Inkless Wells

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

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Rights and Democracy: the Board replies. "It's not about the Middle East"

by Paul Wells on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:15pm - 177 Comments

The seven members of the Rights and Democracy board who support Chairman Aurel Braun are back in the pages of the National Post today, with a concerted effort to explain their side of the current dispute. This is the first time they have submitted such a piece of writing since Jan. 20, and anything from this majority faction of the board deserves the attention of readers who have been following this story closely. In part, the Braun faction’s op-ed stands as a sort of answer to the questions I put to Braun and Jacques Gauthier earlier this month. Since Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon’s actions yesterday amount to a wholehearted endorsement by the Government of Canada of everything Braun and the board have done in recent months, that’s all the more reason to consider carefully the board majority’s arguments.

So once again, here is a link to the full op-ed, which I encourage you to read. Here are a few key paragraphs:

First some facts, which seem to have eluded critics of the Rights & Democracy board. Every Canadian member of the board was appointed by the current government, including those who are vociferously supporting the late former president, Rémy M. Beauregard, and who are openly hostile to the rest of the board. The government appointed Mr. Beauregard as well. Most members of the board have no prior political affiliation; a recently appointed board member is a well-known Liberal. Clearly, the board wasn’t “stacked.” The only discernible pattern is that board members were appointed to bring governance to Rights & Democracy. There is no imposition of a right-wing agenda, no interference in autonomy.

Accountability and transparency are the true issues. A December 2007 report by the Department of Foreign Affairs’ Office of the Inspector‑General discovered “persistent … accountability … problems” with Rights & Democracy, which regrettably remain. Whether it was the finance and audit committee requesting timely and adequate information; members seeking proper clarification of the operations of the Geneva office; explanations about a $100,000 expenditure which raised questions; or information about how $300,000 a year in discretionary funds was spent, we on the board have been stymied.

…The former president’s death was a gateway to surreality. Conflict entrepreneurs in the Canadian and Middle East political trenches could not resist interfering. Instead of determining how to resolve a real battle between those supportive of accountability and those who opposed it, Canadians have ended up debating the imaginary impact of the government’s Middle East agenda on Rights & Democracy.

Those of us responsible for the governance of the organization do not have the luxury of fighting national or Middle Eastern fantasy battles. Ensuring accountability and transparency is far less exciting than debating Canadian and Middle East politics. Yet, that is our task….

I’ll respond to these arguments tomorrow.

Tags: Aurel Braun, David Matas, Jacques Gauthier, Rémy Beauregard, Rights and Democracy

More by Paul Wells

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

Here's the five-year evaluation from 2008, from DFAIT, the same authority Braun et al. cite when they mention the 2007 evaluation. I tried so hard to stay out of things today. Oh well.

http://www.international.gc.ca/about-a_propos/oig…
Joops

"Conflict entrepreneurs in the Canadian and Middle East political trenches could not resist interfering…

"Conflict entrepreneurs" = those bad people who care about human rights.
Dot

Ummm, one was a captive audience, the other is a willing participant.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I'm glad you had this follow-up. I actually started to comment on this very odd list of complaints.

You see how odd it is, don't you? That their list of complaints relate to all the failings to respond to the board after they were appointed as proof that they were appointed for accountability reasons?

This when, as noted in the 2008 DFAIT evaluation Paul has obligingly provided (thanks and sorry Paul):

"R&D's programming has evolved and its quality has improved over the 2003-2008 period while remaining aligned with the primary mission of R&D as stated in the original Act."

"R&D's programming is managed according to accountability principles and best management practices for the sector. R&D is becoming increasingly focused on the principles of results-based management. The application of these principles varies by theme and activity. Unfortunatly, R&D's thematic areas are still managed in silos, which limits the projects' scope and influence. "

[cont...]
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

[cont]
"Despite increased budgets over the past five years, the percentage of administrative costs in relation to the program budget has varied little and remains within the standards for this type of organziations. The current financial system allows for sound financial monitoring of program budgets and broader thematic areas, but not of the specific activities and projects within them. "

"Lastly, R&D has made a considerable effort to implement the recommendations of the previous Five-Year Review; however, implementation of some recommendations started only in early 2008, and this Review could not analyze the effectivness of the process. "

In other words, good work in responding to our recommendations from last time, but don't stop now. And this is the grounds for some need to turn over the whole board for "accountability and transparency" reasons? One that then goes into ultra non-transparent mode itself?

