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
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

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
  • kcm

    It's like Mr Beauregard's report to parliament in 08 might not have happened. And if they find nothing after all the rooting around what then, apologies all round?
    Must confess, i have no idea who Stockland is! Or the centre for cultural renewal, for that matter…did i miss something important…i hate it when that happens.

    • Guest

      *nudge nudge*

      The Centre for Cultural Renewal exists to: "explain the importance of religions to culture and the importance of culture to religions. The place and importance of religion is no longer understood or appreciated in our society or in many western societies."

      He now does promo work for Rights and Democracy.

      • kcm

        Thanks. I wondered if it might be something like that. Isn't there already a guy like this on the board now? Vanpelt has a similiar background, no? Well, well this becomes more and more interesting, given there are at least two gentlemen of similar background in or around the pmo as well. I don't object to the lobbying for understanding of the cultural relevance of religion in our society per se. I do however wonder about the dragooning/postioning of Christian advocates in [unelected] postions influence throughout the apparatus of gov't…particularly when it is carried out away from public scrutiny.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/sprite1949 sprite1949

      Explore the site of the Centre for Cultural Renewal. Surprise, Surprise…another way to let Religion creep into our government. Rights and Democracy will soon be renamed Religion and Democracy. No it won't, best to keep such changes quiet. Harper really doesn't want us to know that he is actually leader of the Reform Party of Canada. Doesn't it all just make you sick!

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

        I just had a look at the CCR website too. They're an independent nonprofit organization – they aren't funded by the government.

        • James Connors

          Until now, you mean?

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

            CCR isn't being paid to answer phones for Rights and Democracy. Peter Stockland is.

          • kcm

            Oh i see…he'll be putting on a different hat then? It's all so confusing, isn't it?

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

            Not that confusing. He's the director of a nonprofit organization and he also runs his own communications firm.

          • kcm

            And the fact that his firm is chosen to front for R&D is purely coincidental, right?

          • Sara

            Different hats, different smhats… The money paid by R&D to Stockland will certainly be subsidizing the work of the CCR. Stockland is used to salaries in the minimum 120-150K range. The CCR though is quite small, and in 2008 paid their ED in the 40-70K range (Rev Can Charities info). There is no doubt that Stockland uses his income from his consulting (at obivously very profitable rates) to allow him to take on the much lower paid CCR position. Anyone want to venture a guess as to how much he is being paid for the R&D work? 50K? 70K? Anyone want to submit an access to information request to find out?

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

            Stockland is used to salaries in the minimum 120-150K range.

            Really? I had no idea that Reader's Digest paid so well. However, since you did your homework on his CCR salary range, I'm happy to take your word for it. :)

            here is no doubt that Stockland uses his income from his consulting (at obivously very profitable rates) to allow him to take on the much lower paid CCR position.

            I have no idea how profitable his consulting rates are, but I agree with you that like many executive directors of small nonprofit organizations, he probably relies on other gigs to pay the bills.

            Anyone want to venture a guess as to how much he is being paid for the R&D work? 50K? 70K?

            I have absolutely no idea, but if I had to guess I'd say 50k. If it's possible to find out using an Access to Information request, I hope someone does so.

            Still, it's quite a stretch to say that R&D is subsidizing CCR just because they hired Stockland. If Stockland was still working for Reader's Digest, would it be accurate to say that Reader's Digest is subsidizing a tiny Canadian nonprofit organization just because they hired a guy who happens to direct one?

          • catherine

            This is no Reader's Digest situation. Reader's Digest wouldn't allow their phone number to be posted as a secondary contact for that "tiny Canadian nonprofit" he directs. In this situation, it is up to him how much he separates his various roles. One could try calling that number and talking to him about both CCR and R&D to get some idea of how well he does this.

        • RayK

          I think the more important issue here is that Stockland's involvement in the CCR probably speaks to his own political beliefs. From the language on the CCR website, those beliefs seem to include the desire to inject religion into civil soceity and public policy .

          That, in turn, seems to suggest that the Harper appointees over at Rights & Democracy didn't hire this particular firm based on their public relations skills, but rather because they knew they were getting someone willing to help them push a political agenda.

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

    Meanwhile…. Is Cannon planning on making good on his promise for action on this?

  • Kaplan

    The CCR's website looks like the old UofO website, circa 2002.

  • http://creekside1.blogspot.com Alison

    "This is why I support the Centre for Cultural Renewal. It is the one charity that takes both religion and society seriously and believes that there should be no cultural or political wall to divide the two."
    ~ David Jennings
    Acting Chair
    Centre for Cultural Renewal
    (formerly known as the Centre for Renewal in Public Policy)

    • kcm

      There most definitely should be[ and is] a divide between Religion and the state…why on earth does he use the word society?

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

        I dunno. Ask Maggie Thatcher.

        • kcm

          Oh i know her view all right.

          Curious that someone thumbed down a basic pillar of our democratic architecture?

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

      Yikes. I do know that they appeared before committee opining not to renew the former courts challenges program, at least not without serious changes.

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

    ie: Wants to tear down the separation between church and the state.

    Isn't that the (achieved) goal of the Taliban?

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

    Is the current Board/Management legally – even ethically – accountable for a period which did not cover their mandate and which, importantly, already underwent a thorough and costly audit by the Canadian Government tabled last fall?

    Well, let’s wait and see if this highly targeted (3 week) audit of 2005-2009 (why those years?) reveals just enough to fire 'the opposition' currently suspended. So much for “proper spending of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.”

    I can’t imagine this move was initiated without the go-ahead from Cannon. Why would Foreign Affairs approve? Likely because they want this story to die, and quickly. The firings based on evidence of some kind would be the ideal way to do so.

