Foreign Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study of the situation of the Union of Employees of Rights and Democracy will now commence.

I want to welcome our witnesses here today and thank you for taking time to be here.

For the record, I hope you don't mind extending the meeting a little bit. I know we talked about an hour. There have been requests from some of the parties to make that happen.

To my colleagues, we'll reschedule our subcommittee meeting for another day. We'll go as long as it takes within the two hours, if that's all right.

I'll start with Madame Lévesque, vice-president, Union of Employees of Rights and Democracy. I know you have an opening statement. Then we'll continue along. I'll then ask Mr. Longangué to speak. Then we'll move over to the individuals.

Madame Lévesque, welcome. The floor is yours. We'll have a couple of rounds of questions. The first round will be seven minutes, followed by a second round of five minutes for questions and answers.

Welcome. The floor is yours.

[Micheline Lévesque, Vice-President, Union of Employees of Rights & Democracy, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

As you know, Rights and Democracy has been in existence for 20 years. During that time, my colleagues and I have often come to testify before you and before the subcommittee. We have come to defend against human rights violations around the world and to denounce the repressive abuses of various regimes, and never, really never, would we have thought that one day we would be seated in these same chairs defending our own institution.

In a way, this shows the relevance of our organization because if an organization such as ours has to defend itself in a country like Canada, that shows that rights and democracy are never assured. We must always be on the look-out and fight to protect them. So we thank you for inviting us to testify today.

As the chairman said, I am here as vice-president of the Union of Employees of Rights and Democracy. I am accompanied by Maxime Longangué, president of the union local, and Mr. John Gordon, national president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, PSAC. As the Public Service Alliance attaches a very high degree of importance to our file, Mr. Gordon wanted to accompany us here today. We thank him for that.

As I was saying, we are pleased to be appearing before you, but we must admit that we are also a bit afraid. We are afraid of reprisals. We must be very prudent in our discussions with you. For a few months now, especially since Mr. Beauregard's death, the work atmosphere has been deteriorating at our office and at times has even undermined our ability to do our jobs. We are operating in an extremely tense, threatening and unhealthy environment. As you know, some of our co-workers have been suspended and dismissed. You will be hearing from three of them today; others are suffering from burn-out.

We have been subject to investigations that we consider an abuse. We have been formally prohibited from speaking publicly about the situation we are going through. Out of professionalism, we are obeying that gag order, but we decided to speak to you today because of the respect we have for the institution you represent. Out of a concern for transparency and accountability, we have decided to speak. Today is the first time the employees' union local has spoken publicly.

I have been with Rights and Democracy for 15 years. I have worked with all presidents, starting with Ed Broadbent, and I really believe it is a privilege to work at this institution. Our professional team has managed to establish an internationally-envied reputation, which has helped enhance Canada's international image. In cooperation with our partners in the field—people whom we admire because they are on the front line defending human rights and democracy in their country—we have been leaders on a number of files such as Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burma, to name only a few.

What is also extraordinary and why we are so attached to this institution is that it is the only one of its kind in Canada. It has three characteristics that distinguish it from others. The first is its status, because the institution was created by the Parliament of Canada. There are no other human rights organizations of its kind. The second is its mandate. That mandate stems from the International Bill of Human Rights, not from Canada's foreign policy, which gives us stability, because our mandate stems from the International Bill of Human Rights, regardless of any change in government. The third reason why we are so proud, and why you should also be proud—because it was established for you—is the organization's twofold mission. Very few organizations work in the areas of both human rights and democratic development. I would say it is a gold mine and it must be preserved.

Consequently, all these characteristics—our independence, the unique nature of our mandate and the expertise of Rights and Democracy staff—are characteristics that all former presidents of Rights and Democracy have understood and wanted to protect.

That naturally includes Mr. Beauregard, who truly defended those characteristics body and soul. For every one of us, I swear to you that this really is not easy. Since January, when I was asked how things were going, I have always answered differently. What we are going through is very tough, both personally and professionally, but we are all still working in a professional manner and we have made two commitments.

