Evidence of meeting #44 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was organization.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, Rights and Democracy
We have a legal opinion from our lawyer, which I asked for myself. The lawyer says that we have a good case for those dismissals. My opinion is that for that reason and for that reason only, Mr. Rae, the SIRCO report was important.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
The president of SIRCO as well as certain members of the board alleged—in fact, we were here at the committee when they did so—that the collective agreement that was signed was improperly signed and that there was substantial evidence of collusion between the members of the union and the people who signed the agreement on behalf of Rights and Democracy.
I see from the document with which you've provided us that there is “no proof of collusion between the union and the management of Rights and Democracy”, and you conclude that “the collective agreement was signed legally and that the three members of the executive committee who signed it had the authority to do so”.
In effect, what you're saying is that those members of the board who testified before the committee that what took place was improper were wrong, and you're also telling us that the president of SIRCO—who told you that it was wrong—was also wrong. Is that not the conclusion?
President, Rights and Democracy
What I said is that I asked for a legal opinion from our lawyer, based not only on what SIRCO told me but based on the collective agreement, based of all the facts that are in my due diligence. The conclusion of and the legal opinion of our lawyers is that the collective agreement is valid, and that the fact that the agreement was signed after the death of Mr. Beauregard without one of the clauses, which was no longer in the collective agreement, is not a proof of collusion.
I did my job, because I did the due diligence.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Mr. Sarrazin is apparently, according to testimony given in front of another committee, a leading Conservative. Do you have any reason to know why his company was chosen in particular to do this $170,000 worth of private investigative work? Do you have any idea why he was chosen and not someone else?
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Do you know why the contract was given for $170,000 without any tendering or without any form of competition whatsoever?
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
No, I know, but I'm asking you.
But the person who was there has just been reappointed to the board by Mr. Cannon.
With respect to those two appointments, were you consulted on the two reappointments, of Mr. Tepper and Mr. Gauthier?
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
No, I asked you a question again....
I don't know what the problem is, Mr. Latulippe: I ask questions; you try to give answers.
Were you consulted by Mr. Cannon with respect to the reappointment of Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Tepper?
President, Rights and Democracy
Look, I am not responsible for the appointment—
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
I asked you a question. Were you asked by Mr. Cannon your opinion with respect to the reappointment of Mr. Gauthier or Mr. Tepper, or did anyone from Mr. Cannon's staff contact you and ask you with respect to the view of the organization with respect to the possible reappointments?
Before you get your answers given to you by your assistant....
This is ridiculous.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Okay, just give a quick response. That's all the time we have. Then we're going to move on to Mr. Dorion.
President, Rights and Democracy
I was asked and I said that this is not my role. I am not the one; it is the cabinet. I am responsible to and accountable to the board; they are my boss. I have to work with them; I don't select them. That's not my role.
That's a clear answer.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Thank you.
We're going to move on to Mr. Dorion. Sir, you have seven minutes.
Bloc
Jean Dorion Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Latulippe. Thank you for joining us today. We've been wanting to meet with you for a long time.
In your report, you say that the meeting on December 17 was cancelled. In a letter that you sent in early January to the chair of our committee, you said that it had been cancelled under nebulous circumstances, which were the words you used. Today, you have taken back those words. How do you think the circumstances were nebulous?
President, Rights and Democracy
I arrived an hour before the committee meeting. I was prepared to testify and, suddenly, the meeting was cancelled. I tried to find out why, and I was never given a clear answer.
Bloc
Jean Dorion Bloc Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC
Thank you. That information is very helpful.
You stress that we need to move on to something else, that the deplorable events that you experienced are behind you and so on. But I think that most of the committee members feel, like I do, that we cannot move on to something else because of certain changes.
In a report submitted last June, I believe, our ninth recommendation asked that the Privy Council Office remove all documents related to the evaluation of Rémy Beauregard. Has the board of directors done its part?
We also recommended that the current board of directors of Rights and Democracy, of which you are president, issue an apology to Mr. Beauregard's family for any statements that might have damaged his reputation. Have you issued this apology? Yesterday, Mr. Beauregard's widow wrote to the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ask about this. She also asked that some members of the board of directors not be reappointed. This doesn't pertain to you, but it would still be very helpful to find out your opinion about these appointments that the government intends to make. Also, since you are still the president, you are going to chair meetings with these people.
Lastly, do you intend to issue these apologies that our committee requested in its report?
President, Rights and Democracy
I am the president of the centre. As for Mr. Beauregard, I think that you would be better off posing the question, among others, to the president who is going to come and testify and who was at the centre of the crisis with the others.
My position on Mr. Beauregard is very clear. As president of the centre, it is not my place to judge my predecessor. I refuse to make any kind of judgment about his past actions. I think that he deserves respect, and I have always opposed using information from emails or elsewhere to attack Mr. Beauregard. Mr. Beauregard is dead. He isn't going to help me. This situation is only going to perpetuate the past. The future of Rights and Democracy isn't going to involve airing its dirty laundry. This is my position on Mr. Beauregard. I respect him, and I do not intend to stir up anything against him.