of Canada", in 1989. Appendix 1. It was this study that led eventually to the human rights complaint against Health Canada, Public Service Commission and Treasury Board of Canada, in 1992, to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Subsequently, in a landmark ruling, NCARR vs. The Queen, that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered on this case in 1997, Dr.Chopra was recognized to have played a key role.
With respect to the role on human safety of rBST, which traces to much before his testimony at the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, I state that the very first person taking issue with the human safety evaluation of rBST under the Canadian Food and Drugs regulations was indeed Dr. Chopra, and his concerns in this regard can be found in an "additional data letter" that he wrote to one of the manufacturers of rBST in 1988 while being a short-term Acting Chief of the Human Safety Division. Appendix 3.
I add that the substance and thrust of that ADL by Dr. Chopra were deliberately suppressed by the regular Chief of Human Safety. Furthermore, soon before the Director General, Dr. Paterson, of the Food Directorate agreed for Dr. Chopra to initiate the Gaps Analysis Project on the rBST file, it was I who brought this ADL to Dr. Chopra's memory in 1997. And my purpose to do so was to remind him that the human safety concerns that we raised in 1988 were not followed through by the Health Canada management for either the rBST submission by Elanco or Monsanto, and that its relevance ought to be considered during the now proposed Gaps Analysis Project on the rBST file.
Senators, the rBST Gaps Analysis Project has a long and complicated history, which I am not totally aware of. However, I am aware that it was generally agreed to be conducted by a joint effort of all five drug evaluators in the Human Safety Division under the leadership of Dr. Chopra. The decision to proceed in this manner was made at an all-staff meeting of the BVD by the Director General of the Food Directorate, Dr. George Paterson, who was also the Acting Director of the BVD, as well as the Chairman of the Departmental ad hoc Committee on rBST.
Agreed also at that meeting was that the various rBST files, which were until then kept under the sole and confidential custody of a file manager, Dr. Ian Alexander, would be released for everyone's examination. It was during this examination that I found this ADL and gave it to Dr. Chopra.
I am also aware that Dr. Chopra was not allowed to complete the originally agreed upon Gaps Analysis Project and that it was frequently interrupted and interfered with for the due process of investigation by Dr. Paterson. The way he finally interfered was by appointing a new "rBST Internal Gaps Analysis Team" with Dr. Alexander as the "Co-ordinator".
I submit that this and other improper management of rBST files, which the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on rBST heard from Dr. Chopra and other Health Canada scientists, were not the only issues due to which Health Canada management were shown to be in conflict with them, but also many other drugs, including hormones and antibiotics, that Dr. Chopra and the entire scientific staff of the Human Safety Division considered to be of "questionable safety" and which all of them together, including me, had alleged to be "pressured to pass" without check by Health Canada management on the behest of pharmaceutical companies.
The pressure that we were under, and still are, involved threats to our scientific careers with various kinds of harassment that include misuse of authority to appoint unqualified candidates to positions of power, intimidation, racial discrimination, and contrived defamation of our personal behaviour. However, the person who has been made to bear the worst harassment by Health Canada management is indeed Dr. Chopra, who is portrayed by them as the key leader of "troublemakers".
The phrase "troublemakers" was first conveyed at an all staff meeting of the BVD that was held on May 26, 1998, at the Conference Centre in Ottawa. The source of this phrase was said to be in a KPMG Consultants "Workplace Assessment Report" on BVD, which Dr. Paterson and a newly appointed director of the BVD, Dr. André Lachance, had got done at the insistence of the Canadian Animal Health Institute, which is a lobby association of the pharmaceutical industry.
During this meeting, Dr. Lachance refused to allow an official record of the proceedings, saying that this was how he had managed for the last 26 years in other departments of the government and he was not about to change now. Furthermore, upon hearing from Dr. Chopra and others that it was not a proper way to conduct important meetings, he said that if we do not cooperate with him we could be broken up and moved to other parts of the government where no one will hear from us again. Appendix 5.
I also know that only a few weeks before this meeting Dr. Lachance wrote to Dr. Chopra and the other members of the rBST Internal Gaps Analysis Team to expunge any wrongdoings by the management from the final copy of their report. I also know that the only members of that team who declined to do so were Dr. Chopra and Dr. Lambert.
