Health Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

[Barbara Slater]

In terms of the budget and the financial, I don't believe I had enough information--and I'm not an accountant--to ever be able to say whether the agency was getting value for money. Any kind of audit that would be done on statements would need to be, in my opinion, a full financial audit in terms of looking and seeing whether there was value for money. A full financial audit, not just auditing financial statements: there is a little bit of difference between the two. I believe the agency needs to be looked at to see whether they were getting value for their money, especially in some of the contracts.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

I would now in fact let you have my time.

How much time do I have left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

You have just less than two minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Who wants to take the two minutes and tell us what you weren't able to tell us in your statements?

[Dr. Françoise Baylis]

Well, one thing I would like to give as a very concrete example is that we were asked at one point to approve an expenditure of $500,000 that would be transferred to CIHR, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. This was done outside the context of any kind of budget discussion. It was a one-off discussion. We were asked to vote on this item, and I and at least another board member raised questions: Why are we voting on this? We've never voted on anything to do with the board. How are you making this transfer between government agencies? We don't understand how this would work.

The transfer was made, and the budget was only looked at and approved after this particular agreement was made. There was a teleconference held, and, at least according to my e-mail minutes, that teleconference at which this expenditure was approved was described as “optional”. As a result, there are no minutes of this teleconference when this was approved, although there is a reference to it in subsequent minutes, meaning the minutes of the June meeting. But I have no records of the minutes of this meeting that took place by telephone in April, this optional meeting.

The thing I find surprising about this is that after this period of time, I later happened to be named to the same board that was on the receiving end of this money, which is an unusual circumstance, but it allowed me to see what happened to the money on the other side. I think what was most distressing there was that on the other side, I could see quite clearly what had happened to the money. It was very transparent in terms of tracking it coming in and tracking some of it going out, not all of it, etc. But I worried about my colleagues who were still a part of the agency who would have no information about what had or had not happened to this money.

I think I would repeat what Barbara said in terms of the frustration. I am a person who has now held three Governor in Council appointments. I've sat on many national boards. I'm quite used to looking at budgets, although I too am not an accountant. We repeatedly asked for budgets in the form that you could see--for instance, this is what was approved, these were your actuals, these were the expenses, etc.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Baylis.

We'll now go to Monsieur Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Just like Mr. Dosanjh, we don't know where to start. You have told us so many things that I am even wondering how we can get through it all in one meeting.

If I may, Ms. Slater, I will refer to an interview Ms. Buzzetti did with you for the Devoir, which appeared last June and in which you said you had asked the president about budgets and expenditures. You became suspicious after that. You also asked her about other issues, which you could not mention in the interview.

Have you mentioned those other issues to us today? Could you give us more details on the issues you asked senior management about?

[Barbara Slater]

The other issues are the issues that we are talking about today in our brief. Because of confidentiality, we did not talk publicly, ever, about anything other than what was--speaking for myself here--in my resignation letter, which I was told by a lawyer did not breach my confidentiality agreement, as it was just the details of things.

So we were very conscious not to do that, not to break...but the other issues we have talked about, or are in our brief.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

That's perfect, thank you very much.

Ms. Ryll, you told us in your presentation that the president was trying to obtain information on other members from some members of the board of directors. Were you also questioned? Were other members asked details about you? Did you witness that?

[Irene Ryll]

I was questioned by the president about a board member. I don't know whether or not the president questioned anybody about me. I can only talk about my experience.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Could you tell us what kind of information the president was trying to obtain about you?

[Irene Ryll]

It was not in a board meeting. The president happened to.... I happened to be in Ottawa, and she offered to meet with me and take me to the airport. We had a discussion at the airport, where she started off by saying that she didn't want to cross any.... I don't know what the right word is here, but I'm going to use “confidences”. So she said that she didn't want to cross any confidences, but she wanted to know what was up with a particular board member. She couldn't figure out this particular member, what was up with them. She was questioning why, at a board meeting we had, we had a vote for a vice-chair position. She couldn't understand why that particular vote had happened, that, really, the president and the chair could very clearly deal with the board situation without a vice-president. I reminded her that, by the act, we have to have a vice-president.

