Thank you.
I resigned from the board of directors of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada on March 18 of this year. I did so with a heavy heart, having given the matter very serious consideration. I resigned because due to the actions of the president and others, I was not able to fulfill the responsibilities outlined in the act regarding the management of the agency.
The act stipulates that:
The board of directors is responsible for the overall management of the Agency, including
(a) the provision of advice to the Minister on assisted human reproduction and other matters to which this Act applies, or on any matter referred to the Agency by the Minister;
(b) the approval of the Agency's goals and operational policies;
(c) the approval of the Agency's budget; and
(d) the evaluation of the Agency's performance.
Further, section 32 stipulates that responsibilities in (a), (b) and (c) cannot be delegated.
Shortly after I resigned, Barbara Slater resigned on March 31. Next, Irene Ryll resigned on May 30. As you know, we have not been replaced.
The communications plan developed by the agency in response to our resignations includes the following statement:
These resignations will not affect the integrity of the Board. The Board will carry out its core responsibilities and mandate.
In my view, this statement is false. Since its inception, the board has lost its legal expert, its ethics expert, its policy expert, and its patient expert--and yet it's business as usual? Three of these four members left as a matter of principle. Clearly, the integrity of the board has been compromised, and there is good reason to doubt its ability to carry out its core responsibilities and mandate.
I will address two issues in my opening remarks--failure of the agency to effectively promote and defend the principles of the act, and failure of the board to act in accordance with board values.
Further, in question period, I would be pleased to answer questions about the effects on silencing board members, the contract on altruistic donation, research involving embryos in pregnant women, and communications with the Prime Minister's Office.
First, through various acts of omission and commission, the agency either failed to effectively promote the principles outlined in the act or appeared to actively undermine these principles. Two examples are provided.
The president proposed hosting an international forum on cross-border reproductive care. Some board members suggested that this might not be a good idea, as this could reasonably be interpreted as promoting reproductive travel as a way to avoid legislative constraints that the agency should be upholding. In response, the president insisted that the agency could not stop people from travelling. In further discussion, it was also made plain that the forum would not examine the ethics of this practice. The focus would be on health and safety.
Thereafter, there was no acknowledgement of the ways in which health and safety issues are inextricably linked with ethics. There were media criticisms of the decision to host this meeting. No budget line was ever approved for this meeting. Indeed, according to my records, the board did not approve a budget for the year 2008-09.
To this day, I do not know what the meeting cost, though I believe expenses are buried in several categories like general travel, consulting, etc., and that they may have been spread over two fiscal years. I would encourage you to pay particular attention to this when you receive the audit you requested at your June meeting, and I would ask you to make sure that it is, in fact, an audit and not merely an audited financial statement.
Second, the agency issued a contract to study the feasibility of altruistic gamete donation. Some board members perceived the apparent direction of the contract as contrary to the legislation. The contract was defended with such statements as--quote--“we know this aspect of the legislation isn't working”.
The implication of the statement seemed to be that the agency needed information to support a change in legislation. In response, one board member made the point that the agency's job was to ensure that the legislation was implemented effectively, not to research ways and means to change the legislation. The legislation might need to be changed, but that would be the responsibility of Health Canada. Indeed, previously, Health Canada had tendered a contract on this issue.
There were also concerns about the choice of “expert consultant” for the contract, a physician who had made public statements against altruistic donations with references to the “thou shalt not pay” rule, and he had also said that we need a “more rational plan” and at the very least we should pay donors for lost work time.
As well, there were concerns about conflict of interest. The physician was a lead author on an earlier CFAS document lobbying Health Canada to fund such contract research, and he was a member of the science advisory panel of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada.
My second broad point has to do with the failure of the board to act in accordance with board values.
I don't expect I will get through that....