Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders
Issue 8 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 29, 2000
The Standing Committee on Privileges, Standing Rules and Orders met this day at 6:00 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, this evening, as we continue our consideration of Senator Kinsella's question of privilege, our witnesses are Mr. David A. Dodge and Mr. George Hunter.
Welcome to you both.
Mr. Hunter, you were commissioned by Deputy Minister Dodge to conduct an investigation with respect to allegations that, as you understand, have been made before this committee by certain employees of Health Canada. What is the state of your investigation at this moment?
Mr. George Hunter, Borden Elliot Scott & Aylen: Honourable senators, I have not commenced my investigation. I have made inquiries of certain persons who, I was informed, might have information. Some of them have declined to participate; others have agreed to participate. I have taken no further steps than that.
The Chairman: Have any of them told you personally that they feel intimidated by your assignment?
Mr. Hunter: No.
The Chairman: You have not heard that comment from any witness, even witnesses who have not been prepared to appear?
Mr. Hunter: I have not heard that, senator.
The Chairman: Is your mandate to continue to conduct this investigation?
Mr. Hunter: It is, senator.
The Chairman: Do you have a new deadline for concluding your investigation?
Mr. Hunter: Yes, my original deadline was the end of February and it has now been extended to the end of March.
The Chairman: Do you expect that you will speak to whomsoever will speak to you?
Mr. Hunter: That is exactly right.
The Chairman: You will try to report by the end of March. Mr. Hunter, I do not think we have any further questions for you, as obviously you have no evidence to give the committee at this stage. Thank you for attending and putting your situation on the record.
Mr. Hunter: Thank you, senator.
The Chairman: Mr. Dodge, you are aware that this committee is considering a question of privilege raised by Senator Kinsella with respect to the appearance of employees of Health Canada before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. In particular, the question of privilege was raised as a result of a letter written by Dr. Chopra of your department to Senator Kinsella. There is some additional background there that may be raised by Senator Kinsella.
The concern of the committee is a narrow, but significant one. The concern of the committee is to discover whether any official of Health Canada, in any way, took any action against any employee of Health Canada as a result of the appearance of that employee before a Senate committee.
The allegations made by more than one witness are that actions against certain employees were taken on the basis of a number of activities by those employees, included in which was punishment in terms of their employment standing, certainly in the case of Dr. Chopra, as a result of that appearance, and the disapproval of officials of Health Canada with respect to the nature of the testimony given.
You have been a public servant for a long time. You understand the nature of parliamentary privilege and the concern of the Senate or the House of Commons to protect the open, free and truthful evidence that might be offered to a committee of either place.
Having put that background to you, I believe that you have a statement and we are keen to hear your evidence. Following your statement, a number of colleagues wish to ask you questions. Please proceed.
Mr. David A. Dodge, Deputy Minister, Department of Health: Honourable senators, it is a privilege for me to be here with you this evening. The question of privilege before you is an extraordinarily important one because it deals with serious allegations of retaliation against a witness who testified before another committee of the Senate.
In this committee's first meeting, held December 7, the Deputy Chairman said:
The mandate of this committee is restricted to a possible contempt of Parliament. The duty of our meetings is to put the facts on the record, facts relating to the question of privilege.
I welcome this opportunity to assist you in putting facts on the table.
On August 16, 1999, the Honourable Senator Kinsella wrote to me with respect to a disciplinary action taken regarding Dr. Chopra. That letter was tabled in your committee on December 7. Senator Kinsella indicated that on the day before he wrote to me he learned that Dr. Chopra had received a five-day suspension.
Senator Kinsella stated that Dr. Chopra had been a witness before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry and had raised the importance of ensuring that no witness who appeared would be subject to retaliation. He asked for a "cooling-off" period so that the matter could be looked into. On August 17, I responded to Senator Kinsella and my response was also tabled. In my response I provided the reason for which the appropriate level manager had disciplined Dr. Chopra.
During Dr. Chopra's remarks at a conference on employment equity, he had made the following statement:
... You heard from our Human Resources Director General yesterday, Bob Joubert. Every word, everything I can tell you now, I wasn't there, would be a lie, because there is nothing happening in Health Canada and we at NCARR are considering filing a charge of contempt of court against all three departments...
The disciplinary action followed a lengthy process to obtain a tape of the statements made by Dr. Chopra at the conference and an interview with Dr. Chopra and a review of the situation by Dr. Chopra's manager.
I gave Senator Kinsella the assurance, based on these facts, that the action had nothing whatever to do with Dr. Chopra's appearances before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
Dr. Chopra filed a grievance with respect to that disciplinary action and he has referred the matter to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. That board, as you know, is a quasi-judicial body set up under the PSSRA. The board will assign an adjudicator as a neutral third party to hear the case. I believe a date for that hearing has already been set for early May.
The adjudicator will allow evidence to be adduced by Dr. Chopra, both with respect to the basis and the appropriateness of the discipline and with respect to the sanction of the five-day suspension. Health Canada will be provided with a similar opportunity. The adjudicator would normally hear witnesses, make determinations of fact and, ultimately, render a decision on the matter.
I do not want to comment on the merits of the case being put before the PSSRB adjudicator, as to do so could interfere with that quasi-judicial process of the tribunal.
When your committee met on December 7, there were further allegations of retaliation made by Dr. Chopra against a Health Canada manager. These allegations are serious and concern me deeply. I will not tolerate any such conduct. My department has in the past communicated with employees to be clear that employees have a responsibility to cooperate with all parliamentary committees and to respond to the best of their knowledge and abilities.
Indeed, in October 1998, before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry heard from departmental employees, that committee was assured that any suggestion of threats of reprisal for testifying was completely without foundation. Thus, on learning of the allegations made before your committee in December, I initiated a fact-finding investigation, headed by Mr. George Hunter of the firm of Scott & Aylen, and I have had exchanges of correspondence with your chairman in that regard.
As Deputy Minister, I have a responsibility to have these allegations investigated within Health Canada and reported upon. The purpose of the fact-finding is to allow Health Canada to be in a position to respond with all relevant facts and to take any appropriate action. As I stated before, Mr. Chairman, any action of intimidation, such as is alleged, cannot and will not be tolerated.
I have made it clear in the fact-finder's mandate that, while recognizing that there may be issues of privacy involved, his report should be made public to the extent that it can while respecting these privacy concerns. I have asked that the report be prepared on the understanding that it would be available to this committee. As you know, Mr. Chairman, I have also supported your committee hearing from Mr. Hunter on the same basis.