    Frankly, I don’t care for either party of this debate, but I find it arrogant of Braun and his group to insult our collective intelligence. The Canadian public are not mere puppets to be used in this charade.

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

    I certainly don't have a problem with a forensic audit conducted by a reputable audit firm.

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

    It certainly seems reasonable.. until you start considering the report that already came out..

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

      The beauty of forensic audits conducted by reputable third-party firms is that they're almost impossible to torque. If the forensic audit reaches the same conclusion as the government report then we can be confident that the agency's books are squeaky clean.

      • Dot

        Besides, fishing with a minnow net is always more bountiful.

      • kcm

        Actually that is a bizarre pov. The OIG has already signed off on Beauregard's report to parliament. If parliament is unhappy with the result, shouldn't it be ordering an audit…this has the whiff of a witch hunt to me…and on a dead man's honour too. These men have no honour!

      • Chris

        If only it were so.

        Forensic audits undertaken at the behest of an independent authority – e.g., the police – are typically wide open an look in every nook and cranny. That is not necessarily the case when an organization engages an audit firm to conduct an examination of their own organization. The latter investigation is subject to specific parameters, limits, reporting requirements and a myriad of other engagement-specific terms. The engagement letter – or contract – setting a out these parameters will have been negotiated between RnD and Deloitte. In all likelihood, RnD will have placed specific limits on what Deloitte is to look in to and what they are to look for. Also, Deloitte will be engaged to produce a report to the Board of RnD, not the government, not DFAIT and not the public. Deloitte will be precluded from revealing their findings without RnD's consent.

        So, Deloitte won't "torque" anything, they'll simply execute in accordance with their professional and contractual obligations. However, RnD owns the resultant report, so they can spin and torque all they want.

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

          I assume that the RnD board will make the audit results public if anything significant turns up. They did this in the name of transparency, after all. If they try to spin and torque the report without releasing the report then I'll be one of the loudest voices condemning them. Also, wouldn't the audit report be subject to an Access to Information request?

          As for the audit parameters, presumably the board would cast the widest possible net. It's not like the interim president is trying to cover his own ass in some way, since he wasn't even around for the period being audited. Also, the engagement-specific terms would presumably be included in Deloitte's report.

          • Dot

            presumably the board would cast the widest possible net.

            For what purpose?. The board is different. The CEO is dead. What would be on the terms of engagement that would possibly yield any worthwhile and relevant info on a go forward basis? Looks like a fishing exercise to me.

          • Abpouv

            Indeed. What terms of engagement? Lets go over the facts. Since Mr Beauregard's death, this board has spent tens of thousands of taxpayers' money to try to find something to justify their absurd and vile actions over the last year now that it has all blown up in their face. Without having any real doubts about any specific thing they say, they have:
            - Hired a corporate investigations firm to investigate what? No one knows;
            - Hired a General Manager Consultant who resigned after 3 and a half days;
            - Hired a full time executive assistant (although there is one already);
            - Hired a law firm to advise the Board and the interim President;
            - Given a consultancy contract to another Board member to advise the interim President;
            - Hired a blue chip accounting firm to audit the Treasury Board's work;
            - and suspended 3 directors with pay (paralysing the organization).

            Imagine the cost of all this for the Canadian taxpayers! None of these expenses were in the R&D budget for this year I presume. And all without tenders which are standard R&D rules as with any other gov agency!

            Now, who needs to be accountable and to whom?

          • Dunbar A. Fortiori

            "Indeed . . .

            . . . Now, who needs to be accountable and to whom? "

            Now that's what I call critical reasoning.

            Below, not so much.

            "I certainly don't have a problem with a forensic audit conducted by a reputable audit firm. "

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

            To audit means to be accountable.

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

            Unfortunately, you have to suspend directors when they flout the rules and abuse their positions. They would have been fired in any other organization, but they're lucky that politics has intervened and allowed them to keep their jobs.

            As for hiring those various individuals, what's your point? Organizations hire people sometimes. Sometimes they actually have two executive assistants (wow, what a concept, moving people around the organization).

            Regarding the audit, that's par for the course for government bureaucracies. If you want the taxpayer to be ripped off, then don't have the audit. If you want to protect the taxpayer, you need to audit. In this day and age this should be obvious to you. But then again, you're obviously not impartial, and you clearly have your own political agenda, it shine through your writing.

          • Holly Stick

            What rules did they flout? How did they abuse their positions? It sounds like some of the accusations of Beauregard at least were lies. Do you have any evidence of wrongdoing or are you just another bigot shooting your mouth off?

          • Chris

            Can't offer an A2I opinion.

            Broadly, what you're suggesting could be correct. However, as we all understand, the new Board may be on a witch hunt here. They might want whatever dirt they can find on the current and suspended employees and to to discredit predecessor Directors and management. There isn't an organization on earth whose financials don't have some warts. In virtually every case those warts are innocent and trival. But they are still warts.

            Further, firms like Deloitte do not take an engagement only to come back empty handed. They always find something. Whether that something is meaningful and how then to proceed is a question for those who engage the forensic auditor (e.g., police or, in this case, the RnD board) not a question for the auditors themselves.

            Yes, the full audit report would at least summarize the engagement terms. But the full report will not be released willingly by RnD. At best, I expect we'll see quotes and excerpts serve the Board's (and the government's?) purposes.

            Forensic audits are not warm and fuzzy public truth telling exercises. Forensic audits are tools of business and financial warfare.

            You really, really don't want to be on the wrong side of one of these. Unfortunately for the RnD staff and previous management, clean hands or not, they are definitely on the wrong side of this fight.

