Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 7 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 23, 2000
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 12:00 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 are ready to proceed. We have as witnesses today Dr. S.S. Malik, Dr. Cris Basudde and Dr. Arnost Vilim.
I should like to tell these witnesses that in the situation where a request was made to the committee for assurance that Health Canada would not take any disciplinary action as a consequence of their appearing before this committee, I have received a letter from the Deputy Minister, David Dodge, and this information was given to the witnesses yesterday evening, assuring this committee that there would be no action taken against witnesses appearing before a parliamentary committee. That is the obligation of the public service and of the deputy minister, and he has given me that assurance.
I hope that is acceptable to you, Dr. Malik; are you prepared to be sworn in?
Dr. Sudarshan S. Malik, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Health Canada: Yes, please.
(Dr. Sudarshan S. Malik, sworn)
The Chairman: Please be seated. I understand that you have a statement to give to the committee, and I would ask you to proceed.
Dr. Malik: I have a statement, which I will read in English, and I also have copies of this statement.
Mr. Chairman, I am here today at your invitation, to appear in front of your committee to testify for your investigation of retaliation by the employer against my colleague, Dr. Shiv Chopra, who appeared as a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry regarding the recombinant bovine somatotropin, which is also called rBST. His first appearance was on October 22, 1998. He was suspended from work by Health Canada for five days, apparently for participating in a conference organized by Heritage Canada in March 1999.
I am aware of your investigation of allegations made by Dr. Chopra, who appeared before your committee on December 7, 1999. In my statement, I have brought in all the questions that were asked of me in the letter from the Honourable Jack Austin. I will not read those questions, but they are in my statement.
In order to support my statement, I brought with me a binder also, which contains documentation that I will leave with you for your reference today. As I read through my statement, the references to the documents contained in the binder are indicated by tab numbers in brackets.
Honourable senators, I was present at two of the all-staff meetings at the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, which is also called BVD, in which intimidating or threatening statements were made by Dr. André Lachance, director of Bureau of Veterinary Drugs.
At the BVD meeting on February 4, 1998, Dr. Lachance made a statement to the following effect: "I like visible minorities. I have dealt with the individuals of the visible minorities before. I know how to deal with them."
This statement was made when he was introduced to the BVD staff by the then director general.
Being a visible minority Canadian myself, I felt very uncomfortable because these statements were neither provoked nor called for. I kept on wondering after that as to what was coming next. These statements were directed at the BVD staff belonging to the visible minorities, which includes Dr. Chopra as well. No official record of the proceedings of this meeting is available.
Again, at the BVD meeting on May 26, 1998, Dr. Lachance made a statement to the following effect: "The recommendations of the KPMG Report on the Workplace Assessment of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs form the basis of the BVD Framework for Action Plan, and if this Action Plan was not followed, there is a possibility that you (the BVD) will be broken up, moved to the other parts of the government and might never be heard of again."
This statement was made following the presentation of the KPMG report entitled, "A Workplace Assessment for the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs." This threatening statement was directed at the professional/scientific staff of the BVD, especially those who did not participate in the interviews with the KPMG staff.
According to unofficial estimates, the majority of the professional scientific staff of the BVD did not volunteer for interviews with the KPMG interviewers for a variety of reasons, one important reason being that the recommendations of the Price Waterhouse report on the strategic review of the BVD in 1996 were still to be carried out. It is worth noting that no advance copy of the KPMG report was provided to the staff in spite of a request by staff of another division, the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, through its then division chief. Again, no official record was kept of the proceedings of this meeting. When requested, Dr. Lachance disallowed tape recording as well as written minutes of the proceedings of the meeting.
Both of the above-mentioned meetings took place prior to Dr. Chopra's appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. The second meeting, however, took place after the rBST Gaps Review Team presented its report to the BVD's rBST Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, of which I was a member, on May 6, 1998.
Honourable senators, I understand that the scope of this investigation is limited, as was indicated in the letter of December 16, 1999, from the Honourable Jack Austin. However, I wish to add here that I am aware of the issues concerning workload, work environment, standard operating procedures and employee morale. I am also steward of the Professional Institute in the Workplace.
Should you have any questions, I will attempt to answer them to the best of my knowledge and ability.
In closing, I hope that my testimony will assist you in your deliberations.
The Chairman: I will lead off, if I may, with some questions for you. Are you aware that Dr. Chopra appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on three occasions?
Dr. Malik: Yes, I am aware of that.
The Chairman: He appeared in October of 1998 and, I believe, March and May of 1999. Are you aware of any discussion following any of those appearances in which Dr. Chopra was reprimanded by any superior, or any person having direction over his work, specifically for appearing or for anything he said on any of those occasions to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry?
Dr. Malik: No, I have no recollection of that.
The Chairman: I am interested in the fact that you are the union steward, because that gives me the opportunity to ask you for information with respect to some evidence that we heard from witnesses yesterday evening. In their view, management at Health Canada saw Dr. Chopra as a leader in the troubles or difficulties in the department. Do you have the sense that that is how management sees him, and do you believe that that is a correct assessment?
Dr. Malik: I believe this is seen that way by the management; but I do not think it is a correct decision; there are several others also involved in this. Whether we are troublemakers or not, I am not certain of that.
The Chairman: How do you see the issues around Dr. Chopra? I could give you sort of two options, and you could check one. Do you see them as, in the main, a dispute over science? That would be option one. Or do you see it as a dispute over management issues in the department, or some combination of the two?
Dr. Malik: I think it is some combination of the two, but mainly it is the science that we are concerned about.
The Chairman: In the view of yourself, it is the prevailing opinion of the scientists in the bureau that management is unprepared to accept analytical science and has other objectives?
Dr. Malik: Yes, that is my view.
The Chairman: What would those other objectives be?
Dr. Malik: Can you say it again, please?
The Chairman: You just said that it was your view that management is not prepared to accept objective science. I wondered whether you could explain why that is the case.
Dr. Malik: On several occasions, when the scientific reports of evaluations are presented, it so happens that we are told, not in a direct way, that "Please change your report." The effect is so that it goes through or so that there is not much problem in the industry.
Again, it has happened at two or three submissions that we had before, drugs that were hormones or antibiotics; so there is a friction all the time going on between the scientists and the management.