I had originally asked that this be completed by February 28. I was informed last week that it could not be; so we extended the date to March 31. While some employees do not wish to participate, as Mr. Hunter has told you, I believe it is important to see this through to a conclusion and for a report to be done on the facts that are available.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, let me reemphasize that I take very seriously the allegations of retaliation before your committee that I have just addressed. They have to do with the privileges of Parliament. As Deputy Minister of Health, I will not tolerate any retaliation. In my letter to you of February 18, I assured you that no employees need fear any retaliation or adverse consequences by reason of their appearance before this committee.
The allegation that gave rise to the reference to your committee is being investigated by you and will be reviewed, as I indicated, on adjudication before the PSSRB as well. The further and other allegations of retaliation that are being investigated by your committee have led to a fact-finding investigation by Mr. Hunter. That will result in a report that will be made available to you, as I have outlined.
Mr. Chairman, I really cannot say much more. I turn it back to you and will be pleased to respond to any questions you have.
The Chairman: I will turn first to Senator Kinsella, whose question of privilege this is.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Dodge. I would like to turn to the sequence of events surrounding my apprehension of the problem. It was on Sunday, August 15, at a public forum that I was conducting that this matter was raised in public. The very next morning, Monday morning, I sat down and wrote you a letter to which you kindly responded the following day. Is it right that on Wednesday, August 18, the job action was taken?
Mr. Dodge: That is correct, Senator Kinsella.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Dodge, in the third paragraph of my letter of Monday, August 16, to you, as you have indicated to the members of the committee, I requested that a moratorium or cooling-off period be placed on the imposition of Dr. Chopra's disciplinary suspension, "until such time as we can ascertain that this job action does not constitute a contempt of Parliament." In your letter to me the following day, I found no reference to what I considered to be the critical request of my letter, namely, the request for a moratorium or a cooling-off period such that the job action or the disciplinary action would not be taken until we in the Senate could at least have a few days to look into whether or not this had anything to do with the issue of parliamentary privilege.
Could you explain to members of this committee why you did not address what I thought to be the substantive part of my letter to you?
Mr. Dodge: I am sorry, senator, I do not quite know what you mean by "address". Are you asking me why we proceeded despite your request not to proceed at that point in time?
Senator Kinsella: Why did you not respond to my specific request that a moratorium or cooling-off period be placed on the imposition of the disciplinary action such that we would have a little bit of time to look into whether this had anything to do with privilege? After all, that was the issue that was raised. Your letter simply does not deal with the third paragraph of a three-paragraph letter.
Mr. Dodge: Senator, the reason we did not delay the imposition of the suspension was that the reason for the suspension, as I have said, related to an activity absolutely unrelated to the question that was before the Senate. It was the unrelatedness of the issue that said to me that we should continue with the normal process, having followed due process in this matter -- and, of course, we followed due process afterwards as well.
Senator Kinsella: Because it was only the issue of a possible breach of parliamentary privilege that had concerned me, and members of this committee, all of this might have been obviated had we had a few days to look into the matter of whether or not, from our perspective as parliamentarians, this discipline would have had anything to do with that.
You testified a few moments ago that you took several months to investigate whether or not the conduct of Dr. Chopra at a Heritage Canada conference or seminar was something that you, the department, thought would merit discipline. You also testified, and indicated in your statement, that you consider parliamentary privilege to be a very serious matter. Do you not think that it might have been wiser to give the Senate a few days? The discipline was imposed the very day after you wrote back to me, which is three days from the time that I heard about the whole thing.
Mr. Dodge: We delayed a couple of days upon receipt of your letter. Would it have been wiser? I suppose that is always a matter of judgment, senator.
The reason we were so long after the actual event that was sponsored by Heritage Canada, was that it took a long time to get the tapes. Obviously, no manager would take any action without the full evidence. It was not that we did not hear about it earlier. Obviously, any reasonable manager must be assured of the context in which something was said, and it took a long time for Heritage Canada to deliver the tapes to us.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Dodge, in your view, what harm would have fallen on the ministry if you had delayed the imposition of that discipline? Can you think of any disadvantage to the department's position or Dr. Chopra's position? Why was it necessary to impose the discipline on August 18, particularly when you recognized that a serious issue of parliamentary privilege had been brought to your attention as the chief executive officer of the department? This was not a letter addressed to the "householder" or "to whom it may concern". It came from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. It came from an ex officio member of the committee in question. I wish you would explain, because I do not understand, having been a deputy minister in Ottawa, why there was not a very focused addressing of the issue of privilege and the request from Parliament or a parliamentarian to give us a little time to look into this.
Mr. Dodge: You may be right, senator, that it would have been wiser to delay. Why did I not instruct the manager to delay? Largely because we had followed the appropriate processes through the action. When an unfortunate action like this takes place, normally it moves quickly. If you are asking if this was designed to be an affront to the Senate? Absolutely not.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Dodge, in your view, what alternative would a parliamentarian have under these circumstances, other than raising the matter in the chamber as a question of privilege?
Mr. Dodge: I am sorry, senator?
Senator Kinsella: The question is simply this: A great deal of money has been spent by the Senate. Contrary to the views in some quarters, we husband our resources extremely frugally in this place. If the serious issue of privilege had been allowed to be looked at under the model that I was preferring, the question of privilege would not necessarily have had to be raised in the chamber, the Speaker of the Senate would not have been required to consider what had been presented in the chamber and to rule that a prima facie case of privilege had been made and that the matter should be referred to this honourable committee.
Did you think that the Senate or the senators could do anything else? What else could we have done when the door was slammed in our face?
Mr. Dodge: Senator, let us look at the other side of it. It is absolutely appropriate for you to go through this proceeding. Suppose that the suspension had been delayed for a month. In order for you to adduce any evidence, you would presumably have gone through the same procedure.
Senator Grafstein: I think Senator Kinsella has raised the difficulties this committee is under, and the problem is compounded by the fact that we are now confronted by at least two proceedings that cover exactly, or substantially, the facts that we wish to explore. You yourself say that you cannot comment on the facts or on the merits of the case since it is before an adjudicator, and you also have an internal investigation going on covering the same subject matter.
My question to you, and perhaps then to the chairman is, when might the appropriate time be for us to be able to explore with you the issues in a way that would not impinge upon anyone's rights or privileges, having in mind that we have overlapping investigations?
Mr. Dodge: I understand, senator.
Senator Grafstein: I find myself personally constrained to explore either the question raised by my colleague Senator Kinsella or the subject matter here, because of your comments. I understand that you are sensitive to avoiding getting into the merits of the case. In a way, that stops us, although perhaps not legally, because I think we could proceed and ask questions. However, I think we are sensitive and do not want to impinge on other jurisdictions and other methodologies that might deal with remedies that are different from ours.
