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.

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/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

Don't leave us hanging Paul!! Although after being spoiled yesterday with 2 excellent pieces I should try to be more patient.
catherine

The only discernible pattern is that board members were appointed to bring governance to Rights & Democracy.

There is no such pattern and, if that were the intent, the person doing the appointing has failed dismally. The most obvious "pattern" is that a spate of recent appointments has thrown Rights & Democracy into complete chaos and acrimony. Prior to that, the evidence suggests that Mr. Beauregard was on a course of bringing greater accountability to R&D.

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

It's kind of a rediculous statement actually because the whole point of any agency board is governance. It's like saying the only discernible pattern is that board members were appointed to be board members.

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

Who are you playing to Paul?

Seriously, to many bucket defenses have been used by so many of the players (Cannon, the board, Peter Stockland) that I'm ready to tune it all out, move to Quebec and vote the for Bloc (cause they never use bucket defenses….)
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

So they are trying to reframe the debate in preparation for the incoming results of their audits?

Here's the problem with that strategy:

Even if they find credible evidence of accounting malfeasence, it still won't repair the damage caused by Braun's previous commentary to the press on Palestinians. I still have that CTV interview ringing in my ears. It also won't change the fact that computers were stolen shortly before Gautier showed up at work with a private investigator, which specializes in electronic surveillance.

Frankly, the more they attack the staff, the more rabid they appear to everyone.

The bottom line is that R&D has lost all respect and its name is now mud around the world.

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

Frankly, the more they attack the staff, the more rabid they appear to everyone.

srsly. what if they are so concerned with getting things back on track between the staff and the board, they figure an op/ed piece in a national newspaper eviscerating the staff is gonna do the trick?

wsam

That op-ed was bull excrement!

Look at this.

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

The mirror imaging on display in just this one sentence is astounding.

Wasn't there a guy who was recently interviewed on the CBC defending the new board, who as part of his defence, compared the Palestinians to the Nazis?

And this is just about establishing good corporate goverance.

Canuckistanian

projection much? quite funny.
Dot

Wasn't there a guy who was recently interviewed on the CBC defending the new board, who as part of his defence, compared the Palestinians to the Nazis?

Would you get your facts right? The Executive Director of B'nai Brith Canada was praising the Harper gov'ts approach to Israel – the interview with Wendy Mesley had nothing to do with the R&D board.

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

Facts, schmacts. It's all about the gut reaction!
wsam

Bull Crap. The R&D board controversy hung over that interview like a fart. The controversy at R&D was why the interview was aired at all.

I admire the conveniently obtuse tautology you are trying to construct though. By refusing to see how different bits of information inform each other, you refuse the larger narrative which this story is helping to construct. That way you disallow the R&R controversy from yielding up any larger meaning.

Here is how it works. When presented with an argument you dislike, which, as arguments do, tie different bits of information together, insist on keeping every bit of information in its little box. Keep the info compartmentalized.

Claim the R&D controversay arose from bad management. The new board displayed poor people skills. It rode roughshod over the staff at R&D; unfortunate, but not earth-shattering. That is all.

Be obtuse whenever anyone tries to draw parallels between what has been going on at R&D and the Harper government’s neo-conservative approach to the Middle East. Maybe the board should take an executive seminar at Rothman’s.

Nothing to see here, keep moving.

Dot

My belief in nature over nurture (in your case) directs me to not bother wasting my time in further responding to your innate beliefs and "reasoning" processes.

Mulletaur

"There is no imposition of a right-wing agenda, no interference in autonomy."

Well, at least they have a sense of humour.
Holly Stick

Since it's in the National Post, I don't even have to make an effort to pretend to try to believe what they wrote.

The phrase "conflict entrepreneurs" is new to me. I see by googling that it is used by academics. Here is one explanation:

"…The term conflict entrepreneur that is used in this paper emphasizes the capacity of an individual or a group of individual to mobilize identity of people within their groups against another group through their act of speeches. The act of speeches creates a strong in-group feeling that highlights the ‘us-them’ identification. Espen Barth Eide (1997) defines a conflict entrepreneur as follows: “An individual who takes the necessary and deliberate steps to ignite a violent conflict by utilizing a specific situation or in order to gain something through the exploitation of new power relationships.”…"

http://www.interseksi.org/publications/essays/art…
ahm

Anybody who quotes using elipses in such a manner as "persistent…accountability…problems" is not writing well. Perhaps this was an editorial choice by the National Post to slim down the op-ed for publication purposes, but it's a poor choice. I'm far less likely to agree with the thesis proposed when that kind of political maneuver is employed.

http://intensedebate.com/people/c_9 c_9

Agreed. I noticed a distinct shift in my beliefs as to their credibility at that point in the text.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"Anybody who quotes using elipses in such a manner as "persistent…accountability…problems" is not writing well."