Honourable senators, I hope you are aware that prior to the rBST hearings by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry the aforementioned pressures "to pass drugs of questionable safety" about which Drs. Chopra, Margaret Haydon, Gérard Lambert, Arnost Vilim, Cris Basudde and myself filed grievances to various levels of Health Canada management, but which after these were dismissed at the final level by the Associate DM, Mr. Allan Nymark, were attested under oath in pursuit of our further complaints of harassment at the PSSRBC on September 15, 1998. The decision that the tribunal chairperson Mr. Yvon Tarte rendered was to dismiss the complaint, but due only to the lack of "authority to examine and assess the scientific concerns raised by various the witnesses who testified at the hearing in these matters." However, please bear in mind that Mr. Tarte noted, and I quote, "The evidence does show the presence of troubling scientific and interpersonal conflict in the BVD workplace..." Appendix 7.
Turning now to the five-day suspension without pay that Health Canada management imposed on Dr. Chopra, I know that it occurred in July 1999, which was approximately two months after his last appearance at the rBST hearings of the Senate Committee on Agriculture on May 3, 1999.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to you that there were several other retaliatory actions that were taken against Dr. Chopra, such as a reprimand for speaking to the media and a gag order against Dr. Chopra. I am not fully familiar with what the Department of Health has been doing against Dr. Chopra. Therefore, I would suggest that maybe your committee should call him back to fully explain all the retaliatory actions that Health Canada has taken against him.
The Chairman: We will certainly do that, Dr. Sharma, but we are really interested in your views on the question, so please proceed with your evidence on that subject. What do you know? What did you see?
Dr. Sharma: Could I finish the --
The Chairman: Certainly.
Dr. Sharma: This makes me feel that the five-day suspension without pay of Dr. Chopra was merely an excuse to retaliate against him due to his completely truthful testimony about Health Canada management during three different hearings of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The reason I say this is because the attitude that Health Canada management have been holding, in my opinion, against this honest, dedicated and very cordial employee since then is one of an incremental harassment.
The Chairman: Excuse me, Dr. Sharma, just on this point. You use the phrase "makes me feel", which is subjective. I take it you mean this is a subjective evaluation that you have come to conclude?
Dr. Sharma: M'hm.
The Chairman: Have you ever been in the presence of any officer of the department who was senior to Dr. Chopra who referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and the evidence given there as a reason for taking any action, any reprimand, any suspension, or any personnel complaint against Dr. Chopra?
Dr. Sharma: No, sir.
The Chairman: You were not present to hear that and you have never seen anything in writing to that effect?
Dr. Sharma: No, sir.
The Chairman: Thank you. Please proceed.
Dr. Sharma: For example, at a BVD staff meeting on September 2, 1998, where I was also present, an exchange took place between Drs. Chopra and Lachance in which Dr. Chopra requested him to follow up on the KPMG Workplace Assessment Report on BVD with the help of a professional facilitator, but to which Dr. Lachance responded by saying that "the train has left the station" for those kinds of things and that this mandate from the higher management is to be "very directive" and that "I intend" to do so.
At another BVD meeting, which was held at the Talisman Hotel, and where I was present, Dr. Lachance announced the temporary appointment of Dr. Alexander as the Acting Chief of Human Safety Division in place of the regular chief who was now assigned to some other unspecified duties. This led to some questions from Dr. Chopra with implications about the relative qualifications of Dr. Alexander from another division of BVD and also about the involved racial discrimination against three out of five long-time members of the Human Safety Division, including Dr. Chopra, Cris Basudde and myself.
However, in spite of these objections, Dr. Alexander was appointed to that post and he did serve it for a four-month term with full concurrence of the Human Resources Branch under Mr. Robert Joubert. I understand that after completing this term, Dr. Alexander declined to accept a further extension so now a completely new person, Dr. Kelly Butler, with absolutely no work history in the BVD, was brought in to serve as a virtually permanent Chief of the Human Safety Division.
I must add that, due partly to these unfair and repeated appointments of unqualified candidates, particularly to exclude every one of the visible minority members of the Human Safety Division, including Dr. Chopra, Dr. Basudde and myself, three separate complaints are currently being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Complaints also are being pursued at the Public Service Commission by all five members of the Human Safety Division, although we are not sure whether or what action would occur.
Speaking of Mr. Dodge, I participated in a meeting for which he had been asked by the Minister of Health, Mr. Allan Rock, to address a petition concerning Bill C-80 from more than 200 employees of the Food Directorate. Present at this meeting, in addition to the petitioners and Mr. Dodge, were also the ADM of HPB, Dr. Joseph Losos, and the new Director General, Dr. Marc LeMaguer.
The statement with which Mr. Dodge opened this meeting was that, as Deputy Minister of Health Canada, a petition such as this was objectionable to him and that the people who signed it were regarded as "unprofessional" and "alarmist" to the public. These remarks by Mr. Dodge --
Senator Kinsella: When did this occur?