Mr. Dodge: I understand that, senator. We do face a collective conundrum. I am perfectly willing to answer general questions surrounding our procedures and so on in the department. I am just not in a position to go into the fine facts of the case. In fact, even if it were not before another tribunal, since I personally am not knowledgeable, I am not in a position to do that. If you want to deal with the more general issues, I am perfectly happy to do that.
Senator Grafstein: We are on a fact-finding mission here to see whether or not we have sufficient evidence on the two questions that we must address. First, did the committee hear the truth? Second, if it did hear the truth from witnesses, were they, notwithstanding their telling the truth, intimidated from telling the truth? In a nutshell, those are the questions in which we are interested.
I am in a personal conundrum as to how we can get at the fact base, because it is all a factual base. You have alluded to the fact that you have set out a fact. It is very difficult for to us get at that fact base, having in mind that there are other proceedings dealing with essentially the same fact base.
Mr. Chairman, I find myself in difficulty here, because I do not wish to impinge upon either the department's rights, the deputy's rights or the rights of those people who have come before us with these serious allegations. We are in your hands as to how to deal with this, because the witness says he cannot really get at those facts appropriately. He can deal with general principles, but not the facts.
The Chairman: I think the witness is here to tell us the facts with respect to the allegations made by the witnesses who have appeared before us. I do not understand the witness so far to have said that he will just deal with general principles.
His text, which he read to us, has some clear statements of what decisions were taken and why. Those are worth pursuing. I will ask Senator Corbin to proceed.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I should like the witness to tell us what the process of suspending an employee entails. How does one come to that decision? What is the routine? Was the routine followed in this case?
Mr. Dodge: The first issue here is the question of the action that is taken by an employee. In this case, the action that was taken was essentially to call another employee a liar. That, with respect, is not a normal way of proceeding in the public service. It is especially not proper in this case, since one employee was not present at the time the other employee made the presentation.
Senator Corbin: Excuse me, you say "other employee." Could you put names to those employees?
Mr. Dodge: As I indicated in my statement, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chopra said:
You heard from our Human Resources Director General yesterday, Bob Joubert. Every word, everything I can tell you now, I wasn't there, would be a lie because there is nothing happening...
-- and so on.
That particular action of calling another employee a liar in a public place, in particular when one had not even heard what the other employee had to say, is not acceptable behaviour. Any manager appropriately expects his or her employees to observe the normal code of behaviour.
That manager adduced the information. In this case it took a rather long period of time, because this is a rather serious thing and one wants to ensure that, when one puts it in context, it really was an allegation of that sort.
Once that is adduced, then the manager has within his or her discretion a number of measures, ranging from a reprimand up to a very long suspension. There are guidelines as to appropriateness of the suspension or of the action, ranging from nothing, right up to a long suspension.
The employee who is disciplined has the right to grieve that and the matter then goes through a grievance procedure that can go through a number of steps. Eventually, the matter can end up at the PSSRB, which is the case in this particular circumstance.
Senator Corbin: The tapes you were talking about were the tapes of what again?
Mr. Dodge: There was a conference held by Heritage Canada, a two-day conference.
Senator Corbin: On March 26, 1999?
Mr. Dodge: That is right. It was reported verbally after that conference that Dr. Chopra had called Bob Joubert a liar at the conference. Obviously, a verbal report like that is not enough to take any action on, but, appropriately, the request went in for the tapes of the conference.
Senator Corbin: When did you get them?
Mr. Dodge: We received those in August.
Senator Corbin: Why the delay?
Mr. Dodge: I wish I knew the answer to that, senator. That was Heritage Canada not giving us the tapes initially.
Senator Corbin: How early in August did you receive the tapes?
Mr. Dodge: I apologize, senator, it was at the end of May, the beginning of June, that we got the tapes.
Senator Corbin: Why did it take so long to arrive at a decision to suspend the person in question? I find it coincidental, if not strange, that the suspension came into effect a very few days after Senator Kinsella's letter to you and your response.
Mr. Dodge: The senator wrote to me because the suspension was about to begin.
Senator Corbin: The process was already in motion?
Mr. Dodge: That is right. It was concluded in July and the suspension was about to begin. Sorry; let me be careful here. The notification occurred in April and the interviews were concluded at the end of July, senator.
The Chairman: My understanding is that your evidence is that you based the suspension on a public statement by Dr. Chopra calling a senior officer of Health Canada a liar in a public meeting.
Mr. Dodge: That is correct.
The Chairman: Have you satisfied yourself that, in fact, that public official was not lying?
Mr. Dodge: That is correct, senator.
The Chairman: According to my records and the evidence before us, the e-mail and letter from Dr. André Lachance to Dr. Chopra regarding Dr. Chopra's participation in the Canadian Heritage Conference, which requested Dr. Chopra's attendance, was in July and requested the attendance to discuss the matter on July 23, 1999.
There is further evidence that, on August 11, 1999, a memorandum from Dr. Lachance to Dr. Chopra imposed a five-day suspension without pay. That suspension took place between August 18 and 24. That is the evidence that we have. I do not think it contradicts anything you have said.
Mr. Dodge: I believe that is correct, senator.
The Chairman: I should like to ask you whether a suspension is something that is taken to the deputy minister for decision, or whether it is made in another part of the department?
Mr. Dodge: It would not normally be taken to the deputy minister.
The Chairman: Where did you say the decision would be made?
Mr. Dodge: Normally, the decision would be made by the relevant manager, but it would have to be approved by his or her relevant manager.
The Chairman: Can you assure us that Human Resources Director General Bob Joubert was not a part of the decision-making process?
Mr. Dodge: I have to be very careful here, because I cannot give you 100 per cent assurance that there was not a discussion between the bureau director, or the general director of that directorate, and human resources. I cannot give you that assurance, no.
The Chairman: Would you agree that it would be strange, indeed, in terms of natural justice, if Mr. Joubert participated in any way in the decision?
Mr. Dodge: I would agree that that would be the case, but let me stand back one step. In the process, normally, it would not be Mr. Joubert at all who would be involved, although it would be one of his employees in human resources.
The Chairman: Would it be someone who reported to him?
Mr. Dodge: Someone who reported to him directly or indirectly.
The Chairman: Would the authority rest in that subordinate or would it be moved to the assistant deputy minister?
Mr. Dodge: No. The authority rests with the relevant manager, in this case Dr. Lachance. That is where the authority rests.
The Chairman: Was he given responsibility for the investigation in this case and for coming to the conclusion that a suspension was warranted in this particular case?
