Foreign Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We're going to move on to Madame Lalonde, for seven minutes, please.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you all for being here.

I feel I have to say that the accusations—because that is how I see them—that you have made regarding the staff and management bring me right back to the position I took when this dispute first arose—and that is that there must be an inquiry into the situation at Rights and Democracy and a report done by someone familiar with the international aid and NGO communities, who could help to put it back on track, remembering that it is an independent organization—an institution of Parliament yes—but still an independent organization operating at arm's length from the government.

The statements I have read and the material I have seen confirm my conviction that an inquiry is needed. Let me put the question to you: Do you not think there should be an inquiry? Everything that the four of you have said leads to that.

My question is addressed to Mr. Braun.

[Aurel Braun]

I will say something briefly, and then my colleague, David Matas, would like to say something as well.

First of all, if I understood you correctly, you used the word “independent”. Am I correct in that, that you said it is an independent organization?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

It is an independent organization operating at arm's length.

[Aurel Braun]

I would very much like to clarify that, because in fact we are not an independent organization. We are a SWOT organization. I think we really need to understand that, because it's profoundly important that we do appreciate the distinction between independence and autonomy, and that is, in terms of our funding and in terms of our responsibilities to Parliament and in terms of our reporting, we have an area of autonomy—but we are not an NGO.

This is one of the issues. It has been misreported very often that we are an NGO, and we are not an NGO.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

That is true; there is legislation. Your organization was established through legislation, and that legislation clearly dictates the way it is to be managed.

[Aurel Braun]

We are not an NGO in the law. Consequently, in terms of our reporting, in terms of the way we have to be responsible for our financing... This is one of the issues.

Let me just give you an example of what happened—

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that when Rights and Democracy was first created, the idea was to allow Canada to take action to foster democratic development in a non-partisan manner. It was so that it could operate in a non-partisan manner that this institution created by Parliament was given that freedom.

[Aurel Braun]

Absolutely, and we believe deeply in non-partisanship.

What troubled us a great deal was that when you look at the pattern of these grants, there was partisanship. That was the default setting, and it was very often delegitimating and dehumanizing a fellow democracy, as if this were non-partisan. And in the attempt to seek fairness, that is when there was a problem.

I think it is essential, therefore, to understand that there are some parameters within which this organization works, and those include the good conscience of Canadian people.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Can I ask you what you mean by “partisan”? Could you give me an example?

In your opinion, was the grant to the Israeli NGO B'Tselem, which I am well acquainted with, a partisan grant?

[Aurel Braun]

I would, since David Matas has spoken to this, and the resolution that was adopted, for which I want to emphasize the repudiation... President Beauregard admitted that the grants given to these two organizations were a grave mistake, that they should have done their homework better. Mr. David Matas passed that resolution, and perhaps he'd like to speak to it. Then Mr. Gauthier would like to say something.

[David Matas]

First of all,

I will respond in English. Although I speak French, the interpreters speak it far better than I.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

When I have a chance to speak French rather than English, I do the same.

[David Matas]

An inquiry, yes, I agree. But we have an inquiry. Jacques Gauthier, when he was acting president, ordered an inquiry through Deloitte & Touche.

The issue is not whether there should be an inquiry, but who is doing it and what its terms of reference are. What Deloitte & Touche is doing is trying to find out where the money is going, which is a legitimate inquiry, I would say. I have heard other people say that we should have an inquiry into the cause of death of Rémy Beauregard, which I frankly question. The staff reject the inquiry from Deloitte & Touche, saying it's a witch hunt. So the issue is not whether, but whom and how.

In terms of B'Tselem, I did a memorandum for the—

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Tell us about B'Tselem, please.

[David Matas]

In terms of B'Tselem, I did a memorandum for the board, for the resolution that I presented at the board meeting of January 7, asking for repudiation of the grants. I have filed that memorandum with this committee. It talks about B'Tselem. I have it on my screen and I could read out the parts about B'Tselem.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Is B'Tselem a partisan organization?

[David Matas]

This is what I write. I said that its reports are politicized and tendentious. It identified casualties according to their activities at their moment of death, and therefore describes Palestinians, while not engaged in hostilities, as civilians. Among those listed in this category are known terrorists, Hamas officials, stone-throwers--who can be lethal--and civilians used by terrorists as human shields, whose deaths are the responsibility of terrorists.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Matas, you must have met the leadership of B'Tselem. When one enquires about them in Israel, one is told that they are very courageous Israelis, because they are seeking to document anything and everything that could help to negotiate peace between Palestinians and Israelis. For example, they have made some excellent maps, which will certainly be used if ever actual negotiations begin, because they are extremely precise. Even the Israeli army recognizes the value of their work. So, to say that the grant to B'Tselem should be revoked is to be unaware of the circumstances in which B'Tselem works.

[David Matas]

We obviously disagree about the nature of the work of B'Tselem. I invite you to look at the writing and research that I've done on it, which, as I say, I filed with the committee. I'm happy to engage you further on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Gauthier, do you have a quick comment or was it covered?

[Jacques P. Gauthier]

Ms. Lalonde, I think it is important that we all take an interest in the facts and in reality. Let's just back up a little, to be sure there is a clear understanding of the status of Rights and Democracy.

According to the Act, it is a shared governance organization. It is not a non-governmental organization. According to the Act, there is some connection to the government, which does not exist in other cases. What is strange is that—it is a little like a dog giving birth to a cat—Rights and Democracy, a shared governance organization gave rise, in Geneva, to a separate legal structure—Rights and Democracy in Switzerland—which is an NGO. The parent body is therefore invited to international meetings as though it were an NGO, even though it is not.

That is one source of complications, but you must not believe that we attribute that responsibility solely to the management team. There are structural problems at Rights and Democracy which we are currently trying to resolve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much. That's all the time we have for this round. I'm sure we'll get back to another round with the Bloc.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Abbott for seven minutes.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Thank you.

As has been pointed out and underlined this morning, Rights and Democracy is an autonomous organization set up at arm's length from government. For the record I will state again, as I have in every one of these committee hearings, that this is not a matter this committee should be studying. As a committee we are asked to study matters of international affairs and development.

I recognize that I have said previously that this is an internal staffing issue in an arm's-length organization. I recognize that indeed this issue is a lot larger than a staffing problem. However, again I state on behalf of the government members that this is not the correct forum for this to be carried out. That said, because we are into it and because the questions have been asked by the opposition, I will engage in the same kinds of questions they may be asking.

I'm rather curious. Was it after the January 7 meeting that there was the tragic passing of Mr. Beauregard? Is that correct?

[Aurel Braun]

Yes, that is correct.