"The second drug is even more controversial. It's
a critical
antibiotic, one that produces cross-resistance against
a critical
antibiotic necessary for human use called
ciprofloxacin. It's from
the same class of drugs. When it is used in poultry,
beef, turkeys,
pigs, or whatever, then it causes cross-resistance in
the intestines
of those animals. Then those bacteria, like
salmonella,
campylobacter, or E. coli, get transferred to people
and cause
disease and death of immense order" whistleblower to parliamentary
committee
38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Health
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, May 19, 2005
CANADA
Standing Committee on Health
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUMBER 044 l
1st SESSION l
38th PARLIAMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=117785
Á (1105)
[English]
The Chair (Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.)):
Good morning,
ladies and gentlemen.
We have quite a full agenda this morning at the
Standing
Committee on Health.
Mr. Shiv Chopra (As an Individual): Thank you,
Madam Chair. We
are here at your disposal and at your request.
We are grateful to Mr. Ménard for having brought
the motion
before this committee. We are grateful to this
committee for desiring
to hear us on the circumstances that led to our
dismissal by Health
Canada management.
We should say at the outset that the matter is
before the labour
board of the government, so we will refrain from
talking about the
specifics of the actual dismissal, except that we will
be quite
willing to speak and answer questions on matters that
are already in
the public domain.
I should say at the very outset that the
circumstances of our
dismissal go a long way back, approximately fifteen
years or maybe
longer. It's all about pressure to pass drugs of
questionable safety
that go into Canadian food production. It goes back to
at least the
beginning of 1988, when there were two specific drugs.
One is called
bovine growth hormone and the other one is called
Baytril, which is
an antibiotic. Both of those went through my hands,
and I objected to
both of them as a matter of human safety, because I
was in the human
safety division.
The three of us, from our different perspectives,
eventually blew
the whistle on bovine growth hormone, and ultimately
it was not
approved in Canada. The European Union followed
Canada. They actually
banned it in Europe, despite the fact that it was
recommended for
approval; after what Canada did, the European Union
did not approve
it. We have some credit to take for that--and the
Parliament of
Canada--for intervening and doing what needed to be
done. We are
fortunate as a country that this drug was not approved
in Canada.
The second drug is even more controversial. It's
a critical
antibiotic, one that produces cross-resistance against
a critical
antibiotic necessary for human use called
ciprofloxacin. It's from
the same class of drugs. When it is used in poultry,
beef, turkeys,
pigs, or whatever, then it causes cross-resistance in
the intestines
of those animals. Then those bacteria, like
salmonella,
campylobacter, or E. coli, get transferred to people
and cause
disease and death of immense order.
It was my personal file, beginning in 1988, and I
was pressured
to pass it because the Americans had passed it back in
1995. I would
not pass it. I did not pass it.
I was asked to write a report. It was going all
the way up to the
minister and the deputy minister, and then I was
specifically ordered
to write a report. It was called Roadblocks to the
Human Safety
Approval of Baytril. It was my report. In that report
I showed there
was absolute corruption inside my department, going
all the way up to
the deputy minister, David Dodge.
After we appeared at this committee on Bill C-28
the last time, a
couple of days later you invited Health Canada
officials, and there
was also a lobbyist present, Dr. Dittberner. We were
not here, but
we've read the statements.
Á (1130)
We were most disturbed by the false statements,
ignorant
statements, misleading statements that were made here
before this
committee by Ms. Diane Kirkpatrick, the director
general who fired us
for insubordination.
We so far have not spoken about what the actual
cause of
insubordination was. However, unfortunately, the Prime
Minister has
spoken about it and in fact has written to Senator
Spivak that he
upholds what Health Canada did. We find that to be a
most unfortunate
statement by the Prime Minister, because we are in the
political
arena and you're looking at the circumstances. We are
public service
officials. We are public servants. We don't go with
any one party or
the other. Our job is to serve the public without
wearing any
political stripes--in spite of the colours.
This is how we have conducted ourselves and have
always been
conducting ourselves. If public health and safety is
in jeopardy as a
result of our jobs, then we are directly responsible.
If we don't do
that, then we are liable. We could go to jail for
that.
When we are told in the media, from the
statements by the Prime
Minister, that he accepts what Health Canada did,
unfortunately we
too are considered to be part of Health Canada, and
the Prime
Minister should have either waited for the court to
decide or
consulted with us as well. We find that to be
completely unfair on
the part of the Prime Minister.
We're not saying the Prime Minister has done it
deliberately.
This is because of the tradition that has developed,
that senior
management are closer to politicians, so they take
their word for it.
If we look at Justice Gomery's statements from
the last couple of
days, that's precisely how corruption is going on.
What Justice
Gomery is talking about is a few hundred million
dollars; what we're
talking about is corruption, year after year, going
into the supply
of Canadian food, into agricultural jobs, and we
happen to be caught
in the middle of it as public servants.
I worked in the department for 35 years, my
colleague Dr. Lambert
for 31 years, and Dr. Haydon for 22 or 23 years.
Imagine these three
senior officials in the department being fired on the
same day, for
the same reason, for insubordination, within five
minutes of each
other, and while all three of us were on extended sick
leave due to
stress caused by the same director general. One of us,
the fourth
person, died under that stress.
When Ms. Kirkpatrick appeared before you at your
request, we read
her statements. She was the director general of the
Veterinary Drugs
Directorate. She has come and made this statement
before this
committee--and many times before, in the media--that
everything in
nature is a chemical and it's dangerous, and it's only
a matter of
dose.
I am appalled. I'm ashamed that a director
general would come and
make that statement before a committee and say you can
swallow
carcinogens where one single molecule attached to the
appropriate
cell can begin the cancer, cause cancer, and cause
reproductive
disorders. This is the director general, who has since
resigned from
the department and has now--we're talking about the
public
record--said she will go back and apply to be trained
as a
kindergarten teacher.