Dr. Sharma: This occurred, I think, in October 1999. October 27. These remarks by Mr. Dodge were objected to by Dr. Chopra as insulting, especially in view of the issues involving rBST and other hormones and antibiotic drugs. The response that Mr. Dodge first gave to Dr. Chopra was extremely threatening in both posture and word, although upon further comments from Dr. Haydon and others, including me, the position that Mr. Dodge appeared to adopt was that, in view of what he now heard, he would be willing to further investigate and get back to us later.
The last matter I would like to comment upon is in relation to the present investigation by this Senate Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders. The instance I would like to comment upon is about the appointment of an independent lawyer, Mr. George Hunter, whom Mr. Dodge has retained to investigate. This letter was sent to me, and I felt that this letter, when I read the letter, was very threatening, and I questioned the way Health Canada is approaching this investigation, and I wonder why Health Canada suddenly appointed Mr. Hunter in such a hurry when your committee had started investigating this case.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are my submissions. Now I am open to questions.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Sharma. I am going to start with Senator Grafstein.
Senator Grafstein: Just to help us, or at least help me, understand this issue from a different perspective, if you like, and it might be useful for all of us, let's look at the Human Safety Division. You mentioned the grievances that certain members, including yourself, as visible minorities are complaining about.
Mr. Chairman, this is not directly related to the subject matter, but it might help us understand or put in context these issues. I will try to do this as briefly as possible.
How many members of the Human Safety Division are there that are decision-makers to review scientific information? How many members? How big is it?
Dr. Sharma: There are only five professional staff, and there is a division chief.
Senator Grafstein: There are the three you mentioned, the three of you, and two others.
Dr. Sharma: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: These are the scientific staff that evaluate information. Is there normally, in assessing scientific information, a vigorous give and take in terms of discussions about the efficacy of a particular scientific result as it relates to safety? In other words, one of the members comes forward with a recommendation that a particular drug is unsafe, and others challenge that. Is there a vigorous process to do that within the Human Safety Division, or does one just accept the scientific conclusion of one member or one of the five?
Dr. Sharma: Well, we work under the Food and Drugs Act and regulations.
Senator Grafstein: Right. I understand.
Dr. Sharma: And we do interact with the other staff, professional staff, of the Human Safety Division. We will consult each other, because everybody cannot be a specialist in every area.
Senator Grafstein: But I take it, and just tell me if I am wrong, that a recommendation comes forward to either approve or disapprove. The committee then either accepts it, because the evidence appears to be overwhelming one way or the other, or not, and, if not, I take it there is a vigorous scientific debate about the quality of the research or something. Is that fair? I am just trying to get a grasp of this.
Dr. Sharma: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: Now, Mr. Chairman, this is not directly related to the subject matter, but there is a troubling statement here that I do not think we have seen before. I want to refer the witness to the last paragraph on the second page of his evidence. There is an allegation here that it was not just dealing with rBST, but also, and I quote, "...many other drugs, including hormones and antibiotics, that Dr. Chopra and the entire scientific staff of the Human Safety Division considered to be of `questionable safety'...."
Dr. Sharma: Yes.
Senator Grafstein: "...and which all of them together, including me, had alleged to be ...pressured to pass' without check by Health Canada management."
Now, just give us some explanation of that. That seems to me to be a very serious statement to make. There are drugs or hormones or antibiotics that --
The Chairman: Sorry, Senator Grafstein; I do not like to rein you in, but this takes us off into a completely different area that is not germane to the inquiry of the committee. The statement is on the record, and you can pursue this, if you wish, in another way.
May I turn to Senator Kinsella before going to the next witness?
Senator Kinsella: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the witness could just recapitulate for us.
What did you see occur during the period after May 3, 1999? What happened between May 3, 1999, and August 1999, when the letter was sent and the suspension was imposed by the employer on Dr. Chopra? What did you see? What happened?
Dr. Sharma: My understanding is, senator, that I think Dr. Chopra was called by the director regarding his statements in the press. He was called a couple of times, and then a written reprimand was given to him, and it was put on his file. This must be in April or May of 1999.
Senator Kinsella: Now, you see, the appearance before our Agriculture Committee is May 3, and then this discipline is imposed in August. If the employer has interfered with a witness before a Senate committee, then that would be a breach of parliamentary privilege, which is what this committee is attempting to ascertain -- whether or not there was a breach of parliamentary privilege, whether there was an interference with the open testimony, the unfettered testimony, of a witness before a parliamentary committee. That is what this is all about. The facts that we have are that May 3 is the date at which Dr. Chopra appeared and then, in August, a couple months later, we have this discipline. I want to know whether or not that discipline was imposed as a retaliation. You would be able to help us if you saw anything or heard anything concrete occurring in that time frame.