I felt very, very, uncomfortable that I was being questioned about another board member's personal feelings when I had no knowledge of them. I felt very uncomfortable. If that was happening to me, I thought, was it happening to other board members? And why would that be happening? We should all be on the same level; we should all be having the same conversations. I'm not going to be talking about other board members.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Baylis, you told us in your presentation that you had to limit the information in the minutes. In response to Mr. Dosanjh's question, you even told us that there were no records of the minutes for an optional meeting. In your opinion, is that common practice? This question is for all the members since you have all told us about it. In your view, why did the minutes have to contain so little information?

[Dr. Françoise Baylis]

To be honest, I don't understand. I don't actually know how to answer the last part of your question because there are no big secrets in fact.

I couldn't see hardly any difference between the agenda of our first meeting and the minutes I received afterwards. I said to myself that there wasn't even enough information to remind me of what we did last time. There was a little debate among the members of the board of directors. Not everyone agreed with me, but some people were very pleased about it. They did agree to include a bit more information.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Why did some members seem willing to restrict the information available in the minutes?

[Dr. Françoise Baylis]

Honestly, I don't know why. I am probably going in the opposite direction. I want transparency, I want my name to be cited when I say something or other, because I have to accept the consequences of what I say. I prefer complete transparency.

In some circumstances, I understand that we cannot say everything. I agree with putting a limit, but I feel there is almost really no content. So I am still wondering about it. Even today, I am wondering why we cannot share that with all Canadians. There are no great national secrets. I am still wondering about that and I don't understand.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

In terms of choosing the researcher for the study on the altruistic donation and based on your knowledge of this area, you also told us that there might have been a potential conflict of interest since the researcher had already expressed his views and had some connections.

I believe you mentioned your reluctance at the board of directors meetings. What were the reactions to your comments?

[Dr. Françoise Baylis]

If I remember correctly, I was told that the contract had not been signed with the person, but with the university.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Does that change anything?

[Dr. Françoise Baylis]

Not in my opinion, because we still need the expertise of individuals. So we have an expert who has already made his view public and who does not approve of the decisions made under the act. I am wondering why we did not go look for someone neutral.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Ms. Baylis. I'm sorry. I let you go over time.

It's now Ms. Leslie.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Very quickly on that point, Ms. Baylis, why would a contract be given to a university? Isn't it customary to give contracts to researchers?

[Dr. Françoise Baylis]

That, I can only say, is my experience. I have had many contracts over the years with government, whether that was with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, etc. They've always been with me, but maybe there are contracts with universities. I don't know.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

We've had a lot of questions about what's going on at AHRC, and unfortunately we thought we would get a lot of answers today but it seems like you're maybe as in the dark as we are about the budget and exactly what's going on.

I'll share with you that because my name has been in the media for asking questions at committee and people have linked me a bit with AHRC, I have had numerous phone calls, e-mails, and communications from people saying certain things. I can't certainly say they are all true, but one theme is that the president is incompetent, an egomaniac, which is not a federal issue, right? If a person is a mean boss, that's not a federal issue, but a federal issue is how is this money being spent. Where is it being spent? What is the president directing the agency to do with this money?

I wanted to ask questions about this international conference, but I don't know if you're going to be able to answer them. I understand it was closed to the media. I understand that it was pro industry. I understand that money was spread out over different years and different budget areas, as you said, Ms. Baylis. Are you able to tell us, did you approve the budget for this? Do you know how much this meeting cost? Do you know if this was good value for money? Can you tell us anything about this conference?

[Dr. Françoise Baylis]

I went to the conference. The board with this activity and with other activities was offered an open invitation, did anybody wish to attend. I did attend. In fact, I attempted to attend every such meeting that was ever made available to us. If I remember correctly....

Were you there, Barbara? I actually don't remember. That was the cross-border one.