She was the director general. She has no
qualifications. Here all
these highly qualified scientists, working
collectively for close to
90 years in the department, have been fired, and she
has now resigned
and will go away and not be responsible.
Á (1135)
Madam Chairman, this is our initial statement on
the
circumstances. We've been talking about it for 15
years. We've
written to every Prime Minister since then; we've
written to many
ministers; we've been in the media; we've been
everywhere. What are
we to do?
Thank you. We're open to questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We'll begin the questions now.
Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'll split the time with Mr.
Lunney, five and five.
I want to start because what you're bringing to
committee is
alarming to us. We've heard similar alarming testimony
when we were
doing a drug study with regard to Health Canada and
some
falsification of documentation, as well as some
problems with
clinical trials on the pharmaceutical side. When you
bring this kind
of testimony before this committee, it certainly
raises our interest
in what is actually happening over at Health Canada.
I don't want to get into the specifics, because
that's in a court
case, and that will be settled hopefully under law.
The last time you
were here, you mentioned something not only about
these two products,
but also the BSE issue. At that time you said you had
warned Health
Canada, with regard to the BSE issue, that animal to
animal, ruminant
to ruminant feeding was going to cause the potential
of BSE in
animals. You had alerted Health Canada of that at the
time. Am I
correct in that?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Absolutely. In fact, I have a
letter with me
from the president of our union, who back on December
16, 1997, wrote
an open letter to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien saying
that the
problems were so serious at Health Canada that BSE
could occur in
Canada. We predicted it because we're scientists. We
knew what
happened in Europe, and because we were not taking
care of it in
Canada, we knew that it could occur in Canada. We
drove that. I have
that letter with me. Back in 1997 when it did occur,
we, the four of
us, wrote to ADM Gorman saying, now that it has
happened, here's how
to stop it, because that's precisely how Europe
stopped it: stop
feeding any animals to any animals and BSE would stop
immediately. We
were ignored.
Then we wrote to the Minister of Health, Anne
McLellan.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: But isn't that when we
actually did change
the protocol, in 1997?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: In fact, that is again a
misleading expression
by the Department of Health. They keep on saying that
they put
together a protocol and it was mandatory. If you put a
ban that
nobody can drive on the 401 at more than 100
kilometres, but you
don't have a policeman issuing tickets--
Mr. Rob Merrifield: You're saying the ban was
there, but it
wasn't complied with, and we have no way of knowing
whether it was
complied with.
Mr. Shiv Chopra: It was a voluntary ban: don't
feed ruminants to
ruminants. So it didn't happen.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. Before that, though,
when did you alert
the department that the potential was there? Was it
just after it
happened in Great Britain?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: We alerted them as to the
potential in 1997.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Okay. So that's about the
same time as they
actually put on the ban.
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Everybody was talking about it,
and we said, it
could happen in Canada as well, because it's happening
everywhere
else in Europe, and we're making the same mistake they
were;
therefore, we should do something about it.
The FAO had said something should be done, but
Canada never took
care of it. Canada was importing material from dead
animals from
Europe, from England, and then we were feeding it.
They just issued
an advisory--don't do this--but then they didn't
control anything.
They didn't prosecute anybody. Certainly they did not
stop. To this
day they're feeding blood--to this day. And there are
other kinds of
things that are happening to this day. There is no
ban.
Then when it actually happened, we said this is
what we should
do. If you do that today, immediately, the further
spread stops.
It'll take five or six years and it'll disappear from
Canada. We were
ignored.
Then we wrote to Anne McLellan. Anne McLellan on
television said
this is the first time she'd heard of internal
dissension. I'm sorry,
she was justice minister. She was sending lawyers to
fight us for
years. She was health minister and now she's Deputy
Prime Minister.
Why is it nobody is speaking in Canada? Now there's a
$7-billion law
suit against the Government of Canada. If they'd
followed what we
said about BSE in Canada.... Even today I'm saying, if
we do that,
BSE would immediately stop and the borders of the
whole world would
open to Canadian beef--today. But we're not doing it,
because there's
corruption. We're going with corporate corruption.
We're going with
the American interests rather than Canadian interests.
That's what's
happening in Canada.
Á (1140)
Mr. Rob Merrifield: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Merrifield.
Mr. Lunney.
Mr. James Lunney: Thank you, Madam Chair.
To our witnesses, three scientists with such long
service to the
country, I would say that many members of the
committee were
particularly incensed that you were dismissed over the
summer after
the election, when Parliament was not sitting and we
were as far away
as possible from Ottawa.
You have raised some serious concerns here. I
want to go back to
one of your former colleagues, Michèle Brill-Edwards,
who was the
head of the pharmaceutical division and who stepped
down some time
ago. She made allegations at the time of troubles at
Canada's Health
Protection Branch, now the Health Products and Food
Branch, and of
persistent and deliberate interference by
manufacturers. Are you
aware of direct interference by manufacturers with
Health Canada
officials?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Michèle Brill-Edwards and I were
colleagues,
because for the first 18 years I worked in the human
area on human
drugs. You're beginning to see some problems emerging
even today with
mumps and measles, and so forth. Those vaccines went
through my
hands, but against my recommendations about the way
they were used.
I'll put that aside.
There are complaints filed against me personally
by a company
called Elanco that are now in litigation before the
Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal, and will be elsewhere. These
companies are saying
that we are not serving the corporate interests.
What we're saying is that the pressure is not
coming upon us
directly from the companies, but from the Privy
Council Office, and
consciously so. The Privy Council Office is the Prime
Minister, the
cabinet, the clerk, and the deputy minister and
everybody else. We
are being pressured, and therefore that is how we were
fired.
