Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is my privilege today to be representing the Board of Directors, and Jacques Gauthier, as an individual, as he has gradually, in the last few months, become a central figure in this drama.
Who is Jacques Gauthier? Born in Montreal, I grew up in Paris for the first ten years of my life, and subsequently in Ottawa, where I attended the University of Ottawa Secondary School, Richmond Secondary School, Carleton University and the University of Ottawa. I then spent several years in Geneva doing my PhD, followed by studies in The Hague. After that, I settled in Toronto where I have been practising international law for more than 30 years now, with a concern for international justice and human rights.
A major concern for me, in these last 30 years, has been children's rights. In Toronto, I established Justice for Children and Youth, which is now recognized as one of the most important institutions for the protection of children's rights in Canada. I took an interest in children suffering in Africa and became involved in missions organized by the Canadian Save the Children Fund; I visited the site of a number of projects being carried out in Africa dealing with these issues. I have serious concerns about refugees from Africa, and in the last ten years, I have focused on the rights of refugees from that region of the world.
I have also taken a great interest in the rights of Francophone minorities in Ontario, as chair of the Association des juristes d'expression française, and as a founder of the Official Languages Committee of the Canadian Bar Association, as well as a teacher with the Canadian Bar. I trained legal counsel in Ontario to practice the law in French at a time when there was absolutely nothing available. French-speaking lawyers had no tools and no documents to work with in that area.
I also took an interest in human rights in China. I headed a mission to China for Rights and Democracy in November, and this is an initiative that continues to be of concern to me.
For 66 days—I may write a book one day entitled Sixty-six Days as Chair of Rights and Democracy—my life revolved around the onerous responsibilities of the chairmanship, looking after my firm in Toronto and—something that has been a concern for many years now—my five women—a spouse and four daughters.
My adventure with Rights and Democracy began in February of 2008. I was appointed to the Board of Directors by the Conservative government with three other persons: Professor Tepper, Professor Payam Akhavan and Mr. Guilbeault. Of the four people who were appointed at the same time, two are considered, by those who have been opposing us for months, to be friendly directors, and Professor Tepper and myself found ourselves in the eye of the storm.
I should point out that when I joined the Board of Rights and Democracy, it was a fairly troubling period. Several months earlier, in December of 2007, a report had been issued by the Inspector General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, DFAIT. That report looked at a considerable number of demands and attacks against Rights and Democracy, suggesting that the institution was poorly managed, and that there were major financial or accounting problems. When I came on board, I was told a number of times, by both Board members and members of the employee team:
we have just gone through a near-death experience.
The government took quite a bit of time appointing the four directors. In fact, the government took so much time appointing them that the impression was left that they would not be appointed, and that this was the end of Rights and Democracy.
To those who support the theory that we came into a healthy institution, with no issues, I can confirm that that is not true. Everyone appointed in February of 2008 was well aware of the concerns that had been reported in the newspapers for weeks and weeks. We were told that changes had to be made.
So we came in very conscious of the shortcomings and allegations and with a mandate to fight to make things right.
When I arrived—I was a member of the Board—the Chairman of the Board was Ms. Janice Stein, and Mr. Hubert was the President of Rights and Democracy.
Several months after my arrival, since Ms. Stein's mandate had not been renewed, she asked me to step into the position of Vice-Chairman of the Board. After some hesitation—if only I had been more clairvoyant and understood what awaited me subsequently, I might not have accepted—I did end up accepting.
As vice-chair, I had the opportunity to get to know the members of the finance committee because I was appointed to the finance committee. I had also become acting chair of the performance review committee of the president of the organization. As acting president, I was exposed to a lot of information. I had access to a lot of documentation. Keeping in mind the concerns that had been voiced in the media in the report of the inspector general, I started to ask a lot of questions.
Rémy Beauregard, it must be underlined, was appointed by this government and really started to assume his responsibilities in July 2008. I started to work with Monsieur Beauregard on a multitude of files. We met in different places, sometimes in Toronto and sometimes in Montreal. We attended functions of Rights and Democracy and broke bread on several occasions. I must say that for the initial period of four or five months, when we were together things went very well.
When I started to ask questions, I discovered that the staff, the management team around Mr. Beauregard, were very uncomfortable with the questions I was asking, for instance, about a very peculiar payment of $100,000 that had been made to one of the staff members who left the organization. The more questions I asked, the more difficulty I had in obtaining answers. In fact, it was only over the last week that I finally got to the bottom of that question.
I asked questions about the more than $800,000 that had been sent to the partner of Rights and Democracy, the high commissioner's office in Geneva. I asked questions about the discretionary funds and the contract that was used to send funds. Over the last five years, we're talking about over $1 million sent in little chunks without authorization from the board--which is part of the rules, it's structured that way--with very little information given to the board in due course.
I asked questions about many other things.
I want to underline that the difficulties with the staff began when these questions were raised by members of the finance committee, me, and the chair of the board when he arrived, Professor Aurel Braun.
I want to deal with the issue of ideology. It has often been suggested in the media that we as directors, or I as acting president, was under a mandate to transform this organization and alter the direction of the organization. The truth is, if you study the contracts that were approved by the board of directors for the projects that were authorized by me over my 66 days and by the board previous to that, you will have an enormous amount of difficulty identifying any project or contract that has not been supported by this board or this president.
The suggestion that we have been given instructions to alter the course of the direction of Rights and Democracy is not truthful. I have never received a call from the Prime Minister's Office or DFAIT asking me not to do something about a project in this organization--to this day--as a director, an administrator, or an acting president.
For those who fear that this board or the current leadership of Rights and Democracy has been mandated to totally transform this institution into something that it hasn't been over the last 20 years, I want to emphasize that's not true, as far as the programming is concerned, but it is true as far as lack of accountability and transparency.
Thank you.