The Chairman: Is management asking scientists to take health risks, or is it a question of reasonable people can differ as to the conclusions?
Dr. Malik: I think it is more than that reasonable people can differ over a conclusion.
The Chairman: It is more than that?
Dr. Malik: It is more than that, but I cannot pinpoint exactly.
The Chairman: I will ask my colleagues if there are any questions of Dr. Malik?
Senator Kroft: I would like to pursue this last point regarding a situation where there is scientific evaluation being made of a drug, a food, or whatever is the subject of the test, and, as in particularly this last situation, there is a tension between management and science. I think you made reference to changing your report so, I gather, it would not create problems in the industry.
I am trying to get at what is a reasonable amount of tension in a situation, and what is an unreasonable amount. Would it be correct in your view that in a situation, when scientists are asked to make objective findings where there are commercial or health and safety consequences, it is inevitable that there will be tension in this kind of situation?
Dr. Malik: That is a very difficult question to answer. All I can say is that it is very likely that this will stay that way so long as the objectives and the conclusions of the scientists are not upheld.
Senator Kroft: I am trying to take it to a more generalized situation rather than focussing on the specific players. Given the nature of the responsibility that the managers and the scientists have, is it a situation in which a certain amount of tension between the two sides is an inevitable result of this process?
Dr. Malik: Yes, it is an inevitable result of the process.
Senator Kroft: Perhaps we are talking about whether or not, for whatever reasons, it is excessive reaction of management or an inflexibility, if I can characterize it on the science point of view, in a given situation, that causes tension to reach unreasonable stages and leads to other problems?
Dr. Malik: It can. On the other hand, if, for example, I am the scientist who has made some conclusions that require the manufacturer to do some other trials or clinical trials or give some more information, and if my manager is going to take the responsibility for saying, "Okay, nothing more is required", then I can live with that. But, if the manager asks me to change my report so that it looks as though nothing is required, then I cannot live with it. So tension will be there.
Senator Kroft: I see. Are you suggesting that that was an occasional or a frequent occurrence, or neither of those?
Dr. Malik: Going back to nine years it was an occasional occurrence, but if you go back five years it is a frequent occurrence.
Senator Corbin: I would like a clarification on one particular point. Both you and Dr. Margaret Haydon referred to the KPMG study and report. Dr. Haydon, at one point in her testimony, said, and I quote:
Note that the majority of the professional scientific staff did not participate in KPMG interviews.
You say, and I quote:
According to unofficial estimates, majority of the professionals/scientific staff of the BVD did not volunteer for interviews with the KPMG interviewers for a variety of reasons.
Were you and all of your colleagues invited to be interviewed? Also, if you or your colleagues chose not to be interviewed, could you be candid with us and give us the reasons for not wanting to do so?
Dr. Malik: I have already given one reason, regarding the Price Waterhouse report that was only done a few years ago, and it is of recommendations I have put in the binder and that were not carried out. Some of them, the work was going on, and they had started.
Another reason was that at that time the director, Dr. Lachance, had just been appointed. That was April 1, 1998. He was neither a veterinarian nor did he have experience with the drug industry or drug research. In our opinion, he did not have a chance even to read what is going on in the bureau or know what is going on in the bureau. When we said that "We will sit with you and go through this KPMG report and would want to modify it so that your action plan becomes our action plan", we were not given the opportunity.
Senator Corbin: In your opinion, was the KPMG study specifically done with a view of intimidating you and preventing you from being forthcoming with the Agriculture Committee on the issues at hand? Was there any such intent in your mind? Was it like a sword over your head? Was it posed there as a threat to keep you silent? How would you look at it? Or was it just the normal sort of routine operation of re-evaluation of the functioning of your division and others, as happens quite frequently in government circles?
Dr. Malik: I would say that it was a sort of general intimidating experience that we had at that time and "specific" is not very difficult to link.
Senator Corbin: Therefore, in your opinion, there is a link with that study and your appearance before the Agriculture Committee?
Dr. Malik: I did not appear before the Agriculture Committee.
Senator Corbin: Is it your opinion that there is a link, even though you did not appear?
Dr. Malik: Looking at the overall picture, there appears to be a link.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Malik. That will end our session with you.
I will now call as a witness Dr. Cris Basudde.
Dr. Basudde, I believe you heard my statement at the beginning of this meeting with respect to the assurance of the Deputy Minister of Health Canada that no action was contemplated or would be taken as a result of any member of Health Canada appearing before this committee. Are you satisfied with that statement and prepared to give evidence today?
Dr. Cris Basudde, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Health Canada: I am satisfied, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I ask that you be sworn.
(Dr. Cris Basudde: sworn)
The Chairman: Would you please be seated. We are ready to hear from you, Dr. Basudde. Please proceed.
Dr. Basudde: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity that you have given me to address you on Dr. Shiv Chopra's allegation that his five-day suspension without pay was, in fact, due to his appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry during the study of rBST.
Mr. Chairman, I brought with me a statement that I would like to read before you. Also, I have submitted copies of the statement that I would like to be circulated.
In the letter that I wrote to you a couple of months ago, I included, and I have it before me, 17 attachments. Today, I have the final attachment, which is Attachment 18, and I would like these to be included, together with the entire package.
The Chairman: Did you say 18 or 17, Dr. Basudde? Your document says Attachment 17.
Dr. Basudde: That is the letter that I wrote you, senator.
The Chairman: And you have one additional attachment?
Dr. Basudde: I have one additional attachment today and a new version of what I want to talk about.
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Dr. Basudde: Honourable senators, by this investigation, your law is like that of a physician or veterinarian trying to identify the cause of a disease. No physician or veterinarian can make a diagnosis without history. For this reason, the first five pages of my statement cover the history of this case, but I don't have time to discuss the history. I will begin by answering the questions that appear in your letter on page 2, and the first question was: "Could you please confirm whether you heard any such statements."
I am pleased to state that I heard statements made by Dr. Lachance, Director of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, and these were the statements. I am beginning reading on page 6 of my statement, and I will begin with the second paragraph referring to the statements.
On May 26, 1998, at a staff meeting of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs held at the Ottawa Conference Centre, Dr. Lachance, who was the bureau director, was presenting the KPMG report. This is what he said in the report:
Our clients are the industry. I see the industry; they come to see me and not the public. You have to serve the industry or you will be moved to parts of the government where you will never be heard from again.