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

Check out my response to canaidreform below.

The five year review only examined a tiny "case study" sample of six programs; this is largely what their conclusions were based on. The review's conclusions have nothing whatsoever to do with the board's complaints. The five year review didn't even look at the discretionary funds or contractual arrangements that are the cause of most of the board's complaints.

With regards to the board's claimed inability to receive financial and audit information in a timely manner, the 5-year review noted:

The review process faced additional challenges due to the fact that not all project-related documents were readily available. In some cases, documents that should normally be completed and compiled in the course of each project apparently did not exist.

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

Maybe I'm not making myself clear or we're just bent on not listening.

The letter and those specific complaints seem to be saying the reason they were appointed was because they weren't getting answers to their questions. That makes no sense. They only got to ask those questions after they were appointed.

The thrust of the DFAIT report is that there has been much progress, but much needs to be done. Very good progress on our last set of recommendations, so here are a few more. Nothing earth shatteringly bad noted, but more progress needed.

And then wham! a whole new team needs to be installed, all with a very very similar resume and ideological focus, because there is a need for more accountability? And how odd it is that they point not to the 2008 report but the 2007 report as the reason for their appointment.

Surely you can see how very thin that is. Like I said at the beginning of this, it is the kind of argument and behaviour that convinces those sitting on the fence that something else is up with them.

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

The letter and those specific complaints seem to be saying the reason they were appointed was because they weren't getting answers to their questions. That makes no sense. They only got to ask those questions after they were appointed.

With the utmost respect, Ted, this reads like sophistry at its worst. Consider an alternative possibility: "Many questions remained, so new board members were appointed to ask the right questions and to get the right answers".

The thrust of the DFAIT report is that there has been much progress, but much needs to be done.

I've already pointed out that the DFAIT report's conclusions are demonstrably irrelevant to the board's questions.

And how odd it is that they point not to the 2008 report but the 2007 report as the reason for their appointment.

The apparent hardline pro-Israel ideological focus of the new appointees is what gives Wells's interpretations so much credence. The 2007 report, which none of us has read, seems to have highlighted serious problems, and apparently the board feels these problems were not remedied. The fact that the DFAIT 2008 report can be portrayed as hunky-dory is pretty much irrelevant, as I've said three times already, because of its extremely limited scope.

Like I said at the beginning of this, it is the kind of argument and behaviour that convinces those sitting on the fence that something else is up with them.

I can honestly say that I'm sitting on the fence about this, and I haven't been convinced by either side. There's just not enough information out there to justify reasonable and impartial conclusions.

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

This is the last I'm going to write on this today. I've spent too much time here today and you seem quite bent on not addressing my one primary point.

In 2007 there is a report. I think we can all accept, without reading it, that it was not positive. Harper appoints Beauregard to clean things up. The next year there is a report that says 'you're doing a good job, keep it up, here's some more recommendations'.

Then suddenly Harper decides to appoint a whole bunch of similarly minded (on one issue) board appointees who claim they were appointed for accountability reasons. So what did Harper see between the 2008 report and the appointments that made him think "Oh my god. I know I just appointed Beauregard and I know DFAIT just said he seems to be doing a good job, but I've have to completely change the makeup of the board of directors and management. Things are just that bad".

Dot

Thee are plenty of findings in the Executive Summary to indicate areas in need of improvement. Don't be fooled by auditor vernacular.

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

I'd be really interested to hear Paul Wells's opinion on whether or not the Five-Year Review discredits the board's complaints.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

I'm not denying that one bit. Yet, it is not what they refer to in their op-ed, is it? They ignore the 2008 report and justify the need for their appointments based on the 2007 report, regarding which the DFAIT says in its 2008 report much has been done, best management practices, etc.

Don't you find that very odd?

Dot

I'd have to read what the 2007 recommendations are. If the findings were similar to the 2008 ones, I'd be very surprised if they had all been resolved and implemented by 2008.

Also, as CR pointed out, the 2008 review was based upon a sampling of six case studies over the last 5 yrs. Not sure what 2007 encompassed.

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

My comment went poof. Will try again.

Point One: The findings were not similar. Simply: they were bad in 2007 and they say much has improved and keep going in 2008.

Point Two: The 2008 report specifically says not everything has been resolved. It notes very good progress and makes some new recommendations for going forward. There are no alarm bells though about wholesale changes needed.