We have made a commitment to not abandoning our partners in the field because there is a risk that could happen. We have solid programming and our work is important; we don't want to abandon that. The second commitment is to protect the mandate and credibility of this institution. Those are the issues for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Welcome, Mr. Longangué. The floor is yours.

[Maxime Longangué, President, Union of Employees of Rights & Democracy, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As my colleague said, my name is Maxime Longangué, president of the Union of Employees of Rights and Democracy. For some months now, we at Rights and Democracy have been feeling the consequences of a crisis caused by members on our board of directors who do not seem to believe in our institution's mandate, as may be seen from some of their public comments, actions and decisions.

I would like to remind the committee that the five-year 2003-2008 evaluation of Rights and Democracy, revised by the Department of Foreign Affairs and tabled before this committee on April 21, 2009, confirms the relevance of the strategic orientations and the effectiveness of action conducted by Rights and Democracy.

It states that Rights and Democracy's programming is managed in accordance with the principles of accountability and draws on best management practices in those sectors. It also states that the information gathered and the interviews conducted of the various respondents underscore the serious approach of Rights and Democracy's activities in the field, the quality of execution of its mission and its relevance.

Less than one year ago, outside evaluators, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Parliament agreed that Rights and Democracy was a relevant and effective agency. In that case, since that evaluation, why have certain board members conducted a secret parallel assessment—that some have perceived as defamatory—of Rémi Beauregard and thus of the institution? Why did the representative of the Department of Foreign Affairs resign from the board during the controversy, whereas she was a member of the official committee for the president's performance evaluation?

Why did certain board members cancel, on two-day's notice, the October 2009 board meeting, during which that secret evaluation of Mr. Beauregard was to be discussed? Why was the religious and ethnic background of staff raised by one member of the board of directors in the president's performance evaluation? Why did certain board members question, in a disproportionate manner, partnerships with respected and internationally-known Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations? Why did the board of directors decide to shut down the Rights and Democracy office that had been established near the UN Human Rights Council and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, despite a positive external evaluation and recommendations that it be maintained? Why was the new five-year strategic plan developed by Mr. Beauregard not reviewed by the board of directors for a number of months, whereas it was ready for adoption in October 2009? Lastly, why was the termed of one international member, Guido Riveros Franck, not renewed by the other board members at the January 2010 meeting, and why did two board members—including one recipient of the Order of Canada, Ms. Sima Samar—resign in protest?

In view of these questions, can we really believe that this crisis has in fact been caused by staff, as some assert? You are quite aware of the aftermath of the crisis: Mr. Beauregard's death, the suspension and dismissal of employees, the hiring of a specialized investigation firm—focusing in particular on anti-union actions—the hiring of an outside communications firm, the hiring of a forensic accounting firm, the publication of open letters to the board of directors attacking staff, the intimidation of union representatives and the appointment of a new president in the midst of the controversy.

What is more, please note that the lack of day-to-day communication within the organization between senior management and staff while Mr. Gauthier was acting resulted in the collapse of internal conflict resolution mechanisms, even though conflicts were numerous and required responses by the employer in order to establish a harmonious working atmosphere. It's also raised fears that selection criteria for projects and countries where we work would henceforth be politicized.

That, briefly stated, is our perception of the situation as we are experiencing it. We would like to be able to continue effectively carrying out the mandate you parliamentarians have assigned us year after year since 1988. So that we can do so, we are asking the committee to take every measure at its disposal to guarantee the political independence of Rights and Democracy from the government. We hope that, following these hearings, Parliament will take back its responsibilities with regard to Rights and Democracy and ensure full compliance with the act—in particular with section 24 referring to the obligation of board members to act in the best interests of the institution.

More particularly, we are asking the committee for an independent public inquiry into the manner in which the board of directors has discharged its obligations under section 24 of the enabling statute. We are also asking that the committee take measures to provide a framework for the process for making appointments to Rights and Democracy by reviewing them before confirmation—which is consistent with the Accountability Act—and that the committee examine the terms and conditions of funding for Rights and Democracy to ensure its continued existence. The actions of certain members of the board of directors appear to betray this institution's underlying principles. The resulting public controversy is tarnishing Canada's image abroad. Every day there is increasing support for the protection of the institution's mandate, and we are pleased with that fact.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Longangué.