That's because they assume that we the readers are imbeciles.

Iccyh

"…we…are imbeciles."

Speak for yourself!

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

mis-quoting someone and using it out of context …

typical of this crowd

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

You do have a sense of humour, right? Your apparent inability to recognize jokes is freaking me out.
http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

OK mea culpa

apparent brain-dead moment…

apologies to lccyh & all

Holly Stick

Another take on the term:

"…Conflict entrepreneurs are individuals or collectives who, using sermons, pamphlets and other oral and print media, mobilize a sense of identity among members of a particular social group. Once present, they use this identification to encourage conflict between different parts of a society.

Conflict entrepreneurs deliberately create a strong in-group feeling that reinforces the ""us-them"" identification. However, it must be noted that the term does not necessarily suggest that conflict entrepreneurs seek personal or material benefits from the conflicts in which they are involved…"

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/03/15/ent…

Do I need to point out the rightwinger habit of accusing people of doing what they themselves are in fact doing? I thought not.

Jan

Sounds like the current government…

wsam

Exactly.

Mirror Imaging
Canuckistanian

reads like the DSM-IV entry on projection.
FVerhoeven

sounds like the Globe & Mail as of late (onesidedly whipping up the prorogation protest without fully informing the reader etc) The G&M is coming dangerously close to being an instigator rather than doing the reporting.

I mean, what are newspapers for?

At least this letter referred to in Well's blog comes from the horse's mouth and should be considered as such. Whether such letter has been published in the NP or in any other newspaper is entirely irrelavant.

OnTheJob

"Do I need to point out the rightwinger habit"

Whoawhoawhoaforasec: which of the authors of the article do you deem to be "right wing"? Matas is straight Liberal, Braun is a radical leftist, and…jeepers, the very idea of R&D – which promotes a deeply leftist agenda under the balaclava of "rights" – is repugnant to any right thinking – right wing individual. Please don't conflate support for Israel with being right wing, it's well documented that the Jewish community, the critical mass of the pro-Israel movement, is very left wing in its voting patterns in Canada and elsewhere.

Conflict entrepreneurs made me giggle, though. I think Matas wrote this, gotta hand it to him the man can write. I also liked “persistent … accountability … problems”. So ransom-notey.

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

"The seven members of the Rights and Democracy board who support Chairman Aurel Braun are back in the pages of the National Post today"

I've lost track of the va et viens on this Board. Does anyone know how many have NOT signed on to this OpEd? Do we know who they are?

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

According to the website, this is the Board (authors of today's piece in bold):

Aurel Braun
Guido Riveros Franck (International Member)
Soyata Maiga (International Member)
Brad Farquhar
Jacques P. Gauthier
Jean L. Guilbeault
Marco Navarro-Génie
Elliot L. Tepper
David Matas
Michael Van Pelt

So apart from the international guys it's just Jean L. Guilbeault. I thought there were more Board members, but perhaps those who have resigned haven't been replaced? Not sure. Finally, "Marco Navarro-Génie" is a truly great name.

Joops

Payam Akhavan and Sima Samar were the two board members who resigned in the famous board meeting the first week of January. Guido Riveros Franck's membership on the board was not renewed at that meeting.

kcm

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.. we on the board have been stymied".

"Neither the government nor anyone appointed to the board until recently, including its chair, even knew that grants had been made to suspect organizations out of discretionary funds under the president’s control. … At the meeting of the board in January 2010 the grants were repudiated unanimously, with one abstention. The former president voted and spoke in favour of the repudiation, finally admitting that they were a mistake"

Where to start? Interesting they only refer to the 07 report. Are they claiming the 08 report missed these "suspect" grants? They then go on to misrepresent Beauregards views on the repudiation. Which is hardly surprising. This whole piece is a hodge podge of recrimination, selfserving 'facts' ,strawmen, assertions without evidence/proof and misleading statements. Congrats gents. We're onside for sure now

Dot

In last Friday's TVO Agenda with Paul Wells, (video not yet posted) http://tinyurl.com/yk9tcgu David Matas claimed that these "suspect" grants were made in 2009. Hence why they didn't fall under your blanket.