For example, Senator Grafstein has drawn our attention to page 2 of your presentation. In the penultimate paragraph, you speak of the appointment of a new rBST Internal Gaps Analysis Team with Dr. Alexander as the co-ordinator, but you do not tell us when that occurred. Did that occur after the appearance before the committee on May 3?
Dr. Sharma: No, that happened before.
Senator Kinsella: How long before? Was it before the October 3, 1998 appearance before the committee?
Dr. Sharma: I would think so, because, you see, when they asked them to change the Gaps Analysis Report and -- Even before that, because they appointed two other people from outside the BVD.
Senator Kinsella: Did anyone say anything to you at any time, or did you overhear any ADM or Director General or anyone else in the department say anything about Dr. Chopra's testimony before the Senate committee in a negative way?
Dr. Sharma: No. But I must say, senator, harassment is very subtle. They do not tell you openly what they are going to do.
Senator Kinsella: Yes, I have had 23 years experience dealing with racial harassment as a Human Rights Commissioner; so I understand that.
However, it is important for to us zero in on the question of whether or not there has been a breach of parliamentary privilege. We are hearing many shocking things in the course of this, Mr. Chairman, but we have to zero in on this particular matter that is before this honourable committee.
The Chairman: The witness has been clear in saying that his opinion is subjective; it is based on his view of a chain of events, but he has not seen any document or heard anyone say anything that directly connects the appearance before the Senate Agriculture Committee with the reprimand or with any other punishment of Dr. Chopra. I think we have heard that.
I am anxious to move on to the next witness, but I am not anxious to prevent questions. Perhaps Senator Corbin, you would proceed.
Senator Corbin: We are being told that one form of harassment was being bypassed for promotion. Both the previous witness, Dr. Margaret Haydon, and this witness allege that they were bypassed and that someone from outside the shop was taken on as acting chief for a period, and then substituted again by another person from outside the shop.
It is alleged by both witnesses that there were qualified personnel within that division to assume those responsibilities. This witness and others of his colleagues have carried it further and have taken the matter to the Human Rights Commission under the guise of being discriminated on the basis of being members of a visible minority. However, that is not our issue here tonight.
The Chairman: That is right.
Senator Corbin: In terms of promotion, does it often happen, not only in respect of your immediate experience with this outfit, but in other government operations, generally, is it unusual to have outside persons take over the direction of a division? Does it necessarily have to come from the ranks within the operation?
Dr. Sharma: Senator, if they set up an impartial board and give us a due chance, a proper chance, we have no problem. We can compete with them. But we have not been given any chance. There was no competition. The person has been appointed. Dr. Alexander was just appointed. Dr. Kelly Butler has been deployed; and there is no appeal now. We cannot even appeal on this deployment.
Senator Corbin: You strongly feel that you were discriminated against for being troublemakers; is that what you are saying?
Dr. Sharma: For sure.
Senator Corbin: And you are troublemakers because of things that were said before the parliamentary committee?
Dr. Sharma: Yes, sir.
Senator Beaudoin: On page 3, you say that Dr. Lachance refused to allow an official record of the proceedings. Was it usual to have a record of the meetings? Was there any secretary taking notes?
Dr. Sharma: He disallowed it. He said, "No minute taking. The secretary will not take minutes; there will be no tape recording." We said either of those would be sufficient.
Senator Beaudoin: Either would be?
Dr. Sharma: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: He refused that?
Dr. Sharma: Yes.
Senator Beaudoin: But there were many attendants and many witnesses?
Dr. Sharma: Yes, but what I am telling you is from our recollection because we went back and took our notes.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes. I am trying to see how far it may be relevant to the complaint the fact that you were refused to take notes or to take an official record, because you come to the conclusion that by refusing to allow that, it was an injustice. Do they usually take a record?
Dr. Sharma: That is the democratic way.
Senator Beaudoin: I have nothing against democracy. On the contrary; I am for it.
Dr. Sharma: It is democratic even for an institution, because people can go back and see what happened during that meeting. But this manager, or some of the managers, senior managers at Health Canada, they do not want to keep the records because they do not want to be held accountable.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Sharma, for your evidence here tonight. We very much appreciate the burden it has imposed on you.