On September 2, 1998, Dr. Lachance called another meeting of the bureau. On this occasion he was introducing an action plan that he had based on the KPMG report. Dr. Lachance said, "The train is now leaving the station, get on it or else it will leave without you."
I also heard Dr. Lachance making some racist statements. The first statement was: "I like visible minorities." This was made in February 9, 1998. The second statement was: "Visible minority person mentality permeates all these things." This statement was made on July 24, 1998. I will not discuss the racist statements.
Honourable senators, please note that the statements on page 6 were made soon after the Gaps Analysis Report was released by the team, and this was some time before Drs. Chopra, Lambert and Haydon testified at the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
I would like to emphasize that, all along, Health Canada knew that the Gaps Analysis Report would eventually go to the Senate to be discussed. This is why, if you go back to page 6, Health Canada did everything possible to change the Gaps Analysis Report. Health Canada managers, whom I have mentioned there, all told Dr. Chopra and Dr. Lambert to change the report.
The second thing which you have to take notice about in the Gaps Analysis Report is that Mr. Feeley and Dr. Mueller were not from the BVD and they wrote another report.
The third important critical factor here is that, when the Senate started investigating the Gaps Analysis Report, two, and not one, Gaps Analysis Reports ended up at the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. This happened because the first report had a critical 90-day rat study deleted and later on, after protests from the Senate, the accurate report having that study in it was sent to the Senate.
I come to your second question: "What was the context of these statements?"
My answer is that I believe that Dr. Lachance was very clearly saying that the public of Canada was not our client; that industry was our client and we had to serve them. In other words, Dr. Lachance was making policy statements on these two occasions. These statements were explicitly threats and intimidating, too.
Dr. Chopra, due to his role in the Gaps Analysis Report and his refusal to change it, and the fact that he was the best known of all of us, was portrayed as the leader of this group. Therefore, these statements were directed to Dr. Chopra in particular and all of us who were involved in the collective grievance of the PSSRB. I will not explain that but refer you to Attachments 1 and 2.
Honourable senators, it is extremely important to realize that senior management at Health Canada have been trying to put rBST on the market in Canada for the past 10 years. The conviction of senior management has been, and still remains unchanged up to this very day, that edible products and milk from cows treated with BST are safe for human consumption. See Attachment 17.
That is why senior management at Health Canada wanted an individual, whom they could manipulate and intimidate, such as myself, to write the Gaps Analysis Report on rBST. You will see that in Attachment 4. That is also why senior management told Dr. Chopra to change the rBST Gaps Analysis Report, which he did not do.
Attachment 17, and the appointments that I would like to describe later on, substantiate what I mean.
Honourable senators, I would like to put you a little bit ahead, in that Attachment 17 shows, among other things, that in utter disregard to the recommendations in the interim report of March 1999, of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, a senior manager at Health Canada, Dr. Ian Alexander, on or around September 9, 1999, asked me to pass edible tissues and milk from rBST treated cows as safe for human consumption.
I would like to go back to your questions again: What inferences did I draw from Dr. Lachance's statements? I drew the following inferences: First, the management, as Dr. Lachance implied, was going to retaliate against those drug evaluators, like Dr. Chopra and the rest of us, who believed that the public of Canada and not the pharmaceutical industry was their client. Second, drug evaluators had to do exactly as the management wanted them to do or else quit, because "the train was leaving without them," to use Dr. Lachance's words.
I believed then, and I do so now, that these were policy statements, and so far I have been proved absolutely right.
What are my reasons for drawing these inferences from these statements? These are my reasons: Since the introduction of cost recovery in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs on April 1, 1996, and I refer you to the Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 130, No. 6, the pharmaceutical industries, either individually or collectively through their union, the Canadian Animal Health Institute, have sought greater control over the drug review process in the BVD, because they believe in the adage that "The one who pays the piper calls the tune."
Honourable senators, Dr. Chopra and the five of us who took the case to the PSSRB believe that every drug product that seeks permission -- that is, a notice of compliance or NOC -- to be put on the market in Canada must comply with the requirements of our mandate, and our mandate is the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. Without strict adherence to the requirements of the Food and Drugs Act and regulations, there is no way edible products from food-producing animals in Canada could be safe for the Canadian consumer.
What was the cause of Dr. Lachance's statements? Why did he have to make his statements, in other words?
I think this was because of our collective grievance to senior management at Health Canada, which ended with Mr. Nymark's letter of December 19, 1997, to us, and because of Dr. Chopra's refusal to change the rBST Gaps Analysis Report.
Therefore, I believe that Dr. Chopra's five-day suspension without pay is a retaliation by senior management at Health Canada against him for his involvement in the collective grievance, his refusal to change the rBST Gaps Analysis Report, and his subsequent testimony to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
I also believe that senior management at Health Canada have retaliated against Dr. Chopra and all of us in Human Safety Division by failing to appoint any one of us as Acting Chief of the Human Safety Division because of our involvement in the collective grievance and our opposition to the clearance of rBST and other products of questionable safety to Canadians.
I will talk, honourable senators, about the appointments, because these are the things that happened after Dr. Chopra, Dr. Lambert and Dr. Haydon had appeared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture. These appointments are significant.
Honourable senators, when I became an employee of the BVD 10 years ago, I did so on merit, by winning a competition -- No. 90-NHW-N2-OC-029. Since then, appointments are no longer being made on merit but on partisanship and cronyism. There is absolutely no transparency in the appointments being made at the BVD. The appointments of Dr. Lachance as Director of the BVD, Attachment 18A, Dr. Ian Alexander as Acting Chief, Human Safety Division, Attachment 18B, and Dr. Kelly Butler as both Chief of Policy and Programs Division and Acting Chief, Human Safety Division, Attachment 18C, are good examples of appointments based not on merit and/or experience but on partisanship and cronyism.
Dr. Chopra, myself and colleagues who appeared before you yesterday have strongly opposed these appointments. We have taken our complaints to the Public Service Commission of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Director General of the Food Directorate, and nothing has been done.