We'll now move to some of the individuals who used to work at Rights and Democracy. We'll start with Mr. Panossian, and then move to Ms. Cloutier and Mr. Vallerand.

I know you have some comments, so we'll turn the floor over to you now.

[Razmik Panossian, As an Individual]

First of all, allow me to thank the members of the committee for the invitation. I have appeared at this committee several times before, talking about Rights and Democracy programming.

Regrettably, on this occasion I appear as a former employee, having been dismissed on March 1 after serving as the director of policy, programs, and planning for about six years. Even more regrettable is that on this occasion I have to speak not about our excellent work, which this committee has always appreciated, but about a major crisis that has befallen the institution and torn it apart.

Time is short, so let me get right to the point. The crisis at Rights and Democracy has been brewing for a year. It became very public with the death of Mr. Beauregard, the president, and the subsequent demand by all but two staff members for the resignation of the chair of the board, Mr. Aurel Braun, and two of his colleagues, Jacques Gauthier and Elliot Tepper.

This extraordinary step by 46 people was not a rebellion against board authority or a rejection of the government's right to appoint board members. Everyone at Rights & Democracy is cognizant of the fact that it is a public institution, accountable to Parliament and to Canadians through its board of directors. Never once did we reject this principle. However, as managers and employees we lost confidence in the ability and good faith of three men who were in breach of section 24 of our constitutive act that stipulates that board members shall “act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Centre”. Our loyalty was and still is to the institution and the public interest it represents; to its mandate given by Parliament; and to the late president, our immediate boss. It is not to individuals who have caused so much pain, acted in ill faith, and broken Rights and Democracy bylaws.

Let me provide some specific examples. A myth has been propagated that Rights and Democracy is not an accountable and transparent institution. Nothing can be further from the truth. Rights and Democracy has never had any accountability or transparency issues. My colleague will testify shortly about the reports of the Auditor General. On the programming side, we have always provided the board with all the information it has asked of us. Mr. Braun has told the media that because of his due diligence he discovered that we funded three organizations in the Middle East, which he labelled toxic.

The fact is this, ladies and gentlemen. I voluntarily told Mr. Braun of these grants within one hour of first meeting him in March 2009, as we briefed him about our programming. Mr. Braun made his displeasure very clear, and I assured him that they were one-off grants and would not be repeated. The story should have ended there. That would have been the reasonable thing to do. But these grants were used as an excuse throughout the year to undermine Mr. Beauregard, and indeed to undermine Rights and Democracy throughout 2009. Note that $30,000, the total amount of these grants, constituted 0.27% of Rights and Democracy's $11 million annual budget. You can guess how many hundreds of board and staff hours have gone into dealing with Mr. Braun's hang-up on these grants, up to their final repudiation by the board in January 2010.

The two other issues some board members seem to be obsessed with are Rights and Democracy's European office in Geneva and the Durban Review Conference on racism, also known as Durban II. In their minds the two were intertwined. We gave all the information we could to the board on this. On Durban there was not much to give.

In March 2009 we had already decided not to participate in Durban II. I instructed my staff on March 16 not to register for the conference and not to even physically be in the room. End of story. But throughout 2009 we were harassed--and I do not use the word lightly--about Durban, particularly by Mr. Braun and Mr. Gauthier. They insisted on speaking alone with the Geneva office director, who was not part of the Rights and Democracy management team, and reported to my deputy director. Eventually, under intense pressure, we had to give in, and they did speak to the staff member in Geneva. The two conversations were not pleasant for the employee concerned, who was asked inappropriate questions.

Last month, as my former colleagues said, the office in Geneva was closed by board decision, despite a very positive independent evaluation of activities.

Mr. Braun, Mr. Gauthier, and Mr. Tepper never seem to be satisfied with all the information we provided. They were convinced a priori that we were hiding something. When Mr. Beauregard and the management team drew the line at board members interrogating the staff directly, we were accused of non-collaboration. By the fall of 2009 we had entered a truly Kafkaesque world: the less evidence there was of a conspiracy, the more convinced they were of a conspiracy.