Mr. James Lunney: Michèle Brill-Edwards stated
that there were
instances where things about which they had legitimate
scientific
concerns were being advanced by bureaucrats who had no
knowledge of
the science, and other things about which they had no
concerns
scientifically were asked to be fast-tracked; so on
one hand,
approvals were retarded, and on the other hand,
approvals were
advanced for which they had legitimate concerns.
She implied that pressure was coming from....
You're saying that
you feel it's coming from the upper levels of the PMO?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: The PCO-not the PMO. I'm saying
the PCO; we
don't know about the PMO. It's the PCO, because we are
bureaucrats.
The pressure is coming via the Privy Council Office.
Mr. James Lunney: Okay, the Privy Council Office.
Thank you.
And now, Paul Cochrane, a former-
Ms. Margaret Haydon (As an Individual): To give
you just one
example of that, before we spoke before the Senate
Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Forestry about the recombinant
bovine growth
hormone, we had a person from the Privy Council Office
actually
advise us on how we were to speak before the Senate.
Mr. James Lunney: It's interesting that you would
need advice as
scientists on how you should speak.
One of your former colleagues in Health Canada,
assistant deputy
minister Paul Cochrane....
I'm sorry, but could you first provide the name,
Dr. Haydon?
Ms. Margaret Haydon: Of the Privy Council
individual? I'm afraid
I don't recall it.
Mr. James Lunney: Okay, thank you.
Back to Mr. Cochrane, who's now of course serving
jail time
because he received direct financial rewards, SUVs,
tickets worth
some $15,000, and trips to the Caribbean and so on.
Are you aware of
Health Canada officials who may have been compromised
by gifts and/or
some kind of financial rewards from manufacturers?
Á (1145)
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Let me talk about Paul Cochrane
first. I had
filed several pieces of litigation on racism in Health
Canada, one
not only against Health Canada but against the Public
Service
Commission and Treasury Board. That's the famous
National Capital
Alliance on Race Relations v. Canada. That case was
won. That was the
biggest indictment against the whole Government of
Canada on racism
against visible minorities, which was centred in the
Department of
Health and on me personally.
As a result of that tribunal order, Paul Cochrane
was appointed
as the overseer to implement the order. Paul Cochrane
was personally
responsible for having me suspended for five days
without pay because
I had criticized the department for not implementing
the order, being
in contempt of court. I told Paul Cochrane face to
face about that
order when we met with him, and he asked what contempt
of court
meant. One of my colleagues said, "Two years in jail".
He laughed and
said that's one place he wouldn't like to go. Well,
now we know Paul
Cochrane.
Diane Kirkpatrick has been recorded on CBC
television, on The
Nature of Things, receiving gifts on camera on a
program done by
David Suzuki on mad cow disease.
There was a person who appeared, Gordon
Dittberner. He was given
$20,000, two separate contracts for $10,000 each, by
David Dodge in
his time. This is a lobbyist who acts as a
self-appointed ambassador
of Canada to China and everywhere else on how to
introduce
genetically modified foods and so forth. He appeared
before this
committee and said hormones are safe. He's a
veterinarian. I'm
appalled that this man would go around misleading this
health
committee about hormones, which are banned in Europe.
They cause
cancer. He comes before you, the health committee, to
say hormones
given to animals are safe.
There are pregnant women who are getting cancer
and reproductive
disorders. This is the kind of thing we as scientists
are talking
about, damaging the health of our children,
grandchildren, and
pregnant women. These people have the gall to come
here before this
committee to say hormones are safe and antibiotics are
safe, even
though as the result of the excessive use of
antibiotics there are
deaths occurring in hospitals. This is what you're
hearing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lunney.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Good morning.
Madam Chair, I am sure that you will agree that
this was not
testimony to be sneezed at.
It is quite troubling to find that, a supposedly
sophisticated
public service, free from... You used the word
"corruption", but I
would encourage you to be careful. Anyway, there was
undue
interference. They ought to have respected your
expertise as a
scientist. I do not think that many public servants
would have put up
with the type of interference that you experienced.
I just want to make sure that I have understood
correctly.
Refresh our memories as to the chain of command. Which
branch of
Health Canada were you working for exactly at the time
of these
events?
[English]
Mr. Shiv Chopra: We worked in the Veterinary
Drugs Directorate,
which used to be called the Bureau of Veterinary
Drugs, in the Food
Directorate.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: All right. If I understand
rightly, you were
pressured to endorse a process leading to the
certification of a
product that would ultimately find its way onto the
market. However,
you were totally convinced that it would not be in the
best interests
of the health of Canadians to give it the green light.
Of course, we
are referring here to animal growth hormones.
Can you remind us exactly what type of influence
peddling and
interference you experienced?
Á (1150)
[English]
Mr. Shiv Chopra: There was one specific drug at
this time called
tylosin. Tylosin is in a class of antibiotics that
erythromycin
belongs to. Erythromycin is a critical antibiotic used
for children.
If you use another antibiotic from the same class,
like tylosin, and
if that produces resistance in some bacteria, then the
bacteria also
become resistant to erythromycin. This is the kind of
thing that
happens. A submission was brought for it to be given
to animals that
were receiving hormones to prevent abscesses in their
ears, where the
hormones are implanted; on top of it they were going
to give them
tylosin.
I'm going to defer to my colleague Gérard
Lambert, because at
that time it was his file. Then it moved from him to
another
colleague, Chris Bassude, who died in the process, and
then to me as
well. He was demoted. All he was asking for was a
meeting; they
didn't allow the meeting, and then a number of things
happened to him
and the rest of us.
[Translation]
Dr. Gérard Lambert (As an Individual): When I
raised objections
to the approval of a tylosin-hormone mix, I lost my
position as
acting team leader.
Á (1155)
Mr. Réal Ménard: Who dismissed you?