Mr. Dodge: That is correct.
The Chairman: Is a suspension something that occurs now and then in the department, or can you recall, or has anyone told you, whether there is any other instance of such a suspension?
Mr. Dodge: Suspensions occur, although we hope not very frequently, because, obviously, they are an indication of a breakdown somewhere along the line. However, certainly in my years as a deputy minister, suspensions have occurred both at Health Canada and at Finance.
The Chairman: As I say, I am interested in the narrow question. The evidence we have had is in the form of an allegation that the appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was one of a chain of events that illustrates a very unhappy employment situation in Health Canada. I want to be clear that we are not in this forum investigating the employment circumstances of Health Canada, although they appear to be well below satisfactory, and I am sure you would agree, in this particular bureau, at least from the evidence we have had -- or perhaps you would not agree. However, we are focused on the question of any attempt to interfere with the witnesses, either before the event or after the event of the testimony.
Have you taken personal time to investigate those circumstances? Are you aware of the allegations that have been before us and have you spoken to employees of the department to satisfy yourself, at least in some form of confidence, that no such events as are alleged took place?
Mr. Dodge: First, senator, with respect to the particular instance that related to this suspension, we have been working closely with the Human Rights Tribunal. As you are aware, the department has, for a couple of years, been under an order from the Human Rights Tribunal in terms of its employment practices vis-à-vis visible minorities. Under my direction, and before me, the department has been making every effort possible to deal with those practices, which are absolutely unacceptable. We report quarterly to the Human Rights Tribunal in that regard. Those reports are publicly available. We have targets to hit. We have a number of actions that we must take in respect of staffing. All those actions are a matter of public record. Indeed, in effect, we are under a court order to report that way.
In reference to this particular allegation that everything that was said would be a lie, all of what was said and -- let me be careful -- all of what was written to be said indeed is verifiable against our quarterly reports that we must file with the Human Rights Tribunal. In that respect, the answer is, yes, I look at this very carefully. Every quarter, I sit down with my staff and go through the report that is being made.
I have met with the tribunal on an annual basis. I met with Dr. Perinbam's committee, which has been looking at employment of visible minorities. Indeed, Dr. Perinbam and his committee have found that, while the circumstances that led to the Department of Health being under this order were, indeed, reprehensible, the steps that are now being taken are a model for the steps that should be taken. In that respect the answer is, yes, I have paid extraordinarily close attention to this particular issue that was raised.
In respect of the day-to-day operation of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, no, I do not enter into those operations on a day-to-day basis, and that is why, when the allegations were made here on December 7 that the director of the bureau was explicitly going against departmental policy I, indeed, asked to have a fact finder look into those allegations and to ascertain those particular facts. Because of those I have no knowledge other than reading the testimony that has been given to you. That is why I have asked Mr. Hunter to do the job.
The Chairman: Let me just restate it in my own words and see if you agree: You cannot say with confidence that the allegations made are not true.
Mr. Dodge: No, I cannot; otherwise I would not have asked Mr. Hunter to do the job. What I can say with confidence is that this particular action with respect to the Heritage Canada conference was taken on the facts as they related to the Heritage Canada conference, pure and simple. What I cannot say, and I cannot give you any assurance on, is that no other actions have been taken by managers that are contrary to the explicit policy that all employees should be free from any form of retribution when they come in front of a parliamentary committee. If such inappropriate behaviour is taking place on the part of a manager, it is my responsibility to ensure that that does not happen, and that is why I asked Mr. Hunter to look into those allegations.
The Chairman: I take it from all of the assurances you have given the committee that anyone who cooperates with Mr. Hunter, or even any employee who refuses to cooperate with Mr. Hunter, will not suffer any reprimand or other employment action by Health Canada for so doing or for not so doing.
Mr. Dodge: That is absolutely correct. My job here is to find out whether the manager involved indeed broke the departmental policy and was taking actions with his employees that were not appropriate.
Senator Grafstein: You have opened it up a little wider than I thought, so I will ask you a question. How did you satisfy yourself about the veracity of Mr. Joubert's statement at that conference?
Mr. Dodge: The written text, senator.
Senator Grafstein: Was there a tape as well?
Mr. Dodge: There may well have been, but you asked me how I satisfied myself.
Senator Grafstein: I asked you about tapes, because you said it took some months to get the tape of Mr. Chopra. I assume that it was a verbal comment that he made that was taped.
Mr. Dodge: His presentation. I do not know the answer to the question. I had a written text.
Senator Grafstein: You had a written text from Mr. Joubert and you had a tape from Mr. Chopra. It was based on the examination of Mr. Chopra's tape that you concluded --
Mr. Dodge: Sorry.
Senator Grafstein: Not you, but someone concluded that those statements were not true. There are two issues here. First, did someone independently come to the conclusion that the statements, either in print or verbal, were veracious, correct, and true? You have said "yes" to that.
Mr. Dodge: Senator, there are two questions here. First, what did I look at personally? I looked at the notes for the speech that was given. Those notes were prepared for Bob Joubert to give the speech. It turned out that Mr. Joubert actually could not be there that day. Another employee actually gave the speech in his stead. The tape of that other employee's speech is available. That was listened to by the manager.
You asked me what I looked at. I looked at the text.
Senator Grafstein: What was the structure in the department to examine this issue? Does Dr. Lachance report to Mr. Joubert, or is it the other way around?
Mr. Dodge: Dr. Lachance reports to the Director General of the Food and Drugs Directorate. Mr. Joubert is the Director General of the Human Resources Directorate in the corporate services part of the department. It is a totally different part of the department.
Senator Grafstein: Dr. Lachance was where?
Mr. Dodge: The Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, which is a bureau in the Food and Drugs Directorate, which is in the Health Protection Branch.
Senator Grafstein: He was the one who made the preliminary determination that the statement by Mr. Chopra was inappropriate?
Mr. Dodge: That is correct.
Senator Grafstein: Did he then make that recommendation, or did he take action?
Mr. Dodge: It was his action to take, senator, since he was the manager.
Senator Grafstein: So he took the action?
Mr. Dodge: He took the action.
Senator Grafstein: That was then, I take it, reviewed with you?
Mr. Dodge: The action?
Senator Grafstein: Yes.
Mr. Dodge: No. The issue only got reviewed by me in relation to the statement that was made by the department at the Heritage Canada conference.
Senator Grafstein: So all that you satisfied yourself of was whether or not the statement that you read was veracious.
Mr. Dodge: It was veracious.