Point Three, and this is the important part: Beauregard was specifically appointed to address the concerns raised in 2007. Based on the 2008 report, it appears DFAIT was content with the progress he was making and wanted him to continue doing it. That being the case, why the sudden change of view by Harper with the appointment of a bunch of new board members claiming to have the same mandate as Beauregard? Why the evaluation signed by just them and not all the board? Failure to respond to questions after they were appointed is an odd justification for getting appointed in the first place.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

The findings were not similar. That is point one. The findings of 2008 were that "its quality has improved over the 2003-2008 period" and it is being "managed according to accountability principles and best management practices for the sector".

Point Two: The 2008 report doesn't say all problems resolved. On the contrary. What it says is, basically, very good progress, still lots to do, keep going, here are some further recommendations.

Point Three – and this is the important one: Beauregard was appointed to fix the problems noted in the 2007 report. Clearly, he was having some good success. Given the 2008 report which was accepted by the Minister and the new board claiming they were appointed to bring in accountability, what was the pressing accountability issue suddenly came to light to require pushing management out, and put a whole bunch of new directors on? Nothing in the 2008 report strikes me as saying anything but "going in the right direction".

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

Given that the DFAIT 2008 report's Dilbertesque pap about "best management practices" is pretty much irrelevant to the board's complaints, I don't find that odd in the least.

kcm

you don't find it at all odd that they don't reference the 08 report…not critique it like you and Dot…just flat out don't mention it…hmmm..?

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

You mean, if I don't like it, I can leave? That's weak.

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

Aren't restrictions on speaking to media fairly normal in Ottawa? I'm fairly certain that disgruntled civil servants in many government departments aren't allowed to vent to the media whenever they feel like it. That doesn't mean we live in Czechoslovakia.

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

Good point, I'd forgotten that Dot may not or rather may very well be a public servant. Certainly one doesn't want public servants holding press conferences or their online equivalent.

Dot

Not.

Use the same rules as in private sector. You'd never see disputes of this nature being played out on blogs. The President/Chairman or designated Communications person speaks for the corporation. If private sector employees pulled these types of stunts, they'd be quitted. The organization's reputation and confidence in it would be affected.

These are not tenured university profs speaking out on how an institution of higher learning is operating.

kcm

no, they're presumably committed individuals who work for an ngo called Rights and Democracy…it's exactly the same as Walmart.
kcm

er…it's not…
wsam

People speak out against the companies they work for all the time. Look at the tech sector. People can be especially critical of thier organizations when those companies, or organizations are deemed to have some sort of public function, or operate in some sort of public capacity.

It is one reason why many boards, both private and public, mandate a whistleblower's hotline be enacted, to allow people a way to complain without it becoming public. It’s called damage control.

Have you ever actually worked in a real organization, with real people? I doubt it. In the real world, people are pretty consistent about making themselves heard when they perceive a wrong. Especially in companies where the employees actually care about the company and its direction. The difference is the public nature of the Rights & Democracy.

Most people don't care about the internal politics affecting a car seat manufacturer from Guelph Ontario they way they might new directions in Canadian foreign policy.
Dot

In the real world, people are pretty consistent about making themselves heard when they perceive a wrong.

Sure, there are complainers everywhere. Rarely are their causes taken up with such commitment as have the concerns of the employees of R&D.

Only the gullible accept what one party states at full face value without looking closer at the issues, and what ALL parties positions are the smaller and bigger issues.

Dot

No, what I'm suggesting if you want to remain anonymous, and protect your identity, you have that choice. It's voluntary. And the risk is not just career, or gov't. Stalkers…home burglers…you name it.

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

"you have that choice. It's voluntary."

It was voluntary in Czechoslovakia too. Nobody had to rock the boat. And few people did. It was easier that way. It was only when people stood up and signed their names to petitions that they were punished — or achieved anything.

OnTheJob

Are you the same Jack Mitchell who opined that it would be "fun" to get sued by a certain litigious Liberal henchman? Some of the stuff that comes out of your mouth, man…

We live in a country where a man recently was sentenced to 9 months in prison, which he served in full, for criticizing multiculturalism on the internet. But it gets worse. The judge, who is now in charge of the CRTC, ie the internet, took the "liberty" of interpreting the word multiculturalism as an attack on Jews. You can read the judgment online, R. vs. Winnicki; keep in mind your untermensh comments are a lot more offensive to Jews than what got him thrown into jail.

