Health Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Chair...

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

No, Mr. Dufour.

Having said that, do you know what? To tell you the truth, I gave you almost an extra minute.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

As much as I think you're wonderful in every way, I just cannot do this favouritism any more, Monsieur Dufour.

Mr. Uppal.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming.

Dr. Hamm, you mentioned in your opening remarks that it is important for board members to put aside personal agendas. Can you elaborate on that? Was this a problem? Is it one?

[Dr. John Hamm]

All of us, as board members, consider being on the board a privilege. However, when you're on a board that deals with criminal law, which our board does, one has to be very careful that the board members, in their other activities, do not engage in activities that would undermine their effectiveness as a board member. We've had discussions at the board level on this issue, and certainly I believe the board members understand what that is about.

We've already heard from board members who have been able to put aside, together, their special interests and their personal agenda, because it may not necessarily...or perhaps I should put it this way. If in fact it was understood...it would negatively impact the ability of the board to administer a piece of criminal law.

I will give you a simple example. We as board members will eventually be in a position through the licensing and the enforcement activities, which we require legislation for, to be administering a piece of criminal law. It would be unfortunate if a board member were saying publicly something that was not in complete agreement with what the law and its regulations say. That is a difficult situation right now, because we don't have the regulations. So I caution board members not to engage in activities where they may be publicly saying something that eventually would be contrary to regulation. Then you would have the very unusual situation of a board member enforcing a piece of criminal law at the same time that they're on record as not being in agreement with that piece of legislation, and that is an incompatible situation for the board.

One of my concerns, as board chair, is that the board maintain its integrity so that the decisions we make are not challenged on the basis of a board that is not totally in favour of the legislation. Parliament has given us legislation that will be enhanced by regulation. To be on the board you must be totally in favour of the legislation and regulation, or you shouldn't be on the board.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

You also mentioned the meeting minutes are better now, or have more content. Can you tell me what changes you made? There was some concern that they were light on content or details.

[Dr. John Hamm]

We started conversations back in the spring, which were initiated by a board member indicating that we hadn't kept our commitment in terms of transparency relative to providing those who are interested in our activities with a reporting of what we were doing as a board. This went on for a period of time. Perhaps by way of an excuse, but not a good one, there had been no requests come into the board for that kind of information.

However, the discussions started, and a couple of things we did. We made a decision that we would be more transparent. Secondly, we looked at comparable agencies and what they did with their board minutes to get a standard that we could look to and try to meet that standard. And we did that.

We tie that in to a new website that obviously is better than our old website. We decided to marry up the two and to introduce our reporting on previous meetings at the time we introduced the new website. And that has occurred. We looked at the standard for other organizations, and it is posting highlights.

I've already, in answer to another question, indicated the difficulty of simply giving you minutes on the website. They would be heavily redacted, because they would have to eliminate four specific categories of privileged information that we receive every meeting.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

But within the board—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Uppal.

Thank you, Dr. Hamm.

Mr. Dosanjh, you have three minutes.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Thank you.

This is a question directed to both Dr. Hamm and Ms. Wilson.

I'm left with a very difficult situation as a member of this committee. We heard from three members of the board who felt compelled to actually send letters of resignation and who painted an entirely different picture of the board, which I might call the ailing institution, as it was presented to us.

I hear from you, Dr. Hamm and Ms. Wilson, and I have absolutely no reason to not believe you, but you paint a picture of a board, as do your other two board members, as if everything was normal, and it was functioning, and you'll be able to meet the mandate, and there have never been real problems.

As a board member...I'm compelled to simply say I don't want to be the judge. I actually want to have someone independent inquire into what has transpired for those three members to feel compelled enough to come and give us a story that's absolutely at variance with the story that's been presented in the panel now.

So what do you suggest? Do we require an independent inquiry, or do you think you'll be fine?

[Dr. John Hamm]

My response to the honourable member is that I did not want to paint a picture that the activities of the board did not generate spirited debate. Right from 1989, this has been a very emotional issue, and the emotions in this issue continue today. It's 21 years since Canada began down the road to have a regulated service on assisted human reproduction. In my view, it's time to get on and get the regulatory process in place.

Now, that will require a lot of spirited debate within the committee, but members around this table who belong to caucuses or who have belonged to cabinets know what spirited debate is all about. We do as a board need space to think, because if the answers were easy, we wouldn't be here today. The answers are difficult.

On the other hand, perhaps that's why, 21 years down the road, we're still not licensing and insisting on compliance.

[Ujjal Dosanjh, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Can you answer--

[Dr. John Hamm]

I didn't want to suggest to the honourable member that the debates aren't spirited. What I did perhaps hope to impart to the committee was the importance of board members...to know how to deal with consensus, because the board obviously has to find a way to bring its members together when they begin with different opinions, and to allow them to end up with a consensus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Thank you, Dr. Hamm. I'm sorry, we have--

[Dr. John Hamm]

I hope I didn't mislead the honourable member by suggesting--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joy Smith]

Dr. Hamm, I'm sorry. We have lived out our time right now.

I do want to thank you all so very much for coming to committee and contributing very well toward this discussion.

Thank you, committee members, for your input. It's much appreciated.

The meeting is adjourned.