Rights and Democracy rips itself apart

All 47 employees at Rights and Democracy are calling on Braun, Tepper and Gauthier to resign

by Paul Wells on Friday, January 22, 2010 9:45am - 72 Comments

Last May 29, five board members of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, a Montreal-based organization usually known as Rights and Democracy, wrote to the Privy Council Office in Ottawa. Formed by an act of Parliament in 1988, Rights and Democracy receives $11 million a year from the federal government, which appoints its 10 Canadian board members (who then elect three international members). Rights and Democracy led the world, and far outpaced Canada’s government, last year in criticizing Afghanistan’s odious Shia family law, which would permit husbands to force their wives to have sex.

The May letter came from five of the seven board members who attended the March 26 board meeting. Its purpose was to complain about the other two: Aurel Braun, a University of Toronto political scientist who had been named board chairman only two weeks before the meeting, and Jacques Gauthier, the vice-chair.


At the meeting the board went in camera to discuss the performance of its president, Rémy Beauregard. That discussion ended with an endorsement of Beauregard. But Braun instructed the secretary not to record that result. Soon after, Braun, Gauthier and a third board member, Elliot Tepper, sent a confidential evaluation of Beauregard to the Privy Council Office. Beauregard was not permitted to see it.

Faced with this “manifest lack of transparency and violation of procedure,” the five board members asked the government to force Braun to show Beauregard the report. That didn’t happen.

In October, the five board members wrote a second letter, to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. The board had been scheduled to meet days earlier, they wrote. But Braun, “in consultation with only four of 11 members of the board (there were then two vacancies), decided to cancel the meeting.” The five board members said the board was now “dysfunctional.” Given this “crisis,” they asked Cannon to replace Braun with a new chairman.

By January, the Harper government had filled the two board vacancies. One new appointee was David Matas, the legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada. The other was Michael Van Pelt, who heads a Christian think tank called Cardus. At the Cardus founding conference last autumn, Van Pelt said, “Canada’s new debate and that of the world will be one of faith and belief. It will be one of a religious character.”

Thus reinforced, Braun and his faction squared off against the rest of the board at an unbelievably tense board meeting in the first week of January. Two still newer board members joined: Brad Farquhar, who used to work for the Saskatchewan Party and who ran against Ralph Goodale for the federal Conservatives in 2006; and Marco Navarro-Génie, a political scientist from St. Mary’s University College in Calgary. His thesis adviser at the University of Calgary was former Harper strategist Tom Flanagan.

Navarro-Génie was able to take his place on the board after a one-vote majority decided against extending the term of Guido Riveros Franck, a former Bolivian member of Parliament. Riveros Franck was one of the five who wrote to Ottawa protesting against Braun’s management. Two more quit immediately in disgust. Payam Akhavan is a tireless advocate for Iranian democracy who teaches at McGill University. Sima Samar is an Afghan human-rights advocate. In 2003 she left the Karzai government after receiving death threats for her criticism of sharia law.

Bookmark and Share
  • BMACK

    Another example of how the Liberals refuse to accept the fact that they are not in power. So when their appointees are replaced they rally their left wing media friends like Wells to help create outrage through misinformation. Get over it Liberals, you lost.

  • Mike White

    I'm not convinced that this is good journalism. I read elsewhere that the real reasons for the war is that the newer members challenged the non-accountability of Beauregard and the rest of the Board, their support of questionable allocation of monies to a suspect terrorist supporter and lavish expenditures on meals etc. The newer board members wanted to inject accountability into the process and the older Board members objected to the new scrutiny.

    • SteelcitySteve

      Implying that Conservative appointees are motivated by a desire for accountability and transparency is absurd in light of Harper's litany of lies in Parliament and his legendary disdain for journalists who try to get to the bottom of his actions. Harper's last campaign was all about accountability and transparency but his secret meetings with special interest groups like the Israel Lobby, and forcing his own members jnto silence shows that the man has no understanding of, or desire for, accountability. So where would his appointees get the idea? After all; monkey see, monkey do.
      More importantly, democratically elected political groups like Hamas are no more terrorist than the Likud Party, or Conservative Party in Canada. Neocons and Zionists are clearly the real terrorists with global reach, and working together they are responsible for the destruction of two innocent nations, Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • john S

    Perhaps someof those people who commend this article as 'good journalism' could explain to me how this verdict was determined. Is it because Mr Wells said a lot of things you liked to hear? Is it because it was thorough, balanced coverage? If the former, well no comment from me is needed. If it is the latter then perhaps you would also like to tell me why you would feel qualified to judge?
    Mr Wells is determined to spin this story into an anti government, behind the scenes government conspriacy story. In fact, it has more to do with scandalous use of Canadian tax payer money to support three palestinian support groups, one of which has been designated as a terrrorist group by our actual government. You will not find this information in either of Mr Wells stories on R and D. I suggest those of you who feel this was an example of good journalism try doing a little research on their own. I certainly think it would be a good idea in the case of McCleans (to which i do subscribe).
    I am disappointed at Mr Wells attempt to spin this story for his own ends. It shakes my faith in the magazine somewhat.

  • TedTylerEzro

    Well, now I'm confused. I thought Harper was a red Tory, not that he hated them. After all, he is running a deficit (perhaps a structural one) and ignoring social conservatives.

    I agree with your premise that Harper desires to affect incremental change similar to Mackenzie King. I'm just not sure I agree that this is an ideological struggle rather than a personal one.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

    Thank you very much for this and similar efforts Paul. You are doing an amazing journalistic service.

    Not just because it highlights Harper in a negative way, but because there is so much spin and non-transparency and, frankly, so much information, and the bigger picture of what this government is doing, its legacy – whether you like it or not – is difficult to grasp. And this information is nowhere.

    At first, I was concerned about civil servants speaking out against their government's appointments. I may not like this government, but I wouldn't challenge Harper's right to fulfil his mandate.

    But as the details of what he is doing, how he is doing it, and how he is avoiding accountability are in many ways frightening.

    It is very very much a part of what the democracy demonstrations are about this weekend. Much more than prorogation.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

    Pragmatism doesn't have a partisan affiliation. It's just the blunt tool of the policy poor.

  • Orson Bean

    I think a number of posters have observed that perhaps this whole brouhaha has demonstrated that NGOs that aren't really NGOs might not be such a great idea. Let NGOs really be NGOs.

  • Maureen

    These are not civil servants – they are employees of NGO which receives all of its money from the government. There is a board of directors who are accountable for the work of the organization but apparently have been sidestepped by the staff. If I was on a board of an organization where staff worked in the way that these staff did – they would all be unemployed! The board is the ultimate authority for an NGO and the board is accountability, in this case to the government of the day. In this case the board is also appointed by the government, because THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES ALL THE MONEY FOR THE NGO.!!!! Staff need to accept that and if they can't then they should move onto another organization.

    The supposed advantage of having an NGO is because NGOs can work in a more flexible manner than government departments, but that does not translate into NGO staff not keeping board members informed of what they are doing. NGO staff are not accountable for the money received and spent, the board of directors is.

  • CAM

    certainly this story has a lot of blow by blow details of who did what to whom and how. The story does not enlighten as to the the various people and factions. It also lacks information about what those involved thing would resolve whatever the problem is.

  • Ione Dee

    Lets all BUY the magazine It is definately excellent journalism.

From Macleans