I will now call Dr. Gérard Lambert.
(Dr. Gérard Lambert: sworn)
The Chairman: Dr. Lambert, are you satisfied with the assurance given by the deputy minister, which I read into the record at the beginning of this proceeding?
Dr. Lambert, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Health Canada: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We are ready to hear your evidence.
Dr. Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I have some copies of my brief to distribute, but they are in English only.
The Chairman: We have no problem with that. We agreed to that with the two previous witnesses, but you can certainly give your evidence in French if you wish. We have simultaneous translation.
Dr. Lambert: My opening statement is in English, but I can answer the questions in both languages.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Dr. Lambert: Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, good evening. I agreed to appear before this committee in my letter dated January 26, 2000, in response to a letter dated December 16, 1999, from Senator Austin about the allegations made by Dr. Shiv Chopra on his appearance before the committee on December 7, 1999.
Dr. Chopra alleged that a five-day suspension for participating in a conference organized by Heritage Canada in March 1999 was in fact due to his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry during its study of rBST. Dr. Chopra further alleged that various retaliatory statements and threatening actions were made towards him subsequent to his appearance before the Senate committee.
Many questions were asked and, in my letter, I answered "yes" to all the questions, except the question about the disciplinary action, and I provided evidence to the questions asked.
This evening I will elaborate on the answers to the questions. The answers will cover the time frame either before, during or after my testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on October 22nd, 1999, and on May 3rd, 1999. October --
The Chairman: That is October 1998.
Dr. Lambert: Yes, excuse me.
Question 1: Were any negative statements made to you, verbally or in writing?
I was involved in the review of rBST since December 1, 1997. I volunteered to work on this project. Shortly after, I was transferred with two of my colleagues, Drs. R. Sharma and Vilim, to the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division to help reducing the backlog of submissions.
The transfer was effective January 5, 1998. I was assigned a drug submission in that new division and I was supposed also to work on rBST project. The history of rBST started with the complaint filed December 1996, and subsequent mediation. The mediation failed and a collective grievance was filed on October 10, 1997. We received an answer to the collective grievance on December 19, 1997. A complaint was filed to the Public Service Staff Relations Board on December 22, 1997, against the transfer.
During the review of rBST, I was also involved in a review of a submission in the Human Safety Division, and negative statements against me were made by Dr. George Patterson, Director General of Food Directorate, in a memorandum dated April 27, 1998.
After the completion of the draft report on rBST on April 15, 1998, the final report was submitted to Dr. Patterson on April 21, 1998. There was a meeting with all the members of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs (BVD) Ad Hoc Committee on rBST on May 6, 1998, and written comments were asked by the rBST review team. Three managers, Drs. Lachance, Landry and Yong, submitted comments for changes in the report. Dr. Lachance ended his comments by stating:
...leaving its authors with the proper scientific credibility essential to the pursuit of a science-oriented career.
On May 26, 1998, during an all-staff meeting, Dr. Lachance, director of BVD, did not want any tape recording or written record of the meeting. The KPMG report on workplace assessment was presented, and it was admitted this report was not based on facts but on perception. Dr. Lachance made a presentation on his action plan based on KPMG report, and he made a threat that, if we do not participate, we could be transferred to another place in the government and never to be heard from again.
The Chairman: Sorry, Dr. Lambert, but do you mean there that, unless you agreed with his revisions, then the threat followed? Is that what you mean?
Dr. Lambert: Yes.
The Chairman: That he suggested revisions or a different way of handling it?
Dr. Lambert: Yes, and he made a comment in that meeting that he wants us to change but he doesn't want to change his way, himself, to allow the record of the meeting.
The Chairman: I see. I think that is clear. Please continue.
Dr. Lambert: On May 26, 1998 -- no, that is over.
The Chairman: That is the staff meeting.
Dr. Lambert: At a staff meeting on September 2, 1998, on the subject of the implementation of the action plan, Dr. Chopra asked for a facilitator to analyze the KPMG report, and Dr. Lachance told us that the train has already left the station and, if we do not cooperate, he can be very directive.
In a letter dated February 18, 1999, to the chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Mr. Dodge raised the issue on alleged pressure on scientists to approve rBST before the Public Service Staff Relations Board. He wrote that, in relation to the allegations before the PSSRB, the chairperson concluded that the evidence before the board did not substantiate the complaint. The collective complaint before the PSSRB was against the transfer from one division of BVD to another division in retaliation of our grievance. It was not a conclusion on the rBST issue.