Dr. Man Sen Yong was recently appointed Senior Scientific Advisor to the director. Dr. Yong is a person who makes regulatory human safety decisions behind closed doors and represents Canada at Codex Alimentarius and JECFA meetings. Dr. Yong was with the Human Safety Division for 10 years and he failed to update Table III of the Foods and Drugs Act and Regulations. Was Dr. Yong's appointment in his present position based on competence?
Dr. Ian Alexander was brought to Human Safety Division from PAD while Dr. Butler was brought from the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control. Dr. Alexander's inexperience in human safety matters is quite evident in Attachment 17. Dr. Butler's inexperience is obvious when she ordered me to evaluate residue data for Terramycin without the maximum residue limit and then copied that e-mail to Kerrie Strachan in Human Resources because she believes that my failure to evaluate the data for the reason that I mentioned meant that I had disobeyed her.
Honourable senators, from the forgoing, you have before you, on the one hand, a group of highly experienced, very skilled and extremely diligent scientists like Dr. Chopra, myself and our colleagues who have been invited to appear before you, scientists who have been and are being threatened, intimidated, marginalized, deprofessionalized and subsequently punished. On the other hand, you have inexperienced, unskilled and/or incompetent scientists being appointed or promoted to make regulatory decisions.
You ask yourselves, honourable senators, what is happening? Why are these appointments being made? In my opinion, these appointments are being made for two reasons. The first reason is retaliation. The appointments of Dr. Ian Alexander and Kelly Butler as Acting Chief of Human Safety and Dr. Yong as senior scientific advisor constitute a blatant retaliation against Human Safety Division staff by senior management at Health Canada because of our collective grievance and our opinions against the clearing of rBST and other products of questionable safety to Canadians. This is an item where people like Dr. Chopra, who has been there for 30 years, are really being singled out to be discriminated in all these appointments, but we are all suffering in the same way. If you compare Human Safety Division to the Pharmaceutical Division, when Dr. Landry retired, evaluators in the division were appointed to the position of acting chief. Attachment 18E will show you what I mean.
The other point which I want to cover here is that probably there is an underlying reason, and that is personal clearing products that do not comply with the Food and Drugs Regulations. This is an important reason why these appointments are being made. It also explains why scientists who are opposed to this direction, like Dr. Chopra and ourselves, whom you have invited to appear before you, are being subjected to what I have just described.
In conclusion, honourable senators, I wish to remind you that Dr. Chopra's allegation, by itself, tells only part of the story of what is happening at Health Canada. To know the full story, you have to consider the entire package that I have presented to you today. This package includes the following: our collective grievance to the PSSRB; review of the rBST file; Dr. Lachance's statements -- page 6 of this presentation; Dr. Chopra's allegation; the appointments in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs; and Attachment 17.
The full story described by all of the above is synonymous with the direction that Health Canada wishes to take. Therefore, the deputy minister, the assistant deputy minister, the Director General of the Food Directorate and associate director general all know of what is happening.
The Chairman: If I may, I will lead off with a question, which is our standard question and you have heard me ask it of other witnesses. You refer in your document on page 8 of 12 to the word "inferences". You say, "I drew the following inferences", and then you come to the second-last paragraph on page 9, in which you say:
I believe that Dr. Chopra's five-day suspension without pay is a retaliation, by senior management at Health Canada, against him for his involvement in the collective grievance, his refusal to change the rBST Gaps Analysis Report, and his subsequent testimony to the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Is that an inference? You used the word earlier in your letter. Have you heard any superior in the department or have you seen anything in writing that links Dr. Chopra's appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry to a reprimand or to discipline of any kind?
Dr. Basudde: There was no reprimand as such, honourable senator. I think you have to accept the first opinion statement that I made that you need to look at history. In this case, you are like a physician who is going to make a diagnosis in a disease. You have to look at history. Without history, there is no way one can make a diagnosis.
As to the Gaps Analysis Report, Health Canada knew all along that the Gaps Analysis Report, when it was produced, and if it was going to be produced in that form without any change, was going to bring trouble to Health Canada. As I said earlier, Health Canada has been trying for the past 10 years to put rBST on the Canadian market. Therefore, the Gaps Analysis Report without change was the final nail in the coffin of rBST, and that is why everything was done to stop the Gaps Analysis Report from appearing in that form. There was no reprimand, but, as you are aware, and I will give the example of a traffic light, you have the amber coming before the red. The caution came, or the warning came, early on, before, and Health Canada knew. They are not amateurs in this profession.
They knew that, if the Gap Analysis Report was going to be produced in that form, there was a distinct possibility that it would end up in the Senate committee being investigated. There was no reprimand, nothing.
The Chairman: So what you are asking us to do is to make the same inference that you are making, from the whole body of the evidence, that the appearance of Dr. Chopra before the Senate Committee on Agriculture was part of a chain of events that gave rise to discipline against him. But you did not hear or see anything specific? You did not hear an officer say, "Because you appeared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture we are going to discipline you"?
Dr. Basudde: No, I did not.
The Chairman: So you are asking us to draw a similar inference on the basis of what you have advised us.
Senator Gauthier: You said it was an interesting presentation. I found it very, very disturbing. I am not going to go into the gist of the matter here, except to comment on statements such as, "Appointments are based not on merit or experience but on partisanship and cronyism." It disturbs me immensely, Mr. Chairman, to hear such remarks.
I go to page 11 and I read: "On the other hand, you have inexperienced, unskilled and/or incompetent scientists being appointed or promoted to make regulatory decisions." That also disturbs me very much.
I am going to ask you, Mr. Chairman, before I ask my question of the witness, do we intend to call the Public Service Commission who is responsible for the principle of merit and its application in the public service of Canada? If we do not hear from them and I take things as said here, then we have a serious problem.
The Chairman: Our intention is to call the Deputy Minister of Health Canada and his investigator, Mr. Hunter, and perhaps other officials of Health Canada whose names have appeared in relevant evidence. Whether we would call the Public Service Commission is something that the steering committee has not yet reviewed, but it will be interesting to consider that matter.
Senator Gauthier: You see, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, and I have been here for close to 30 years, the Public Service Commission is responsible for the application of the merit principle. It delegates to deputy ministers certain authority for hiring, promotion and everything else. From the testimony I heard this morning, I am not satisfied that the merit principle has been protected and applied as willed by the Parliament of Canada. It is rather applied by partisanship and cronyism, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong. I take this very seriously. This is a serious person and I am very upset with the statement that he made.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, regarding your comment, I need to reply to the committee in this way: The direction of the Senate to this committee is to examine whether there has been any interference with the right of witnesses to speak to this committee as to their interest and concern and the truth of information they wish to bring to this committee. That is our mandate.