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

There was nothing corrupt about the measly $10,000 grants to those two Palestinian and one Israeli groups. No audit is going to question them because it is fully within their mandate and the funds were fully accounted for.

There may be policy disagreements about those specific grants and disagreements over whether sufficient due diligence had been conducted, but there is nothing "suspect" about them in the manner implied.

The op-ed conveniently fails to mention that Beauregard was put in place specifically to address the concerns raised by the Auditor General and that a subsequent AG report indicated vast improvement.

Dot

The "suspect" nature of the grants that kcm was quoting I believe was related to this quoted passage from the op-ed:

Neither the government nor anyone appointed to the board until recently, including its chair, even knew that grants had been made to suspect organizations out of discretionary funds under the president’s control.

So, I suppose the hindsight question might have been, would the then President and Board have approved those grants if they were specifically requested to fund these organizations? And as you point out, no audit will answer that question.

kcm

Thanks for the correction. I didn't catch the programme.

So all this fuss is really about those grants, which haven't yet come before the OIG for a yea or nay? Essentially they haven't yet been examined, until now. It sounds to me like the new board were looking for any little hook they could find to hang their preconceived views on. I wonder if similar grants have been approved in the past? If so, this would really undermine the boards contention these were 'suspect"orgs., except in the minds of the new board.
Your last point is not at all clear to me.
Dot

So all this fuss is really about those grants, which haven't yet come before the OIG for a yea or nay?

Well, that's how some characterise it. Look at the new board's contention about neither the then President nor Board were aware of the funding of these orgs (and no doubt others) in the context of this recommendation in the 2008 audit:

Recommendation 4:

R&D needs to establish a system allowing the collection of more accurate financial and operational data for each program and project to enable a decision-making process based on a better cost-benefit analysis.

This recommendation is based on observations and findings pertaining to the efficiency of R&D's work. (Finding 16).

While R&D's financial reports meet all accounting requirements and the need to report on activities to various sponsors and stakeholders, the division is encouraged to gather and monitor financial data that are currently not collected for all programs and individual projects. R&D is strongly encouraged to start the collection of such data for all programs. This will enable program managers to better understand the scope of their initiatives, and will support a more transparent decision-making and program approval process.

So, yes, if the then Board and President had proper controls in place, and all funding was approved explicitly by them, then perhaps these specific issues wouldn't have arisen. The new Board, if they wished to change the policy of funding these groups that was approved by the old Board, then it would be within their purview and require a new Board vote, or approval/rejection of proposed funding on an annual basis or whatever- however they do it.

Canuckistanian

beat me to the punch. it is almost like the 2008 report didn't happen.

"This whole piece is a hodge podge of recrimination, selfserving 'facts' ,strawmen, assertions without evidence/proof and misleading statements."

well, at least they know their audience. it is, after all, in the National Post ;-)

no more non-partisan

Lets await the unvarnished truth in the Toronto Star.

kcm

Many of us cast our net a little wider still.

Iccyh

Yeah, choosing to focus on Beauregard and the '07 report is pretty low. They attack someone who can't defend themselves because they're dead, and they cherry-pick facts to suit their story while ignoring anything that contradicts it. I don't think its case of them claiming or believing anything: they're just providing enough of a story so that jolyon, scf and the rest can continue to talk about uppity bureaucrats and tax dollars instead of having to acknowledge that maybe there's something else happening.

It would probably be very worthwhile to have a debate about what kind of support we should be giving Israel and Palestine, but by denying that its even an issue the board and the government avoid that discussion and instead turn this into a purely partisan issue, where they've decided that since they're in power they'll do what they want.

Not that my vote will count for anything, since I live somewhere in Alberta that isn't Edmonton-Strathcona, but I am starting to think the next election can't come soon enough.

Dot

I’ll respond to these arguments tomorrow.

Good idea. Perhaps sitting on something and thinking about it for a while would also be wise advise for those quick out of the gate in responding here.

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

What's your fear, exactly?

Dot

Irrational/emotional responses from individuals with an agenda that could have benefitted from waiting for a bit before publishing. I've seen it elsewhere here.

