The Ottawa Citizen
Paul Dewar, MP

Amongst all the controversy at Rights and Democracy, the point that has been thrown around with little challenge is the notion that by the virtue of being in government Conservatives are entitled to appoint whomever they wish to the organization’s board.

The argument not only undermines accountability, it’s a direct attack on the independence of human rights promotion and democratic development from partisan patronage.

For years, Canadians have called for an end to partisan patronage. Yet it is still the case that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have often abused public appointments to reward those who associate with their agenda or assist them in their pursuit of power.

In 2006 Canadians elected a new parliament demanding an end to partisan patronage and favouritism in public appointments.  That’s why the Accountability Act adopted by that parliament established a Public Appointments Commission.  But Stephen Harper has refused to introduce a commissioner for the new office, simply because his first choice was not accepted by parliament.

Rights and Democracy, however, was always a different case.

Even without a public appointments commission, and long before the Accountability of Act, governments of different stripes understood that the independence of Rights and Democracy had to be protected.

At its founding meeting in 1988, the Conservative government’s Minister of External Affairs, Joe Clark, stated that there will be times when the agency will have a different point of view than the government and this was to be expected. Clark embraced that difference of opinion as a cornerstone of healthy democratic debate.

Recall that the first President of the board was the former New Democrat leader Ed Broadbent, widely recognized as a strong advocate of human rights and democratic development.  He asserted the desire of the government that created the institute to have a mix of experts, including political practitioners, to help promote human rights and democracy.

The independence and professionalism of Rights and Democracy survived political changes in Ottawa until the Harper Conservatives poisoned the well with their most recent appointees. These appointees came with an agenda on the Middle East that was a carbon-copy of the Prime Minister’s office. They were no longer committed to an approach based solely on human rights and democratic development.

The recent Harper appointees became agents of PMO meddling in the institute. Their conduct caused a crisis in the organization.  Board members like Sima Samar, the courageous commissioner of Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, resigned in disgust.  The organization’s president Rémy Beauregard, one of Canada’s most accomplished human rights promoters, passed away from a heart attack after a particularly acrimonious board meeting. The organization’s dedicated and highly professional staff expressed their lack of confidence in the new appointees and asked them to stand down. 

Instead of ending the crisis, the Harper appointees fanned the flames. 

First they attacked the integrity of long-time public servants.  Then they suspended the directors of the organization, imposed a gag order on the staff and subjected them to a forensic investigation.  Most recently, they have hired expensive private auditors to find an “accurate picture of certain transactions and contractual arrangements for the past five years” in spite of Auditor General’s annual audit of the institute.

Not only has the board’s conduct been unprofessional, the slew of unspecified contracts they have awarded to security, auditing, legal and communications firms raise serious accountability concerns.  The public funds wasted on managing a crisis manufactured by the Harper appointees could have gone to saving lives in Haiti, strengthening democracy in Afghanistan and fighting sexual violence in the Congo.

Yet, the Conservative government continues to express “complete confidence” in the actions of the board appointees.  The minister of foreign affairs met with the chair of the board, but not the manager and employees of the institute.  His misplaced support for the board’s decision to hire a private auditor questions his confidence in the work of the Auditor General of Canada.  He has refused to recognize the source of the crisis and instead has proposed the nomination of a new president before parliament has had a chance to review the situation.  His actions beg the question: is the minister part of the solution or indeed part of the problem?

Clearly, parliament has to step in and fix the problem left by the government. When the foreign affairs committee is back in session I will seek a full parliamentary inquiry into the actions of the board.

Let’s hope that out of this crisis at Rights and Democracy the original idea behind its creation will be resurrected.  And that the independence of human rights and democracy promotion will in the future be protected against partisan patronage.

Paul Dewar is the Member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, New Democrat Foreign Affairs Critic and a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.