I want to emphasize my view. I don't think we need another institution. I think Rights and Democracy is there. It's beautifully structured and at arm's length from the government. It has a universal mandate, that being the UN system of rights and freedoms. It's focused on the kind of thing Gerry Barr has talked about, which is building civil society.
Most of Rights and Democracy, both when I was there and under my successors, has been working with groups. By and large, we left to CIDA or Elections Canada a lot of the election-related work or institution building--to ensure that you could have the rule of law and so on. I think that needs to be expanded, with an increased budget for Rights and Democracy, again with all party support.
I'll be political again here, if I may emphasize this, and give some credit to Mr. Mulroney as Prime Minister. When I became the first president, I proposed that we have a representative on the board from each of the parties; that is to say, they did not have to be active at that time, not MPs, of course, but there would be someone from each of the parties who had been active in political life and had an interest in human rights. That practice was maintained for many years, during all the time I was there. From all the parties in the House of Commons, there was some active person who at one time had been active in their party.
So Rights and Democracy is a political organization, but there was never a partisan decision made by the board, nor was there ever a suggestion made that the activity was partisan. The institution is there, and I urge the committee to look at maybe expanding the mandate somewhat, although I don't think that's necessary. It needs more resources, but new areas that they might work in could be discussed with the committee.
I'll shut up now and let Gerry get in on the question.