Btw, I once had the opportunity of helping to set up a new internal audit dept. (with a couple of bean counters – not my profession) in a company with 1300 employees – reporting to the Audit Committee of the BofD. Lots of internal politics, alliances, personal empires, messenger shooting. I'm cautious about people willing to step knee deep into something of this nature – that appears so black and white at one outside level. If past experience is any indicator – it's not at all that simple.

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

I'm sure there are wheels within wheels here… but half the fun of internet punditry is going off half-cocked and making a damned fool of yourself. As long as you can cop to it when it happens, of course.

I don't know why you'd want to discourage that, frankly.

None of us has all the facts and it's very doubtful that we ever will… In the meantime, it's an interesting story and I quite enjoy the speculations and pre-mature conclusions.

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

"I don't know why you'd want to discourage that, frankly. "

Something about his niece being asked about Facebook at a job interview — scarred him for life. The idea that free speech could cost a few bucks is terrifying to some.
Dot

More like – If I pissed someone off, and they felt obliged to make an anonymous fraudulent complaint to CCRA to have my tax returns audited, no amount of my public outrage here, or elsewhere, would further my cause. In fact, probably worsen my situation if I in turn denounced the auditors and created a big stink.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

So how is that different from the situation in Communist Czechoslovakia?

wsam

I agree with kcm. These mofos are panicking.

If they were smart they would continue to say nothing and let the separatists the government is paying to make this go away, go away. They only people they want to know about what they are doing at Rights & Democracy are the kind of hardcore Conservative supports who still consider invading Iraq a good idea and who also really and truly believe we are in an existential fight against a nefarious Fascist Muslim Arab Communist continuum.

The sort of people who think Stockwell Day has some interesting things to say about geo-politics.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

They immediately lost the argument when they report about the Auditor General report of 2007 and do not mention a word about Beauregard being appointed to address the issues of that report, his 2008 report, and the 2008 auditors report that showed great improvement.

By contrast, while it is generally clear what version of the facts Wells accepts as more accurate, he has not problem posting in full and linking to arguments made by Braun et al, and even highlighting them for us when they are buried in the comments.

This blatant disregard for facts known very well to all who are following this story is the sort of thing that convinces those sitting on the fence or unsure of who or what to believe.

Iccyh

But, it also provides just enough cover for those who want to engage in wishful thinking.

Holly Stick

Much like the AWG denialists.

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

Have you seen the 2008 auditors report? Do you have a link?

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

I am relying on Wells's and the Globe's notation of the fact of its existence in concluding it exists.

Being such an important part of the equation, and with such an effort in putting out their version of the truth, I suppose I am also relying upon Braun's not claiming the Globe and Wells are lying about its existence in concluding it exists.

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

Are you suggesting that maybe in 2008, unlike prior years, there was no AG report? And Paul is wrong?

Not at all. I'm just saying that since none of us have actually read the AG report, it's a bit hasty for you to conclude that "they immediately lost the argument" by not mentioning that the AG report "showed great improvement".

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

I don't think so at all.

They are claiming all of this is about accountability resulting from the 2007 AG report. The fact that they say nothing about what has occurred between that time and when they were installed, including the fact that Beauregard was appointed to fix and, according to reports so far, was succeeding in doing so, is too highly disingenuous. Especially when I have seen this tactic by them now several times.

They don't ever say that they did not think the 2008 AG report showed insufficient progress. They do not say they disagree with it or that the AG's mandate was not wide enough or that too many new things have come to light. They just simply ignore it. Completely.

And for their narrative to make any sense – that they were brought in by Harper to fix accountability and transparency problems – they have to ignore everything that happened after the 2007 AG report.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Ted, the fact that they made no mention of the 2008 AG report has no bearing on the other complaints they mentioned:

-The board's finance and audit committee did not receive timely and adequate information, as requested
-Board members sought proper clarification of the operations of the Geneva office, but didn't get it
-Board members felt stymied in their efforts to get explanations about a $100,000 expenditure which raised questions, and information about how $300,000 a year in discretionary funds was spent
-The board claims they didn't know about grants had been made to "suspect organizations" (I assume they mean Al-Haq et al.) out of discretionary funds under the president’s control.

(BTW, for those who read the senior staff's letter yesterday, these are probably clues about what the forensic audit is looking at.)

I have no idea whether the board's complaints are legitimate or whether they're despicable BS, and frankly, neither do you. We simply don't have enough data to make an impartial assessment, however much we may try to pretend otherwise.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Oh, Crit, I'm sorry but you do see how funny it is that you are concerned by the fact that a committee did not receive timely and adequate information as requested, right?