Senator Kinsella: We have testimony, Mr. Dodge, from some of the witnesses to the effect that they have been at meetings at which Dr. Lachance has made statements such as, "I like visible minorities," or "A visible minority person mentality permeates all these things." Have you heard those things?
Mr. Dodge: Yes, sir.
Senator Kinsella: What did you do about them?
Mr. Dodge: A panel looked at them. They were determined, as I understand it, not to be appropriate and Dr. Lachance was informed that, whatever his motives, those were inappropriate statements.
Senator Kinsella: We also have testimony to the effect that "the pharmaceutical companies are the clients." You know that witnesses have made that statement.
Mr. Dodge: Yes.
Senator Kinsella: Would you give your view on that?
Mr. Dodge: They are not. Our mission at Health Canada is to maintain and improve the health of Canadians. That is our mission. That is our job. We are extraordinarily clear that that is our mission and that is our job.
Senator Kinsella: Another statement has been made before this committee, and I believe it is presented to make the case that there has been a chain of events, to use the chair's terminology, including the matter of appointments. In particular, we heard that the appointments of Dr. André Lachance and Dr. Kelly Butler are examples of appointments not based on merit and/or experience but on partisanship and cronyism. One honourable member of this committee was quite concerned when that statement was made, because, according to the honourable senator, it raises the issue of the merit principle.
Mr. Dodge: I am sorry Senator Gauthier is not here tonight, because I understand fully his concern, if indeed that were true. I have gone back after reading Senator Gauthier's questions and looked at this particular issue. Dr. Lachance was appointed from the Department of Agriculture to the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs. Dr. Lachance was a very good manager whose division was being wound up at the Department of Agriculture as we reduced the size of the public service, and he was eligible for appointment at the same level anywhere else. He was perfectly qualified for the job and hence was appointed through absolutely normal channels. That allegation on the facts as I adduced them, senator, is absolutely without grounds.
On the issue of Dr. Butler, I have investigated that and, similarly, that is without grounds.
Senator Kinsella: Turning to the matter of the rBST, particularly at the time at which the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry was reviewing the subject, did the department have a position? If so, what was the department's position? The position as presented to the members of that committee by the scientists in question seemed to differ. Would you comment on that?
Mr. Dodge: The department does not have a position on that subject, senator. We are a science-based department. The scientists, both on the animal health side and on the human health side, who have been looking into this have raised questions. They raised sufficient questions that were unable to be resolved through internal committees of scientists within the department for a long period of time that it was to the point where we went to the next step of appointing outside panels of experts, one on human health and one on animal health.
Those panels were operating during the time of the Senate hearings. One reported in December and one in January. The findings of the expert panels on the human health side indicated no evidence of real problems. However, on the animal health side, there were clearly doubts, given animal husbandry practices in Canada, whether this was harmful on the animal health side.
When we got those two reports, with the doubts being raised on the animal health side, the company involved was not given an order of compliance and, hence, could not sell the drug.
Senator Kinsella: Are you aware, Mr. Dodge, of the Gaps Analysis Report?
Mr. Dodge: Yes, sir.
Senator Kinsella: What did you make of that report?
Mr. Dodge: I did not read it. My job is to ensure that appropriate process is followed. That process is that scientists should sit around the table with their peers and argue out their differences. That is an extraordinarily important way of operating. Science can only proceed, and good science can only be done, if indeed there is debate and discussion and other scientists are given the chance to refute, and so on.
It is sometimes difficult to reach a conclusion, in which case you bring in a larger panel of people within the department. It was still not possible to reach a conclusion in this case. Therefore, we went to an outside panel.
I should state, and we should be very clear, that it is the job of reviewers and scientists within the department to raise the scientific questions, to debate them with their peers and to try to come to a conclusion. If they cannot come to a conclusion, then we enlarge the process to bring in more scientists.
Senator Kinsella: Within that process is there a public policy principle that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who are seeking the licence? Therefore, if there is a dispute among the in-house scientists, does that mean that you have a school of thought within your scientific community within the ministry who have not been convinced of a particular point of view?
From a public policy and public interest standpoint, if some of your scientists are saying that there is a problem and some are saying that there are gaps in the protocols, what is the policy of the ministry when you are speaking of something that ultimately comes to the Canadian consumer?
Mr. Dodge: Then you reach outside, senator, and you appoint an outside panel of experts.
Senator Kinsella: Do you do that until you get the answer you want?
Mr. Dodge: What do you mean, "get the answer you want"?
Senator Kinsella: If there is a controversy within the in-house science community that you have, why would you be going outside?
Mr. Dodge: Senator, I may be obtuse, but I do not understand your question. If there is an unresolved debate internally, you must resolve it somehow. In order to reach a resolution, you do reach out. That is the process of trying to obtain a resolution.
In this case, when we reached out to the expert panels outside, the panel on animal health said that they agreed with some of the concerns that had been raised internally. As a result of that, we had a resolution of the issue.
Look, I think this is very important. There is no position of Health Canada as an entity that X gets approved or X does not get approved. That is not how the drug review process works. The position is that scientists look at it; they work away at it. They may come to a consensus that something is not safe, in which case it does not proceed. They may come to a consensus that something is safe, in which case it does proceed. They may be unable to reach a consensus. When you get to that position, you move outside to try to obtain a resolution.
It may well be that even an outside panel cannot come to a resolution. In that case, then, if there is no resolution among the best people that we can find inside and outside, obviously there are doubts and one does not proceed.
The Chairman: Mr. Dodge, these questions may seem a bit far from our search for a possible breach of our privilege, but there is a background here. To use the phrase I used before, we are looking to see if there is a chain of events. There has been no direct evidence given to us by any witness who says: "I heard a senior official say this was related to your appearance before the Senate committee," or, "I saw a document that alleged that." However, a number of witnesses do say that there is a chain of events that includes the possibility of a linkage. We are looking for that linkage.
One of the questions that was addressed was this question of the change in the conceptual behavioural patterns of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs as a result of the 1996 Order in Council. It was called: "Cost recovery in the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, April 1, 1996." It is referred to in The Gazette. It essentially directs the department to achieve more of its funding from the industry in terms of the research that has to be done. The allegation was that that has changed the culture, and the culture ceases to serve Canadian citizens and tends to serve people with entrepreneurial goals.
You said very clearly that that is not the culture, although Dr. Lachance is quoted by some witnesses as saying that that is the culture. However, that is not the specific point of where we are going. The point of where we are going is whether there was an animus on the part of any senior employee directed against those who were "troublemakers" with respect to decisions of this kind, which resulted in an appearance. I just wanted to explain that background to you.
Senator DeWare: Mr. Dodge, my old labour instinct twigged when I heard Senator Kinsella asking you about the appointments of Drs. Lachance and Butler. I think you and I go back to a conference a long time ago.