          • catherine

            Witch hunt or casting a wide net for the sake of transparency and accountability? Hmmm, which one is it likely to be? Seems like a no-brainer, given the past behaviour of Gauthier and his buddies. Just look at how Gauthier started his "investigation".

            Gauthier arrived at the Rights and Democracy office and began questioning employees about their behaviour. He was accompanied by a man he identified as Claude Sarrazin, “a business associate.” It was only by looking on the Internet later that staff members were able to learn Sarrazin is a private investigator who specializes in computer crime.

          • Revnant Dream

            Ahhh for the old day's. When all you needed to do as a politico, was call a royal commission to dig out a hidey hole panic room. That could have buried the Titanic.
            They knew how to white wash in those day's.

      • burlivespipe

        When you're spending 24-7 torquing into various pretzel-muppet positions, why pay the extra fee to have a professional do it? Whether its because you're oblivious or obsequious, it still results in the same stench.

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

          Burlivespipe, in case you're curious why I almost never respond to you, it's because you're just not worth it.

          Even though I often disagree with folks like TJCook, Ted Betts, and catherine, I'm more than happy to talk to them because they're thoughtful people who are capable of adult conversation. You, sadly, are not. You're rude and obnoxious, and you're not terribly bright. You belong on the bottom tier of the G&M boards, flinging scat at your fellow chimps.

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

            Heh. Given that I *am* rude and obnoxious, I suppose I should take comfort in that your responses are indicating that I'm at least bright. :)

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

            Intelligence is always a redeeming quality! :) I just can't tolerate belligerent morons like burlivespipe.

          • Anon

            Gawd, get over yourself.

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

            You, Mr. Frog, are totally getting a Christmas present from me this year :)

          • burlivespipe

            Oh, the pain of being towel-slapped by a muppet. Mortal wounds never seared so deeply… But I just have to remember that you continue to defend Harper no matter what the situation, have an excuse/rationale to all that befalls those who he knuckles under, and remember: I've seen a muppet, I've known a muppet – you sir, are less a muppet than a benign puppet. So please continue to 'never respond' to my comments. Whether your master is operating from up your b*tt or above your head, there will be a comeuppance, three times filled and running over.

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

            I've seen a muppet, I've known a muppet – you sir, are less a muppet than a benign puppet.

            How dare you insult my ethnic heritage, you insensitive clod!

      • Jan

        Unless the audit is being used as a diversionary tactic. Whether the auditors find something wrong or not it raises the idea that what is possiblly wrong at R & D is fiscal carelessness. It may be too late for this strategy – we already know about the governments support of Israel -only policy and funds being cut to those that might support Palestinian self-determination. Spector has a blog entry today about the Afghan law that restricts the rights of married women. You'll recall that the government claimed not to know about it until it hit the press. But it seems R & D had already discussed it in an article in Embassy magazine. And I read (can't find it now) that Mr. Beauregard had visited Colombia and spoken to aboriginal groups. Again, you'll recall how sensitive Harper has been about that free trade agreement he signed – didn't like any questions about suppression of workers
        rights (i.e. killings) when he was asked about it. So, I'm thinking there's certainly more to this than some financial irregularities and even the support of Israel. Keep poking at it, Paul.

        • Mike T.

          I would not be surprised if they were told "NO matter what the report says, give us a paragraph for the press release that makes us look good and the old guys bad"

      • Mulletaur

        You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, as usual. The same "reputable" accounting firms cover up fraud in their audit reports constantly, and are constantly caught doing so. All you have to do is look at some of the recent major corporate failures to know that. This is nothing more and nothing less than a witch hunt. No doubt the "forensic auditors" (there is no such professional qualification) will find some missing expense claim documentation and claim it's fraud. You really should stick to the little you know, CR.

        Also, why are you so excited by this whole 'Rights and Democracy' fiasco ? What's your personal interest ?

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

          The same "reputable" accounting firms cover up fraud in their audit reports constantly, and are constantly caught doing so.

          Dude, you're obviously confused about what forensic accounting is.

          No doubt the "forensic auditors" (there is no such professional qualification) will find some missing expense claim documentation and claim it's fraud

          First, they're called "forensic accountants" and they really do have a professional designation.

          Second, these are competent third party professionals with reputations to uphold. Nobody's going to be screaming fraud! because of missing expense claims documentation. (Ezra might, but that would be extremely ill-advised). If the audit turns up nothing but trivial stuff then it will mean that R&D's books are clean and the allegations were baseless. Wouldn't you like to know?

          • Mulletaur

            It is not a professional accountancy qualification. You still don't know what you are talking about.

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

            I didn't say it was a qualification. I said it was a designation. Reading is fundamental, Mulletaur. Also, I'm pretty sure all the Deloitte guys working on this are qualified accountants. What was your point again? You were suggesting that forensic accountants at reputable firms are crooks?

          • Mike T.

            Not so, the top fully quallified ones are designated CA-IFAs.

      • RayK

        That's nonsense. It depends entirely on the goal of the audit.

        If the goal is defined as finding out whether funds were misapprioriated, then it's difficult to torque.

        But if the goal of the audit is defined as "let's get a comprehensive list of groups that were given money by R&D, so we can announce that Credible Auditor X found that money was given to All These Folks We Deem To Be Objectionable" then it is very easy to torque the results. My point is that it's entirely possible that everyone knows the books are squeakly clean, but that the goal of ordering the "audit" just to attach credibility to a witchhunt for example of grants–that while totally transparent and proper–the new baord just doesn't like.

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

          I assume they already know what groups they gave money to. The purpose of a forensic audit would be to uncover accounting irregularities and possible misappropriation of funds, as you said correctly in your second sentence.