On May 21, 1999, a message from Dr. Dodge was sent to all employees after his appearance before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on May 13, 1999. In this message, he tried to portray that three allegations have no substance based on conclusions reached by bodies independent of Health Canada. In one instance, the review of the four drugs files was done under contract by Health Canada, and it is called the Dittberner report, which we asked to receive a copy since June 2, 1999. This report was released only last Friday, February 18, 2000, after repeated requests to our management.
Mr. Dodge, in the above message, tried to put down Health Canada individuals who appeared before the Senate committee, because they were referred to as heroes by a senator.
Mr. Dodge, in a Food Directorate staff meeting of October 27, 1999, made comments that those who signed the petition sent to the Minister of Health were unprofessional and alarmist. Mr. Dodge was very rude when Dr. Chopra was at the microphone. He cut him off and didn't let him complete his statement.
In that staff meeting, Food Directorate staff meeting, Mr. Dodge said that it was the place to bring forward problems and issues, but he did not let people talk.
Question 2: Did you perceive any disapproval regarding your appearance?
In an e-mail received October 23, 1998, a document titled "rBST Update" that was dated October 20 of 1998, described the strategy Health Canada wanted to adopt with the appearance of scientists before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on rBST on October 22, 1998. The DMs have directed that ADM/HPB, Dr. Losos, lead the scientists at the hearing, whether he is invited or not. The ADM would facilitate responses to questions and intervene as required.
Question 3: Have you experienced any disciplinary action since your appearance?
No disciplinary action was taken against me since my appearance at the Senate committee.
Question 4: Do you believe that statements or actions in unrelated matters resulted from your appearance before the committee?
I received a letter dated April 22, 1999, from Dr. Paterson on conflict of interest about my involvement in the organizing committee of a public forum on food safety by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, to be held on May 7 and 8, 1999, at Ottawa.
Question 5. Do you feel that your career has been adversely affected or have you experienced any apprehensions or suggestions of bias?
Following the appearance on May 3, 1999, before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, an all-staff meeting was held on May 6. Dr. Lachance announced that the Acting Chief position of Human Safety Division was given to Dr. Alexander from the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division for the period of four months because Dr. Yong was seconded to the Natural Products Bureau.
On August 16, 1999, Dr. Lachance appointed Dr. Kelly Butler as Chief of Policy and Programs Division, using deployment as a staffing tool. At least eight deployment complaints from BVD staff were forwarded to Dr. Paterson, Director General. No response from Health Canada about those complaints has been received yet.
Dr. Lachance appointed Dr. Kelly Butler as Acting Chief of Human Safety Division from September 20, 1999, to January 17, 2000. In an e-mail received January 24, it was announced that Dr. Kelly Butler will continue as Acting Chief for the Human Safety Division for another four months, from January 17 to May 16, 2000.
Question 6. Do you have any personal knowledge that Dr. Chopra or any of the other individuals who testified with respect to rBST have experienced threats, retaliation, or intimidation arising out of their appearance?
Dr. Chopra was given the file of antibiotic resistance during an all-staff meeting on November 27, 1997, and Dr. Paterson stated that he will be on the branch committee. In the meeting of the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division on December 15, 1999, the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs is now represented by Drs. Breton and Butler.
Dr. Haydon was not considered for the Acting Chief position in the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division since the retirement of the former chief at the end of July 1999.
Drs. Haydon and Chopra received, on April 22, 1999, a letter from Dr. Paterson on conflict of interest for their participation in the organizing committee of PIPSC public forum on food safety, while other members of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Drs. R. Sharma and Vilim, on the same committee, did not receive that letter.
In conclusion, I think that the five-day suspension of Dr. Chopra was a pretext to intimidate the other scientists at Health Canada.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Lambert, for your views. I will ask you the standard question: Has any person who is a superior in the department to Dr. Chopra made any written or verbal threats in your presence, or to your knowledge, that related any punishment or suspension to his appearance before the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry?
Dr. Lambert: I do not --
The Chairman: Is your answer no?
Dr. Lambert: No.
[Translation]
Senator Grimard: Dr. Lambert, thank you for your presentation. I'd like to go to the last paragraph of your statement in which you say:
[English]
In conclusion, I think that the 5-day suspension of Dr. Chopra was a pretext to intimidate the other scientists at Health Canada.
[Translation]
Am I to understand that Dr. Chopra was not suspended because he had testified before the Agriculture and Forestry Committee, but to intimidate, as you put it, the others who worked with him.
Dr. Lambert: If you remember, during --
Senator Grimard: You may answer in English.
