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.