Foreign Affairs Committee on April 13th, 2010

[Ed Broadbent]

You used plural there and referred to both of us.

I take a position, but I'm trying to be non-partisan about it, and I mean that. I had on my board a distinguished Conservative, a former MLA from Alberta. He was known for his human rights. He was on my board. Never once did he try to make a partisan issue, when we had a Conservative government, that we should ever follow a Conservative agenda. He stuck to the human rights mandate.

To get back to David Matas, I, as an NDP... We haven't exactly formed a government yet at the federal level, but if I were our Prime Minister, I'd love to appoint a Liberal to do my dirty work, instead of someone in my own party.

Never, to my memory, has Mr. Matas come to the defence of Palestinians. He has defended, very often, very offensive actions by the Government of Israel. Why wouldn't the government put Mr. Matas on and say, “Well, look, he's a Liberal”? My point earlier was, you put people on—it doesn't matter what party label they have—that you know will pursue their agenda.

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

What you two men are saying is that anybody who disagrees with you is a partisan and you're not.

[Ed Broadbent]

No.

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

That's an amazing position.

[Warren Allmand]

That's not correct. We're saying if you disagree with the mandate... We had Conservatives, we had NDP on the board. They respected the mandate of the organization, which is that you act in accordance with the International Bill of Human Rights. That's your governing imperative. You do not act with respect to protecting certain states from criticism or criticizing other states that don't deserve it. You use the International Bill of Human Rights as the standard.

By the way, when you appoint a Speaker in the House of Commons, once he becomes Speaker, he leaves his politics behind. It's the same with the people who should be on the board of Rights and Democracy—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time we have.

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

Are you both saying that this is really all about Israel? Is that what you're saying?

[Warren Allmand]

I would say, yes, much of it is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Allmand.

We're going to move to Mr. Dewar. I won't say it's for the last word, but certainly the last round.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Yes. Thank you. Well, we could take longer.

Chair, I want to start off by saying that one of the things that need to be put on the table here--this was referenced but needs to be reinforced--is that Mr. Beauregard worked for NDP premiers, Liberals, and Conservatives. You know, I will never be accused of supporting Mr. Harris in any way, shape, or form, but I will certainly observe that Mr. Beauregard was able to work with Mr. Harris on the issue of human rights.

It is telling that when it comes to this affair, we have someone who was able to work with anyone not able to work with this particular board. I say that as an observation, because some would like to have this structured as, “Well, the board came in to deal with a crisis and a problem.” I would make the observation that the crisis was created by these members. It's very evident here.

I mean, I go back to the testimony of the board members, and others, that they were not only micromanaging; they were having a hand in changing the minutes. I think of the Durban example, where it was never refuted by Mr. Braun that he actually asked to have the minutes changed, changing the record to reflect that it wasn't the president and the staff who had made the recommendation not to go to Durban II, that it was him. We now have examples this morning, from the previous witnesses, about contracts given to fellow board members.

Mr. Beauregard, according to this committee, according to the Attorney General, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs, was doing everything in concert with what his role and his mandate was.

I have to agree with the recommendations that have been made, that obviously we need to do something immediately. We can discuss as a committee what that is. I would use a medical analogy: we have to do triage first to save the patient, and then we have to make sure that the patient is whole and healthy. But clearly we have to do something. To do nothing is not an option.

I would ask you, Mr. Allmand, in your experience, when there were evaluations done by the board, evaluations of you, were you always made aware of the evaluations before they were finished and signed off? Did you participate in that process?

[Warren Allmand]

Well, they prepared the evaluations, but they would show them to me. I never tried to change them. I just let them go.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Right--but you were aware of what was in the evaluations.

[Warren Allmand]

They were discussed by the entire board. It wasn't done by a small committee of the board. The small committee might have prepared the initial documents.

I can remember very well that I was asked to leave the room when they discussed my evaluation. I left the room and I was later shown the evaluation. I had no problem with it. They were free to make whatever evaluation.

I might say, too, my evaluation was positive every year, so of course, having seen it, I didn't have too much to disagree with.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But there wasn't a separate process.

[Warren Allmand]

No, no.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

And you were made aware of what the evaluation was.

[Warren Allmand]

As I pointed out, there was never an attempt by the chair... I had three chairs. One was Maureen O'Neil. The next one was Lois Wilson. The next one was Kathleen Mahoney. They were strong personalities, and each one of them brought the evaluation, when the time came, to the full board. The full board discussed it and approved it, then they sent it on.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Was it the same with you, Mr. Broadbent?

[Ed Broadbent]

Yes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, I say that because clearly there is a change in the way the evaluations were done in the past and what we have right now.

I think the appointments process... And I have to maybe disagree a little bit with my friend Mr. Abbott. We were consulted, for instance, on the appointment of Mr. Latulippe, and we're going to hear about him on Thursday. As far as I know, no one agreed to his appointment, and he was appointed.

Further to that, and I want to get our witnesses' opinion... You know, I'm someone who has a conflict of interest when it comes to the Public Appointments Commission because I was on the committee for Bill C-2, the Accountability Act, where we made amendments to have a Public Appointments Commission. It gets $1 million a year, but alas it has no real process other than the PMO. So nothing has changed, other than there's $1 million there for the government to dispense of appointments at their will.

I note that yesterday one of the appointments made to the IDRC has become a problem because a commission she sits on is a conflict of interest in the view of the Gates Foundation.

I think--at least in this period--we should have this committee be able to question appointees before they are appointed to the board and as president. You mentioned, Mr. Broadbent, that we could at least confer with the leaders, and I think Mr. Allmand said the same. We could do that, or we could also have this committee question the appointees as well, in light of the fact that we don't have a Public Appointments Commission. Would that be another way of doing it?

[Ed Broadbent]

I'd separate it out. As I said, I have a real concern about the staff and the continuing credibility of Rights and Democracy when you have Mr. Latulippe, that kind of man, as president and Mr. Braun as chairman. I think some immediate action is needed to change the chairperson. I'm not sure you'll get a rapid agreement by a whole committee of the House on that person, but for other appointees going down or other steps, it would be good if across party lines you could do it.

That's why it seemed to me maybe it would be most efficacious if the committee recommended for a start that the chairperson who is responsible for all the other activity going on--ultimately and to this committee--be replaced. Then I would hope the Prime Minister would agree to sit down with Mr. Ignatieff, Mr. Duceppe, and Mr. Layton and say let's get a Canadian man or woman in there on an interim basis whose integrity no one is going to dispute. Let's get them in there to restore faith in the staff and to bring some order. It will be difficult, I think, for the existing board until longer-range decisions are made about changing board membership.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar.

That's all the time we have. I want to thank our witnesses again. I apologize, we're working under some tight time constraints today, but thank you very much for taking the time to be here.

The meeting is adjourned.