The question is whether there has been interference with parliamentary privilege, in that witnesses may have been intimidated or faced improper interference. It is not our mandate to examine the question of the application of the merit principle or the operation of the Public Service Commission. If that evidence is on the record, it is the responsibility of others. We will certainly draw that evidence to the attention of those for whom a proper concern should exist.
Senator Gauthier: I understand what you have just said and I agree, but I am very disturbed that the morale in that department, as has been said here many times, is very low. I can understand that it would be very low if that is the way things operate in Health Canada. Merit is not used, but rather cronyism and partisanship.
The Chairman: You will have the opportunity, I hope next week, to express your concerns and ask your questions of the deputy minister, who has a statutory responsibility for managing his department. If you have a question of Dr. Basudde, please proceed.
Senator Gauthier: I cannot ask that question, if the witness will not give me any evidence. I am asking through you, Mr. Chairman; if the witness has any proof, or does he just have his feeling that the merit principle is not being applied? He has made some serious allegations.
I can wait for the deputy minister, but I will go higher than that. I will go to the Public Service Commission, because they are the ones who are bound by the regulations and the law of Canada. This is very disturbing.
Senator Kinsella: Dr. Basudde, around the middle of August, I wrote a letter to Deputy Minister Dodge, prior to the imposition of the job action against Dr. Chopra, requesting that he and the department would not impose that action until the Senate had had a chance to examine the concern of possible interference with the testimony of a witness before a parliamentary committee. As you would know, that request was not accepted. Indeed, the following day, or two days later, the job action was imposed.
My question to you is this: In your judgment, what harm would have been done to the science work that you and Dr. Chopra and colleagues perform in the public interest by the deputy minister's complying with this request and not imposing the job action at that time?
Dr. Basudde: Mr. Chairman, are you asking me for the action -- I mean for the reaction?
Senator Kinsella: No, I want to know whether you think any harm would have been done to your work, or to the work of Dr. Chopra and your colleagues, if the department had not imposed the disciplinary action of a five-day suspension, when we requested that they not do that until we in the Senate had had a chance to look into this matter?
Dr. Basudde: I think they should have taken your advice. In that way --
Senator Kinsella: Okay. Thank you for that answer. Dr. Basudde, were you present at the meeting at which Dr. Lachance made the statement, "I like visible minorities," or the meeting at which he stated, "Visible minority person mentality permeates all these things"?
Dr. Basudde: I was, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kinsella: How did you feel, as a member of a visible minority community in Canada and working in the public interest as a public servant, when that kind of statement was made?
Dr. Basudde: I felt very, very much hurt, and that is why I sent, or I took my case to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is why there is a number of that file there. There is a case going on with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I thought that was a racist remark, or those were racist remarks.
Senator Kinsella: Yes. Now, what was the date at which Dr. Alexander received the appointment?
Dr. Basudde: I have that in the attachment, Mr. Chairman, of Dr. Alexander, Attachment 18, and that comes down to Attachment 18 B, and I guess it was at a meeting. We were informed at a meeting of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs on May 6, 1999. That is Attachment B.
Senator Kinsella: On May 6, 1999, Alexander received the appointment; was that the same date that Dr. Kelly Butler received her appointment, or was that a different date?
Dr. Basudde: No, Mr. Chairman. Again you go to Attachment 18 C for Dr. Kelly Butler's appointment. Dr. Butler was first appointed as Chief, Policy and Programs Division, on Monday, August 16, 1999.
Senator Kinsella: August 16.
Dr. Basudde: And then she was appointed Acting Chief, Human Safety Division, from September 20, 1999, to January 17, 1999, but up to now she is still Acting Chief in Human Safety Division and she is also in Policy and Programs Division.
Senator Kinsella: Dr. Basudde, would you just review your testimony, for the members of this committee, as to the connection that you see between the appointments of these two employees of the department, Dr. Alexander and Dr. Butler? How might this constitute -- if that indeed is your testimony -- a discipline or a retaliation for the appearance of Dr. Chopra before the Senate committee? Is it your argument that Dr. Chopra, being part of a group working on the file they were working on and because of the kind of testimony they were giving to the Senate committee, was ignored in the promotion process and others were promoted, when, as you have said, there were others who were better qualified?
Dr. Basudde: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Chopra is the most senior member of the Human Safety Division, and I think of the entire bureau, judging from the fact that he has been in Health Canada for more than 30 years. His experience is enormous. If there is any opening like that, the first consideration is that he has also been an acting chief. He was Acting Chief of the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division, I think two or three years back; therefore, I think the procedure which was followed in the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division, when Dr. Landry retired, should have been followed in the Human Safety Division, if there was no retaliation; that is, each member of the Human Safety Division should have been given a chance to be acting chief for a period of four months.
Senator Kinsella: You think they were not given that chance because of the position that they have taken on the rBST and the testimony that was proffered to the Senate committee on that matter?
Dr. Basudde: That is right, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: I have a follow-up question, Dr. Basudde. Senator Kinsella's question was "You think they were not, " but do you have anything to specifically focus on that assumption or inference, to use your word? Has anyone in authority spoken to you to confirm such a belief?
Dr. Basudde: Mr. Chairman, they do not speak to us in such a -- I mean they have to protect themselves. Everything is done in a subtle way, but this is true. As I said earlier, once you raise your voice against senior management you have to kiss goodbye to any promotion or any consideration for any managerial position in Health Canada. This has been true, I think, for several years and is still as true today as it was then.
Honourable senators, we have the one witness waiting and we must conclude at 1:30 because the Senate will sit at that time. I am in your hands as to whether there are vital questions that should be pursued here.
Senator Kroft: I have only one very quick question just to clarify the record.
In the general picture that you have set out here today, you have cited two examples, in terms of the allegations of intimidation by management and the interference with merit process on promotion. Have you given any of this evidence or presented this picture in any other public forum prior to this?