I mean, yes, you can go the other way as well and wonder why I am not outraged by this, and I guess I am if I believe it is something other than requesting the impossible, e.g. "I'd like to see the report from the field on that." "There is no report from the field, sir, since we awarded the money to an organization that does not report to us." "I have requested the report from the field two weeks ago, and I still don't have it!"

If it is other than such a scenario, I AM concerned about it, but why are you?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Without further information, were have no way of knowing whether the board was "requesting the impossible", or if it was requesting reasonable things that it didn't get, perhaps because the desired information didn't exist, or perhaps because someone wasn't inclined to share it.

I'll be interested to see what happens next in this fast-paced soap opera.

Dot

One might argue that the staff letter of yesterday may ultimately lead to them pursuing a similar path of non-engagement.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Your restraint is commendable.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Does anyone know if the December 2007 report by the Office of the Inspector‑General is available online? I can't find it – the only thing I can find is the 2008 5-year review.

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

Why would you need the December 2007 report, when it's so lovingly summarized by Braun et al:

"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."

One ellipsis for each quoted word. You just know you can take that summary to the bank!

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

That's a quote from the article I just posted. It reads "…some persistent management, organizational, planning,
accountability and reporting problems"

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

In that case, they should have just posted the full quote, without the ellipses.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

In that case, they should have just posted the full quote, without the ellipses.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

In that case, they should have just posted the full quote, without the ellipses.

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

I agree. They should have either used the whole quote, or not used it at all.
Dot

Maybe the National Post doesn't allow bolding or underlining to emphasize whatever point they were making.
kcm

Playing devil's advocate is a lot of fun eh?

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

Heh. That's exactly what made me want to read it… to see if it was characterized accurately by Braun et al. Generally speaking, I'm skeptical of a high ellipsis-to-word ratio.

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

I . . . generally . . . don't . . . disagree.

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

You'll find references to it in this article from the National Post (through Levant's website):
http://ezralevant.com/Waste%20at%20R&D.pdf

That report does not appear to be a public document, so I doubt you'll find it posted on a government site.

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

Thanks, Electric Torch.

http://twitter.com/bobledrew @bobledrew

The report was tabled in Parliament, so it should be public…

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

I'm usually pretty good at finding stuff, but I can't find this report. Any help would be appreciated.
http://intensedebate.com/people/ElectricTorch ElectricTorch

You are under the impression that there was one report. In fact, there were two reports: the usual 5-year review and another special report/audit which Graeme Hamilton refers to in the National Post article. The latter was focused on specific allegations, which were supposedly dealt with since Beauregard's mandate, but which the current Board is trying to revive.
kcm

Cr
Have you read the 08 document? Is there by any chance reference to similar grants to the one's the new board decries? I'm curious to know if there is a previous pattern of similar grants that have been examined/disclosed and approved. [ er...send the bill to Braun/Gauthier...they seem to be free with the bucks right now].

Dot

Well, I've been the target of some pretty direct hits myself here. Yes, fun to respond, but I only pick the young healthy ones to engage – ones with strong tickers, and lower resting blood pressures.
peterjustice

Not about the Middle East?!!! Are the willing to take a lie detector test? If it wasn't about the Middle East why is it that the first order of business when Braun had his majority was to present a motion to repudiate grants that had been awarded almost a year earlier and on the basis of a 15 page memo prepared in advance by Matas??

The seven dwarfs of the board. Note that there are 2 conspicuous silent members who did not sign the op-ed: Soyata Maiga, Special Rapporteur on Women's Rights of the African Commission and Jean Guilbeault, a Mulroney ally. Who will ask for their opinion?

On the contrary, it is all about ideology and part of a pattern to silence anyone bringing an alternative analysis of the Middle East conflict. If you don't see it like Bnai Brith then you are not allowed to speak about Israel in Canada. Even if you stand side by side with Isreali human rights activists. Note the pattern : what happened at the Toronto Film Festival, the York conference earlier this year, KAIROS…

This scandal is an embarrassment for Canada and I can't wait for this to come out in the international press.

kcm

Methinks they doth protest too much.
Iccyh

"This scandal is an embarrassment for Canada and I can't wait for this to come out in the international press."

