Foreign Affairs Committee on April 1st, 2010

[Brad Farquhar]

Very specifically, the contract was signed on Friday, January 15, which was a week after the death of Mr. Beauregard. It was signed by Marie-France Cloutier, the director of finance and administration; Anne-Marie Lavoie, deputy director of human resources; and France-Isabelle Langlois, the deputy director of policy; along with some union counterparts on the other side.

We learned about this on Tuesday of this week.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Was that within the mandate of the board? Did they have the authority to sign that contract without consulting the board?

[Brad Farquhar]

I certainly don't think it was within the acceptable norms of governance for any organization anywhere. That's why I was stunned to learn about it on Tuesday. This is something that must be cleared up. For a collective agreement that has been difficult to negotiate and has been negotiated for months and months, to come about suddenly in one week and be hidden from the board, there's something wrong here. We've only known about it for two days, and we need to find out more about it. That's an important part of our job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Madame Deschamps for five minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you. I do not have much time.

I have in front of me a report issued by Amnesty International called “Canada and Human Rights in 2010: Time to Return to Leadership”. With respect to the Human Rights Council, that report states the following:

Canada has consistently voted against UN resolutions that are critical of Israel's human rights record.

With respect to January, 2009, it goes on to say:

Canada was the only state among the 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council to vote against a resolution condemning human rights violations that occurred in the context of last year's Israeli military offensive in Gaza. In November 2009, at the UN General Assembly, Canada was one of only 18 countries to vote against a resolution calling on both Israeli and Palestinian authorities to conduct independent, credible investigations into allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

A little further on, with reference to Canada's attitude, it states:

There have also been a series of funding cuts to Canadian organizations that work with or provide financial assistance to human rights and other groups in Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Occupied Territories.

It makes reference, in particular, to the inter-church coalition Kairos and the development organization Alternatives.

A little further on, it talks about Rights and Democracy, an agency established by Parliament more than 20 years ago. Based on what is stated in the Amnesty International report, I have three very simple questions for you.

Why did certain Board members question partnerships with internationally respected and recognized Israeli and Palestinian human rights organizations? Once again, I am going to ask this, even though it has already been asked. Why did the Board of Directors decide to close the Geneva office of Rights and Democracy, which was established close to the Human Rights Council, ignoring a positive external evaluation and recommendations that it be maintained? Why was the religious and ethnic background of staff raised by a member of the Board in the context of the President's performance appraisal?

[David Matas]

I will attempt to answer those three questions.

The first question has to do with the organizations. Within the Middle East there is a dispute among many players, unfortunately, about the existence of the State of Israel. It's the only state in the United Nations whose very existence is under threat.

There are many states that don't recognize it and engage in a very active campaign in demonization and delegitimization in order to further their goal of the destruction of the State of Israel, including two of the three organizations--Al-Haq and Al Mezan.

I appreciate your reading from the report of Amnesty International. I myself have written a book on this issue called Aftershock: Anti-Zionism & Antisemitism, which I've brought. I invite you to read it, and you will see in detail what the concerns are and why I have trouble with these organizations.

On why the bureau was closed, I must confess that I like the answer of Jacques Gauthier, which I thought was very good and very thorough, but there's something substantive at issue here as well. That bureau was mostly helping NGOs from third world countries come to participate in the universal periodic review of the Human Rights Council--as well as to liaise with other NGOs and the human rights secretariat, but their hands-on work was that.

I have been to the universal periodic review a couple of times about Iran and China. It's a very problematic process, and I don't think it's a good use of public money. I can't get into Iran or China, but it makes little sense to get NGOs that can actually work in those countries to leave those countries to participate in the universal periodic review where they can't speak. Only governments can speak. The NGOs can only meet with governments, and most of the governments they meet with can't speak either because there's a time limit. Only 60 states out of 192 are allowed to speak, and there's a rush of violators to the microphone in order to provide immunity to the states under scrutiny. So most of the rights-promoting states don't even get to the microphone. It's just not a good use of money.

There is a third question I was going to move on to, but...

Do you have any other questions?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Could you please answer me, because the third question was more closely connected to the Board of Directors. It has to do with the religious and ethnic background of staff, a matter that was raised by a member of the Board.

[Jacques P. Gauthier]

Could I answer that question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm going to cut off the time. You can answer the question, and then we're going to move to the last round.