          Everyone is trying to turn this into a witchhunt, because they've already formed conclusions and are trying to make the facts fit their conclusions, but the only person who did a half-decent job of arguing this point was Chris, above.

          • Dot

            Normally, financial audits are done on a sampling (unbiased), or statistical basis. Depending upon the scope of the "forensic audit" and how narrow it is, it could very well be perceived as a "witch hunt" – if they are pointed and specifically directed at individuals or programs, or politically motivated – ie not at all random. The "forensic" implies looking for wrong doing, or highly suspicious of it. So, there must be some prima facie evidence.

            Based upon earlier "prima facie" evidence used by Braun to discredit NGOs in the past (untested evidence of Mossad agents), I have "prima facie" evidence to be highly suspicious of these "audits".

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

            I completely agree that there must be some prima facie evidence, and neither you, nor I, nor Paul Wells knows what that evidence really is.

            Braun's thoughts about al-Haq's director are irrelevant to the question of whether or not the books are really clean. If serious accounting irregularities exist, they should be exposed to the light of day. If not, so much the better.

            It's not like the Deloitte forensic accountants are going to conduct their business unethically or unprofessionally. They have high standards that must hold up in court.

            The only danger of a "witchhunt" is if the audit uncovers trivial, benign irregularities and these are distorted by the board into something more than they really are. The way to ensure this doesn't happen is to insist that the Deloitte audit report be made public, in the interest of transparency.

          • RayK

            I don't think you understand how these things actualy work in the real world.

            Forensic audits require terms of reference. If the terms of reference are not to find accounting irregularities, but rather to find out whether "objectionanle" groups have been given money over the last five years, then the auditors WILL carry out that task as defined by the people who hired them. But, of course, it would be the board that defines which groups they find to be objectionable, making it a meaningless standard.

            I'm not saying that is what the board is doing, but it certainly COULD be what the board is doing. The point is that whether forensic audits are reliable for answer a given question depends greatly on the question.

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

            I assume that the board and the president already have access to a comprehensive list of every single grant that has ever been awarded, no matter how small. If they don't have a complete list of groups given money over the last five years, then that's a problem, because it suggests that not all grants are transparent and proper, which justifies an audit.

            I completely agree that the terms of reference define the auditors' task and therefore determine what questions will be answered. Gathier promised to make the report public in three weeks, so we probably won't know the terms until then. In the meantime, the CBC provides a clue with the following quote from Gauthier:

            "We've turned to professionals to give us an accurate picture of certain transactions and contractual arrangements for the past five years."

            This suggests that the terms are limited.

  • kcm

    Can we now safely say that the PM is fully aware of what's occurring on his watch at R&D?

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

      I think it's clear he truly doesn't care, except insofar as his strategists think that kicking small-l liberals around is good for the base. For a bonus, it gets a creepy bunch of people off his back.

      • kcm

        'For a bonus, it gets a creepy bunch of people off his back"

        Aren't you being a tad generous. I don't think Harper is personally a religious fanatic. But i don't see any evidence that he's prepared to let some fanatics advance an agenda he doesn't essentially share either. I would say he cares a good deal…besides he's putting the boots to fellow conservatives isn't he?

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

          But what is his agenda besides getting even with the small-l liberals who made fun of him as a teenager? I have yet to see any kind of positive agenda from Harper. The CPC is the Payback Party — that's its raison d'être, its liturgy, its full-immersion faith.

          • kcm

            lol

            I see where you're going. AC wrote what must be the definitive article on Harper, when he posited that we know what he doesn't stand for, what he doesn't believe in, what he isn't Now what does it actually believe in…what would it go to the wall for…anything the liberals wouldn't seems to be answer: that and undoing history one chess move at a time.
            The obvious contrast for me was Trudeau. You didn't have to like his policies to see that nothing he did was predicated on denying the other fellow power, or intended primarily as stick in the eye of conservatives. His agenda may have been wholly liberal, but at least it was positively so.

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

            I like your point about Trudeau. I defer to your knowledge of the man, but I get the feeling he always had this sort of banzai mentality whereby he would just do whatever he wanted and then figure out how to win afterwards: the deed before the word, if you will. Which might explain some of his crazier schemes, but you have to respect his (as you say) positive liberalism. I mean, the guy called out the army, for God's sake, and single-handedly altered the fundamental legal basis of the country, and built the safety net, and etc. If he was going to go down, he was going to go down swinging.

            Harper, by contrast, is on course for the history books as someone who once existed and sort of held office for a while. I don't buy the Wells thesis that merely surviving constitutes a victory, given all the gradual changes you can make, etc.. That's the bunker mentality of the Canadian Alliance under Chretien. What does it matter if you eviscerate an organisation like Rights and Democracy, compared to creating (or destroying) official bilingualism (to take one of a dozen examples)? Wells has argued that the Trudeau myth is overdone, and maybe that's true compared to the pre-Trudeau "Greats" (King, Borden, Laurier, et al.), but compared to everybody since then, even Mulroney, he was a doer and totally unafraid to lose.

          • kcm

            To be fair Harper hasn't had the luxury of a majority. Perhaps he would then reveal a positive consevativism…but somehow i doubt it…did Truudeau's nep bankrupt his grandma or something?
            I'm not so sure PW isn't on to something with his theory…but it'll only really work if Harper has the sort of longevity that King had, which is unlikely. Denying the liberals does seem to be his obssession, not his own agenda. But i agree, what is reconstituting a few ngos or cutting the gst compared to midwifing a charter, or reordering the very culture of gov't by instituting bi-lingualism[ pearson's credit too of course]. I guess the measure of Harper will only come with a majority, an opportunity to ditch his childish anti-liberalism – personally i think he'll merely crank it up.
            I.