Mr. Dodge: That was a long time ago, senator.
Senator DeWare: I would just like to know if you can remember specifically, and you probably do, since you have that kind of memory, when Dr. Lachance was appointed and then Alexander and then Butler? In what chronological order were they appointed, and do you remember the year or approximate dates?
Mr. Dodge: I do not, senator. Obviously, I can find that out. I know Dr. Lachance was appointed before I arrived in the department. It probably would have been at some point in 1996 or 1997. It could even have been in early 1998. It was during the period when all departments were downsizing. A number of units were cut out and Dr. Lachance's unit had disappeared, or was about to disappear, at the Department of Agriculture. As a result, he was part of the pool of people who were available and with regard to whom it was our responsibility in the public service to try to place in another job in the public service.
Senator DeWare: What about Alexander?
Mr. Dodge: That I cannot comment on because I do not know. I will certainly find out.
Dr. Butler is a recent appointment. She was certainly appointed during the period that I have been deputy minister.
Senator DeWare: Is it not the practice of the department to have a competition for these types of appointments to positions of acting chief and manager?
Mr. Dodge: It certainly is. There are two different situations here. The first is the redeployment of an existing officer at the EX level, which can be done. Indeed, Dr. Lachance's job had disappeared at the Department of Agriculture. He was then redeployed into the Department of Health.
Dr. Butler's is not the same situation. She was in a different part of the Department of Health and was appointed on a temporary appointment into the chief's job at BVD.
Senator DeWare: Is no competition being held for that position?
Mr. Dodge: There will have to be a competition for the permanent filling of that job.
Senator DeWare: She is just temporary, then. Will you find out about Dr. Alexander for me?
Mr. Dodge: I will.
Senator Corbin: There is a missing link with respect to the chain of events regarding the tapes. At what date were the tapes requested?
Mr. Dodge: I am informed, senator, that it was at the end of March. However, I will verify that following this meeting.
Senator Corbin: Was it before the appearance of Dr. Chopra and other people from the department before the Agriculture Committee?
Mr. Dodge: If, indeed, I am correct that they were requested at the end of March, then that would have been prior to their appearance on April 26 before the Agriculture Committee.
I will have to verify when that request was made, and I will verify it.
The Chairman: Just so we have our evidence as accurately as possible, March 26, 1999, was the date on which Dr. Chopra participated in the Heritage Canada meeting.
Mr. Dodge: That is right.
The Chairman: He appeared before the Senate Agriculture Committee on April 26 and again on May 3.
Mr. Dodge: That is right.
The Chairman: It would be helpful if you can tell us, as Senator Corbin has asked, when the request was made.
Mr. Dodge: I will verify that tomorrow and transmit that to the clerk right away.
The Chairman: I would like to continue with my questioning.
On, I believe, December 7, 1999, when Dr. Chopra appeared here, Senator Kinsella asked him some questions that were of interest to me. I would like to read just part of testimony, which relates to the Heritage Canada appearance. In answer to Senator Kinsella, Dr. Chopra said:
They have given me, since then, a tape with precisely those four lines...
I have to go over the page for the four lines, but what he says a little earlier in his testimony is that Dr. Lachance asked him to speak to the four lines in his letter and said, "Did you say this?" This was during Dr. Chopra's meeting with Dr. Lachance, and Dr. Chopra said:
I do not recall -- I do not know because I do not have a transcript or the tape, so I do know what I said, and so forth, but if you have a transcript, or a tape or a full speech, and the context, then it is something I could have, in the proper context, said, but I do not know where and how.
There is another phrase to which I wish to refer. Senator Kinsella said:
Dr. Chopra, in your letter to me dated August 19, you stated all these actions were the direct consequence of your testimony, which you were requested to give before the Committee on Agriculture...is it your testimony that the only reason that that job action was given was because of your testimony before this committee, or is it your testimony that the job action was imposed against you in part because of your testimony before the committee and maybe also in part because of other things, including the Heritage Canada conference?
Dr. Chopra responded:
I believe it is entirely due to my testimony at the Senate committee, because of the department getting mad about it and the consequences that followed from it. ... I am called to explain this to my director in July, that it has come to his attention that I appeared there and so forth.
He is referring to the Heritage Canada meeting.
The department knew about it all along because I was not alone. Even the evidence they gave me, they produced before me, to take action. So Bob Joubert, the director general of human resources, was listed there as a speaker. Lucille Marleau was also listed there to speak. I was listed there to speak and, when I was called in July to explain what I spoke about and what I said, I received four lines precisely in the letter: "Explain this."
Senator Kinsella: Who was the letter from?
Mr. Chopra: From Dr. André Lachance to me.
There is no evidence here in Dr. Chopra's testimony in answer to Senator Kinsella's questions with respect to an accusation of lying. That is something that I had not seen before, although we do have in evidence the letter of August 11, 1999, from Dr. Lachance to Dr. Chopra.
Dr. Chopra says:
... I feel I have an obligation to speak, as a public servant, when the department does not do anything. Dr. Lachance asked me, "What about the second statement?" I said, "Why? What is the problem?" He said, "You say the department does not do anything." I said, "Please read carefully. I did not say that. I said I feel I have an obligation to speak."
Generally what Dr. Chopra is saying is that he does not feel constrained and should not be constrained from saying what he believes, when he believes it, and that that is his role as a scientist. If Dr. Chopra disagrees with me, he will have a chance to disagree with me again, but I believe that that is his point.
Would you comment on what is the proper line, in your view, between the loyalty of an employee to a department and the conscience of the employee with respect to the facts?
Mr. Dodge: Senator, it is our obligation as a department to ensure that the best science possible is done, and that means it is our obligation as a department to ensure that there are facilities and tables where the debate can take place and where the evidence can be aired among scientists within the department. It is also our obligation, when they are unable to come to a conclusion, if there is not a consensus, to go outside and get further advice.
Science can only proceed when scientists are free to argue among themselves on these issues. That is their obligation. However, beyond that, there is the question when scientists, on matters of science, do not have their views accepted by their peers, by other scientists, and in fact then go to a general, non-scientific audience and say, "Look. Here is what I believe. I am a scientist at Health Canada, or at Agriculture Canada or from wherever; here is what I believe, and my peers will not listen to me." That is a very important issue.
It is a scientist's obligation to raise issues among his or her peers. That is an absolute obligation. It is also very important that one takes one's professional obligation seriously in that regard and carries the debate among people who can reasonably be expected to understand the science involved. It is much more difficult and much more problematic when scientists take that beyond the realm of other scientists and say, "Look. I know, because I am a scientist, that X, Y or Z is true," and go into the public domain not in the context of debate with other capable authorities, so to speak -- in other words, with other scientists.