Let me end with one final example that touched me personally. At the board dinner in March 2009 I was interrogated—again I choose the word carefully—about my background by Mr. Gauthier. He asked me where I was born, what my religion was, how often I visited my country of birth, what family I had there, and what connections I maintained with that family. I responded to all of these questions in good faith, as part of informal chitchat. Board dinners are informal occasions for senior staff and board members to interact. At the end of this 15-minute interrogation I asked Mr. Gauthier if he knew the French word for an east European Jewish dish. He said no, and asked why I asked him. I replied, “I thought you were Jewish.” He said no, nor was his wife, and after 30 seconds the conversation moved on.

Imagine my shock when I read about this episode, completely turned on its head and completely ignoring the 15-minute initial questioning, in Monsieur Beauregard's evaluation package sent to the Privy Council Office, with the insinuation that I--and perhaps even management--was anti-Semitic for asking Mr. Gauthier if he was Jewish. He added that he subsequently found out that there were no Jewish employees at Rights and Democracy in this evaluation package.

What did the conversation have to do with Mr. Beauregard's evaluation, or anything else for that matter? The episode, however, does demonstrate the mendacious manner in which certain board members operate.

Let me reiterate again that the board of directors has every right to give policy direction and orientation to the institution and exercise oversight. But board members driven by a single issue and intent on wrestling managerial control from the cabinet-appointed CEO are not acting in the best interest of the centre. Whereas Monsieur Beauregard wanted to protect the independence and non-partisan nature of the organization, just like all previous presidents, Mr. Braun and his allies saw it as questioning board authority and their political views.

What is tragic about this whole debacle is how preventable it was. We were more than willing to take policy direction from the board if any were given. The crisis has devastated the institution, just as it had reached a new height in its programming, in developing a new strategic plan on which we worked for a year, and in building staff unity and morale. All this is now shattered.

I wish the new president, Monsieur Latulippe, good luck in rebuilding what was once a fine public institution.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Madame Cloutier.

[Marie-France Cloutier, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

When I was dismissed in early March, I had been employed by Rights and Democracy for nearly 20 years. I held the position of director of administration and resources and, in that capacity, occupied the position of secretary to the board. Until January of this year, I faithfully worked for all the presidents, regardless of whether they were officially appointed or were acting in that position. I have known all the board members since the centre was opened. They were often of different political allegiances, but, until recently, they all put their expertise in the service of the institution's mandate, without regard to their personal political concerns.

I prepared and cooperated in each of the annual audits conducted by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, who, in 19 years, issued only one letter of recommendation to management, which is extremely rare, a number of years ago. I also cooperated in four five-year reviews, all of which found that the institution was doing an excellent job given the resources allocated to it.

In 2007, allegations of mismanagement were made to the department by an individual whose identity was not revealed. The minister decided at the time to send in a team of inspectors, who released a report recommending certain administrative improvements, but also stating that no evidence of fraud or misappropriation had been found. I worked together with the rest of management to introduce additional controls and to respond to all the recommendations made. All those measures have been in effect since the winter of 2008 and were reinforced by Rémy Beauregard when he took up his position.

In the past year, I have witnessed the change in atmosphere on the board of directors. A cloud of suspicion has insinuated itself into relations between certain board members, on the one hand, and between the president Rémy Beauregard and staff, on the other. Over the years, we have always worked to provide as much relevant information as possible to the board so that it could make informed decisions. When additional issues were raised, we tried to respond to them promptly and accurately. Considerable amounts have been spent during the current year to translate briefing documents.

Currently, and partly as a result of that, it is anticipated that the budget allocated for the operation of the board of directors will be exceeded by 140%. Suddenly, this confident openness no longer seemed to be enough. Questions were increasingly characterized by innuendo and insinuation. People insisted on speaking to employees directly, in the absence of their supervisor. Attempts were made to determine exactly how much certain executives were being paid. In the case of, among others, the European office, the opening of which had been approved by the board, or more special funding passed by the board, which was under the president's authority, the answers we gave were automatically considered incomplete or, even false.