Dr. Lambert: -- the hearings in the month of May 1999, then he appeared three times before the Senate committee, and he was the one who spoke the most during these hearings of the Agriculture Committee. And in fact, he had -- when I had some correcting to do, I didn't have much to do, while he had a great deal to do because he spoke at length during these hearings. He raised many problems and, in fact, this did not go over well with senior management.
Senator Grimard: Yes, Dr. Lambert, but you are the one who said that --
[English]
... I think that a 5-day suspension of Dr. Chopra was a pretext to intimidate the other scientists at Health Canada.
[Translation]
What I wish to ask is this: does this therefore mean that, in your opinion, this is the reason why he was suspended for five days, namely to intimidate other employees?
Dr. Lambert: So that no one would be able to testify as he did, in a manner that might be described as very agressive.
[English]
The Chairman: Dr. Lambert, do you mean as witnesses before a parliamentary committee, or do you mean to relate the intimidation to the event that was sponsored by the union? That was the Heritage Canada event.
Dr. Lambert: Yes, I think they used that event to punish Dr. Chopra, but he was a witness at many Senate committees on rBST before.
The Chairman: Therefore, it would be your opinion for a number of events that, because he was a leader, they singled him out?
Dr. Lambert: Yes, but he is outspoken too, and he is not afraid to say what he has to say, and for the management it is very difficult to control.
The Chairman: I understand.
Senator Grafstein: Again, I am trying to get the time line if I could. Mr. Chopra was suspended when?
Dr. Lambert: He was suspended August 18 to August 24.
The Chairman: Of 1999?
Dr. Lambert: Of 1999.
Senator Grafstein: We know when he gave his testimony, which was earlier than that. When did this PIPSC public forum take place?
Dr. Lambert: On May 7 and 8, 1999.
Senator Grafstein: May 7 and 8, 1999?
Dr. Lambert: Yes, 1999.
Senator Grafstein: Immediately prior to his five-day suspension on August 18 -- and there was a long space between his presentation of evidence and the suspension -- were there other intervening acts of his outspokenness or leadership that took place that had nothing to do with the hearings, but might have related to something else -- for instance, that luncheon or that organization? In other words, we are trying to show a direct cause-effect relationship. I know it is difficult. Can you help us with this? In other words, he gives his evidence, and some months later he is suspended. There are intervening events that appear to be material. Can you help us on this?
Dr. Lambert: At one time, Dr. Chopra was prevented from attending a meeting and he received a registered letter on that.
Senator Grafstein: That was a public meeting?
Dr. Lambert: Yes. In the case of Heritage Canada, he was on the agenda of the meeting. They could have prevented him from attending that meeting if they wanted to do so.
Senator Grafstein: I wish to go back to the ground that Senator Grimard covered.
The Chairman: I would like to establish the time line. In Dr. Chopra's evidence, he said that "the excuse they used to discipline me with the five-day suspension, my presentation at Canadian Heritage, was on the 25 and 26 of March, 1999."
Senator Grafstein: March? That was some months prior to the Senate hearings at which he gave his testimony.
The Chairman: It was in between his appearances. His last appearance was in May of 1999.
Senator Grafstein: This is my final question, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted to ask it.
I am quite puzzled again by your conclusion that the suspension of Dr. Chopra was a pretext to intimidate other scientists at Health Canada not to speak out or not to tell the truth. What did you conclude? How did you conclude, as a scientist, that you may have been intimidated? Intimidated to do what?
Dr. Lambert: To bring the problems forward and to discuss the problems. In a way, they wanted to try to ignore the problems. In the case of WTO, the World Trade Organization, we were kept out of the file because they said we were not allowed to know what was going on. They made statements in the WTO complaint and now we can not support those statements internally, because we have information on file so that, if we were part of those committees, we could offer our opinion. It will now come out that they said things that are not in our file. Management does not want those things to be open to them. They do not want us to change their final assessment. In some cases, I was directly involved; I made the review and they did not follow my recommendations. It is because the drug is a carcinogen and when the drug is a carcinogen, we should not allow it in food-producing animals. That is why the antibiotic was not allowed in food-producing animals in Canada.
I personally found out in the review that that drug was a potential carcinogen and that the timing for tumours was positive. However, the antibiotic was submitted in other countries at the same time -- for example, in Europe -- and it was approved there; but in Canada and in the U.S. we did not approve it because it was a carcinogen. I found out in another file that the drug is a carcinogen, but nothing is done on that file. If we cannot bring out those problems, the Canadian public are in trouble.
The Chairman: Senator Sparrow, did you have a supplementary question?