Yes, it is absolutely any scientist's obligation to bring to the table doubts or scientific evidence that he or she has and argue that out with his or her peers. It is much more problematic, in my mind, before that peer review process is complete, to go generally to the public at large, because the public at large does not have the scientific capacity to judge the merits of the scientific debate. All the public says is, "Scientist X is worried about Product Y, so maybe I had better be pretty worried about Product Y."
The Chairman: When do you go from science to politics or the debate about policy, which has a consequence in politics? Where is the line?
Mr. Dodge: At the moment, under the law under which we work, neither Parliament nor the public has an opportunity to come into that process.
The Chairman: Into the scientific process?
Mr. Dodge: Into the scientific process, into the review process. In many other countries, it is the case that the law allows, or in fact may even require, inputs other than science to be brought to bear on these decisions.
The Chairman: On questions of safety?
Mr. Dodge: On the question of whether a particular product should be approved for going on the market. In the United States, for example, the law is rather different from ours and does permit more. The process that it sets out is a more transparent process. Indeed, we have been working on revisions to this old 1953 act that we hope to bring forward at some time to increase that transparency. It may also set out particular grounds on which non-pure health and safety or non-scientific matters can be brought to bear. We do not have that under our law. The Australian law, as I understand it, senator, actually has a break in the process whereby trade concerns can be brought to bear in that process. Our law does not admit any of that. It is absolutely pure health and safety. Our law, which is quite restrictive in terms of information flow, does not admit what we often call a green window where the public can look in on the process.
The Chairman: Were you deputy minister when 200 employees of Health Canada sent a petition to the minister?
Mr. Dodge: I was.
The Chairman: Would you describe that as crossing the line?
Mr. Dodge: I have met with our people on that. I believe it was unprofessional behaviour, and I was extraordinarily disappointed in that for two reasons, senator. First, we had just made an appointment of a new director general for the foods branch.
We did that because we felt that some management changes were required. We held the first meeting with the new director general of the branch. He was not even given the benefit of the common personal consideration of being asked to deal with this by the staff. I find that unfortunate. Obviously trust had broken down. However, if we take the action to bring in someone new to try to deal with the situation, common courtesy would suggest that you wait and you deal with the new guy. If you still have troubles, then you do something else.
Second, there were statements made in that letter that were untrue. That letter was signed by many people, not all of whom by any means were scientists. Statements were made which were absolutely untrue. In that sense, those statements were unprofessional, because anyone who knew their business would not make statements of that nature. That is not to say that everything is sweetness and light. There are problems, obviously. However, that particular approach is not one that I can condone.
The Chairman: Apart from the inaccuracies, is it fair to say that that was going beyond anything that would be proper for an employee of the department?
Mr. Dodge: "Proper", I think is a tough word, senator. I would call it unprofessional, especially since the new director general was being given no chance to deal with some of these problems. It is quite clear that there were problems. That is why we made the changes in the director general position. However, in that sense it was disappointing that that would be the case.
The Chairman: Dr. Chopra says he feels free to say whatever he believes is the truth. You have said: "Well, the reason for the sanction is that Dr. Chopra made an accusation that an officer of the department lied."
Mr. Dodge: Right.
The Chairman: He made that accusation in public. However, if Dr. Chopra had not used those words, would you have agreed to any sanction against him in the context of Heritage Canada, for being open and expressing his disagreement with departmental policy?
Mr. Dodge: This is a statement that another employee was a liar.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Dodge: That is quite different from saying that, while the record may look very good and I know that the department files quarterly reports, my experience is somewhat different from what the record shows.
The Chairman: Would that be cause for sanction?
Mr. Dodge: It would not in my mind.
Senator Kinsella: I think we need some clarity to this line of questioning from the Chair. It is my understanding, and Mr. Dodge might be able to clarify this for us, that the subject of the Heritage Canada conference was race relations.
Mr. Dodge: That is correct.
Senator Kinsella: Dr. Chopra was not appearing as a scientist at the conference, as he was when he appeared before our Agriculture Committee. Therefore, it is my understanding, and perhaps you could confirm, that the capacity in which Dr. Chopra attended the race relations conference by Heritage Canada is a matter that is in dispute.
Mr. Dodge: No.
Senator Kinsella: Did he appear as the president of the National Capital Alliance on Race Relations, or as a representative of Health Canada?
Mr. Dodge: On the agenda of the conference, senator, as I understand it, he was listed as a drug evaluator of Health Canada.
Senator Kinsella: Who prepared that agenda and caused it to be published? Was it Heritage Canada?
Mr. Dodge: Yes, I believe so.
Senator Kinsella: Did you inquire as to whether or not, when Dr. Chopra agreed to attend that conference, he agreed as president of NCARR or as a scientist in Health Canada? This becomes germane.
The general principle that persons should be free to express themselves, which I believe the department encouraged their scientists to do when they came before the committee, means that, if one goes as a race relations expert, then in going in that capacity, the same principle of "express yourself" would apply.
Mr. Dodge: Senator, this is a personal view now. I do not think under any guise, any employee has the right to call another employee a liar.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions of the witness?
Senator Joyal: Mr. Dodge, when you were questioned earlier about the comments that Dr. Lachance made about visible minorities and whether those comments were brought to your attention, you mentioned that you conveyed to Dr. Lachance your concern about that. Could you tell us exactly what you did and what you felt should be properly done?
Mr. Dodge: Let me be correct. If I misled you senator, I apologize. I did not institute the investigation or bring the problem to Dr. Lachance. That was done through the normal functioning of the department. That was not my doing.
Senator Joyal: Would you accept that when there is tension between the director of a department and a person working within that department on the basis of comments like those that were made, that creates an atmosphere in which it is difficult to exchange scientific information within a unit?
Mr. Dodge: Obviously, senator, in this particular bureau trust broke down a long time ago. Before Dr. Lachance's time, as I understand it, considerable evidence existed of trust having broken down. Restoration of trust is a terribly difficult thing to achieve. It requires an effort on the part of all parties. It requires perhaps the most difficult thing, and that is putting aside some history and saying: "Okay, that is water under the bridge."
We all have obligations to the people of Canada to get on with the job and do our job. It is an enormously difficult thing to do. It is hard for new people who come in and it is hard for people who have lived under that influence for a long period of time. We should be under no illusions about the difficulty of repairing what was obviously an unhappy history in this particular unit for some time.