Now all kinds of allegations concerning the legitimacy of certain payments are being reported in the newspapers. I can assure you, and I repeat, that all the financial transactions were made in accordance with established standards, in an entirely legal manner, and in accordance with an open and transparent process. It was mainly the matter of Mr. Beauregard's performance evaluation that set matters off. The committee responsible for the performance evaluation, consisting of Mr. Tepper and Mr. Gauthier, met with the president in March 2009 to discuss his performance. According to the latter, no criticism whatever was made of him during that meeting. The board subsequently met in camera to discuss the president's performance. The chair of the board did not want me to summarize the conclusions of that meeting for the purposes of the minutes, but, according to some board members who have since resigned, the board said it was entirely satisfied with the job done by Mr. Beauregard since his appointment in July 2008.

When we learned that a largely negative evaluation had been sent to Privy Council without any notice to the person concerned, we were all surprised and shocked. I was astounded to read the covering letter of the new board chair, who had been in the position for less than a month at the end of the evaluation period, and of the memo from Mr. Gauthier, in which he said he was surprised that no other staff member was Jewish.

I will leave it to Suzanne Trépanier to tell you about the impact this entire situation had on her husband's morale.

The term of Guido Riveros Franck, an eminent specialist in multi-party democracy in Bolivia, was not renewed, without any reason being given. As a result of that situation, the recipient of the Order of Canada and advocate of human rights in Afghanistan, Dr. Sima Samar, resigned. In my view, these are significant and needless losses.

I believe it is my duty to alert the committee to the exceptional nature of the controversy that certain members of the board have consciously orchestrated and that is destroying this institution, which is known around the world for the work it does. I sincerely hope this committee will shed light on the crisis at Rights and Democracy and issue recommendations that can resolve the impasse in which the institution currently finds itself. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We'll now continue with Mr. Vallerand.

[Charles Vallerand, As an Individual]

Good morning, committee members.

First I want to thank you and tell you how pleased we are to be here today. Thanks to those who were able to accept the idea of our appearing here. I believe this is very good news.

In fact, we were waiting for this opportunity so we could at last share with you and with those here present today certain facts and matters that we had preferred to keep to ourselves in recent weeks, despite the controversy raging in the media. It would have been tempting to publicize the repeated incidents that we have observed and documented in the past year which, in our view, proved that there had been harassment and breaches by directors of their obligations under the centre's legislation.

We have waited and, in fact, I believe that we were right to wait to appear before you today since there has in fact been an increase in the number of incidents. There have been numerous incidents. I have distributed a table documenting what happened from the start of 2009 until Mr. Beauregard's death. However, missing is a second table—and I hope it will be compiled—of all the incidents that have occurred since Mr. Beauregard's death. I believe reference was made to that earlier in the comments by my colleagues who are still employed by Rights and Democracy.

Obviously, this behaviour has been reported in the media with considerable interest since it is striking, shocking and quite surprising in an organization that purports to be an example for Canada and a model for countries that aspire to democracy and to compliance with human rights. What particularly shocked all employees, managers and unionized employees, was not so much the types of decisions made as the manner in which individuals behaved toward our president and staff, which were completely inconsistent with the culture and work methods of an organization such as ours.

I would like to briefly review what I call "minor acts", which are documented in the table. In fact, harassment is not easy to establish. Harassing behaviour is not a thunderbolt or a crisis. It consists of minor acts that, one after the other, ultimately wear down, undermine, weaken and destabilize. I believe that is what this is; that is to say that we observed repeated and systematic minor acts that had an effect on Mr. Beauregard and as a result of which the authority of the centre's current president has been seriously compromised.

It is moreover for that reason—if you reread the letter signed by employees which I also forwarded to you—that the words of that letter were carefully weighed. Every word was discussed with the people at Rights and Democracy, including human rights lawyers. The right words had to be found to avoid making gratuitous accusations and to be able to explain and to lead you to understand what we hoped you would understand about what has happened.