Dr. Gérard Lambert: Ms. Diane Kirkpatrick.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Ms. Kirkpatrick.
Dr. Gérard Lambert: First, we lodged a complaint
with the Public
Service Integrity Office and an enquiry was conducted.
Then came the
ruling. Mr. Keyserlingk, the Public Service Integrity
Office officer
found that our allegation of wrongdoing was without
basis.
Nevertheless, he ruled that Health Canada had sought
to retaliate
against me because I had raised an issue that ought to
have been
dealt with inside the organization, i.e. the fact that
I had lost my
position as acting team leader. In its report, the
Public Service
Integrity Office concluded that I had been the subject
of retaliation
and that the harm I had suffered should be redressed.
That was in
March 2003.
Later, the Office sent correspondence to the
Deputy Minister's
office requesting that steps be taken. That brings us
to October
2003. No action was taken. The Office then said that
if nothing had
been done within a month, it would raise the issue at
the Privy
Council. Once again, no response. Then in March, the
Office sent a
further letter stating that it intended to implement
the
recommendations. Nothing was forthcoming. In July, I
lost my job. My
two colleagues and I were dismissed.
Later, the Public Service Integrity Office said
that the harm
that I had suffered had not been addressed and that a
mechanism
should be set in place to deal with the matter. It was
at this time
that I received a letter from Health Canada telling me
that the
Department did not accept the Public Service Integrity
Office
findings, but that it was prepared to compensate me in
light of the
circumstances.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Thibault.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, perhaps all of us around this table
should consider
how we do these things in the future. We're hearing
serious
allegations, but we're hearing one side only, and
we're hearing
people's reputations being questioned or slandered.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick retired this week. She didn't
resign because of
incompetence; she retired. She decided she was going
to pursue
another interest, which is teaching kindergarten. Hats
off to her. I
hope she's very happy. I hope the kids are very happy.
But it's unfortunate her name should be slandered
like that
without our hearing from the other side. I think it's
very dangerous
in this case, and I'll ask a question when I've made a
couple of
comments.
We have, I understand, some disciplinary
sanctions that were
taken against these three individuals, and I won't
comment on whether
they were correct or they were incorrect. I don't
know. I'm not in a
capacity to judge. But there have been some appeals or
some referrals
to boards, to the Public Service Staff Relations Board
or a board
we've had at Federal Court since 2001, and in all
cases Health
Canada's views were upheld.
I have five pages of quotes from these decisions.
I won't read
them all, but here's one from the Federal Court
decision on the
Public Service Staff Relations Board decision, page
43, paragraph 69:
Clearly this is not a case of whistle-blowing. The
applicant's
reported statements, in my opinion, do not involve
public interest
issues of the same order as in Haydon, supra. They do
not address
pressing issues such as jeopardy to public health and
safety (or
government illegality). Moreover, the evidence reveals
that the
applicant did not check her facts or address her
concerns internally.
That was on appeal to the Federal Court of a
Public Service Staff
Relations Board decision. In another case the board
said:
Second, I conclude that Mr. Chopra's repeated
comments, which went
beyond the realm of acceptable scientific debate,
impaired his
usefulness as a public servant. His attacks on the
Minister, his
department and his supervisor were repeated and
derogatory. There is
no doubt in my mind that Mr. Chopra's conduct in this
case seriously
impaired his usefulness as a public servant.
And there are pages of that; it continues.
I understand you might not agree with all of
those decisions and
you're appealing them, and it's certainly your right
to do so, but I
remind everybody around this table that there can be a
lot of points
of view, and we're hearing one today. There can be a
slant, and it is
very possible that witnesses at a committee like this
might put a
slant favourable to themselves on the evidence they
provide. I know
that's a shocking suggestion, but I think it's
important that we
remember that.
I have two questions. Were your peers at Health
Canada supportive
of your views and your actions to draw attention to
these concerns?
Again, perhaps it would be important for the
committee to hear
from some of these professionals whose views you came
to represent.
And can you explain why you requested to be
physically separated
from your peers at Health Canada?
Ms. Margaret Haydon: With respect to your first
comments on the
first Public Service Staff Relations Board hearing,
that was appealed
to the Federal Court for judicial review. Two days ago
it was
appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal before three
honourable
justices, so it was just heard. I can't really speak
about the
issues, but I was--
Hon. Robert Thibault: But in the first two
instances the finding
was in favour of Health Canada.
Ms. Margaret Haydon: But there were things that
were appealed
because of legal issues, and also I was very appalled.
With all due
respect to the three honourable justices, several days
ago they were
misled. In one instance they were misled that Mrs.
Kirkpatrick was a
doctor, which is incorrect. They were misled that she
was an expert
on BSE. I sat across at a table from her several years
ago when she
admitted her education amounted to three years at
Loyola College,
after which she joined Health Canada as a laboratory
technician.
Further, what occurred was that the justices were
misled to
believe I was a loose cannon, and this was based on
incorrect
information from that manager.
 (1200)
Mr. Shiv Chopra: If I may continue also along
those lines, with
all due respect, sir, you can't take a single case.
You're talking
about whistle-blowing: one on mad cow disease; and the
other one on
the Iraq War, where the minister bought drugs, which
have been
wasted. I didn't talk about that. I only said that
anthrax can never
be used as a bioterrorist weapon. I still stand by
that. I've been
proven right. So fundamentally, as a scientist, I'm
right. That's the
only statement I made as a member of the public, not
as a Health
Canada official. So if you're conveying that to this
committee,
that's wrong.
Now, if we can get back to the other questions,
all these matters
were taken before the Public Service Integrity Officer
and the
Federal Court. He dismissed our complaints. He didn't
do what he was
supposed to do. He didn't do what he agreed to do
according to the
authorities that he was given by the Privy Council. We
ultimately
took him to the Federal Court, which has come out,
only a week ago,
agreeing with us, and now he's going to have to go
back and do what
he agreed to do, what he was supposed to do. I'm
talking about that
specific drug, Baytril.
