O’Connor says he was ‘bullied’ by committee
CAROL CHRISTIAN
July 6, 2009
Today staff
When local physician Dr. John O'Connor appeared June 11 in Ottawa before the federal committee looking into the impact of oilsands development on freshwater, it wasn't the enlightening question and answer session he expected.
Instead he was grilled about his credentials, background and the last remaining complaint filed by Health Canada of causing undue alarm when he blew the whistle on elevated cancer rates in Fort Chipewyan.
The interrogation even went so far, according to the transcript, as to question his commitment to Canada because of his recent trip to Norway during a Greenpeace campaign to raise awareness of the oilsands.
“The four Tories treated Andrew and myself like (crooks). We were bullied. We were harassed. We were made to feel most unwelcome, and then this line of questioning about, ‘why did you go to Scandinavia?’ It's like I was being accused of unCanadian behaviour,” said O'Connor. “I don't think I'm any less Canadian for advocating for my patients' health, and being of Irish extraction, I don't think that makes me less Canadian either.”
The Tory MPs had no interest in Fort Chip or health care or health effects. Rather, he maintained, they were about defending the oilsands and the status quo.
“If this is a reflection of the federal Tories and the concern they have for issues like this,” this country is in trouble, said O’Connor.
He said he and Nikiforuk was treated “very courteously” by the NDP, Bloc Québécois, and the Liberals with members asking very appropriate questions and showing some understanding of the industry. Those members included Linda Duncan, NDP, and Christian Ouelette, Bloc, plus Liberals Francis Scarpaleggia and Justin Trudeau.
Journalist Andrew Nikiforuk joined O'Connor in Ottawa also appearing as a witness and subjected to similar scrutiny by the Tory MPs: Peter Braid, Marak Warawa, Blaine Calkins and Jeff Watson.
Nikiforuk, who voiced his opinion in a June 28 editorial in the Toronto Star, says he was not only offended by the way some committee members treated O'Connor, but at the lack of knowledge these same MPs had about the industry.
“I found it a bit disturbing. As a journalist, I'm used to this sort of stuff. It's par for the course,” said Nikiforuk yesterday. “But I found their treatment of John really, really offensive and inappropriate, and I really would have expected Conservative MPs to express some concerns about the importance of conservation in the tarsands.”
He said they behaved like spokesmen for the resource, which is not their job, especially considering there are already plenty of companies speaking for the industry.
“The job of our MPs is to speak for the people of Canada, what's in the best interests of Canadians, and I think they missed that point.”
When it came to the Alberta Cancer Board studies, the second of which did acknowledge elevated cancer rates in Fort Chip, the Tories were very interested in the fact the study revealed two cases of rare cancers instead of the originally suspected six. They also hammered on the issue of the last remaining Health Canada complaint of causing undue alarm against O'Connor.
When O'Connor first raised the alarm about elevated cancer rates in the community of about 1,200 in 2006, Health Canada filed four charges against him, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta was asked to investigate. Three charges have since been dropped, though the charge of causing undue alarm in the community remains.
O'Connor said the community has repeatedly stated it was never consulted about the complaints, and were never alarmed by O'Connor's concerns, but were more concerned with how the government responded with complaints against the well respected local doctor.
Scarpaleggia, committee vice-chairman, says his Tory colleagues were a “little overzealous” in their questioning of O'Connor and Nikiforuk.
“Obviously questions of credibility are in order. There's no doubt. ... I think it was pretty obvious these were credible witnesses, and especially as the hearing went on.”
The Liberal MP, who had also initiated the original committee study prior to the last election, described O'Connor as a very mild-mannered, gentle, concerned man who didn't fit the image of someone trying to stir up trouble.
While it's always in order to establish a witness's credibility, he said, “I think my friends on the Conservative side got a little overzealous and … they went a little overboard.”
Adding “they went too far,” he called the question about O'Connor's trip to Norway humorous.
“I didn't know if you travelled to Scandinavian countries, that somehow you lost your credibility,” he said, adding that both men were quite able to take care of themselves.
O'Connor told Today he had to restrain himself a couple of times during his questioning. He had been advised before the meeting to not let members unsettle him.
“They tried,” he said. “It was an eye-opener and I think if I was called again, I would be much more thoughtful about it before agreeing to come, and I would also be more perhaps aggressive is the word.”
He said he no longer has any faith in the committee or its mandate because of the Tories’ behaviour.
“I hope the Opposition's understanding and level of concern prevails because this is so necessary to address and do the right thing for Fort Chip,” said O'Connor.
“I just hope that for people living downstream of what's going on here, I hope we're not dependent on the federal Tories to do the right thing.”
Nikiforuk added the committee has an important job to do and really should be getting much of the information from civil servants.
“Why as a reporter should I be telling them about acid rain and groundwater when in fact people in Environment Canada should be giving them that information?”
He added it's anybody's guess on how unbiased the resulting report will be.
“They missed an opportunity to really get to the bottom of what I think is a serious public heath challenge,” said Nikiforuk.
The draft report from the hearings is currently being completed with the expectation of being presented to Parliament in the fall. Going into the hearings, Scarpaleggia had anticipated getting a broad view of the industry and the freshwater impacts and people's concerns.
With the hearings now wrapped up, he said so far, “it's been an extremely valuable study. It basically, except for one or two moments, achieved what I'd hoped: that we would have a rationale fact-finding study about the issue, and stay away from grandstanding and so on.”
He added there had been early concern from his Conservative colleagues he was trying to make “political hay out of this study.” He thinks he was successful in showing instead that it was about “doing our job as Parliamentarians which is to find the facts and come up with some fact-based recommendations and that's in fact the way it went, including in Alberta, so I'm very pleased with the committee's conduct and the wide array of expert witnesses that came before us.”
Though the hearings again proved a forum for a repeated call for baseline health study for Fort Chip, Scarpaleggia said, because it appeared in testimony, it will presumably show up in the draft most members would want to make that a recommendation.
-30-
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1640885
