Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

UPDATE: Rights and Democracy: So that's what you were doing in Ottawa when I saw you a couple of weeks ago, Peter

by Paul Wells on Friday, February 19, 2010 6:46pm - 200 Comments

The Rights and Democracy board announces it has hired Samson Belair/Deloitte and Touche to rummage through the agency’s books for the past five years. Reporters are invited to direct their inquiries to the new freelance communications company that interim president Jacques Gauthier has hired, to go along with the freelance office manager, the freelance private investigator, and the blue-chip audit firm he’s put on the public payroll in his never-ending efforts to get value for the taxpayer dollar. Now, guess who picks up the phone when you call Prima Communication. Go ahead, guess. Give up? Hint.

UPDATE: Peter Stockland writes in the comments to this post:

No, it wasn’t, Paul. It had nothing to do with why I was in Ottawa. But you wouldn’t know that because even though you know me personally, you didn’t give me the courtesy of contacting me before posting this or sending out a Tweet suggesting some kind of nefarious agenda on my part. If you had bothered to contact me, you would have learned that I am trying to help the board of Rights and Democracy resolve exactly the sorts of issues you raised in your earlier blog about waiting 10 days to get answers. So, now we know what I am doing. But the followup questions arises: what are you doing, Paul? What kind of journalism are you doing these days? What is YOUR agenda that requires using nameless single sources, drive-by personal smears, groundless accusations? Who are you playing to exactly? I’d like to know.

Bookmark and Share
  • Reader

    Who would deny the logic in hand-screening? All those on the right view the left hand. It is written.

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

    Paul I think it's time for you to stop pointing fingers at others and point them at yourself. You are single-handedly responsible for the failures at Rights and Democracy. Why are you against transparency, Paul? Why? What did transparency and accountability ever do to you?

  • Chuck Vs. 2010

    LMFAO, pure jokes reading some of these comments. It is almost as funny as P.Wells "Black Swan" argument..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejkuUJx7BBc&fe…

    Shark meet Paul, Paul meet Shark, now jump….

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

    I wish we had much more agenda journalism, it makes for more interesting reading and serves a useful function.

    What I find interesting is that I believe Wells and others who don't appreciate the three board members and their actions are irked that conservatives are finally trying to make some orgs a bit more to conservatives taste. Liberals/liberals are funny – they want conservatives money but they don't want opinions. It is a lot like how Libs run their party – demand money but tell base to get stuffed when it comes to policy ideas.

    And I agree with your Libertarian friends on this Con admin – "random; pointless; non-conservative" sounds about right to me as well. That Ivison column that you say is riddled with errors – I don't know one way or another but I was shocked by Ivison's source who said Harper and his brain trust are looking for Throne Speech ideas because they don't have any. If that's true, it is a disgrace and Cons/Harper should be embarrassed/ashamed because there are plenty of things wrong with this country from a conservative perspective.

    • Holly Stick

      I get the feeling that what you call "conservative" isn't what everyone else's thinks of as "conservative".

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

      conservatives are finally trying to make some orgs a bit more to conservatives taste

      I agree with you about this. I don't think this story has been PW's finest hour, and his reporting on this issue has puzzled me from the beginning, it has not been even-handed.

      random; pointless; non-conservative

      I think they've ruled out too many policy issues in the effort to attain a majority. I agree that they don't need to look hard for ideas if they simply opened themselves up. Off the top of my head I can think of
      -reform of human rights legislation and commissions
      -reform to bring public service remuneration and benefits back in line with the rest of the economy
      -reform of the health system to bring in private delivery and more private sector options (Canadians are very, very ready for this)
      -senate reform (now is the time)
      -party financing reform (despite the coalition, Canadians are behind the idea of eliminating subsidies)
      -reform of aboriginal government to improve aboriginal communities (this has long been an embarassment in Canada and Liberal ideas are a prescription for more disaster
      -enshrine property rights in Canada
      -reduction of pollution and environmental degradation such as salmon stocks

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

        s_c_f – you should write PM and give him some ideas because you have them while Harper and his brain trust apparently don't. I like your list of things that Cons could focus on except I would add balance budget/reduce spending. I particularly like your suggestion on property rights – that would get the base excited, at the very least.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

          Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of their views.

          Thank you for writing.

          Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reçu votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons être bien informés de l'opinion des correspondants.

          Je vous remercie d'avoir écrit au Premier ministre.

          • Dunbar A. Fortiori

            "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up. …"

            – Lily Tomlin

            http://www.cbc.ca/politics/insidepolitics/2010/02…

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

            I enjoying emailing the PM. I write a few times a year to let him know that I think he's a wanker who's betraying conservatism (I know that in all likelihood Harper does not read his own emails but I feel better).