So going back over three incidents, the press release on Operation Cast Lead is on page 2 of the table that I distributed to you. It was a minor incident, but it is revealing. In Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces entered the occupied territories. That was in February 2009. At that time, Rights and Democracy wondered whether to issue a press release to state a position on the matter. Our partners hoped we would because that is somewhat our role. We referred back to positions we had previously stated publicly on similar situations. We therefore published a very brief, very balanced, very measured news release in which we reminded both parties of their obligation to respect human rights and non-combatants, particularly women and children. That is our duty, our mandate.

Mr. Beauregard had the reflex, the intuition, or sensed the need to consult the acting chair of the board at the time, Mr. Gauthier. There was no press release. Mr. Gauthier would have liked to issue a press release condemning the Palestinians for their responsibility in the crisis. It was not up to us to do that. The Department of Foreign Affairs can do that. The Office of the Prime Minister can do that, but we, Rights and Democracy, are concerned with rights and respect for those rights.

Let's talk about another incident, once again innocuous but revealing, at the time when Shiite family law was adopted in May. This was an international crisis. Public opinion was mobilized internationally and in Canada as well. Who knew what, and how long had the minister known it?

This was a glorious moment for Rights and Democracy; it was one of our projects; we were on the front line, and the president was on the spot; it was an international conference. We had incredible national and international media coverage. Over a number of conversations, Embassy Magazine talked about some of us and, in response to apparent contradictions or differing versions, drew a conclusion: Rights and Democracy had informed the minister, the minister knew, and an article had been written on the subject. Mr. Beauregard went back to see Embassy Magazine to rectify the comments reported and to indicate that we were reporting to CIDA in the context of our activities, as we do for each of our projects. At that time, we were in contact and working in coordination with Mr. Cannon's office, with CIDA. The magazine people clearly understood and accepted our position. Embassy Magazine published a correction, and Mr. Beauregard appeared before this committee to explain what had happened. Obviously, Mr. Braun would have liked us to apologize to the minister. He said that we had defied the minister, that we had insulted him, and that something had to be done. Once again, there was no crisis; one was created.

I'll tell you about the final incident, and then I'll continue. In 2007, the journalist Graham Hamilton wrote a series of revealing articles about the so-called misappropriations to Rights and Democracy. He came back to see us in 2009 and said he would like to do a follow-up and complete his file. We prepared, in consultation with Mr. Braun. We told him that it was a good opportunity to say that the administrative strengthening measures were in place, that he was there, Mr. Beauregard was there, that we had restarted the programming and we were turning the page. Mr. Braun's answer was no, that journalists did not really like it when things were concealed from them, that we had to talk about our difficulties on the board of directors, that we had to tell all that to the journalists. He added that, if we didn't do it, he would report the matter publicly. One may well wonder whether it was indeed in the centre's interest for that matter to be revealed at that moment, in view of the past incidents concerning possible misappropriations reported by Graham Hamilton.

Obviously, Mr. Beauregard, as you saw in the newspapers, tried to find a solution. He tried a number of things. He wrote to the minister, together with other board members. He requested meetings; there were a number of interviews with officials. We tried and we organized training on governance at Rights and Democracy. It was a big deal to get everybody to take the training. He also tried to organize meetings between Mr. Braun and the Privy Council to explain to him what his duties and obligations were as chair of the board. He waited for the new appointments to the board with considerable hope. He said to himself that, if the dynamic was not good, he hoped the next members would understand our work and we could work together. Until the last minute, even after the final appointments last November, he hoped that, he hoped for a change in dynamic and a change in situation. That did not occur.

Mr. Beauregard's solution did not work. With regard to us, at Rights and Democracy, the little letter that we wrote, which was first a letter that we sent to the directors, was our way of finding a solution. Perhaps it was awkward, but it was done in the hope that someone would pay attention to what was going on and that one day light could fortunately be shed on what had happened. That is why we are here today.

In one way, I thank the journalists in the room because, thanks to them, there was some noise, there was considerable, considerable interest. Unfortunately, the solution the minister chose to adopt had quite dramatic effects: we are no longer employed. When you have a family and someone takes away your livelihood, the result is quite dramatic. It's curious that this news of our resignation and dismissal hit on the same day Mr. Latulippe was confirmed in his duties, scarcely a few days before parliamentary business resumed. That might be a matter of circumstance.

