Thank you for inviting me to appear before your committee today.
In previous appearances before this committee, in previous years, my testimony focused on my experience as a patient and a parent of children conceived through reproductive technologies. We shared our private lives with this committee in the hopes that legislation would help and improve for those who came after us. There was no personal gain at that point--or at this point--in any of my efforts.
I felt strongly that it was my duty as a Canadian to share concerns with our federal government and that this was the process and the place that would ensure protections for the health and safety of individuals who use these technologies and the children who are born from them. This is clearly stated as a first principle in the act.
I want to tell you how deeply honoured I was when I was named to the board. I was prepared to undertake these duties entrusted to me with great care. After the resignations of Françoise and Barbara, I did my best to continue try to fulfill my duty. However, it became evident that I was prevented from doing so and therefore had to resign.
As a GIC appointee, we have a duty and public responsibility to ensure responsible management, ethical conduct, and to hold a position of trust to Canadians. I could no longer assure myself of these responsibilities. In my opinion, this board was broken and managed by the president.
I copied my letter of resignation to various MPs, government officials, and the board. You have a copy of my resignation with the individuals' names.
I also included the following statement in my cover letter:
Resigning from this Board has been one of the hardest decisions I have ever made however I felt I had no choice and could not continue serving the Canadian public on a board I have lost trust in.
To my surprise, no one in government wanted to discuss my reasons for resigning. I wanted to share my concerns so that things would be better for whoever replaced me.
Together with Françoise and Barbara, we had asked the Prime Minister's Office for an exit interview. You have a copy of that letter as well. No one in that office was motivated by our resignations to find out what had gone wrong.
Infertility affects approximately 6% to 10% of the population, and that translates into hundreds of thousands of individuals. This is an area that will affect many people in the future, and this is an area that is really important.
I want to add a few comments to what you've already heard from Françoise and Barbara.
On disrespectful engagement by the president with board members and others, there were a number of board discussions that were less than cordial. These included discussions about the need to engage in effective outreach to persons experiencing infertility; discussions of overall budget and specific budget lines; discussions of the organizational chart in order to get clarity on reporting relationships and accountability between the president and Health Canada; discussions of revisions to the tri-council policy statement and one board member's request to deal with the issue of research involving women; discussions of job descriptions and accountability profiles of board members; and discussions about posting minutes on the website for the public.
In addition to dismissive and negative statements directed by the president to board members who raised these topics for discussion, there was negative body language, eye-rolling, impatience, raised tone of voice, and hand-waving. This made some board members feel attacked for asking questions or asking for clarification, and it contributed to an atmosphere of judgment and mistrust. A number of board members were mostly silent during meetings.
On occasion the president would talk to one board member to find out information about another and make disparaging comments about one board member to another board member. As well, derogatory remarks were made by the president to the board members about stakeholders--the users of the technologies. There were inappropriate, repeated attempts to stop board members from sharing their personal and professional views about AHR matters.
All board members, having signed a confidentiality agreement, understood and accepted that matters discussed during board meetings had to remain confidential. However, beyond this there were suggestions by the president and the chair to the effect that board members must also be silent on all matters regarding AHR.
This practice led one board member to formally request clear guidelines and guidance as to what members were or were not allowed to say. That resulted in draft policies on public positioning and participation in policy debates, media relations, professional publications and speeches, and responding to questions from stakeholders.
In discussions about these draft policies, there were efforts to intimidate board members and suggestions that board members must not do “X”. When asked by a board member to put this advice in writing, there was a clear unwillingness to do so, because one “cannot say that...at most one can provide legal advice that this would not be wise”.
At the time the board member who raised this issue resigned from the agency, it was 10 months after seeking clear advice on what board members were or were not allowed to discuss. There were no policies in place at that time.