That's not "losing a few bucks", and in any case you've never expressed a non-PC opinion in your life so your opinion isn't relevant here because it's not your ass on the line. Anyway, that's just one reason of many why we use online handles, there are other technical reasons that your foggy little brain wouldn't be able to grok.

If I professed to believe everything that the government, media, and special interest groups told me to believe, as you do, then I'd probably comment under my name, as you do. Actually, you do have one un-PC opinion regarding R&D and "Middle East Policy", and it's only a matter of time before that bites you or someone on your team in the ass, hard. As for the government not spying on us, an ATIP request reveals that the CHRC has indeed compiled a rather large dossier on Canadian bloggers who have criticized HRCs, and that's just the one example of how you are wrong that we know about.

"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

kcm

True. In any case, it's no possible reason to gag the staff members…the organization is…rights and democracy for god's sake. The irony is staggering!
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Point Four and this is the interesting part: If it really was about accountability, is it not odd that they did not refer to the 2008 report in their op-ed? Is it not odd that they all seem to have the same background and support the same ideas on one particular foreign policy issue that is near and dear to the Harper government?

Dot

Ok, I had a look at the National Post summary of the 2007 report that was linked to elsewhere. I mentioned this generally yesterday in another pw blog, but I will reiterate.

It appears to me that the 2007 audit was a financial audit – which typically focuses on financial controls, reviews invoices, approvals, improper expensing – that sort of stuff.

The 2008 review is what I would classify as a comprehensive audit – or a management audit – which is subjective in nature and typically includes terms such as "economy, efficiency, and effectiveness." Program outcomes are measured against corporate strategies etc. It is quite a different kettle of fish than a financial audit, although both overlap somewhat in scope.

I dunno. Mention 2007 but not 2008? Could be just not as important, or an oversight, or edited out due to space. But, I wouldn't read the 2008 audit as being demonstrative that everything was fine since the findings of 2007.

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

Well said, Dot. I think that anyone who points to the 2008 5-Year Review as sufficient and conclusive evidence that everything was A-OK since Beauregard took over is either misguided or disingenuous.

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

At the same . . . time, neither does it . . . follow that . . . the . . . allegation of misuse of funds . . . is accurate. The Board is pretty cagey as to why it feels the need for a forensic audit — the 3 De-Funded Orgs had been paid via the President's $300 000 fund, but what is the context? Is funding via that fund unusual? Were the 3 DFO's the only ones funded via that fund? Why is this a big deal (assuming, for argument's sake, that the Middle East is irrelevant)?

Transparency on [such] matters . . . that would help the [Board] . . . significantly.

Incidentally, how long do forensic auditors take to do their work? When shall we hear back on the 2010 audit?

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

the 3 De-Funded Orgs had been paid via the President's $300 000 fund, but what is the context? Is funding via that fund unusual? Were the 3 DFO's the only ones funded via that fund?

Perhaps finding reliable answers to questions like these is part of Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche's mandate.

Incidentally, how long do forensic auditors take to do their work? When shall we hear back on the 2010 audit?

Not sure, but I think they said it would be three weeks.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Perhaps finding reliable answers to questions like these is part of Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche's mandate.

Do you really think that Beauregard would have refused to answer such questions honestly? Well, I guess we will find out.

If it does turn out to be a matter of misuse of funds (in the ordinary, non-geopolitical sense) and peculation or what have you, that will be a happy ending to be sure; though it will certainly raise questions about how this whole thing somehow got to be about the Middle East. Why, for instance, would Braun in his CTV interview begin by saying that there had been misuse of funds for private political agendas (a rather vague phrase) and then, when asked by Tom Clark (2:00m mark) if those agendas were pro-Palestinian, not deny a Middle East connection? Instead he attacks the 3 defunded groups.

http://watch.ctv.ca/news/power-play/feb-1/#clip26…

Maybe this is just incredibly bad PR, but if there is more to the misuse of funds by Beauregard & Co. than the funding of the 3 groups (and something about Geneva), why have they not come out and said what they were? They're not on oath, they don't need a big stack of proof such as this audit will provide; why not just say what the content of those acrimonious meetings with Beauregard was? They could absolve themselves of the charge of political interference in a second, not to mention do us all a favour by defusing the biggest non-scandal in some time. Yet they haven't. An argument from silence isn't proof, but I just don't get why editorial after editorial would speak in generalities.