I also distributed some minutes of meetings. These are more internal documents, but I wanted to do this to show you that we went back to work the moment Mr. Gauthier was appointed cting president. We reviewed the situation. Rights and Democracy is a unionized environment, consisting of union people and people who understand rights, who advocate democratic principles. We worked with all our colleagues to say that we had asserted our viewpoint, that he had been appointed legitimately, that the matter was over at that point and that, on the following Monday, from the moment he was among us, we were going to work with Mr. Gauthier as acting president. You even have the minutes of the meeting that supposed to set the table for this cooperative effort, in a manner respectful of each party, but we were ready to work with him.

It was our administrative suspension that restarted all that. They created the crisis. They fuelled it themselves. If we were still employed, if there had not been these administrative suspensions... The media are no longer talking about it, Paul Wells wrote. He said that one of the camps was going to lose and that the employees were going to go back to work.

This crisis, which has been called the Rights and Democracy crisis, is becoming a scandal. You will no doubt have the opportunity to ask questions about the expenses of law firms, accountants, private investigators, of the general manager who was appointed and who resigned, of public relations firms, and soon about those related to a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal. This represents money which is normally allocated to public assistance for development and which should be used for that.

What then is the conclusion? That will be up to you to decide. You will have to determine who is right, who is wrong and what recommendations should be made. From another viewpoint, these people definitely acted in a very zealous manner. I think the first mandate of the chair of the board is to try to reconcile the various points of view, to find ground for agreement and, in an agency such as ours, to establish consensus. It is not to lead the charge, to arrive at the first meeting and attack and hammer in the nail until it hurts.

The directors can say all they want that they speak with one voice. They send letters to the editor in the newspapers, but you only see seven signatures. Two were missing. The board is still deeply divided. Mr. Guilbeault and Ms. Maïga never signed those letters. It is not true that the board of directors was unanimous on the problems, misappropriations and frauds.

I believe that the chair of the board was also over zealous in perhaps missing an opportunity to show some humility so he could take a real interest in his work. Mr. Beauregard was completely open to the idea that board members could participate, travel, understand our programs, go into the field and so on. Instead of that, he very soon got mixed up in past issues. The performance evaluation happened before his term started. The annual report of Rights and Democracy was issued before his term started, but he wanted to reread it, to approve it. They insistently, repeatedly—and this was clearly stated—pursued the same issues, as though we were concealing things. Even today, Samson Bélair is still trying to find answers to those questions, whereas we have given them all.

In my opinion, they have taken the role of government agent so much to heart that they have lost sight of the independent, non-partisan status, of the relationship that should be developed and maintained with all parties represented in Parliament and especially—this is dramatic—the central role of the top officer: micromanagement, intervention, knowing everything.

In short, they have politicized Rights and Democracy. They have brought in a program that is not a program of human rights and democracy, and they have breached the centre's act.

We three directors are out of work. Notice to all parties concerned: we place our full trust in the financial audit by Samson Bélair. We believe it will finally make it possible to re-establish the facts—we hope so—once and for all, and not one version or another, and so on. In that sense, we hope and ask, since our management will obviously be called into question, that that document be made public upon its publication and that we can all have access to it.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Vallerand.

We'll now start with Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to share my time with Mr. Rae.

Thank you for being here with us this morning. You are not unaware that this committee has always appreciated your work, both internationally and in your appearances before this committee. That is why I want to repeat that this committee has adopted a number of unanimous motions on a number of occasions to increase your budget. We were very satisfied with your work.

Do you believe the current situation at Rights and Democracy could jeopardize the future of the institution?

Mr. Longangué.

[Maxime Longangué]

To answer that question, I think you have to refer to the remarks by certain members of the board of directors who insinuated it themselves. I would like to offer two responses to that question.

