I want to supplement that answer. I followed with considerable interest what was written and said in English Canada, particularly during the incidents in recent weeks. I think this provides the committee with food for thought.
In fact, the crisis at Rights and Democracy is an accumulation of a number of errors made along the way, such as the obligation to consult the opposition parties on the appointments that are made. Suddenly there was a realization that it had been done, but too quickly, without any serious study of the matter. The result is that what happens happens.
Have there been any underhanded actions? The pan-Canadian consensus on the question of the Middle East... Mr. Braun was Mr. Braun before he was appointed chair of the board of directors; he did not suddenly change and appear after the fact. The people who appointed him no doubt knew what his interests were.
I believe it was the addition of these factors that made the situation what it is, and that today... To the question as to whether it's political, my answer is yes, to the extent the institution reports to Parliament and therefore to all parties. This is a self-examination that we are conducting today. This is the opportunity for some to say that, since Rights and Democracy is an independent, non-partisan agency, it went too far. It did things that Canadian taxpayers would not accept and that must stop—it has to be reined in. I think that's the question you'll have to debate, and others will no doubt share that point of view.
Consequently, the question is whether the mechanisms of control, accountability, reporting to Parliament and transparency are enough. Does the selection and appointment of directors and the chief executive officer that obviously appears... With respect to Mr. Beauregard, there was a call for applications. He was in Uganda, did the interview in shorts before the minister via teleconference, and he returned to Canada to take up the position, whereas he was retired. He had the qualifications and it was felt that he was the right man for the situation. I can tell you—and we have testified on this—that an organization such as ours, which was coming out of 2007 and the possibility of misappropriations, and which had gone through a difficult time, was experiencing a rebirth. As Razmik said, we were very mobilized.
I think the management question is central, because it's clear that it was from the moment someone came in with a different conception of the mandate and mission that matters took a turn for the worse.
Who's the boss? Who decides what?
Instead of conducting a general discussion on orientation policy, you can do that through actions, and we do it through..., and without having any clear idea. As Razmik said, there was never any clear idea of the agenda. Let's openly discuss policy oversight and general directions. Then we'll put out the press releases. Let us do the press releases, but do what's part of the mandate of a board of directors.
So there was this combination of political factors that gradually became administrative factors.