I think they said it would be three weeks.

Ah! Well then, if it takes just three weeks, if it's neutral and professional, and if its conclusions will be made public, who could be against it? This whole story is suffering from a lack of light.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Do you really think that Beauregard would have refused to answer such questions honestly?

I've seen every indication that Beauregard was a good, reputable and honourable man. From what little I know, I have no reason to think he did anything wrong.

I think it's very likely that this has a lot to do with the Middle East, as you illustrated with that Braun CTV interview.

At the end of the day, I know just as much as you do. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Braun and the others were far too ham-fisted and political by turning some tiny and relatively trivial grants to so-called "suspect organizations" into a toxic fracas.

Hopefully more information eventually comes out, since we really don't know enough to judge. Wells's opinions carry a lot of weight with me, but I don't agree with his contention that the R&D fiasco is the result of some calculated Conservative plan to advance a nefarious right-wing agenda.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I agree it doesn't make sense that the CPC would have intended to create a big scandal for no reason. I also don't think the PM personally cares one way or the other about Israel / Palestine, and I'm quite certain that very little happens without the PM's say-so. So I'm skeptical in principle.

But why would PMO not have moved to shut the whole circus down? Why would they have to gain by in effect taking the Board's side? They should be frothing with rage at being embarrassed by Braun and Gauthier like this, yet they seem incredibly complacent. Not a sign of a nefarious right-wing agenda, but mysterious.

My own theory, FWIW, is that the 3 x $10 000 grants were a cause of bitter but not apocalyptic dispute and then everybody involved, particularly (to judge by his CTV personality) Braun, started mainlining testosterone and punching walls, having decided who their enemies were.

I hope Wells is not going to drop this story, as there is a lot more to discover about it, many lessons to learn about how the Government should and shouldn't handle NGO's and ethnic politics, and many cautionary tales about why we should all give peace a chance.
Holly Stick

I think it is probable that Harper does care about Israel in terms of his fundamentalist religion; as the site for Armageddon. This would explain his uncritical support for Israel, even when it was killing civilians in Lebanon and in Gaza; even when the IDF killed four UN observers in Lebanon, including a Canadian (deliberate murder, in my opinion). The other three countries objected; Harper more or less blamed the victims for being there.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

This may surprise you, but even though Harper is a churchgoer I've never seen him as a social conservative, let alone a fundamentalist.
Holly Stick

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

"…But, at the same time, most Canadians do not share the moral convictions of his evangelical denomination, the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

The Alliance Church, to which Harper has belonged for decades, believes Jesus Christ will return to Earth in an apocalypse, won't ordain women, strongly opposes abortion and divorce, condemns homosexuality as the most base of sins and believes those who aren't born-again are "lost."…"
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

If all churchgoers believed even half of what they hear every Sunday, the world would be a different place. Harper may like going to church or he may not; but at no point since his political career began has he been able to stop going. Neither have I ever seen him quoted on any religious question. If he seriously believed that evangelical tomfoolery and still kept his mouth shut, he would be not just strong-willed but absolutely unique.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Excellent point. I've rarely seen any of Harper's opponents (in the media or elsewhere) acknowledge this simple truth, because it's so much easier for everyone (both supporters and detractors) to play make-believe and to pretend that Harper is a closeted fundamentalist.

As an aside, Paul Wells tweeted this on twitter recently:

"My libertarian friends keep judging this government on fiscal discipline and finding it…random; pointless; non-conservative. — But its brand offer is social conservatism, which has wide-ish and very, very deep support, both in the country and at the PMO — And by the measure of advancing that agenda, this has been the most activist two months in *half a century.* OK I'm done.

In my humble opinion, this is the most absurd tweet that Wells has ever twitted. The surge in "activism" is imaginary.
Holly Stick

Cancelling the legal challenges program. Cancelling funding to Status of Women Canada. Removing the word :"equality" from its website (word restored after a fuss made; funding was not restored. Starting an aid program to improve maternal health while refusing to include the reproductive choice which is essental to maternal health. Trying to shut down Insite. Appointed a creationist as Science minister. Cutting funding to Kairos. Reneging on promise to fund aid to Africa. Cancelling money for AIDS research.The whole R&D mess.

This is just a few things off the top of my head and of course they didn't all happen in the last two months, but plenty of them did. Wells is right on.

