Evidence of meeting #67 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I cannot speak to how the decision was reached within the government; I can only speak to what Rights and Democracy did as an organization. I want to emphasize that from the beginning it was not meant to be an independent organization. It is funded by Canadian taxpayers.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
As I indicated before, I don't think you and I will necessarily agree on that.
Going a bit further, many people have come to me and members of our party with concerns that, when your term started, the board of Rights and Democracy brought on the crisis in the organization. They expressed concerns, and other people in our party have shared those concerns, about money that was wasted investigating long-term public servants. As a result of that, many very talented workers were lost to that organization, as was a lot of its credibility, and now we find ourselves with a bill before us that's killing the organization.
Has that not been the plan right from the beginning?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Being a responsible custodian of public funds, I invested three years of my life working extremely hard to try to reform an organization that was meant to protect human rights and promote democracy in a non-partisan fashion. This was not an NGO, not a private organization, but one funded by the Canadian taxpayers, where we have to answer to Parliament. It required transparency, accountability, and responsibility. These things were not met by the organization.
I think the opposition especially should be shocked by the fact that...when Mr. Latulippe, the last president, testified before Parliament, Mr. Dewar, from the New Democratic Party, said to Mr. Latulippe, “There was this Durban 2 conspiracy. That's a dud, from what you're showing in the document here. I'll say it's a dud.”
But it wasn't a dud. The last president came before this Parliament and essentially perjured himself. Does that not bother the opposition?
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I want to move a little further.
The annual budget of Rights and Democracy was about $11 million. Was that correct, sir?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It was closer to $13 million at the end.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Okay, I'll correct that.
And it was completely dedicated to that work. What assurance can we have now, opposition and government, as to the projects that were conducted under Rights and Democracy? Will they move forward under DFAIT?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It's not just DFAIT; other organizations can do it. Perhaps eventually a new organization will be founded more on the model of the National Endowment for Democracy in the United States, which is very effective. I cannot predict, but you should be aware of the fact that our investigations showed that Rights and Democracy was spending about double on its staff and on expenses than similar organizations. In other words, what was supposed to be work outside in the rest of the world...that work was not being done. It was—
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
—there was misappropriation. Were there charges filed against anyone?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I'm talking about a structural problem. It was a badly drafted—
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Okay, so there was no actual fraudulent use or anything like that?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
It was an organizational flaw, which resulted in Rights and Democracy malfunctioning in comparison to other organizations, but there was also one instance of fraud that perhaps I will have a chance to speak about.
Conservative
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also would like to thank the witnesses. We appreciate the time you've taken, I'm sure from very busy schedules, to help us with this debate.
One thing I want to mention up front is that many of the witnesses have said 450 pages is a horrifying number. I want to note that in 2009 it was 552 pages, in 2010 it was 880, and in 2011 it was 644. I think we need to recognize that.
Also, I looked back, because it was said, “Well, this is different. The others were focused strictly on budget issues.” I think there are two things. One is that we did look back, and there are many pieces. A budget, by its nature, is really a whole-of-government opportunity to move forward.
I think this is an important point to make, that 450 pages is perhaps less than we've had in the last few years. Also, because we have devoted more time for study of this particular legislation than has been done in the last ten years, there are significantly more hours devoted to actually setting the legislation.
I would like to start with Mr. Turk.
Mr. Turk, I find what you're saying is a little bit surprising, because I have pages of quotes from people who also have an interest in education, innovation, and research. I could go through them quote by quote, but I won't. I will pick out one. The president of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada said:
In the face of tough fiscal choices, the government showed leadership by continuing its investments in research, innovation, research infrastructure and university-private sector collaborations.
Again, I could go on and on. I have pages of people who were very complimentary about, for example, $500 million to the Canada Foundation, $60 million to Genome Canada, etc. I know that in the riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, we recently cut the ribbon to a beautiful new building.
Having said that, there are a number of very positive measures in terms of supporting research and development. Are you suggesting that these other national associations are wrong in their assessment?
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
I most certainly am.
Since 2007, the real contribution of the federal government to the three federal granting councils has fallen in real dollar terms; that is, they're receiving less today, in real dollar terms, than they received in 2007.
I have a letter for—
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Are you suggesting these national organizations are not—
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
If they're saying that's fine, then we simply disagree with them. We happen not to think it's fine. At a time when every member of Parliament in this room would acknowledge the importance of research for Canada's future, the fact that this government is funding our granting councils at a lower real-dollar base than they did five years ago should be a concern. If it's not a concern to AUCC or some other organization, well, we do indeed disagree.
The effect of the most recent budget announcements has been the elimination of programs—vital programs.
I have a letter that I'm tabling with the committee from 49 of the top scientists in this country, deploring what's happening and talking about the devastating consequences it's going to have for their research centres.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Turk, I would beg to disagree that these people could be so wrong. These are national organizations.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
As we are. So there's a difference of viewpoint.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers
You're asking for our viewpoint, and I'm sharing it.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I will go to Mr. Braun. You wanted to make one more comment in terms of.... You had a second issue that you wanted to make in your opening statements and you didn't have time for that.
Could you speak to your second issue?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Thank you.
As I said before, the problem at Rights and Democracy was that despite the best efforts, it proved to be an unreformable organization, when you look for responsible governance, when you look for transparency and accountability.
I mentioned the fact that the late president basically perjured himself before Parliament. As we struggled to change, we found, for example, that the staff of Rights and Democracy was informed that our organization had been defrauded in our operation in Burma. They were informed in September of 2011—and I'm giving this as an example of the kinds of issues we faced. The board was not notified of this. In October, the following month, we made the decision on funding other organizations in Burma, without the knowledge that we had been defrauded. We did not know, as a board. We were not informed by the staff until January of 2012, several months after the staff had been informed of what had happened.
You cannot run an organization on that basis. We cannot justify spending up to $13 million of taxpayers' money on human rights—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Unfortunately, the member's time is well over, so we'll have to come back in another round.
Mr. Brison, please.