[Jacques P. Gauthier]

I will be brief. In relation to your comment about the report, there is no reference, in that report, to what you just mentioned. Before passing judgment, it is important to look at the facts and rely on those facts. In this case, what you have suggested is untrue. I know that report by heart. There is no such reference in that report, Ms. Deschamps.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

We're now going to move to the last questioner for today, Mr. Goldring.

Sorry, it's Mr. Abbott first.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to make a quick observation before my friend Mr. Goldring asks some very good questions.

I was rather entertained by Mr. Rae reporting on this op-ed piece that was done by somebody other than Mr. Braun and that was calling on Mr. Braun to put a gag on the board members...that he should not have written that. I thought it was a rather entertaining position for Mr. Rae to take.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you for appearing here today, gentlemen.

I have reviewed the impressive credentials of the four of you appearing today. I have noted as well the credentials and political background of other persons associated with the organization over the years: Mr. Broadbent, NDP; and Warren Allmand, Liberal.

Mr. Matas, you said you had run as a Liberal at one time. Mr. Farquhar has run with the Saskatchewan Party, which I think we can conclude to be on the Conservative side.

That indicates there is a broad political spectrum in your organization. It bodes well for the very important work you have been doing. I'll be looking forward to your updating your plans for the future too.

In keeping with that, Mr. Farquhar, I want to talk about some of the comments you made. You have quite a bit of experience with OSCE, as have I and others in Parliament. I think I've been on 11 different election monitoring programs--in different parts of the world too. I think it's an excellent background to develop the philosophy and theories on how to move forward to help some of the situations. There's nothing like being on the streets during the political challenge and game to determine what is right and wrong and what has to be done.

I'm very interested in your comment that you've been looking at political party development, which I would take to include policy development. One of the things that has been made very clear to me is that some of these struggling democracies have so many political parties--some have 40 or 50 political parties running in an election--that it's very difficult for them to organize policy development, what the political party should be doing.

Haiti is one example that you mentioned being involved in. There is a serious lack of understanding of how the members of Parliament should be representing the people.

Could you expand a bit on the party development, and perhaps some other initiatives that you will be looking at in the future?

[Brad Farquhar]

Thank you for the question.

My work in Tajikistan is the focus of the political party development work that I did overseas. Tajikistan is a former Soviet state. It's the poorest of the former Soviet republics. I was there for the second parliamentary elections in the country's history. It gave me great pleasure...you mentioned I was part of the OSCE observer mission. That was very interesting and educational, but what was terrific about the experience was that I had spent the previous three and a half months in the country working with all six of the registered political parties.

In a way, they're fortunate to only have six, although I know there's demand in Tajikistan to have more political parties, and it's significantly controlled and constrained by the government. It did mean that we could work with all parties on what an election platform is, and how you would bring disparate parts of even your own membership together to create consensus around the kinds of policies you would put forward in an election campaign. They were pretty green. We had to teach them what it meant to go out and knock on doors. They weren't sure if they'd be allowed to do that. The transition from a former totalitarian state to a democratic, elected state is still going on in many of these countries.

One of my objectives in serving on this board is... You know, the organization is called Rights and Democracy, and my area of experience and professional background is in the democracy part. We have others on our board who are human rights specialists. My observation with Rights and Democracy is that our actual project work has been more heavily tilted to the human rights end and less to the democracy end. I'd like to find a more even balance between the two, because it is inherent with our name. It's the passion that I bring to my position on the board in saying, what can we do in some of these states in order to assist the political process? We do a little bit of political party work. We've brought Bolivian parliamentarians to Haiti and we've created some back and forth. So I think there's a lot more that Rights and Democracy can do in this area, and I look forward to being a part of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Goldring.

We have a final question from Mr. Rae, and then I need to do a little committee business to approve a budget to hear witnesses on this.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I have just a comment on one of the organizations that's been at issue here, which is the B'Tselem organization.

I understand your point, Mr. Matas, and I appreciate the depth of your feeling and point of view, but I'd just like to point out that according to their websites, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Christian Aid (UK), Commission of the European Communities, DanChurchAid Denmark, Diakonia Sweden, Development Corporation Ireland, the German development organization, the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, the Ford Foundation, the Norwegian foreign ministry, as well as the Dutch organization have all determined that supporting an organization that is advocating on behalf of human rights in the West Bank and Gaza is a legitimate organization. I think you do have to think a little bit about where the balance lies and not assume the worst with respect to the motivations of an organization such as Rights and Democracy, which is engaging in support of this organization or others.