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

Put another way, normally when you have processes and plans put into place to correct problems in an organization, you let them run their course. If things are going completely off the rails, you re-start. If they are merely progressing slower than you want (and we don't know what Harper wants because no one has had the chance to ask him in an interview or in a Parliament that he shut down), you might tinker or ask for more reports or specific reports.
Holly Stick

well documented where?

OnTheJob

How much cash you gonna pay me to step and fetch the data? Your ignorance is not my problem, sweetie, find it yourself: you can start by identifying the ridings in Canada with large Jewish populations and examining their voting records.

One story I have to share though, and it comes from the book "Grits": Pierre Trudeau was unelectable in Quebec in the 1960s, at least in francophone ridings, due to his radical socialism. The only riding they could find where he stood a chance was Mount Royal with its large Jewish population and its left wing voting record. The rest is history, but later, Liberal and radical leftist Irwin Cotler set a Canadian parliamentary record by winning the same Mount Royal riding with over 90% of the votes.

FVerhoeven

Yes, people forget that reporting can indeed cross the line. Mr.Wells needs to be very carefull.____Opinion writing is something else. Altough opinions should at least be constructed on logic, they are nonetheless what they are: opinion pieces. ____Facts, hardcore facts, are seldom to be found. But would such finding not be the exercise here???
kcm

'And contrary to prevailing myth, the committee gave the former president repeated opportunities to meet and discuss the evaluation in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. He chose not to avail himself of those opportunities. The report was 16 pages long. Only one paragraph of it dealt with Mideast grants"

this is an odd assertion. Why would Beauregard refuse to look at or dicuss the evaluation and turn around and have to request it through a FOI request? The only thing that occurs is that he was too upset with the whole pocess to comply initially. i suspect, as with everything these guys have to say, that:" He chose not to avail himself…" doesn't even come close to describing the reality of the situation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

If you're looking for the weasel words ( and I certainly am) you'll note that Braun & Co. never claim that he refused the chance to look at the evaluation, only that he declined some opportunities to discuss it.

In other words, he may have simply declined the opportunity to discuss an evaluation that he was not allowed to read.

kcm

'In other words, he may have simply declined the opportunity to discuss an evaluation that he was not allowed to read"

You sir are getting ahead of the main pack, give us[me] a chance to keep up.:)

Lord Kitchener's Own

I think the key phrase may be "opportunities to meet and discuss" the evaluation. They're saying they gave Beauregard the opportunity to attend a meeting and discuss the evaluation. They're not saying they gave him the opportunity to SEE the evaluation, just to meet with them to discuss it.

They could be referring to offers to meet and discuss the evaluation after Beauregard managed to pry it from the government's unwilling hands, but they could very well be referring to requests made before that time asking that he meet with them to discuss the secret evaluation that Beauregard had discovered they had submitted about him (that is to say, in lieu of actually letting him SEE the thing).

The line "We understand you're upset that we sent off a job evaluation about you without letting you see it, so we'd like to have a meeting with you to discuss that" could encapsulate what the Board members are claiming in their Op-Ed (he was given the opportunity to "meet and discuss" the issue…) without being REMOTELY acceptable to any sane person in Beauregard's position.

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

I think the "opportunites to meet and discuss" are much like them claiming the Beauregard evaluation which they fought so hard to prevent him from seeing was "constructive criticism".

There were lots of opportunities to meet and discuss, only it just so happens that they never told Beauregard about those opportunites, just like they never told him about the evaluation.
kcm

'And contrary to prevailing myth, the committee gave the former president repeated opportunities to meet and discuss the evaluation in Toronto, Ottawa or Montreal. He chose not to avail himself of those opportunities'

Any reasonable person would take that statement at face value…anything else would be a shabby lawyers lie. My question [ ahem ...pay attention Wells] wold be:" So, can we conclude you actually showed him the evaluation"?

guest

Wells is the voice of the revolting managers! Notice how HE is going to reply tomorrow…. I sure know what that means.

Jan

Well, if he replied today wouldn't that mean he was in REALLY close touch with them? You're obviously not suspicious enough for this game.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

Yup. It means drive-by smears! Who am I really playing to? That's what I'd like to know.

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

Don't let the bastards grind you down, Wells!

Your muckraking and irritating government employees, no matter who they are or what they do, is awesome.

kcm

pssst, he's playing to the other guys…you know, the mutinous bureaucrats.