          • James Connors

            "But what is his agenda . . ."

            Hidden.

            However, might I also enquire what – after 4 years as Prime Minister – has he accomplished? As Churchill said of Attlee, "He is a modest little man who has a good deal to be modest about."

            Consider his record and legacy to this point in time and what do you find; a somewhat perverse love of photo-ops?

        • Tim

          I am not aware of all of the details but my understanding is the Harper married Laureen in a civil ceremony(I think this is mentioned in Tom Flanagan's book). Not a sign of a particularily religous person. Interestingly enough I think the real divide in the Conservative party over religion is not between Bay Street and Alberta anymore but between Downtown Calgary MP's such as Lee Richardson, Jim Prentice, Diane Ablonczy, and to some degree Harper himself(Calgary Southwest) and rural Alberta MP's along the lines of Myron Thompson and Rob Anders(I know Anders technically represents Calgary West but as everyone knows there is a big fight in the Riding association). This also has played out in the provincial Alberta PC Dinning/Stelmach/Morton leadership fight and I suspect will be an issue between Danielle Smith and her Calgary associates and some of the original social conservative Wildrose supporters.

          • burlivespipe

            Laureen had as much if not a bigger say in that; she did maintain her own name up to his election as PM, afterall. Dig deep enough and you'll find a resilient evangelican core under the heavy jacket and buttoned suit. If you don't think that these small threads that are barely being exposed, despite the dangerous nature of their weavings, it could be that Harper has truly powerful friends or masters in high places. Who bought his leadership? Will we ever know?

          • Jan

            How do you explain Harper's support of Anders and his lack of it for Ablonczy then? And from I've read Laureen doesn't share his religion. Plus, knowing Harper would it be surprising to find out he is feigning an evangelical bent for strictly political purposes?

          • Tim

            I admit to never being able to figure out the story with Ablonczy. I do think it is quite interesting that Jim Prentice is essentially the Alberta lieutenant(the position does not formally exist like it does in Quebec) despite the fact Prentice is really one of only Alberta MP's that comes more from the PC side of the party. Ablonczy is pretty close to Laureen as is John Baird who is definately from the PC/Socially Liberal side of the party. Ablonczy at least was always with Reform/Alliance back in the day. My guess is that Harper feels that Chretien and Martin got to play footsy with their own social conservative wing(something that still is not often discussed although Paul Wells has brought it up on occassion) and he should be able to do the same thing without media scrutiny. I think Harper at heart just hates the Liberals, why does he give Jack Layton the courtesy of a pre budget meeting but not Ignatieff.

          • Jan

            I think the Liberals have a couple of Socons. It's the Conservatives that have a whole wing. And Prime Ministers don't get to do anything without media scrutiny – nor should they.

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

            I read that Loreen is not particularly religious.

  • kcm

    oops…no idea why Harper suddenly lost his pronoun.

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

    The R&D fiasco and blatant middle east "attack on Canada" bias tell me that either Harper has lost control of the party or, he just doesn't give a damn anymore.

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

    Gauthier claims that the purpose of the audit is "to guarantee full transparency in the proper spending of Canadian taxpayers dollars". The hypocrisy of his statement is breathtaking. He and his colleague, Braun, have done everything possible to obfuscate and obscure the truth. But, it is the federal government, not R&D, that has the ultimate responsibility to ensure proper spending of taxpayers dollars. Follow the money, and it takes you right back to Lawrence Cannon who appointed Gauthier, Braun et al to the R&D board and whose department, DFAIT, provides most of its funding. Why is Lawrence Cannon ducking his responsibility???

  • Mulletaur

    So now the Harper Conservatives and their stooges are going to sick the auditors on Rights and Democracy and its staff. Why are the Harper Conservatives such cowards ? Why don't they simply find the courage to close it down ?

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

      It's Triggery, a new concept I am introducing here & now. You don't correct a weakness because the attacks upon it by your opponents do you more good your base than the weakness does you harm with their base. Named for Trig, Sarah Palin's (?) baby, whose non-suppositious birth could easily have been proved; but the ambiguity helped her generate a conspiracy theory that the media was out to get her. We can't underestimate how powerful a victim status is in our democratic age. In this case, the Triggery is that the Evil small-l liberals are out to hurt Israel, smear Braun, etc.: it's to the CPC's advantage to do so.

      You have to remember that the CPC doesn't actually believe in anything except hurting the LPC. (The LPC's motives are more complex and often Freudian, I believe.) They don't care about saving "taxpayer dollars." They don't care about Israel, or even about Greater Israel Zionism. All they care about is kicking people who sip lattes while reading the New York Times and doling out money to human rights organisations. There is no philosophy here, there is no rationale, it's all politics and ice cream.

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

        You know, I think you nailed these guys.

        I lived through the Harris years in Ontario, and I became convinced of very similar-type motives: they were simple, back-woods rubes taking out their hate of everything modern by vandalizing it all while lining their friends pockets.

        One could simply not make out any ideological consistency to their 8 year romp.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/sprite1949 sprite1949

    Old (but worth refreshing one's memory) news article about Harper's religious beliefs:
    WHY STEPHEN HARPER KEEPS HIS EVANGELICALISM VERY PRIVATE

    http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/blogs/…

    This sheds light on where Rights and Democracy is headed.

    To further shed light on his policy direction from today's Globe and Mail:
    Ottawa scraps $88-million AIDS-vaccine project

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…

    So much of this goes unnoticed by the average Canadian.
    In truth it is our rights and democracy that are under attack by our very own government.

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

      Sprite, you have just enlightened this average Canadian.