You are correct that, where there is a high degree of trust, language may not appear to be inappropriate or difficult, depending on the trust. Certainly, in the circumstances where trust has broken down I can fully understand why employees could believe that that was malicious and malign, and I understand why they would be upset with that, absolutely.
Senator Joyal: As a manager, when such a circumstance happens to exist, how can you reorganize the unit in a way that the interests of Canadians are protected in the long run? You have described to us quite clearly that it is important that the scientific community within the department should feel totally free to communicate internally to try to resolve differences of opinion in order to come to a conclusion for the benefit of Canadians. That is what it is all about. At the end of the day, the ones who will bear the results of the tension are Canadians.
Mr. Dodge: Absolutely.
Senator Joyal: I am trying to understand. If people come forward and make a public case of doubts that they have, or a restraint that they might feel, over a product or a study that they have been doing, where do they go for recourse, when internally they cannot convey their professional ethics in a way that is conducive for the benefit of Canadians? In other word, at some point in time, in a condition of necessity, perhaps you have to go outside. If the law cannot serve you at a certain point, I think you have to ask, "Where do I go from here?", especially when there is a long story of tensions internally that do not seem to have resolved themselves.
Mr. Dodge: I understand exactly what you are saying. One needs the wisdom of Solomon to be able to solve problems where trust has broken down over a long period of time. Let me answer that first and then move to your second part.
What we are trying to do, and this requires good faith on the part of all parties, is to ensure that the scientific debate does take place around the table on the basis of good science and that no employee ought to fear, because he or she does not win a particular argument or because the consensus is strong that that view does not hold, that he or she will be devalued or degraded as a person.
There are many debates that you enter into, as we well know, where your evidence is not deemed to be as strong as other evidence; that definitely goes on. However, we must make sure that those tables for debate exist and that there is a sufficient atmosphere of trust that those debates can take place.
That is what I am trying to accomplish. That is what we are trying to do by bringing in a new director general and by trying to change the way that takes place by having clear, standard, operating procedures, and so on. When things break down there are always problems on both sides, and this is not a case where, I think looking back into the 1980s and early 1990s, one can be totally happy about the way things were run.
In terms of ensuring that the science gets done right, that is why in the end we use external panels, because that is a check, if you will, on the system.
Senator Grafstein: I am back to the narrow subject matter of the suspension. I am still not clear about this. Let me try again.
We have here a letter from Dr. Chopra to Mr. Grant McNeil, Conference Coordinator, Committee for Equal Access and Participation, Department of Canadian Heritage. This is part of the records received from Dr. Chopra. I believe you would have access to this. I will read it, since it is quite short:
Dear Mr. McNeil:
This is to confirm my participation on the panel, The Human Dimension..., at your conference on Employment Equity: Looking Forward, on March 25-26, 1999.
Attached please find the required "five lines" introduction to my presentation and also a brief outline of my personal background.
Meanwhile, should you require additional information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Shiv Chopra.
Then it has Dr. Chopra's name and address. It is done on blank letterhead, so on this letter he does not represent himself in any way, shape or form as being a representative of your department.
Now we turn to the brief statement that he makes, which was included, I believe, in this letter. Again, it is very brief and I will read the statement. The headline is "Racism in the Federal Public Service of Canada, Looking Forward." Then he references himself as "Shiv Chopra," with his various degrees, "World Health Organization, President, Federation of Race Relations Organizations, Ontario."
In looking at that I would say he is now not holding himself out as a public servant here; he is holding himself out as a scientist and also as President, Federation of Race Relations Organizations of Ontario. We do not know how he was invited. That is all we have at this moment other than his explanation.
Now let me just read the brief paragraph, which sums up his position:
The best test of any legislation lies in its ability to produce a maximum desired result. A major result that the Employment Equity Act is supposed to produce is to thwart racism against non-white citizens and to thus provide a better public service. The results collected, since 1987, show that the effect that this and the other relevant Acts have produced is to perpetuate racism without check. Indications are the same situation will continue well beyond "Y2K".
Did the department react to this statement before they heard his verbal statement on the second day of the conference? This is pretty strong stuff.
Mr. Dodge: Senator, I cannot absolutely say no, because I do not know the answer. What I do know is that the reaction that prompted the investigation and the obtaining of the tape was the reaction to the calling of another employee a liar. It is one employee calling another employee a liar in a public forum that is unacceptable behaviour.
Senator Grafstein: I will get to that in a moment, but at the first instance these are very strong statements, given ostensibly in his position as president of a federation dealing essentially with race relations. I assume he stated this based on whatever evidence he had of that. However, it is a very strong condemnation of the public service.
Mr. Dodge: It is.
Senator Grafstein: We are talking about condemnation and now we will go back to this sentence, which is a bit confusing to me. It was clear obviously to the department but a little confusing to me. I will read the statement again. It is by Mr. Chopra:
... You heard from our Human Resources Director General yesterday, Bob Joubert. Every word, everything I can tell you now, I wasn't there, would be a lie...
Let us continue on, and these are, for me, the key words:
... because there is nothing happening in HC...
Therefore, in effect, one could argue that he is not really calling Mr. Joubert a liar, other than saying that the description of what was going on in the department -- and we have not seen that statement -- is incorrect or a lie, because there is nothing happening in HC dealing with the allegation of lack of action that has perpetuated racism without check.
Now, in that context, I asked you this question: "Did you satisfy yourself or did others satisfy themselves as to the veracity of Mr. Joubert's statement?"
You said that you reviewed the written text, and so on, but did you review the context of Mr. Joubert's text and the context of Mr. Chopra's statement to try to get at the substantive issue? We all use vituperate language from time to time, even in the Senate.
Mr. Dodge: But there you have licence, senator.
Senator Grafstein: No, we do not have licence. We are challenged and we are quickly brought to task. You can accept here a serious overlay of emotion and strength of purpose that may, sometimes, cause people to say words that are unfortunate. I accept your position. It is not appropriate to call a public servant a liar. I understand that. However, one must look at the nature of what one was saying in the context of how he was making this rather strong allegation.
Mr. Dodge: That, presumably, is what the PSSRB will do; it will assess whether it was reasonable under the circumstances.
The Chairman: I understood your evidence, Mr. Dodge, earlier on to have covered this period. You were reporting quarterly through this period, because the responsibility you were given began in an earlier year.
Mr. Dodge: That is correct.
The Chairman: In this case, it is my obligation to thank you for appearing and for your great diligence in your evidence. We have arranged to have Dr. Lachance come before the committee in the week of March 13. From all the references we have had, his determination is clearly of importance to the work of the committee.
The committee adjourned.