Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with you my views on the events that led to the crisis within Rights and Democracy.
I appear before you today because of my belief that justice should prevail over political expedience. It was very much to my advantage to remain silent, but faced with the abuse of power in an organization committed to human rights, I could not in good conscience remain silent.
I was honoured to be appointed by this government as a director on February 29, 2008. I was aware then that in December 2002 the Inspector General had issued recommendations to improve financial oversight and management and staff relations. The board immediately began to implement these under Janice Stein, who was then the chair, and then under the presidency of Jean-Paul Hubert. With his appointment as president by the government on June 26, 2008, Rémy Beauregard successfully continued this process.
In August 2008 the five-year review of Rights and Democracy by Foreign Affairs concluded that “The overall results of this review...are positive” and have “confirmed the effectiveness and relevance” of the organization's activities in the field. The Auditor General's June 9, 2009 report was also positive. In short, contrary to what the current chair Aurel Braun asserted before this committee on April 1, upon his appointment on March 11, Rights and Democracy was not dysfunctional, but in the months that followed the organization disintegrated as a minority of directors engaged in a hostile takeover.
The conflict began within the board after Mr. Braun's first meeting as chair on March 26. The board majority was highly satisfied with Mr. Beauregard's performance, but the chair instructed the secretary not to record this in the minutes. Messrs. Braun and Gauthier were concerned about small grants to three organizations. As a compromise, the president agreed not to provide further funds. Mr. Braun also insisted that he should have a veto over all future grants. Again, we accepted a review procedure as a compromise. Messrs. Braun and Gauthier opposed participation in the UN Durban Review Conference, but Mr. Beauregard had already decided to boycott this event, with the unanimous support of the board.
Instead of praising the president, these directors submitted a secret evaluation to the Privy Council, with baseless accusations, half-truths, and distortions that disregarded or minimized his successful leadership. It attempted to portray him as anti-Israel on the very issues that had already been resolved to everybody's satisfaction. The chair's harsh note to the report called it “constructive criticism”; to us it looked more like character assassination.
Earlier demands by the president and board majority to see the evaluation report were rebuffed and a law firm was retained at a cost of $17,298 to justify the decision. When it was disclosed under the Privacy Act at the June 18 board meeting, the majority considered repudiating it. Again, as a compromise, we gave them an opportunity to amend it, and they agreed.
Our trust was betrayed. There was no intention to honour this agreement. Instead there was a plan to change the board to the liking of the chair and his allies. On September 4, Ms. Donica Pottie, the government representative on the board, suddenly resigned just seven months into her three-year term. She had earlier submitted a positive report on Mr. Beauregard on behalf of the government. With her removal, the chair was poised to get a seven-to-six majority with two new appointments.
On October 19, Mr. Braun and his allies suddenly postponed a board meeting on just two days' notice. The board majority was excluded from this decision, which cost $15,000 in cancellation fees. Still short of a majority, they wanted to avoid consideration of the report, which they had failed to amend four months earlier. They also wanted to block reappointment of Guidos Riveras Franck, a respected Bolivian democracy expert who Minister Fletcher and Minister Kent had regularly consulted.
On November 8 I wrote to Mr. Gauthier, asking him whether there was an intention to gain, and I quote, “a decisive majority of board members that will once and for all silence the dissenting board members and probably also set the stage for removal of the president and his senior staff”. That is what I wrote to Mr. Gauthier on November 8.
Once the two new appointments were made on November 13, Mr. Braun immediately called a meeting of the board for January 7. Having secured a one-vote majority, the performance committee met with Mr. Beauregard on January 6 at an acrimonious meeting in which they dishonoured their promise to correct the report.
At the board meeting, it became clear that this one-vote majority intended to completely exclude the other half, having already decided everything in advance. For directors like Sima Samar, who had travelled all the way from Kabul to participate, this was greatly insulting. Some days earlier, in e-mail exchanges relating to our concerns, Mr. Navarro-Genie, one of the directors, had referred to us as “third worldists”, comparing us to Robert Mugabe, and contrasting us to “Her Majesty's British North American subjects”.
As we had predicted, this had become a hostile one-party board, and the stage was set to remove Mr. Beauregard and management. When Mr. Riveras Franck was kicked off the board, it was the last straw. Dr. Samar and I decided to walk out in protest. It was a moment of utter shame, the resignation of an Afghan human rights champion from a Canadian human rights agency. That day Mr. Beauregard was visibly distressed, knowing he would probably have to resign with a stain on his reputation. Little did we know that this great friend and colleague would leave us for good shortly afterwards.
After his tragic passing, before his funeral could even be held, we were shocked that internal documents were leaked to Ezra Levant and Gerald Steinberg to continue smearing his reputation. The opinion editorials by the seven board members against him were simply shameful. The call by 45 courageous staff for the resignation of the chair and two vice-chairs was an expression of respect for an admired leader, and of loyalty to the integrity of the institution. In order to exact revenge, the same board has now hired expensive lawyers and private investigators to persecute the staff. This has already cost an estimated half a million dollars of taxpayers' money.
In the new era of accountability the board proclaims, it has amended a bylaw to retroactively justify awarding these lucrative contracts without tender. This only adds to other financial irregularities concerning the board's budget. We can only be thankful for your committee's oversight of Rights and Democracy.
In closing, I would note that the honourable members of this committee may have competing political agendas, but I'm confident they all agree that unethical conduct cannot go without consequences. The smearing of Mr. Beauregard's reputation is a manifest abuse of power, and probably also a violation of the provincial occupational health and safety act. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety recognizes that making false accusations against an employee is a prime example of workplace bullying and that such psychological harassment can have serious health consequences.
Let us consider the allegation in Mr. Gauthier's famous memorandum that "While attending a conference in Cairo in the fall of 2008, Mr. Beauregard met with representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah." Mr. Gauthier stated further that the legality of those meetings was obviously questionable. He clarified during the June board meeting that he was referring to the Criminal Code of Canada. In particular, section 83.18 provides that contributing directly or indirectly to the activity of a terrorist group is punishable by ten years of imprisonment. In his response to the board, Mr. Beauregard had said that accusation was patently false and considered it an attack on his reputation.
So without a shred of evidence—without a shred of evidence—a distinguished bureaucrat with a spotless record was accused of being a criminal. Which members of this committee would tolerate such behaviour if they were the victim?
In its great wisdom, this government appointed Mr. Beauregard as president. This committee must now unanimously ensure that justice prevails and that this great Canadian agency is salvaged. To that end, I would urge the committee to consider the following recommendations.
First, that the evaluation report, including the chair's note and all other relevant documents, be removed from Mr. Beauregard's record, so that Mr. Beauregard's name and honour can be redeemed once and for all.
Second, call on the board of directors of Rights and Democracy to issue an apology to Mr. Beauregard's family.
Third, call on the chair, Mr. Braun, and the vice-chairs, Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Tepper, to resign because of their misconduct.
Fourth, consider reconstituting the entire board of directors in view of the tremendous damage to Rights and Democracy's international reputation and the loss of confidence by the Canadian public.
That concludes my submission, Mr. Chair. I thank you and the committee for your kind attention.