      I always thought Harper was just a garden variety Catholic. The Vancouver Sun article explains all.

      The agenda is not so hidden anymore.

      Thanks
      B

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/AJR79 AJR79

    Great show on the Agenda the other day Paul.

    You came off a little wild-eyed at times thou.

    When Steve had to interject when you misrepresented Mr.Cannons current position, you came off looking the lesser.

    Tht's why Mr.Paikin is the best moderator in the buisness.

    For anyone who missed the debate, it will likely be posted here sometime next week:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/AgendaStevePaikin

    • OnTheJob

      "That's why Mr.Paikin is the best moderator in the buisness. "

      Oh, right, he really sealed that title when he asked Harper, sincerely, during a nationally televised leader's debate: "Are conservatives barbarians?"

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/G0D God

    The key to all of this is NGO Watch. Figure out what connection this guy has to this whole mess, and you will find out what the Conservatives are really trying to do.

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

      Well said, Lord.

    • http://creekside1.blogspot.com Alison

      The key to all of this is NGO Monitor.
      Agreed.
      A good place to start might be that Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism held in Israel in December from which Kenney announced and then retracted that anti-Semitism was the reason for cutting funding to Kairos. Also speaking and chairing panels at that same conference were NGO Monitor President Gerald Steinberg and Rights and Democracy board member David Matas.

      • kcm

        “The existential threat faced by Israel on a daily basis is ultimately a threat to the broader Western civilization.”

        Is that the meeting where Kenney also said this? That's a pretty bold assertion don't you think? One which a considerable number of Canadians, not to mention experts on geo-politics would disagree.

  • kcm

    I too think Paul is wrong about Trudeau, when you consider his real impact. Ron Graham has argued that not even the liberal party bag men new what they were getting when they brought him in. He didn't follow liberal party orthodoxy at all…and i'm sure he had real enemies in the party hierarchy..look at the party both before and after him, it's like he was a blip in conservative liberal orthodoxy…this aspect of is explosion onto the national scene has not been adequately covered, the fact the he turned out to be an uncontrollable force, even within the conservative liberal establishment. Graham for me is the most interesting first hand source on Trudeau, the man and the myth

  • kcm

    Gah…you can't even get to god without Jack gett'n there first.

    Is ngomonitor well regared in Israel? Salutin said something intersting yesterday…apparently even the AG of Israel has praised us for the small grant to the HR's org. that has got Braun and company so worked up.
    I'll liink Rick's piece here. When he's on he's such a pleasure to read…like a throwback to the eighties…not a bulldog like Wells…but he makes you think about the wider issues at play in the world.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/harp…

  • Holly Stick

    I remember Stockland as a columnist for the Calgary Herald; my general impression from his columns was that he was a rightwing homophobic jerk. He wrote a dreadful obsequious column sucking up to Conrad Black and Barbara Amiel.

  • Peter Stockland

    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.

    • kcm

      Well, this is fun. One pro journalist accusing another of using personal smears, groundless accusations and so forth, by himself using drive by smears…methinks you just blew your credibility Mr Stockland, and after such a reasonable start too.

    • Jan

      So you were waiting for Paul to contact you? R and D's public relations strategy continues downhill.

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

      You are looking in the wrong place for "drive-by personal smears and groundless accusations". Your bosses have that sown up quite well thank you very much.

      • Reader

        Sewn up.

        The Tailor

        You're welcome. And you are correct.

    • Holly Stick

      In what way do you consider Wells to have smeared you? What groundless accusations did he make?

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

      And this is the guy that was hired to handle communications for R&D?

      • Mike T.

        Dude, every Canadian paid $0.0000002 for that post.

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

      so I take it we all think this is real given the preceding comments? hmmm, one hand it is hard to believe that anyone attempting to earn a living as a professional comms type would take a tact this crass; on the other given the his principals this seems par for the course.

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

      Is responding to blog posts part of your job and thus the communication company will bil the agency for the time you spend engaging in snark? Good to see money for promoting human rights and democracy going to pay your salary for you being cheeky and disagreeable.

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

        That reminds me – if I have it correct – of the former Ontario Health consultant who was billing for hours spent cruising the interweb thingy…that was funny.

    • RayK

      WTF!? Not to make Wells part of the story–I know how journalists hate that–but isn't it kind of a big deal that the Braun/Gauthier PR hatchet man is using his taxpayer-financed salary to attack journalists covering this story? Is that really proper? Or professional?

      And, more substantively, I have a few questions for Mr. Stockland: 1) How has Wells smeared you? I don't see anything but a link to your own website. 2) How do you know Wells has only a single source? 3) What evidence do you have that Wells has an agenda here (as your questions clearly insinuate)?

      • Dot

        pw is being a bit disingenuous here by not replicating what he wrote on twitter that prompted stockland's response on macleans blog comments, where he stated: "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."

        So, what did pw write on twitter? Here's the multiple entries stitched together:

        @kady @davidakin @wicary Someone calling Giorno a disaster? L. Ian, pick up the white courtesy phone

        I'm a fan of John Ivison, but I think this Giorno column gets things a fair bit wrong http://bit.ly/cCPN9l (cont'd…)

        …I think while the Parliamentary cat was away, an agenda Giorno would adore has made rapid progress on multiple fronts (cont'd…)

        Stockland as the voice of Rights and Democracy? Foreign-aid anti-abortionism? Cancelling AIDS vaccination? What's not to like?