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

            LOL, that must be cathartic.

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

            I've tried writing my local MP, the Liberal Mauril Belanger. And of course, I got nothing more than the form letter.

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

          Yeah, well, we know they read these blogs. I live in Ottawa so in fact I could just drop over to 24 Sussex and try to hand it over directly.

          • Dunbar A. Fortiori

            "I'd also hope that they continue to try to eliminate the wheat board . . ."

            How many bushels does your backyard or balcony yield?

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

            The CWB is a matter of freedom, and I'll always stand behind the people fighting for the freedom to sell the fruit of their own labours as they choose. It's actually quite astounding that in this day and age we actually have a such a socialist entity in this country. Not only that, it's been shown extensively that the CWB has been costing farmers millions, on a regular basis. The CWB is an abomination in a supposedly free country.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            It's funny that farmers like it so much, eh? It's almost like there's farmers and then there's farmers or something.

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

            That's a predictable but senseless reply. Makes you wonder why we have a charter. Might was well have majority rules all the time. Freedom of speech, religion, whatever. And you're the one going on about not enough French in the opening ceremonies of a city with 2% native French speakers. Try some consistency on for size.

            It's equally senseless because barley farmers do want to get rid of it, by a wide margin, yet somehow the opposition blocked it anyway.

            http://216.123.166.149/legis/sask/pdf/sk0283.pdf

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            Deep sigh . . . So you're arguing against the CWB on Charter grounds. We'll have to file that one away for the next time you rant against minority rights.

            Actually, I believe in majority rule; my opening ceremonies shtick had nothing to do with Vancouver francophones' rights but about the established bilingual character of our beautiful country.

            I would never have picked you as an Ottawan, by the way. Goes to show.

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

            oh the irony.

            you are slamming Jack for supposed inconsistency with respect to 'majority rule' while highlighting a case (CWB) where you are changing your own tune. of course you don't recognize that because you beleive the plebiscite suggests that barley farmers do want to get rid of CWB. which requires you to ignore that farmers voted

            38% – maintain single-desk marketing for barley

            14% – get the Board out of barley marketing

            SCF your interpretation of the compromise option is flawed as is the plebiscite itself

            http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2007/04/24/pl…

      • kcm

        ". I agree with Stockland that Wells has had a political agenda on this one and his reporting has shown it clearly."

        Just because you second Stockland's assertions doesn't make it so. Such a generalized assertion without evidence is merely conjecture and pretty much worthless. Of course either oe of you could try providing actual evidence/proof/arguments for your opinion…we're all waiting…hopefully it wont take ten days.

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

          I've written plenty of comments about this issue, I'm not gonna regurgitate them all, sorry.

          • kcm

            fair enough.

    • Tim

      So who wants Giorno gone other than Ivison who I suppose could be making all of this up but I highly doubt it. Is Harper himself trying to throw Giorno under the bus? Or is someone else in the party planning a palace coup. It has always been rumoured that Harper was actually dejected and willing to let the coalition take over in 2008 until Jim Flaherty cornered him and demanded that he fight to keep the government in power. I always thought it was interesting how many cabinet ministers including Flaherty of course supported Christine Elliot's leadership bid over Hudak who had many more ties to the Giorno people.

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

        "It has always been rumoured that Harper was actually dejected and willing to let the coalition take over in 2008"

        Ivison makes similar claim about prorogue in yesterday's column – "The Prime Minister has never minded criticism, but in this case all the flak he's taken since the start of the year must be galling, since he had to be talked into prorogation against his will, according to a number of senior Conservatives."

        I don't know if I believe this spin or not – are people telling truth or making it seem Harper is more principled than he is? It seems too convenient to say Harper was willing to die with his boots on but everyone else is nervous nellie.

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

          That info could only have come from Harper's closest advisors. Consider the source, my friend, always consider the source.

          It reminds me of the rumours that were planted heard concerning Dion's Liberals and their repeated dodging of confidence votes…supposedly only after Dion was talked into it despite his inherent desire to provoke an election.

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

            "Consider the source ….. "

            Ordinarily I agree but that Ivison column was odd – it gives a good kicking to Giorno. Either Harper advisers are not happy with Giorno or the sources were dissatisfied Cons who don't have the brass ones to go after PM so they attack by proxy.

            Are Harperites not happy with Giorno or is it like the communists of the 1930s who did not believe Stalin was a monster who killed millions and blamed his cronies instead?