Senator Sparrow: I do not know whether it would be called a supplementary question.
The Chairman: Let me go to Senator Kinsella, then, the sponsor of this question of privilege.
Senator Kinsella: On page 3 of your presentation, again in the penultimate paragraph, you are referring to the May 21, 1999, message from Mr. Dodge sent to all employees.
Do we have a copy of that, Mr. Chairman, in our documentation?
Dr. Lambert: It is in my binder.
The Chairman: Yes, we do.
Senator Kinsella: What in that message did you find offensive or threatening?
Dr. Lambert: He gave the message to all employees that we do not have any substance in our allegations about rBST. It was done before the board substantiated the complaint. It was not a fact that was discussed. He interpreted the PSSRB decision in his own way and he portrayed us as troublemakers who just complained for nothing.
Senator Kinsella: Have you read the Dittberner report now?
Dr. Lambert: We just received it while we were preparing the documents for the Senate hearing.
Senator Kinsella: Does it tend to substantiate your position on the science?
Dr. Lambert: No. I have a few comments on that report. It referred to three drugs: Melengestral acetate, Revelor H and Revelor S. I have some reservations with Melengestral acetate.
Senator Kinsella: An e-mail was received on October 23, 1998, describing the strategy that the department wanted the scientists to follow in appearing before a parliamentary committee. Was there anything there, or subsequent to that, where you were told what you could say as a scientist or where you were told what testimony you could not give as a scientist?
Dr. Lambert: It was done before at a meeting with the Privy Council Office. At that meeting, we were not to speak about our entire report because some parts of it were removed. But when the question was asked to the Privy Council lawyers, if we have to tell the truth before the committee, they said yes, but we were directed to speak only on the amended report.
Senator Kinsella: In actual fact, when appearing before the Senate committee, did you and your colleagues withhold information knowingly that would have otherwise given assistance to senators in their study?
Dr. Lambert: No, we did not, because at that time of the testimony we had a full report, and because in the abridged report it was done in such a way that our recommendations were without any ground because they removed critical information in that report.
Senator Sparrow: Perhaps through you, Mr. Chairman, I could ask the witness if he fears any repercussions from his department after his testimony being given at this hearing tonight?
Do you have any fear of disciplinary action or harassment taking place because of this hearing?
Dr. Lambert: As I indicated in my brief, we are not considered for acting positions and we are not considered for the new positions in the bureau, and I do not think that will change.
Senator Sparrow: The action taken previously has stood in the way of certain promotions and so on in the department, and this is not going to help it, and may hurt it further; is that your testimony?
Dr. Lambert: Yes, it will not help.
Senator Rossiter: Just a short question for clarification. What does "gaps" mean?
Dr. Lambert: The gaps are what were supposed to be in the submission but were not done.
Senator Rossiter: What does G-A-P-S mean?
The Chairman: Is "gaps" an acronym?
Senator Rossiter: It says Gaps Analysis Report.
Senator Spivak: It refers to the gaps that took place in the previous analysis of the drug. There were so many gaps that -- how should I say it -- it was almost in contradiction of the law, the Food and Drugs Act, and this report was set up to look at the process, and that is what the gaps referred to.
I have a question, if I may.
The Chairman: I just want to make sure that Dr. Lambert agrees with what you said.
Dr. Lambert: Yes.
The Chairman: All right. What is the question?
Senator Spivak: My question is has to do with Dr. Kelly Butler; could you tell me what qualifications Dr. Butler has? Is it he or she?
Dr. Lambert: She.
Senator Spivak: It is a woman. What was her background and qualifications? Was she someone who was knowledgeable in assessing the drug process?
Dr. Lambert: She was, in my view, not in the Human Safety Division. She has no background to work in human safety aspect of veterinary drugs. She has no specialities in that field; but for four months, for a four-month period, they can nominate anyone and we have no recourse, no appeal; we cannot do anything.
Senator Spivak: What is her background? Is she an efficiency expert? Is she in management?
Senator DeWare: Is she a Ph.D.?
Dr. Lambert: No, she was in charge of another --
Senator Spivak: A different branch?
Dr. Lambert: A different branch.
Senator Spivak: What is her background? What is her degree or qualifications?
Dr. Lambert: She had a degree in veterinary medicine.
Senator Spivak: Veterinary medicine?
Dr. Lambert: Yes.
The Chairman: Dr. Lambert, thank you for the work you have done preparing for this submission and for your appearance here, and I want to say again, to Dr. Haydon and Dr. Sharma, thank you for your work and the time you have taken to prepare these submissions.
The committee adjourned.