I would like to show you something else, and I'll
leave it for
this committee, that this matter--
Hon. Robert Thibault: Dr. Chopra, you're
suggesting to me that
Health Canada was incompetent, the public service
review was
incompetent, and the Federal Court was incompetent.
They all found
against you, and perhaps the appeal court will be
incompetent should
they find against you.
Mr. Shiv Chopra: I didn't say that. I said the
Federal Court has
ruled in our favour against the Public Service
Integrity Officer
specifically on this drug called Baytril. If you want
to see it, you
should read the Washington Post from a week ago. The
same issue has
arisen in the FDA, where 26 congressmen are trying to
influence the
FDA to disregard a judge's statement.
You're telling me that the judges are against me?
I'm sorry,
you're misled. Maybe you are misinformed. The judges
have always been
in our favour. You're taking those two isolated
cases--and they're
not finished yet--but we're talking about....
The word "corruption" was used. I've given you
some evidence,
money exchanges, and so on. That's not what we're
talking about.
Corruption is not always when people pass bills and
notes to other
people.
We're talking about the corruption of the system
that is supposed
to be operated in our hands, in our jobs, what we do
if somebody
pressures that we either pass this or else we're
fired. That's what
has happened.
Hon. Robert Thibault: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thibault.
Ms. Crowder.
Ms. Jean Crowder (Nanaimo-Cowichan, NDP): Thank
you, Chair, and I
want to thank the witnesses for appearing today.
I think a number of us, and I'm certainly not
speaking for the
whole committee, are very concerned about the lack of
transparency
and openness in Health Canada. We have any number of
things come
before us. You've talked about the bovine growth
hormone and BSE, and
recently we've heard from the dairy farmers that
things such as
modified milk products are coming into Canada, and we
don't know
what's in them.
When we heard Bill C-28, there were a number of
issues that came
before the committee, including estradiol, which the
department had
committed to coming back to inform us on, and I still
have not heard
anything on that. There are some allegations that
there was a study
going on; it was unclear from the testimony we heard.
Madame Demers just talked about the silicone gel
breast
implants-the process that was used for that-and only
under public
pressure has that gone public.
And the Canadian Association of Journalists, last
year, gave
Health Canada the award for being the least open and
transparent
department in government.
Setting the stage with that doesn't lead me to a
lot of confidence.
I have a quotation from the Senate committee
around, I believe,
the bovine growth hormone. It says:
Several of the Health Canada scientists who appeared
before the
Committee were so concerned about their future
employment that they
delayed appearing until they had received assurance
that there would
be no reprisals. As well, they took the unusual step
of swearing an
oath before testifying. These concerns are serious,
and the Committee
reiterates the point made during their appearance: it
wishes to be
contacted should they feel they are suffering
reprisals related to
their appearance, whether in the short or the long
term.That's one
quotation.
The other quotation I have is from the Council of
Canadians.
They're a noted public advocacy group concerned about
public health
and safety. This is from July 2004. They issued a
press release when
they were intervenors on the BST case, along with
Sierra Club.
They've cited the fact that:
The Federal Court agreed, stating that "the scientists
were justified
in going to the media" and ruled that "where a matter
is of
legitimate public concern requiring a public debate,
the duty of
loyalty cannot be absolute to the extent of preventing
public
disclosure by a government official".
Maude Barlow goes on to say in this press release
that:
this will be an important test [case] for the new
Martin government
to send a clear signal that civil servants have a
responsibility to
speak out to defend the public interest. If we do not
have an
investigation into this, Canadians' confidence in the
safety of our
food may be at stake.
What would you like this committee to do?
 (1205)
Mr. Shiv Chopra: First of all, I commend this
committee for at
least inviting us to talk about it. We're not here to
slander
anybody. We're just telling you what we experience,
what we know.
The Senate, on the other hand, gave loud promises
to us, when we
were reluctant to appear, that the House of Commons
comes and goes
but they're always there: if something happens to you,
even in five
years, come back to us and we'll defend you. We've
been writing to
them; our lawyers have written to them; Senator
Kinsella has moved a
unanimous motion in the Senate. Nothing has happened.
The rules
committee has met before on that very issue, on
contempt of
Parliament by Health Canada. Nothing has happened;
that motion is
still outstanding. Senator Kinsella two weeks ago
again raised it in
the Senate, asking the rules committee, "What are you
going to do?"
They were all silent. These are parliamentarians who
gave us the
guarantees that we are parliamentary witnesses and
nothing should
happen to us.
Now I hear Mr. Thibault suggesting we may be
slandering some
people, and so forth. We're not slandering anybody.
We're just
telling you what we know, what has been happening to
us. If it's
slander, let it be slander. Out there, our names have
been slandered.
We've been destroyed just trying to do our jobs, to
safeguard the
public interest. We're talking about slander. We're
talking about
public interest in our jobs.
I think this committee has done, and I hope this
committee will
continue to do.... Frankly, I did not think I would be
here, but
despite what's happening in the Centre Block, you
responsible members
of Parliament are here listening to us. What you do
with it is up to
you, now or afterwards.
Ms. Jean Crowder: So would a public investigation
or a public
inquiry serve on this?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: This is exactly what we've been
asking for for
the past 15 years, a public investigation. We've gone
to Jean
Chrétien. Our union has been writing. We go to every
minister. We've
written to the Clerk of the Privy Council. The Clerk
of the Privy
Council has responded to us that he's not even going
to respond to us.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Crowder.
Ms. Dhalla.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla (Brampton-Springdale, Lib.):
Thank you very much,
all of you, for being present here and sharing some of
your personal
experiences in regard to what's happened. I was
interested in your
testimony and I have two questions.