          • Tim

            The rumor about Harper being dejected and actually wiling to let coalition take over actually was something put out by Mulroneyite L Ian Macdonald who interestingly enough Paul refers to cryptically several times in his twitters yesterday regarding the Ivison column. I know Jim Flaherty is one of the people L Ian is closest to in the cabinet so I have to assume that is where he gets some of his information. L Ian's column today in the Montreal Gazette while not substantive was no bed of roses for Harper either and definately show L ian as Paul and Kady refer to him as is definately more on the PC side of the party than Reform. Personally while I think the Cons can turn things around I can also see them quite easily being in a 1992/1993 position all over again. Ivison and L Ian are also big boosters of Maxime Bernier who could be a source possibly the MP who was asked for throne speech ideas. Bernier is always big into new ideas although some of them are wacky.

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

            You've heard some interesting rumours.

  • Holly Stick

    OK, suppose there had not been all this public fuss, and the Harper appointees had taken over and purged R&D of all people who disagreed with their world view. What was the plan for R&D? Is there a connection with the CCCPA, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, which is made up of parliamentarians but is not an official government organization, though it holds hearings in government buildings and last I heard has not revealed its sources of funding?
    http://www.cpcca.ca/about.htm

    Then of course, the is the NGO Monitor connection…

  • Kaplan

    I really don't see how publishing these emails, and the deadline/info requests, does anything other than fluff an ego or two. Actually, just one ego. And I say this as someone who thinks Wells has done a great job on this issue, to this point. Seriously, save it for the inevitable teaching gig at Rye High. It does nothing to advance the story.

    • Anon

      Speak for yourself.

    • Jan

      The non-response is part of the story.

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

        "The non-response is part of the story."

        Pretty weak part of the story. Since when is it considered normal for a journo to tell civil servants to jump and expect them to ask how high. Bureaucrats refuse to comment all the time.

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

          First, I think Kaplan meant to post this below the other blog post, but no worries. Second, part of the point of having this blog is that it allows me to show you some of the wiring behind my more formal journalism (if any). There's been a bit of an argument about what those emails I posted "prove." I'm not sure they prove much, and they certainly don't prove my or my correspondents' virtue or otherwise. But in the magazine, we published Gauthier's line about how horrible my questions were and how I mustn't publish an article based on them. I thought there might be some interest in seeing precisely which questions could spark such outrage. And since I persist in believing my questions were fairly phrased and fairly put, I also think you folks should get a chance to see what I think is fair, and draw your own conclusions based on that.

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

            Thanks for response, Wells. I am not trying to give you a hard time – I agree with your explanation. I also think you are one of the few Canadian journos who understands their job and wish there were more reporters like you – just with different ideologies. Holding civil servants feet to fire is very important indeed and I wish there was more of it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            What's the ideology? That lobbyists shouldn't be entrusted with running the organisations they lobby against? That's not a left/right ideological question, it's a good government question; the only argument against Wells's implicit condemnation of total amateurism is the Tim Mak / scf line that subverting and emasculating NGO's is a good thing generally, in default of being able to simply off them. I find that line extremely cynical, almost nihilistic: it boils down to saying that the worse managed government becomes, the better. You're pretty close to desperate Marxian "heighten the contradictions" stuff there.

            A conscientious journalist must first and foremost be against misrepresentation: this (if I may psychoanalyse our host) seems to me Wells's driving motive here.

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

            "A conscientious journalist must first and foremost be against misrepresentation:"

            Yes and no. Unless we are arguing dates or facts, journos are just chasing their tails if they do this too much. Truth is subjective and that's why we need different ideologies within our msm – there should be conservatives, libertarians, social democrats – and the totality of debate would be much, much improved.

            I don't really understand this argument about Cons wanting to prove government does not work because Cons never seem to cut anything. If Cons are all about illustrating government does not work, why don't they do something about it.

            And why is this question only asked of Cons – did the government 'work' when Chretien/Liberals laundered tens of millions of $$$ or the billion or two $$$ we spent on gun registry when it was supposed to cost a couple of million?

            Liberals try to make Cons own every mistake that they, and bureaucracy, make while when Libs are in power when things go wrong it's just fate or no one can expect perfection.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            "Liberals try to make Cons own every mistake"

            I agree it's objectively unfair but you have to admit that's how our system works. If the Government is not held accountable for things that go wrong, whether it's the actual Government's own fault or not, they have no motive to govern effectively. So making the sitting Government own the problem is part of one's duty as a citizen.

            That's a general principle, though; in this case, the Government's appointees have waltzed into an NGO and all but declared war on the NGO's staff and mandate. in this case, by appointing incompetent ideologues (is there any other kind?) like Braund and Gauthier, the Government is willfully creating bad management. I don't see how that's a point of ideological contention. Is there anyone out there, besides the Devil's own advocate Style, who thinks the new Board is doing a good job from a managerial point of view? It's just a complete schmozzle any way you look at it.