Dr. Basudde: No, Mr. Chairman, I have not presented it in a public forum, but we sent complaints about these appointments to the Public Service Commission of Canada. We have sent complaints to our union --
Senator Kroft: Excuse me for interrupting you, but just to keep this short, in terms of the Agriculture Committee, none of this subject came up in any of the presentations to the Agriculture Committee, or in any other evidence that you have given in any other forum. Therefore, this is the first time in a public forum, on the record, that you have given these statements?
Dr. Basudde: This is the first time.
Senator Grafstein: I will try to be brief, too, Mr. Chairman. I would like the witness to turn quickly to page 11 of 12, the second paragraph, because this appears to me to be a new subject matter and I will just raise it, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps we can come back to this.
Mr. Chairman, you have cautioned the public service that there shall be no action in any way, shape or form that would inhibit the free and truthful exchange of information to look into this question, as well as, obviously, the previous question. However, I notice in paragraph 2, and I will drop to the highlighted point:
Honourable senators ... you have before you ... Dr. Chopra, myself, and our colleagues who have been invited to appear before you, scientists who have been and are being threatened, intimidated, marginalized, deprofessionalized and subsequently punished.
This is in the current tense as opposed to the past tense, as opposed the question of privilege that we are looking at, which is a retrospective look at evidence before another committee.
I do not know how to deal with this, Mr. Chairman, because this, in effect, is a collateral but substantive issue. Perhaps I could raise it now and maybe, because of the timing, the committee can consider this question and see whether or not we will wish to bring this witness back to deal with this specific item.
The Chairman: Thank you. We will consider that.
Thank you very much, Dr. Basudde, for your appearance here today and your assistance to us.
The Chairman: I will now call on Dr. Arnost Vilim.
Dr. Vilim, before you are sworn, I wish to draw to your attention my statement at the beginning of these hearings. We have asked for and received an assurance by the Deputy Minister of Health Canada that no action will be taken by him or his department against anyone who appears here as a witness. Are you satisfied to appear as a witness?
Dr. Arnost Vilim, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Health Canada: Yes, I am.
The Chairman: Thank you. I will ask that you be sworn.
(Dr. Arnost Vilim: Sworn)
The Chairman: Please be seated. Dr. Vilim, we have a time problem that you did not create, but we must be aware of it in any event. Would it be possible for you to select salient parts of your presentation? If you believe that it is all salient, then we will hear it and ask you to come back at another time to respond to questions. I give you that choice.
Dr. Vilim: I will go with everything, because I think it is important that the committee get a complete picture as to what goes on here.
The Chairman: Please proceed, then.
Dr. Vilim: Mr. Chairman, honourable senators, good afternoon. I came here at your request to appear in front of your committee to testify. I brought with me a copy of my statement, which I would like to table with you. I also brought with me a binder containing extensive documentation, which I would like also to table with you for your reference.
As I go through my statement, the relevant sections in the binder that contains documents are denoted by boldface-typed numbers in brackets.
Honourable senators, I am a bearer of the retaliation by the employer against my colleague, Dr. Shiv Chopra, who appeared as a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry regarding the rBST.
As you are undoubtedly aware, the Deputy Minister of Health has initiated his own investigation. I received a letter from Mr. George D. Hunter of Borden, Elliott Scott & Aylen dated February 4, 2000, inviting me to be interviewed by him, pointing out tight deadlines. I found the reference to the purpose of the investigation, as stated in the first paragraph of Mr. Hunter's letter, intimidating, specifically when he referred to using this investigation for disciplinary or other proceedings. The mandate for the investigation was narrow, limited to four pages from Dr. Chopra's testimony before your committee on December 7, 1999. The investigation was promptly publicized to all employees on February 11, 2000, before invitees agreed to participate. The other employees Drs. Basudde, Malik and Sharma, also named in Dr. Chopra's testimony, have not been invited by Mr. Hunter.
Honourable senators, I have personally witnessed several threatening statements which were made by the Director, Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, during all-staff meetings of May 26, 1998, and September 2, 1998. In addition, I am aware of other retaliatory actions by the management of Health Canada before, during and after Dr. Chopra's testimony before the Senate committee hearings on rBST. These include the following actions, such as an issuance of a letter of reprimand for speaking to the media; forbiddance to attend a community meeting at YMCA; a five-day suspension without pay for speaking on racism at a Heritage Canada conference; a removal from a committee on antibiotic resistance and replacement by Drs. Butler and Breton; a harassment complaint by a secretary of the human safety division; and an excessive secrecy on the part of the management, where important information directly related to our work is being deliberately withheld from members of the Human Safety Division.
Before describing the above occurrences in more detail, honourable senators, allow me to give you a brief description of the working climate in the BVD that led to the dissent of its scientists.
When Health Canada embarked on the introduction of the cost recovery, it was made clear that industry will exert direct influence over regulatory process in BVD. A one-day work shop called "Canada's Veterinary Drug Program: Now and In the Future" was held at the government conference centre in Ottawa on February 17, 1997. The meeting was chaired by Ms Victoria Ryce of Gilmore and Associates and was co-chaired by Dr. Paterson, Director General, Food Directorate, Health Protection Branch, and Ms Jean Szkotnicki of the Canadian Animal Health Institute, also known as CAHI, representing pharmaceutical manufacturers. Staff were advised of a new way of conducting business by servicing our industry clients, forming a partnership and sharing responsibilities with these clients.
Senator Grafstein: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could ask the witness to slow down. We can take the time and have him return at another meeting.
Please take your time. You sound like you are moving ahead to please us.
Dr. Vilim: I am.
Senator Grafstein: We would rather get it in a balanced way and have you more comfortable so that we can digest everything carefully.
I hope that is all right, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes. Please proceed at your normal pace, Dr. Vilim.
Senator Grafstein: Yes; be comfortable.
Dr. Vilim: The industrial representatives, on their part, expressed their dismay with the cost recovery policy, but they continued to go along with it since they had a voice in influencing how BVD carries out its regulatory function through periodical meetings with the management of BVD under the joint program management advisory committee. They were also involved in the rewriting of guidelines to be used by BVD. These included guidelines on submission screening, guidelines for production drugs, guidelines on safety and efficacy of anti-mastitis intramammary infusion drugs and guidelines for residues.