What did your letters of termination indicate?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: They indicated that we each were
insubordinate
during the last two or three months on a project. In
my case, it was
within the last month, after I'd served for 35 years
in the
department without a blemish. They've been slandering
me, but there's
nothing on my record that I've done absolutely any
wrong. Suddenly
she wrote to me saying, I gave you a project and I've
determined you
have no intention of doing it, and you're on sick
leave at home. Then
the notice came to me with a gold watch.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Did you communicate to them that
you weren't
interested in doing the project they had mentioned in
the particular
letter?
 (1210)
Mr. Shiv Chopra: It's all there, and that subject
is before the
courts, so I'm not going to go into the details of
exactly
what....Their statement is that we were insubordinate.
Our position
is that it's all due to whistle-blowing.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: And what about you, Margaret?
Ms. Margaret Haydon: In my case, it was in
respect to an interim
report that I was asked for just out of the blue, and
before I left
for my extended sick leave, I actually completed three
final reports.
Unfortunately, there were deficiencies with respect to
the drugs, and
this wasn't what they wanted to hear.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: And Gérard.
[Translation]
Dr. Gérard Lambert: In my case, it was in respect
to a
preliminary report on a three-month project. My first
report was used
as grounds to dismiss me. I was told that the report
failed to
demonstrate any progress, but it was only my first
report on a
three-month project.
[English]
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Mr. Chopra, you had also
mentioned earlier on in
your testimony that you had faced racism within the
Health Canada
department. Can you elaborate on that, please?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Back in 1989 I prepared a report
on employment
equity throughout the government. This report was
circulated. It was
sent to many people just to remind them that we are
now in a new
Canada, things are changing, visible minority content
in Canada is
increasing and there's an Employment Equity Act. I did
this study
based on Treasury Board statistics and that we should
do something
about it.
I was writing to the chairman of the Public
Service Commission,
the Human Rights Commission, the Prime Minister, my
own deputy
minister, and within three days of this report
becoming public with
all good intentions, the department and the whole
government went
after me--and now it's all part of the public record,
in the human
rights tribunals and so forth--to somehow discredit me
and destroy
me. And they've been trying that for the past 15
years, until I was
fired. So that's what it is.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: I don't have any more questions
left.
I think it's important that when we look at this
nature of
testimony we have people from all sides, because as
we've seen today,
they've highlighted their own personal experiences and
discussed it,
but it's very difficult for us to find out what the
other side of the
story is. And there are always two sides to a story.
So next time
maybe we can make sure we have people from all
respects.
The Chair: Mr. Carrie.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Thank you, Madam
Chair.
First of all, I'd like to thank all three of you
for being here
today. I see you as courageous public servants who are
attempting to
take responsibility for your actions and the actions
of Health
Canada. I find what's been going on incredible. We've
had some
situations with Health Canada we've heard of, but the
given the fact
that you mention the bovine growth hormone, the
antibiotic, the BSE,
and you even mention things like vaccines, it's almost
like there's a
systemic cap that's put on anybody who wants to speak
out against
Health Canada.
I actually am in agreement with Mr. Thibault and
Dr. Dhalla. I
think we should have more investigation, and I wonder,
as did my NDP
colleague, if perhaps a full inquiry is warranted in
this situation.
For you to come forward as you have and to be
chastised as you have,
I find that's totally unacceptable, as a Canadian and
as a
representative of the Canadian people, because this is
exactly what
we need in Health Canada for the safety of Canadians.
I want to ask you, are you aware of any direct
interference by
manufacturers in regulation of different products or
products that
you wanted to send out? You mentioned vaccines. I'm
curious about
that. It seems to have happened years ago, and you
didn't want
certain ones put on the market, yet they were. Could
you elaborate on
that for us?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Let me not go there, because
that thing is
developing and I don't want to get into it. I don't
want to say too
much on it because I'm watching that situation myself,
but it's going
back 35 years.
Let me speak to a relatively recent situation
where a company
called Elanco, which is owned by Eli Lilly, a giant,
filed a
complaint against me from a meeting saying that they
determined from
my body language during a meeting that I was
fundamentally opposed to
their molecule.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
 (1215)
Mr. Colin Carrie: From body language?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: From my body language.
Mr. Colin Carrie: That's pretty good scientific
scrutiny.
Mr. Shiv Chopra: They determined from my body
language that I was
fundamentally opposed to their molecule and, given the
opportunity, I
would never approve that drug for subclinical
coccidiosis and
subclinical ketosis. Let me tell you what that means.
Subclinical is not a disease of anything. That
means it's either
on the way to becoming a disease or on the way out.
It's using an
antibiotic for a made-up disease, or it's a drug
looking for a
disease. They wanted to get it approved, and they were
competing with
that drug against, actually, BGH. These were two
companies--Monsanto
and Elanco--fighting with each other for world rights.
Then Elanco
pulls a fast one on that: if that isn't approved, put
in this other
drug and that will do the same job.
It was as a result of this that I said, you can't
approve this.
Then that same company brought a special request
through my boss, and
I happened to be the acting chief for four months at
that time, and
they wanted me to approve a prescription--not a
submission but a
prescription--written by a single veterinarian for 64
truckloads of
this drug, manufactured in Canada, coming across the
border, and
saying with my signature that it would be safe to use
in Canada, when
it had not yet been approved.
Mr. Colin Carrie: What you're saying is just more
evidence, Madam
Chair, that we have to really follow through with
this. There should
be a full inquiry into what's going on, with both
sides here, so that
people with these allegations can defend themselves.