OnTheJob

Because repeating an allegation in a smartass tone and slapping an exclamation point on the end automagically makes the allegation false.
kcm

It's called humour, try it some time.

OnTheJob

"Its also important to note that there is only one women on the board. The present Board is stacked with those with conservative leanings or direct experience with the present government and Matas may be critical of the government but very accepting of their Israel policy."

It is NOT important to note the gender makeup – hiring on the basis of gender is a human rights violation, period.

Conservative leanings, small c? Liar. Give me a name. Matas is deeply Liberal, Braun is radically leftist. The very notion of joining a board whose mission is to impose a radical left wing agenda on other countries is repugnant to conservatives. I repeat, there is not a single conservative associated with R&D.

A gender quota obsessed nation has no business telling others about rights, and a nation with an APPOINTED, unelected senate looks absurd lecturing others on democracy.

"Rights and Democracy was established to be a non-partisan arm's length organizations and no one can argue that this is the reality anymore."

An organization whose board is appointed by partronage appointments is, by definition, not non-partisan, but more importantly, it;s like saying the radicals at Status of Women are non-partisan: the very concept is repugnant to conservatives. R&D should not be funded by the government and its board should not be appointed by the government. It is a radical left wing organization using the cover of "rights" to impose an agenda well outside the Candian mainstream.

Look, I don't like what has happened there either, but R&D shouldn't exist in the first place, and it was a high ranking longtime LIBERAL (Matas) and a radical left wing university professor (Braun) who skunked things up. The same thing would have happened under the Liberals and this does not stick to the Conservatives.

Holly Stick

"radicals at Status of Women"? You mean those uppity females who think women have a right to equality? Those radicals?
wsam

If Braun is a radical left winger than Hamas is interested only in getting wayward Gaza youth off drugs.

kcm

I think he's a refugee from SA apartheid. History ended for him the day they let Mandela out…he's homeless, stateless, a poltical refugee.

OnTheJob

Have you considered finding a nice fun poetry site at which to hang out? The stuff you say is galling, world class galling. I know accusing your opponents of being mentally ill is cliche, but, wow, you're nuts, dude.

"I do think, though, that the idea of denying people rights on the basis of race, which is essentially what is going on in the West Bank, albeit not with a generalised philosophy of racialism, deserves to be called what it is"

That's not true at all, last week you defended the Mohawk eviction of Whites, and even suggested the Whites deserved it for being insufficiently "culturally Mohawk". You actually do condone denying people rights on the basis of race, you did so very publicly just last week right here at Macleans.ca.

"I haven't really addressed your post. I have no idea what the court case you're talking about is, and I don't care. I somehow doubt a man can be thrown in jail for criticising multiculturalism, but I don't even care enough to google it."

Quoted for astonishment, no response necessary. You're a joke Mitchell and have no place in a serious grownup discussion about grave issues, GTFO.

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

See, the way you capitalise "Whites" just doesn't reassure me that I"m not talking to a professional White. I like how you leave it ambiguous as to whether you're galled, galled I tell you, at my question of your provenance or at my arguments against racialism. Well, I think we could have a good discussion about this, though I fear you would lose, if you could refrain from just insulting me; there is a new policy against that here, but you've been turfed so many times already that reporting your comment would be fruitless. My guess is you're an expert at Internet anonymity anyway.

I will address your point about the Mohawks, however. The fact is that Kahnawake, along with most other reserves, is treaty land. It's not one race and another dwelling side by side as fellow Canadians, or not merely: Canada has a legal relationship with the Mohawk nation there, one designed incidentally to ensure its autonomy. Outsiders are no more allowed to go squat on Kahnawake land or be governed by outside (i.e. Canadian) property laws there than Belarusians, say, are allowed to come and live here without a visa, owning property under Belarusian property laws. Contrast that with the situation in the West Bank: the whole problem there stems from the way the Palestinians are simultaneously treated as a nation and not given control of their own affairs, including civil rights. If they were independent, there would be no problem; if they were incorporated into Israel, there would be no problem, since Israel does not discriminate by race amongst its own citizens; but to leave them in between is to give them the worst of both worlds. By contrast, as far as I know there is no legal dispute at Kahnawake.

kcm

The issue with native sovereignty is a touchy one, and paradoxical. I'm sure i share similar views to yourself re ethnocentric based policy. Yet this issue is troubling. Personal experience has left me empathetic to FN's struggle to maintain their culture, but i don't know if i can support this…and there are natives who don't either. On one hand you need to exclude the "other" in order to remain what you are – on the other you are then practicising a form of cultural segregation…it's also why the issue of propery rights are a touchy issue on reserve. How to solve? I don't know…i have great sympathy for FNs. It's an awful dilemma…in the band i lived with generousity of spirit was the norm and not a desire for race based separatism. Yet i'm pretty sure they would back the Mohawk's decision.