During this time, scientists from the HSD were involved in a complaint against their chief, Dr. Man Sen Yong. The complaint was referred by the management to mediation. The management contracted out a mediator, but the problem was not resolved and the scientists of HSD put in a collective grievance, which was rejected at the highest level. A complaint was made to the Public Service Staff Relations Board about the transfer of three HSD evaluators to Pharmaceutical Assessment Division in retaliation by management for having brought to light irregularities concerning the assessment of veterinarian drugs at the BVD. The board concluded that the evidence adduced by the complainants did not substantiate the complaint but that the evidence established the presence of troubling scientific and interpersonal conflicts in the BVD workplace.
In the meantime, Dr. Chopra and other scientists in BVD were opposing the approval of rBST in Canada. I will not go into further detail, but I refer you to my statement on the rBST.
I will now continue concerning what happened when the newly appointed director came to the scene.
When a newly appointed director of BVD arrived in the spring of 1998, he took it upon himself as one of his first tasks to critique the completed Gaps Analysis Report signed by all four scientists who prepared it. In his critique, he expressed his dissatisfaction with the report and demanded a complete revision to exclude any references to wrongdoing and manipulation of the previous rBST review process. In his comments, he made references to the team members to think of their "proper scientific credibility essential to the pursuit of a science-oriented career". The two division chiefs in BVD also criticized the report and asked to remove certain portions of it. Two outside scientists rewrote some parts of the report, but Drs. Chopra and Lambert maintained that the original report, signed by all four scientists, stands.
The management of the BVD contracted out a workplace assessment project to KPMG. On May 26, a meeting was called to present the staff of BVD with the findings of KPMG. The workplace assessment report by KPMG was not made available to the staff of BVD prior to the meeting, and after the presentation by Ms Suzanne Liska of KPMG, the director, in his comments, made the statement to the effect that this is a new era in the government and that we are here to service our clients, the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Chopra contended that our client is the Canadian public and that we in the bureau have to uphold the Food and Drugs Act and regulations. The director replied that is it is the industry people who are calling him; the public do not call him. He continued by suggesting that the staff better shape up or they could be broken up and moved to other parts of the government, where they would never be heard from again. Further discussion of the KPMG report was disallowed and no minutes were taken of the meeting.
During the summer months of 1998, staff were asking for a meeting to discuss the KPMG report. At the next all-staff meeting, on September 2, 1998, Dr. Chopra repeated the request to discuss the KPMG report with the help of a facilitator. The director replied that he would take it under advisement, but the discussion never happened.
Dr. Chopra questioned the director's management style when the director refused to meet with HSD members along with Dr. Malik, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada steward being also present to take the minutes. The director responded by saying to the effect that if the staff do not cooperate with him he could be very tough and that the time has gone, the train has left the station, so people get on it or else. He has been tasked to be very directive and that he intends to do so. The director then proceeded to present his vision for the future, and his action plan based on the workplace assessment report by KPMG is followed to this day.
Following Dr. Chopra's testimony before the Senate committee hearings on rBST, I am aware of several retaliatory actions that occurred, such as a reprimand for speaking to the media, a ban to attend a community meeting at YMCA and a five-day suspension without pay. I understand that all of the above retaliatory actions against Dr. Chopra are currently under litigation before the federal court, PSSRB and your committee.
The five-day suspension occurred ostensibly for attending and participating in a conference organized by Heritage Canada in March 1999. To the best of my knowledge, I do not recall another case of disciplinary action of this sort taken against a scientist for participating in a conference on his/her own time, at no expense to the employer.
In May 1999, Dr. Yong was moved from the position of Chief, Human Safety Division. None of the five eminently qualified and experienced scientists from HSD were given the opportunity to act for a longer period of time. Instead, Dr. Alexander of the Pharmaceutical Assessment Division in BVD dealing with animal safety and efficacy was appointed Acting Chief of HSD by the director for a period of four months.
Our current Acting Chief, Dr. Butler, has been brought to BVD on a deployment basis and appointed as Chief of the newly established Policy and Programs Division. In September 1999, Dr. Butler was also named Acting Chief of HSD for a period of four months. In September 1999, the Director told me in a meeting with him that the poster for the Human Safety Division Acting Chief position was printed and ready to be posted, and that a competition for an acting position for a period of one year was going to be held shortly. Nothing has happened to this day and another short term acting appointment for a period of four months starting January 17 to May 16, 2000 was made, and Dr. Butler continues in her dual responsibilities for two divisions.
During the absence of the director from January 19 to February 14, 2000, Dr. Butler also assumed responsibilities as Acting Director, BVD. Nobody from the Human Safety Division was asked to act as Acting Chief. Dr. Butler assumed the duties of three positions in the bureau, all simultaneously.
Staffing actions in BVD are seen as unfair. Complaints were made to the Public Service Commission, and I understand that three additional complaints were made to the Human Rights Commission about staffing practices in BVD. However, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada officers inform us that the position Health Canada insists upon is that outside commissions or tribunals have no jurisdiction over the matters and that, if any action at all has to be pursued, it must be conditional to a prior internal investigation by Health Canada itself.
In May 1999, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada hosted a public forum titled, "Is your Food Safe? A Public Forum on the Canadian Food Industry. The Canadian Governance of Food Production and Public Safety: Use of Antibiotics and Hormones". In April 1999, several BVD employees -- Drs. Chopra, Haydon and Lambert -- involved in organizing this PIPSC forum received a letter from the Director General, Food Directorate, reminding them of the public servants' duty of loyalty and of their obligations under the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the public service. Ironically, Dr. Sharma and myself did not receive such a letter, although we were also involved in organizing this forum.
Another form of retaliation manifests itself in excessive secrecy in which the management has contracted out a review on four hormonal drugs that are used in food producing animals for growth promotion purposes. A report written by Dr. Dittberner is being deliberately withheld from the members of HSD. The process of the revision of Table III of Division 15, Part B of Food and Drugs regulations, which specifies maximum residue limits for veterinary drugs that are used in food producing animals, falls also into this category, as well as the final report of the internal investigation of a complaint dated September 17, 1999, about shredding and other related incidents in BVD by the Health, Safety and Security Division.
The Chairman: Dr. Vilim, we heard last night that the Dittberner report was in fact released on February 18, 2000.