I had a specific question for you. I'm putting
forth a private
member's bill, and it has to do with natural health
products. I was
wondering, do you know Dr. Michèle Brill-Edwards? She,
I believe, was
a prescription drug expert with HPB for 15 years and
she resigned in
1996 because she wanted to speak out publicly about
HPB being
excessively lax in regulating high-risk products such
as blood, which
you mentioned earlier, and prescription drugs. But she
said they were
unjustifiably strict in cracking down on herbal
products and
nutritional supplements.
I was wondering, do you have any more information
about
manufacturers maybe influencing Health Canada with
regard to a bias
or unjustifiably strict regulations on health and
herbal products?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Without speaking about that
specific issue,
let's say the companies bring pressure, and that I
find is legitimate
because they are in business. They have to do that. I
have no problem
with that. But when the pressure comes from management
or from Privy
Council, and they're changing the rules for cost
recovery without
going to Parliament, and now the companies have become
partners....
The companies, having paid a fee, then demand they get
fast approval
or approvals that otherwise wouldn't have happened.
There are some
serious problems here, and it's the fault of
Parliament that such
regulations go through without going to Parliament.
That's what happened in our situation. Cost
recovery was imposed
on veterinary drugs, on breast implants, on medical
devices, and so
on. Once they do that, they say, now that we have paid
you, you'd
better deliver. So we are in the middle, and we're
told this is
government policy. How can we go by government policy
when there is
an existing law, the Food and Drugs Act, which comes
under the
Criminal Code? Policy can't override the Criminal
Code. If we sign
off, we go to jail.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Carrie.
I have nobody else on the list.... All right,
Madame Demers.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers: Thank you Madam Chair. I shall
be brief.
Ms. Haydon, your office was broken into in 1994
and documents
relating to growth hormones were taken. Did you
receive direct
threats warning you to keep quiet about your findings
with regard to
the Monsanto products and growth hormones? Were you
threatened?
 (1220)
[English]
Ms. Margaret Haydon: At that time, that's
correct. My locked
cabinet was somehow opened and my documents, just with
respect to the
bovine growth hormone, were gone. I reported that to
my immediate
supervisor and to the next one up. There was an RCMP
investigation,
plus there was internal security that came i--about
six pages of a
report--where there were many deficiencies. She
eventually was
demoted, and with respect to the RCMP investigation,
there was
nothing found.
I received phone calls from the director general
at that time
questioning me, and this sort of thing. I was
basically isolated.
People were told to keep away from me, and that sort
of thing.
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers: Mr. Chopra, your wife was also
dismissed by
Health Canada in the late 1970s for claiming that more
research was
required before approving breast implants. Did she
challenge her
dismissal and what happened after that?
[English]
Mr. Shiv Chopra: My wife used to be in charge of
medical devices.
She had to approve the breast implant. The submission
was before her.
She was the very first person in Canada to raise some
questions on
that implant. She wanted more data. A company was
selling it on
behalf of another company. My wife, Nirmala Chopra,
said she would
like to receive the data. She was told, oh no, this is
grandfathered;
it's already approved. She said, the law says we must
still know who
made it, who's processing it, and so forth. Whatever
information she
received, she passed to another scientist, Pierre
Blais. Pierre Blais
wrote a report, and Pierre Blais was fired.
Subsequently, that whole department was
dismantled. My wife was
removed. She was harassed. She unfortunately met with
a terrible
accident. She was hit by a car, and it destroyed my
family.
I would say that like the rest of the people, I
too was part of
the corruption, but for remaining silent for all those
years, because
I knew these things were happening, but as long as
nobody told me
directly to sign here.... I'm raising children; I'm
like everybody
else. That's what we would do.
We got out of their way. My wife got out of their
way. We did all
sorts of things, but when this happened and she was
coming home
crying, even though she had won a harassment
complaint--the
department upheld her complaint of harassment--they
still said she
could not go back to her job and that they would get
letters from her
colleagues to say that they did not want to work with
her. If I say I
don't want to work with so-and-so, are they going to
fire them? But
that's what was done to her.
Once it reached that low level in my personal
life, I saw God.
It's irresponsible to remain silent in view of this
kind of
corruption--and now I'm using the word "corruption"
again. When this
kind of thing happens, then no matter what happens,
you cannot remain
silent. It would be irresponsible to be silent. No
matter what the
consequences, you must face reality, and this is how I
got into this
act. Otherwise, I had a quiet life. If they didn't
listen to me, I
would go and read, take courses in religions, write
poetry, study the
Bible, and these kinds of things, and I was spending
my life quite
well. But my life for the past 15 years has been hell.
 (1225)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms. Dhalla has another short question, and that
will finish the
second round. So I think we can probably move on to
Mr. Ménard. I
believe he has a suggestion.
Ms. Dhalla.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Thank you, Madam Chair, for
allowing me the
opportunity. I have two quick questions for everyone
who's here
before us.
Number one, how long have you been off work?
Second, who is
funding what I'm sure have been extremely high legal
costs for you?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: We've been out of our jobs since
July 14, 2004.
We've been through the process, because they said we
had to file
grievances. We went through the department, and there
were the
dismissals. In other words, it went all the way up to
the highest
level, to the deputy minister, and now it's before the
labour board.
There we're told that the Department of Justice
doesn't have a
lawyer to appear until the fall. Then they asked if we
wanted to go
into mediation. We're saying, yes, we can go into
mediation, provided
you are serious about it. At least put all three of us
on salary and
then you can take ten years if you want. They said, oh
no, we don't
want to do that. You just suffer. Meanwhile, we're
suffering. We have
no income. I put my house up for sale, and these
things are happening
to us.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Who is paying your legal costs?
Mr. Shiv Chopra: Our union.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Your union, for all three of
you.
Thank you. That's it.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: A point of order, Madam Chair.
I think that all members are flabbergasted,
aghast and saddened
by what we are hearing today. However, Mr. Thibault is
right. There
are principles of basic justice that we have to
respect. As a result,
I do not think that it would be wise for the committee
to only hear
one side of the story.
