OTTAWA - The Council of Canadians today called for an independent and public investigation into the firing of three Health Canada scientists. Shiv Chopra, Margaret Haydon and Gerald Lambert have bravely spoken out against the pressure tactics used by the Health Canada’s Bureau of Veterinary Drugs to approve certain antibiotics and hormones. While Health Canada refuses to explain why they have been fired, Canadians want to know if the dismissals were related to their roles as whistle blowers.

"Canadians are very concerned about the safety of our food, and want to know that Health Canada scientists are free to speak publicly about the safety of any product that may pose unacceptable risks," says Maude Barlow, national chairperson of The Council of Canadians. "We worked closely with these scientists in the fight to stop Bovine Growth Hormone (rBST) from being approved in Canada, and we feel that all Canadians owe them a debt of gratitude for having the courage to speak out."

The scientists have faced many attempts to discipline them for speaking out on issues over the years, and have successfully defended themselves against the pressure from Health Canada’s senior management. The Council of Canadians, along with the Canadian Health Coalition and the Sierra Club, intervened in a case when Health Canada tried to gag Drs. Chopra and Hayden after they spoke publicly about rBST.

The Council argued at that time that freedom of expression must also protect the right of the public to receive information which makes it possible to make decisions and participate in public dialogue. 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."

Barlow adds, "this will be an important test 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."

- 30 -