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

I look forward to Wells's response to this op-ed. It strikes me that, with its publication, the discrepancies on a simple factual level between the two sides are now so stark that only someone who has paid attention to every detail can make a convincing case that this op-ed is either what it seems (a call to reason) or what it would be if factually incorrect (a truly egregious example of systematic misrepresentation). Fortunately we have journalists in this country who are on top of this kind of thing; a free press, staffed by highly intelligent writers, is the only guarantee of public truth.

I would point out that it seems very unfair that the staff at R&D are banned from speaking out while the pro-Braun board members and Braun himself are publishing op-eds, leaving comments on blogs, going on TV, etc. That hasn't stopped four staff members from writing to the auditor and cc'ing the press, but in principle it represents the bullying of professionals by lobbyists.
http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

Who are the professionals and who are the lobbyists? And what's the matter with lobbyists at R/D when lobbying people is big part of their job. How else do they convince foreign and domestic pols to listen to them.

Aurel Braun – " ….. is Professor of International Relations and Political Science at the University of Toronto. He is also a senior member of the Centre for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies and of the Centre for International Studies, and a Fellow and Senator of Trinity College at the University of Toronto." Wiki

David Matas – " …. is the senior legal counsel of B'nai Brith Canada. He has maintained a private practice in refugee, immigration and human rights law since 1979. He has published various books and manuscripts and currently resides in Winnipeg." Wiki

Gérard Latulippe – "the resident director for the National Democratic Institute in Haiti. Before being posted in Haiti, he was the Institute’s Morocco country director and senior representative for the region of the Maghreb. He has also worked for NDI in countries such as Jordan, Libya, Iraq, Georgia, Mauritania, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso and Egypt."

http://www.ndi.org/latulippeg
Joops

We all know their CVs already, but thanks for trying. Unfortunately for them we now also know their ethics and managerial skills, or lack thereof.
Joops

And just to add – the CVs of those on the board, past and present, who do NOT agree with the current conduct of these people, are equally if not more impressive. You cannot compare Aurel Braun with the internationally-celebrated Sima Samar, for example. Being a UofT prof is nothing compared to being the director of the Afghan Human Rights Commission or a UN Special Rapporteur for human rights in Sudan. Nor is being an NDI country director comparable to Samar's work. (As someone who actually works in this field, I can assure you that the loss of Samar as a board member is a massive blow and a telling indictment of the problem on the board, and none of the others could ever make up for it.)
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

[cont]

To me, if there were issues from the 2007 report that were problematic and not being adequately addressed, you would have seen more alarm bells going off in the 2008 report, or you would have had a recommendation that the areas DFAIT did not sample should be sampled the following year.

The response from Harper belies the claim for accountability. The argument provided by Braun et al in the op ed fails to identify any reason for their replacing an existing accountability effort that a 2008 report said was doing OK.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Damn, I'm breaking my commitment to not comment further today. (Which you should take as a 'right back atcha' to your "worthy interlocutors" comment).

As for your comment – briefly – no that is not quite what I'm saying. It is not obviated by the 2008 report. The fact that the 2008 report shows that Beauregard is getting things done and no major problems are noted seems to point to the fact that government observers were content with the way things were progressing. It does not obviate the need for board appointees. It is just the single independent report on what was going on at the time and seems to give – I wouldn't even say a clean bill of health – a green light and a pass to what Beauregard had been hired to do. And yet very soon after we have this wholescale change in the works.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Ted, I appreciate the time you took to respond to my points, and I really enjoy discussing/debating the issues of the day with worthy interlocutors like you.

The crux of our disagreement is the 2008 report. I think it's meaningless with respect to the discretionary spending/contractual arrangements that the board claims is the real problem here, and you think that the raison d'être of the PM's new R&D board appointees is obviated by the fact that the 2008 report appears to have given the organization a clean bill of health.