        My libertarian friends keep judging this government on fiscal discipline and finding it…random; pointless; non-conservative (cont'd…)

        But its brand offer is social conservatism, which has wide-ish and very, very deep support, both in the country and at the PMO (cont'd…)

        And by the measure of advancing that agenda, this has been the most activist two months in *half a century.* OK I'm done.

        http://twitter.com/InklessPW

        • MedEditor

          Not sure what the point is, Dot. Although leading with Stockland, the bolded entry refers to three separate so-con steps taken by the CPC in the last 10 days or so. No one is suggesting that Stockland is responsible for the two points that follow, if that is what he (and you) are thinking.

          I'm personally most concerned about these "little" tacks in government policy that are adding up to a religion-driven approach.

          • Dot

            My point was to put Stockland's response here on Macleans in context. I myself, having looked at what pw wrote in this blog, and Stockland's over the top response to it, thought Stockland's response was a hoax. And I inferred as much elsewhere in response to another of his comments ("Hoax patrol"). But I looked deeper when I saw pw updating his blog by quoting Stockland's comment. So, obviously pw thought it was legit.

            Now, having read pw's twitter comments, I can see why Stockland may have taken offence (rightly or wrongly). Hey, I've worked as a consultant in other fields and I am keenly aware of the importance of reputation. Looks like Stockland feels he was unfairly treated. I can now see why (which is not to say I agree with either pw or ps).

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

            Why do our troops hate Peter Stockland?

          • Dot

            It's because Peter MacKay always ends his letters with:

            p.s. I love you.

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

            [youtube 3w6FmuzSzEQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w6FmuzSzEQ youtube]

          • Holly Stick

            "…Stockland as the voice of Rights and Democracy? Foreign-aid anti-abortionism? Cancelling AIDS vaccination? What's not to like?…"

            That sounds like yer rightwing religious agenda to me, therefore entirely believable.

          • catherine

            You mean by implying on Twitter that appointing Stockland as the communications person for R&D is comparable to other things like cancelling AIDS funding? Well, after seeing how Stockland communicates on this thread, I'd have to say appointing him to do PR is arguably on par with a list of other wacko things this administration and their appointees have done.

            Also, R&D already has staff for communications. Why are they appointing someone else anyway? Presumably because Stockland's style and mindset are closer to theirs, as his posts have shown. Attack seems to be the mode they are looking for.

          • Dot

            If you were to read between the lines, what do you suppose pw was implying by the title of this blog: "So that’s what you were doing in Ottawa when I saw you a couple of weeks ago, Peter"

            I'm guessing he suspects that P.S. was involved in managing communications on behalf of R&D for the past two weeks – meaning he has been managing the non responses from Braun and Gauthier (Feb 9th), and the missive from David Matas (Feb 6th) etc. all within the past "couple of weeks". Some of them could be preceived as having a certain "shoot the messenger" feel to them, especially if you were the messenger – but just idle speculation on my part.

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

            Well, you can't expect messengers to shoot themselves.

        • guest

          and wells has still not given Stockland a proper answer, or an apology. He should.

          • SeaFaierer

            Is that you Mr Stockland?

    • illbethejudge

      Dear Peter Stockland,
      Take a pill. Of course, I can understand why you might be feeling a bit under pressure. This Rights and Democracy business stinks to the high heavens and somehow you've landed the contract to spin it. But, you need to pace yourself. Most Canadians don't really know much about this story, so you'd best save some energy for when they do.
      I see you won't have to spend any of that energy learning the Harper tactic of attacking anyone who questions or dissents. You have learned well and are therefore a perfect candidate for the job at hand. I'm sure the base will believe every word you say. I'm sure the rest of us will see it for exactly what it is, the ideological destruction of yet another Canadian institution.

      • illbethejudge

        Oh and by ideological I mean both neo-con and religious. How many points are you guys winning for the End of Days? Canadians are so accustomed to non-religious government that they don't understand what this is all about. Destroying KAIROS and Rights and Democracy, swinging Middle East policy firmly toward Israel (instead of neutral, where it should be, condemning inhumane acts on BOTH sides) it's all about the Rapture. That's right folks, for your Evangelical Christian Prime Minister to get swept up to heaven on Judgement Day, there's got to a State of Israel…..that's a requirement. Can't let the pesky Rights and Democracy do anything for humanitarian aid effort for Palestinians can we? No, let's destroy the whole institution. And get our "Saved" butts into the Kingdom of God. That is how your foreign policy is being decided people. WAKE UP. By the way, I think this Rights and Democracy story has given license for Ottawa journalists to start asking Stephen Harper about his personal faith and how it is affecting policy making.

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

        "I see you won't have to spend any of that energy learning the Harper tactic of attacking anyone who questions or dissents."

        Apparently Harper learned these tactics from the knee of the King of smear:

        APEC: "My favourite was Hughes' many criticisms of the bullying conduct of Jean Carle, then one of the Prime Minister's top aides." Rabble.ca, August, 2001.

        BDC:"During question period, Clark holds up a letter written by François Beaudoin in 1999. In the letter, Beaudoin complains of political interference in the hotel loan. He says he was fired as the president of the Business Development Bank of Canada after suggesting the bank call in the loan (Beaudoin's wrongful dismissal suit begins in Montreal in September 2003)." CBC, Jan 2006

        Kinsella: "Liberal Party representative Warren Kinsella appeared on Canada AM, a popular national television program, with a Barney the Dinosaur doll and mocked Stockwell Day’s creationist beliefs, saying, “I just want to remind Mr. Day that The Flintstones was not a documentary.” BigCityLib, Sept 2009.

        A few seconds of googling illustrates that Harper et al are pikers when it comes to smearing opponents.

    • Peter Stockland

      I would appreciate it if you would stop using my name. I may not agree with Paul's take on this, but he is doing reasonable journalism that doesn't contain drive-by personal smears or even accusations. It will take me a couple of days yet to sort through everything that's been going on, but rest assured that when I do, I will be making a statement to not only address Paul's questions, but also the baseless accusations of a number of the R&D staff.