I hold no grief or candle to them one way or the other. I'm just saying that one does have to recognize that a number of other respected governments have determined that this is an organization worthy of support. If you say no, it isn't, that's of course the right of the board to do that, but I think the board has to take into account to some degree the overall policy of the Government of Canada with respect to the question of what kind of a solution we see as being essential for the future of the Middle East. I do think that's something the board is going to have to consider.

My last point, Mr. Chairman, is this. In light of Mr. Matas' testimony today, as well as Mr. Braun's, Mr. Gauthier's, and Mr. Farquhar's, I really think this committee has an obligation...not to micromanage the organization, but you're describing, first of all, a level of dysfunction, which I think is important for us to hear about and to get your views on. We also have a very clear view from Mr. Matas as to how there are profound issues about the organization itself, based on the change in circumstances.

The idea that somehow it's inappropriate for us to look at an organization that has clearly been in crisis strikes me as rather odd, since it is funded by Parliament and is responsible to Parliament. I suggest to my friend, Mr. Abbott, that perhaps we might want to rethink this question, because you are telling us that you're going to have to look at some very fundamental issues. Quite frankly, if that's what you think you have to do, I think we have an obligation as members of Parliament to know what those new directions are, and to know what the implications of those directions are.

[David Matas]

In terms of your last comment, I have nothing to say. It's up to the committee, as far as I'm concerned, to decide whether and how to conduct its own business, and I have nothing to say on that.

When it comes to the Canadian Middle East foreign policy, sure, that's something again that is for the Canadian government to decide. Rights and Democracy is not the agent of delivery of the Canadian government Middle East policy. The Canadian government decides its own Middle East policy and delivers it in its own way. That's not our job, and we don't have a Middle East program at Rights and Democracy. If we had a fully fledged Middle East program with balance on both sides, maybe B'Tselem would be somewhere in that mix, but to take three organizations all doing the same thing on the same side... B'Tselem is certainly the most moderate of the three; the others are off the map. It's out of context, it's not helpful, and it just didn't work in the context of the organization.

The fact that I'm in a minority in terms of my views of B'Tselem...well, I'm a Liberal in the Prairies, I'm used to being in a minority, so that in itself doesn't bother me. As far as I'm concerned, the decision was appropriate. If the Canadian government can figure its way out of this Middle East thicket better than we can, more power to it.

[Jacques P. Gauthier]

I have just one quick word.

Mr. Rae, in listening to this response, we have to keep in mind, when we talk about the Middle East, we're talking about probably less than 2% of the budget and activities of Rights and Democracy. We have approved a strategic plan 2010 to 2015. We are not in disagreement with the staff that have prepared this plan. We like the plan. So before we come to the conclusion that we have a crisis with regard to programming or specific areas, let's keep in mind that 98% of what we're doing at Rights and Democracy has the support of the board, has the support of the staff. So yes, the questions that have been raised are important. They're worthy of further consideration, but in the context of what we're doing, I think it's a mistake to think that everything has to be revamped and reconsidered, taking into consideration the fact that almost everything we're doing over the next five years is pursuant to the very wishes of the staff. There's no disagreement there.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

The only thing I'd say is that I'm just quoting back what Dr. Braun said in his prepared statement, what Mr. Matas said in his prepared statement. Dr. Braun described it as a dysfunctional organization, talked about a culture of dogmatism and other things. Mr. Matas has talked about how the world has changed completely, so the board has to change completely. He talked about how the board had to take much greater control over the organization. These are very critical issues.

[Jacques P. Gauthier]

Mr. Rae, the dysfunction has to with accounting issues and the lack of transparency, and the work that's being done by Deloitte right now will result in a number of recommendations. Their objective is not to condemn one side or the other. Their goal is to highlight things that are not sufficiently addressed by the current rules of the organization, and hopefully when we all look at these recommendations together, we will fix what's deficient with an otherwise very valuable organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, gentlemen. I want to thank each and every one of you for coming. I realize you're all volunteers and probably didn't realize you would be signing up for this many meetings when you took on the organization, so thank you for being here today. I know you all have very busy schedules.

I'm going to dismiss the witnesses.

As a committee, though, we need to approve $14,828 so we can bring witnesses in on this. Do I have the approval of the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Okay, thank you very much.

[Aurel Braun]

On behalf of the board, thank you for inviting us and giving us this opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

With that, the meeting is adjourned.