Now, I think that we have to be very careful. I
know that the
Government is in the throws of death. No-one knows
what is going to
happen this evening. Madam Chair, just in case the
Government does
survive the vote this evening, could you check whether
there is
consent to invite Health Canada to testify as early as
next week so
as to shed some light on the allegations and the
events that took
place? What we have heard is very troubling. I think
that it almost
warrants a public enquiry. I do not know what the will
of the
committee is on this issue and I would not wish to
presume anything,
but I think that we have to at least hear from Health
Canada as soon
as possible. We have to do this quickly so that the
testimony of the
three witnesses, whose testimony we have just heard
remains fresh in
our minds. It seems to me that they are somewhat
martyrs to science.
Madam Chair, could you do a straw poll? I realize
that I have not
given the statutory notice, but with the consent of
the committee, it
would be possible. If you would just check whether
there is consent,
we could get going quite quickly, provided of course
the Government
survives the vote. Let us not get carried away, since
who knows what
might happen. If the Government wins the vote, I think
that we should
hear from the Health Canada people as early as next
week.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Thibault.
[Translation]
Hon. Robert Thibault: Madam Chair, I support the
member's
suggestion whole-heartedly. I totally agree. What's
more, I would
suggest that the House's legal advisors consult the
Department's
legal advisors so that we avoid any chance of
undermining the case of
these three people, which are currently before the
courts. If we do
have to set limits to our questioning, then these
restrictions have
to be set out by our legal advisors.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Isn't time of the essence here?
You are not the
one being asked to resign as parliamentary secretary.
The Chair would
be too sad to see you go. This is a troubling case.
[English]
The Chair: I don't think we need unanimous
consent. I don't think
we need a motion. I think I just need a show of hands
to see if
people are anxious to pursue this topic by bringing in
witnesses,
whether it's Health Canada people or lawyers or
whatever. I think we
should leave ourselves open to what the researchers
might suggest for
people who want to know more about it.
All those in favour of moving forward on Mr.
Ménard's suggestion,
although we might expand it further.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Madam Dhalla wanted to make a comment.
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: We had in the beginning, when we
first started
our health committee, given you a list of priorities
and initiatives
that we had wanted to see carried out for the duration
of the
committee. Notwithstanding that this is a very
important issue, I
personally feel that it is before the courts right
now. There are
certain things that can come forward in terms of
evidence and there
are certain things that cannot come forward in terms
of evidence.
There are people who can speak and people who cannot
because of the
different levels of involvement.
I personally am interested in trying to pursue as
much as
possible some of the initiatives that we collectively,
as a team, had
decided. While Mr. Merrifield had put forward a
motion, I don't
believe this was one of those top three or top five
priorities that
we had decided as a committee. Time is limited, and I
think it's
really important.
 (1230)
[Translation]
Ms. Nicole Demers: Madam Chair, I would just like
to point out to
Ms. Dhalla that quite the opposite is true. It is very
important that
we do this now because we have Bills and other issues
to deal with.
Consequently, we have to trust Health Canada. I think
that it is very
important for us to meet with the people from Health
Canada quickly
so that we may move on to other important issues on
our agenda.
Mr. Réal Ménard: it could be on a Wednesday. We
do not have to
have that in a roomS(
[English]
The Chair: You don't have the floor, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Merrifield does, though.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I would like to hear the
other side as well,
and perhaps more. I would think the way we could get
around this
right now would be to have our research team give
those
recommendations to the committee at the next
opportunity, and then
decide at that time how we'd want to pursue this in
light of that
information.
The Chair: I was thinking of just asking them to
pull together a
set of witnesses for the next meeting, after which we
could decide
whether to go forward on it.
Mr. Rob Merrifield: I'd be fine with that as
well.
The Chair: The first available meeting, provided
we're still
around, is May 30. That's the first Monday we're back.
That's all I'm
asking people to agree to, Ms. Dhalla. I understand
there are two....
First of all, we have a couple of requests from
the minister,
plus we have the wellness study. However, I know
that's what you were
thinking of. It would be very unusual for a committee
to start a
major study with only three weeks left on the
parliamentary calendar.
No matter what happens tonight, I doubt we would be
starting a
wellness study. Usually the initial witnesses brief us
on the topic,
and we would get these briefings and then we would go
home for two
and a half months or something. I think it might be
wiser to wait
until the fall.
Would you agree with that?
Ms. Ruby Dhalla: Yes, just as long as it's
addressed.
Thank you. I think wellness is an important
issue.
The Chair: I understand. I know you're anxious. I
know Mr. Savage
is, and I forget who else--I think Mr. Carrie.
Mrs. Crowder wanted to comment.
Ms. Jean Crowder: I have a quick point.
I support our going ahead and hearing from
somebody, but I
understand we do need to get some legal advice around
what we can
hear and what we can't hear because of the court
situation. I would
presume, once we heard those witnesses, that the
committee would then
determine its course of action.
The Chair: Exactly.
We're only committing to one more meeting at this
point. However,
we had legal guidance before in the form of a letter
from someone who
is assessing our position vis-à-vis the scientists,
vis-à-vis Health
Canada, etc. Maybe we could get another letter of that
sort, to say,
considering the point in time we're at, and the
progress of this
situation since the last letter, what would you advise
now? What we
could do is try to get that letter and use that as the
first basis
for decision. If that letter says not to do anything
because this is
before the courts, what we will do is maybe have the
clerk advise
everybody, even before we come back, although maybe we
can't get that
letter that fast. We'll try.
Thank you, Mr. Ménard, for your suggestion. I
think it's
generally agreed upon.
On your behalf, I'd like to thank the witnesses
for coming and
sharing their story with us. You can see we will at
least go on for
one more meeting and maybe further.
Thank you very much.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=117785