Dr. Vilim: That is correct, and in my list of contents for the binder it is added as a postscript: Release of report on hormones by Dr. Dittberner, e-mail by Acting chief, Dr. Butler, on February 18, 2000.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Dr. Vilim: This has been done after a discussion with the Access to Information Director. It is the last document in my binder.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Dr. Vilim: In September 1999, the Human Safety Division secretary filed a harassment complaint against Dr. Chopra. This was subsequently grieved by Dr. Chopra and the entire scientific staff of HSD.
The documents in my binder illustrate that the current working environment is fast approaching near chaotic proportions as the bureau was getting ready for a meeting with the Canadian Animal Health Institute (CAHI), which took place on February 15, 2000. Documents in this section show conflicting messages of advocating open communication yet withholding vital information that is needed by the scientific staff in their conduct of daily duties.
The whole sequence of events makes it clear that while the management has been directing threats, intimidation and retaliation also towards other staff in BVD, Dr. Chopra bears the brunt of the retaliatory actions by the management. The silencing of Dr. Chopra, who has been the most outspoken scientist in BVD, and has testified three times in front of a Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on rBST study, and making an example out of him, would help to quell the dissent of scientists and discourage others from bringing forward examples of wrongdoing.
Honourable senators, Health Canada continually dismissed our allegations of wrongdoing. The KPMG report talks about a group of troublemakers. On September 30, 1999, more than 200 employees of the Food Directorate signed a petition on Bill C-80, delivered to the Minister of Health. A subsequent meeting with the senior management on October 27, 1999, showed that there are serious problems in the department. The response from the deputy minister was angry and intimidating, particularly in his exchange with Dr. Chopra. On our part, several employees of BVD discussed the issues of hormones and antimicrobial drugs used in food-producing animals for growth promotion purposes and the lack of maximum residue limits in Table III, Division 15, Part B of the Food and Drugs regulations for many veterinary drugs that are used for food-producing animals.
In closing, I hope that my contribution will assist you in your deliberations.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Vilim. It is a very interesting submission, and appreciated.
In previous discussion today, you have heard that our focus is on whether there is any direct link that we can find between the appearance of Dr. Chopra before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and any action, discipline, or retaliation by any superior in Health Canada that is linked to that appearance. Have you seen anything in writing or heard any anything personally that would give you that specific knowledge?
Dr. Vilim: The way things are done, senator, is first of all, look at the work environment that we are working in. Of course, nothing is done explicitly. Everything is done in a very subtle way. However, I will give you my reasons why I do believe that there is a link. I have four reasons to give to this committee for your consideration.
First, Health Canada knew ahead of time of Dr. Chopra's attendance at the Heritage Canada meeting but did nothing to prevent him or warn him of consequences should he attend. This is in contrast to the previous year, when Dr. Chopra was prevented from attending a YMCA meeting in June of 1998.
Second, Health Canada waited for almost four months, from the Heritage Canada meeting in March 1999 until August 1999, before taking disciplinary action by suspending Dr. Chopra for five days without pay.
Dr. Chopra's last appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry were on April 26, 1999, and May 3, 1999, which is closer to the disciplinary action than the Heritage Canada meeting.
Dr. Chopra's testimony before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was, in my opinion, more damaging to Health Canada by raising many contentious issues related to food safety than his presentation at the Heritage Canada meeting. The transcripts of the Senate hearings are available on the Internet. I believe that Health Canada management was looking for an excuse to discipline Dr. Chopra.
Third, to the best of my knowledge, no one was disciplined before for attending a conference on his or her own time and at no expense to his employer.
Fourth, I feel that the suspension and other retaliatory actions are carried out by the department management to make an example out of Dr. Chopra and to discourage others from bringing forward wrongdoing in the department. There is growing dissent by scientists and other employees which resulted in a petition to the minister signed by more than 200 employees of the Food Directorate. During the October 27, 1999, all-staff meeting with senior management, the anger on the part of the Deputy Minister, David Dodge, was obvious, particularly in his verbal exchange with Dr. Chopra.
The Chairman: You used the phrase, Dr. Vilim, "I believe Health Canada was looking for an excuse to discipline Dr. Chopra."
Dr. Vilim: Yes.
The Chairman: Do you believe that it was specifically related to his appearance before the standing Senate committee?
Dr. Vilim: Yes, I do.
The Chairman: Is your belief based on anything said to you or anything you have seen in writing?
Dr. Vilim: No.
The Chairman: Is it based on a chain of events?
Dr. Vilim: It is based on the current working environment in the bureau and the history and the chain of events. As I also said, look carefully at the timing and the fact that Dr. Chopra was prevented from attending a YMCA meeting and yet they didn't tell him, "Do not go to this Heritage Canada meeting". And then, four months later, they take action. Based on all these things, that is what I believe.
Senator Grafstein: The following is in reference to the investigation conducted by George D. Hunter of Borden, Elliott, Scott & Aylen in his letter dated February 4, 2000, to you, Dr. Vilim. In the first paragraph of your statement you concluded, and I quote:
I found the reference to the purpose of the investigation as stated in the first paragraph of Mr. Hunter's letter intimidating, specifically when he referred to using this investigation for disciplinary or other proceedings.
Why did you make that conclusion? Is this not a letter in the normal course when there is an investigation made, or is there something unusual about this particular letter?
Dr. Vilim: First of all, we were invited to respond to a letter from Senator Austin and we did. All of a sudden, without any warning, you come to work and there is a letter on your desk from a lawyer saying, "I am going to conduct an investigation. I do not have much time. The time limit is February 28. We need to do it very quickly." I believe that was in the first paragraph, making reference to disciplinary and other proceedings. What does he mean? Of course I find that intimidating.
Senator DeWare: Mr. Chairman, is there a copy of that letter in your binder?
Dr. Vilim: It is in my binder under section 1, under "letters."
The Chairman: I am bound to notice that it is now 1:30 p.m. and to adjourn the meeting.
You have given us a very comprehensive statement and it is appreciated. I will consult with my colleagues and if they have any other direct questions we will endeavour to ask you to return for a short session with us.
Thank you again to all the witnesses.
We will be inviting the deputy minister to attend and, although we do not have a confirmed time yet, there is no doubt that this will be interesting to senators and others who are present.
The committee adjourned.