      • illbethejudge

        If you haven't sorted through everything yet, how can you deem the accusations of R and D staff to be "baseless".
        Your job is not to get the truth, it's to spin it. So, really what you've got to do is digest the details and try to figure out how to make them look benign.
        Case in point, it's not a "number" of R and D staff, it's virtually ALL R and D staff.

        Interesting backdown on PW's journalism by the way. You accuse him of personal drive by smears and then say his journalism doesn't contain personal drive by smears. Colour me confused.

  • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com Berlynn

    Aaaw, poor Peter. That bad journalist guy smelled and rat and said so and now peter's cover's been blown. Wahwaahwaaaah!

    It's the interwebs, dude. Get into the 21st century, will ya?

    • Peter Stockland

      So you're under the impression that the change of century somehow changed the fundamental rules of journalism? If someone wrote something about you in, say, the Globe and Mail, they could just make up stuff, invent things about you, ascribe motives to you without ever checking with you first, and all because it's "the interwebs, dude" and because it's the "21st Century"? Do you really believe that? I don't think you do, and here's why: because you don't even have the courage to use your real name. You're hiding behind a pseudonym, and you're talking about smelling rats and covers being blown. In the immortal words of Tallahassee in Zombieland: "Nut up or shut up."

      • Dot

        Hoax patrol.

        • http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com Berlynn

          Thanks, Dot. I was angry for a moment. And not at the suggestion that I'm hiding behind a pseudonym.

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

          It's the real deal.

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

            And this guy is in communications? I don't get it. Who's the interior decorator, Sid Vicious?

          • catherine

            lol. it is difficult to believe, isn't it? These new R&D guys really know how to pick them — all on public funds, of course.

          • tobyornottoby

            You'd think he'd be more discrete on someone else's dime, eh?

        • Reader

          Zigmund

      • kcm

        "So you're under the impression that the change of century somehow changed the fundamental rules of journalism? If someone wrote something about you in, say, the Globe and Mail, they could just make up stuff, invent things about you, ascribe motives to you without ever checking with you first,…"

        You mean like how the new board trashed Mr Beauregard in the NP, but has since gagged the staff or any other board member who might disagree…is that what you meant Mr Stockland?

  • Anon001

    I'm sure Inkless knows this but this "Peter Stockland" guy is the ExecDir of an organization called the Centre of Cultural Renewal (http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/qry/page.taf?id=180… which apparently seeks to blend religion and culture, whatever that means.

    Strange thing about this organization — they don't seem to be government funded, although they have a govt-agency-sounding name. They seem to have a Board of Directors and just two staff members, yet an office in a high-priced area.

    Wonder who funds them? Another offshoot of the Manning Centre or something else?

    It says there that Stockland also runs Prima from Montreal. Intriguing set of inter-relationships.

    • Tim

      It looks like they sure don't like Jean Charest and Quebec governments views on homophobia. I am looking at background of the other people involved in the organization. One is Roland Priddle who ran the National Energy Board starting under Brian Mulroney in 1986 running through the Jean Chretien era in 1997.

      • Tim

        Does Benno Friesen from the Mulroney era ring any bells. He was a PC MP from BC until the 1993 annilation and now works with this Center for Cultural Renewal place.

        • Tim

          They have an endorsement on their website from R. Paul Wilson, Ph.D. Director of Research, Office of the Leader of the Opposition. Did this guy work for either Iggy or Dion or this someone from way back pre 2006 when Harper was in opposition

          • Matt

            Meet Paul Wilson, Harper's Director or Policy. http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/paul-wilson/

            It all comes full circle.

          • Anon001

            Is it the same guy — R. Paul Wilson vs Paul Wilson? It's such a common name.

            Here is Paul Wilson's Government of Canada listing => http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/cgi-bin/direct…

            By the way, it seems like Peter Stockland may have been part of the layoffs announced by Readers Digest in 2009. I guess Rights and Democracy would be a cool way to channel taxpayer funds to all these Tory-friendly people and organizations, wouldn't it?

  • Holly Stick

    Wow, you should be an advisor to the PM or something (there may be an opening there soon, it seems).

    • Iccyh

      I can see it now:

      "Prorogument? Are you serious? You're really the Prime Minister and you're not just trolling me? …Oh."

      • kcm

        Stockland hasn't shown any class at all. Contrast his hissy fit with Tim M[?] the guy Wells called out for a mistake over UN funding. He came on the blog, was friendly fun and informative, and tried to make his case. That's the guy they should have chosen to speak for R&D. The boards communication strategy has been a disaster from the get go. Braun, Gauthier and company have the excuse of not being pro PR people…what's Stockland's excuse? I suppose he could be genuinely pissed, but he hasn't helped the case of the new oard here at all. Funny how all these guys seem to have such a big chip on the shoulder.

  • Holly Stick

    More evidence that the Government of Harper is imposing their extremist fundamentalist agenda upon Canada's government: they cut funding to Kairos, an ecumenical group supported by Canada's mainstream churches, and they give funding to groups like this:

    "…But these people are evangelical fundamentalists," Martin said of Youth For Christ. "Offering much-needed sports opportunities is just their way of luring in young prospects."
    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Safety+minist…

    http://yfccanada.com/ourstrategyc4.php

    • http://www.pogge.ca skdadl

      The "Public Safety" minister — there's another of our absurdities. Like, Canada really needed a Robespierre department.

  • http://eugeneforseyliberal.blogspot.com EugeneForseyLiberal

    What an odd fellow. Poor chap.

From Macleans