What I have said in these tweets that are somewhere in this big binder is that I have.... I'm a practical man. If we choose someone to report and he or she is not accepted by one of the two parties, it's unlikely that he or she will be in a situation to report. What happened to the predecessor....
I don’t have the tweets. They are very good, you know.
When you have a rapporteur who is unable to report, there's a danger that the one just chosen will not be able to do his duty any more than the one who was his predecessor and who had to resign as a rapporteur and was unable to report. That's my concern. It's why I sent this message. It's not a condemnation of this individual. It is the mere fact that I have a lot of concern about what we are doing, not about.... There are two tweets. The first one was not about the choice. It was about the process, not the choice. It was not because I have something against this individual, but because I am concerned that he will not be able to do anything that he was supposed to do because there are strong concerns about his impartiality. The concern I have is about the impartiality.
On the process, the difficulty we have is that it's very secretive. Second, the design of the mandate is to look at the behaviour of the occupying authority, which is Israel, but not the behaviour of the other forces in the region. I think this process will make it very difficult for anyone who is chosen. As good as this professor may be, anyone who is chosen will create the problem of impartiality because of the way the mandate has been designed.
Canada has these kinds of concerns, and I think it's good for us to speak out about it. I welcome your views about that, because we have a duty to help improve this important process.