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

            I doubt the Government was "wilfully creating bad management", or that the Government intended to create a schmozzle. Things just turned out that way. I don't think Cannon or anyone else realized that appointing respectable Professor Braun et al. would cause such a fracas.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            In that case, all I can say is that Braun & Co. must come across quite differently behind closed doors than they do on national television.

          • kcm

            "I doubt the Government was "wilfully creating bad management", or that the Government intended to create a schmozzle"

            CR may be right here, but not pehaps in the way he intended. What if the gov't regards this kind of bad management as perfectly acceptable…why assume this particular gov't has any interest in "good' gov't at all beyond survival "Just keep driving the bus boys…we don't want those liberal bastards driving on the wrong side of the road again."

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

            Isn't Braun generally rated as a good professor by his students? I'm sure he does come across quite differently, depending on the context. I agree that he certainly comes across poorly on national TV.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            It seems he has his fans and detractors.

            http://ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=8…

            But I theorise that it's the issue here that brings out the worst in people, basically sending them around the bend, an idée fixe.

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

            "the Government is willfully creating bad management."

            Or it's just cultural differences – Cons are more hierarchical while liberals and progressives are more egalitarian. Braun et al expect to be listened to and followed while staff can't be told and do their own thing.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

            I think it's just the resentment professionals feel for interference by amateurs. If you were CEO of a sophisticated company and the shareholders decided, for reasons that remain opaque, to install a Board that wanted to gut your company, you'd certainly feel resentment.

            This is actually a classic case of the government mismanaging an organisation for all the reasons small-government conservatives usually cite: ideology, amateurism, special interest lobbying, short-term political optics, etc. If this were the Bank of Canada (back in the day) we'd all be hitting the roof.

          • kcm

            What we should not lose sight of is that this band of not so very merry men, have not provided one shred of credible proof to justify anything…least of all trampling over the reputation of a man, a consevative, who served this country for 40 years or more.

  • Holly Stick

    That should have been "accusations against Beauregard"

  • Holly Stick

    There's farmers, and there's rightwingers. Not in agreement on CWB.

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

    You're wrong. You didn't bother to follow the link. But then again, you do have a weakness in reading comprehension.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

      Like Ottawa, right.

  • mary

    Paranoid much, Stockland?

  • L Chaput

    From the Winnipeg Free Press, February 20, 2010:
    “Winnipeg lawyer and human rights advocate David Matas has been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.
    Matas has been nominated along with former MP David Kilgour for their investigative work over the past four years into allegations that Falun Gong followers in China are being killed for their organs.
    [...] Matas and Kilgour were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize separately by federal Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj and Balfour Hakak, chairman of the Hebrew Writers Association in Israel.
    Matas is an immigration and refugee lawyer in Winnipeg and senior legal counsel for B'nai Brith Canada, an advocacy and service agency for the Jewish community. He has been involved with several national and international human rights groups. He was named to the Order of Canada in 2008.
    Kilgour was a federal Alberta MP between 1979 and 2006, sitting as a Progressive Conservative, Liberal and as an Independent.

    • wsam

      His work investigating China's gross violations of human rights can only mean one thing: David M atas hates China.

      What else could explain his attempts to obtain justice for those the Chinese state considers as enemies.

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

    Cannon made his move…

    Someone named Gerard Latulipe has been appointed as President of R&D. Interestingly, the release says that the govt of Canada is fully behind the audit launched by Gauthier.

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

      More likely: they know there is nothing to find, but simply launching a FORENSIC audit smears the past admin and board.

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

    Matas and his ilk come are quite enlightened on rights issues until the focus becomes the clusterf**k in the mid-east. Then they become completely and hopelessly biased.

  • RayK

    Thought experiment: a business goes to a PR firm with the following story: "We're getting a slew of negative national media attention surrounding a dispute we're having with our employees. We didn't like the way the old management regimed handle a miniscule portion of their budget (< 0.5%). We pushed to change it; the employees pushed back. Now there's new interim management in place, but the ugly fight continues. What do we do?"

    Now, what do you think a normal PR firm would recommend? Name new permanent management A.S.A.P. and move on, or dig in your heels?

    The new board at R&D could easily hire a new president who would both respect their wishes with regard to specific grants (i.e. stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian situation) and be able to effectively manage the organization without an employee revolt.

    But Braun et al haven't done that. They've hired a P.I. and a deeply political commincations company. They've started suspending employees. They don't care about a couple of grants. They're pushing an extreme political agenda: that anyone who trucks criticism of Israel should be run out of town on a rail.

From Macleans