I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Gauthier during the only union-management meeting that we had with him and that we had requested numerous times. That meeting was held on March 3 last. We had a long meeting during which Mr. Gauthier told me in front of witnesses that this mobilization around Rights and Democracy and the attacks—which he perceived—on the government in the media had to stop because there could be serious consequences for the institution and its employees. He also said that Minister Cannon was the institution's only support in cabinet and that the government was only waiting for a few more incidents or hassles in order to shut it down.

The second point I would like to make in reply is a quotation from David Matas, in one of his editorials in recent months. And I quote:

...once the institution does nothing but run its own program, once the government finances the operation entirely and directs it through its board appointees, why should it exist at all? Why should it just not be folded into a government department? Does Rights and Democracy as it has become serve any purpose whatsoever...?

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I have a question for Ms. Lévesque.

Ms. Lévesque, why did you say at the outset, when you started your speech, that you were afraid there might be reprisals against you?

[Micheline Lévesque]

There are two reasons. The first is if you look at past actions. The second, once again, is in their remarks because the board members often publish open letters.

There's a witch-hunting atmosphere at Rights and Democracy. We see people we don't know. Private firms have been hired. There is an investigation and protection firm which specializes in anti-union activities, among other things. We don't know who is there and we don't know what they're looking for. They take our e-mails. We aren't informed. It's also through their actions because here you have three people who have been dismissed. Other employees have been suspended. We don't have any information. So mistrust prevails. We don't know what is going on and we see that there have been reprisals.

The other part of my answer concerns written documents. I am going to do what Maxime did. We have quoted some passages from those written documents. This comes from an article published in the Ottawa Citizen last week, on March 22. It was signed by seven of the nine members of the board of directors. It states:

All workplaces have their share of disagreement and division. Means exist internally to resolve such problems. But it takes no imagination to guess what would happen to employees in any other workplace who publicly defied, denigrated and demanded the firing of those with legal responsibility for the organization.

The members of the board say that there are internal means for resolving conflicts at Rights and Democracy. I would also like to emphasize that, since Ms. Cloutier was suspended, there have been no further mechanisms. We had a union-management committee. That no longer exists now. So, even internally, there are no conflict resolution mechanisms.

So that is why we are afraid. In addition, as we said, we have received an order not to speak publicly. We are not doing so, out of professionalism, but we felt it was important to come and testify before you. As I said in my presentation, we will obey that order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madame Lévesque, are you still with the organization?

[Micheline Lévesque]

Yes, and I hope to stay there for a long time.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We all do. I just wanted to be clear.

[Micheline Lévesque]

Yes, I am.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Okay.

Just to be very clear, in the statement you've just quoted it would seem that the board, in all of their public pronunciations, are really saying this has nothing to do with the Middle East, and nothing to do with differences of opinion about Mr. Beauregard, or anything else. It simply has to do with a question of insubordination, loyalty to the organization, and internal morale.

I'd like to get a clear answer from either you or one of your colleagues as to how you respond to that argument from the board that this unprecedented signing of a letter asking for the removal of three board members meant a confrontation that could only end one way or the other. I don't want to put anybody on the spot, but how else would you have seen this being resolved? It was put directly into the political realm when that occurred, so how do we...?

The letter signed by the 46 employees wound up in the middle of a political debate. How do you find a solution to that situation?

[Micheline Lévesque]

This is why we're asking for an independent investigation. We think it's important to have an investigation to look at the actions of the board and what they have done until now. If the board members think it's coming from...let's have an independent investigation and let's find out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Madame Cloutier, just a quick response, because we're almost out of time.

[Marie-France Cloutier]

I would simply like to tell you that that action, that is to say the letter signed by the 46 employees, was our way of being loyal to the organization. It was our way of defending the organization and of ensuring that it would continue to carry out its mandate. We were and still are convinced that this will not be possible with these individuals.

[Razmik Panossian]

Could I add something in ten seconds?

I would also like to point out that after the letter was sent, some of us did reach out to certain board members to say that we were willing to discuss this issue with them and to have some sort of compromise. We had some hopes that certain board members would be a bit more reasonable, but when seven of them signed editorials together, and then we were dismissed immediately after Monsieur Gauthier, we realized that was not what they wanted to do.