Let's pretend, hypothetically, that M. Gauthier is an earnest, dedicated public servant who's trying to do his job to the best of his ability. And let's pretend that M. Gauthier got an e-mail from Paul Wells saying that could he please have the answers to six questions of varying reach but none of which, I feel confident in saying, deserve a two-sentence reply off the top of one's head. Let's also pretend that Paul Wells has been writing about the Rights and Democracy file for some time, and his opinion to date has not been in M. Gauthier's favour.

Those questions seem rather slanted and accusatory. Is it because Paul's already formed an opinion about Gauthier, or is it because that's just how Paul interviews; to try and get the best answers possible out of those he questions. I don't know, I've never been interviewed by the senior columnist for Maclean's magazine (shocking I know). Then again, I don't know whether M. Gauthier would have known that either. If he already thought of Paul as somebody inclined against him, the tone of the questions could hardly have improved Gauthier's disposition.

Were I in that position, and were I an essentially honest man with a full plate in front of me and not much time to formulate adequately detailed answers for somebody I think might be out to get me anyway, I can see replying as M. Gauthier did. To assume that he is simply hiding something or being obtuse is, I think, assuming bad faith that this e-mail exchange does not prove.

It's not clear why those questions couldn't have been sent earlier. Had you just received the Beauregard letter that day? Also, to put the last sentences of your post in context, when did you tell Mr. Braun and M. Gauthier that you intended to publish this exchange on your blog today?

Ahhh…the latest in this melodrama…http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/02/1…

Tell me how is this a good use of taxpayer's money when they already undergo yearly audits by the Inspector General and one is about to begin in a few months????

I am reminded of interviews by reporters who posed very challenging questions to powerful people, some of whom were dictators. Those being interviewed often answered such questions because they believed they stood on solid ground. When an evasive answer was given, it was sometimes challenged. I see no reason why Braun and Gauthier should be given special treatment in this regard.

After all, if they don’t like answering difficult questions, they shouldn’t accept positions on Boards of public institutions.

But to be fair, perhaps Braun and Gauthier did not have sufficient time to formulate their answers. This is plausible.

I am glad they are being given another opportunity to answer the questions many of us have been wondering about. We are listening.

What I find interesting is that not only have these 2 concluded that Paul and the media are worthless for getting out their ‘truth’ because of past articles, but that reading carefully one may see David Matas’ letter
http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/06/rights-and-democracy-there-is-no-foundation-for-a-debate-over-process/
concluding much the same in his way. But his technique is worth looking at

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Al Haq, Al Mezan and B’Tselem have gained a reputation for their method of operation – develop a theory first, in their case “Israel is to blame” and then twist or invent the facts to fit the theory.”
It starts with 7 words implying there are guilts by association, even though his argument in much of his letter was to waylay the same dragon of logic. Then he uses the “gained a reputation for ” technique historically used against (women) those who cannot defend themselves by denying the statement, while at the same time making a tautology merely by stating it (If the reputation did not exist before it does so now! ). As to the “develop a theory first…and then twist or invent the facts to fit the theory.” in the absence of evidence, his argument is echoing the very stated technique. And to suggest that you can begin an investigation without developing a possible theory first is for the simpletons. E.G. If a dead pedestrian is on the center of a crosswalk the police arrive and start from the theory of a cause of death and work backwards. Obviously that is a pre-selection bias because you are looking for a likely cause of the observed abnormal elements in the picture. A totally random not-pre-selected observation might just as likely answer the question of how to scuba dive (i.e. a random observation and a random question with almost nil chance of success). Matas then goes on to claim that there is a pre-selection bias and corruption of facts in the media and various commentators on their sometimes ideological grounds. But he does not discuss the obvious that those people are working a limited set of facts, forming conjectures to find the questions needed to collect more facts, a basic method of any inquiry.
So that brings us back to Jacques Gauthier’s “The assumptions behind your questions are in large part demonstrably wrong, misleading, incomplete and\or distorted” which seems to be his reason to not now provide any facts even though he admits to knowing that the questions are formed in part on an incomplete set of facts. So lets test his statement;
Question 6. a) For the question to be wrong then Claude Sarrazin was never present, (6b) Is a yes or no question (regardless of whether he is or is not a Private Eye). The only qualifier would be how many staff were or were-not informed. There is no assumption needed! (unless we get into existentialism).
Question 5 a) The assumptions are Charles Auger exists, and he runs the office (at least one time). if he does not exist or never acted to run the office in some way…then just refute the point.
Question 2) The assumption is that the memo exists, some evidence exists of the meeting and that the Gauthier has had access to the latter. It the first part is false the rest is moot. If true, and the second parts true it supports Gauthier unless later shown lacking. And even if lacking it does not disprove the allegation, it merely proves the memo should not have been sent. If there is something really damaging it will take a question not yet formed because of the incompleteness of facts. (insert your preferred conspiracy here)
etc…
So I am going to come to my own assumption, it is the temerity or tone that Gauthier takes exception to because of his own assumption as to why questions are being asked. But then from his reply he is either GOD, or he too is working an incomplete set of facts.

Throughout this sordid affair in which Harper's dogs have been given free reign to destroy the reputatilon of a worthwhile and valuable organisation, the staff have been vilified and hounded. Matas's final comments on the Agenda were to accuse the staff of trying to run their own show against the wishes of the Board. This is hogwash meant to take the heat off the dogs for their Orwellian tactics, their abuses and their malicious agenda.

Rereading these emails, I have to say my favourite part is the way Gauthier signs his emails "Jacques Gauthier, Ph.D.," like he's writing a self-help book.

Gauthier is the evangelical, right? What's the deal, a Franco-Ontarian evangelical? That can't be very large demographic.

I saw the show.

I must say, Paul, you didn't do yourself any favours. From your juvenile comments to spoiled behaviour one would surmise that you have gone from responsible journalist, to biased partisan.

Calling Lawrence Cannon a "Buffon" helped your case how? If that's the level of maturity from the "Senior Colummist" at Macleans…..you can't really be surprised that no one involved is responding to your questions.

I think Mr. Braun said it best,
"you do not seek my cooperation in shedding light on the truth, but rather my assistance in helping you write yet another grossly misleading piece against myself and the leadership of Rights & Democracy."

That about sums it up.