I generally agree with what you're saying and this is just tangential, but really, why does the international press matter? The only people who can actually fix this and change what's happening is the government since they appoint the board, and the only people who can vote for the government are Canadians. We certainly have a good number of quality Canadian reporters working on this one already, including the guy who's blog you're posting on.

peterjustice

That's true the Canadian press is doing a great job at examining this situation and unfortunately Harper is not budging in fact he is standing by the board. I believe the international press matters cause Harper's international image is weak. Remember the Economist's recent article on prorogation. It got a lot of people talking and Canada's image suffered overall because of Harper's move. The Economist should do a follow up along the same theme…

Iccyh

Copenhagen. I think that should pretty much explain my thinking with regards to Harper and the foreign press.

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

M Gauthier, Braun et al rather conveniently neglect to mention the more recent (August 2008) review of R&D undertaken by its principal funder – the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). The 5 year review concluded that:

"The overall results of this Review / Organizational Evaluation are positive. The data gathered and interviews held with various stakeholders in Canada and in partner countries have confirmed the effectiveness and relevance of R&D's activities in the field, as well as their compliance with R&D's mission".

Braun et al now claim that " board members were appointed to bring governance to Rights & Democracy". And yet, there was no suggestion in the 2008 DFAIT evaluation that governance had gone "missing". In fact, none of the report's findings or recommendations even hinted at the need for improved governance.

So how did governance emerge as such at problem at R&D between August 2008 and March 2009 when Aurel Braun was appointed Board Chair? Might it have anything to do with the fact the the interim Board Chair between August 2008 and March 2009 was – Jacques Gauthier???

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

The August 2008 review that you mentioned was not comprehensive by any means. They didn't examine all the programs, they just looked at six of them – a small sample. It is likely that Braun's complaints have nothing to do with the six case studies that were examined in the 2008 review.

From the review:

In performing this Review, the team encountered a number of limitations. Fore example, due to the considerable level of effort and time that a comprehensive review of all countries and programs would have required, the evaluation focused on a sample of only six programs, identified either as challenging or not recently evaluated. Despite the small sample of projects reviewed, most of the results are overarching and representative of R&D's overall program planning, management and implementation practices.

(…)

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.

peterjustice

They are effectively lobbyists and I wonder if they have registered as such in compliance with the law???
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

While we haven't heard the staff's full POV, Paul Wells has been an effective and outspoken proxy for the staff. Thanks to his frequent communications with senior staff members, I'm sure he has adequately represented most of their complaints on his blog.

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

True, but he is bound by his professional duty to report only verifiable facts and trustworthy reports, however; he can't just give his or others' assessments and have that stand as one side's assertions, to be tested and appraised by some third party. That's what this op-ed does, and what the staff can't do.

OnTheJob

"True, but he is bound by his professional duty…"

Hahahaha, that was funny, but seriously, according to which regulating professional body is Wellsy duty bound? None. Journalism is not a profession in the real sense of the word, they are not governed or regulated like engineers, doctors, lawyers, real estate agents, etc. and there is no "professional journalist" designation.

Bound by his professional duty. Heh. And I'm the meth head?

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

His professional . . . duty as . . a . . . gentleman [, then].

OnTheJob

Gentleman. That's even funnier, you're on fire today, man!
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Are you mocking the notion of "gentleman," i.e. an honest & considerate man, or the idea of Wells being one?

OnTheJob

"While we haven't heard the staff's full POV, Paul Wells has been an effective and outspoken proxy for the staff. "

He sure has, but "I'll respond tomorrow" crosses the line from reporting and opinion into being an attack dog for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. I'm not comfortable to say the least with journalists colluding and co-operating with quasi-public servants in this manner given both parties' deep partisan hatred of the current government. At least don't be so blatant about it.

FVerhoeven

And yes, On The Job, it concerns me greatly that debates like this are loaded with some sort of bias against the current government. At the onset that is (or was).

Very dangerous territories are entered into these days, precisely because most often underlying biases are no longer detected. So sad, I would say it's sadder than sad.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Were you being funny here?

Because, you know, your comment seems to be in your normal, not-being-ironic kind of style. Essentially, you are attacking a guy who provided a link to the Board's op-ed, who quoted extensively from it, then provided the link again just in case someone didn't go to the first one, and saying nothing in rebuttal about anything expressed in the op-ed beyond, "I'll respond tomorrow". I.e., giving us the entire day to soak in the words of wisdom from the Board, without a peep of other perspective from Wells (or the staffers who cannot speak for themselves).

And this, you describe as "crossing the line". Would you even have been satisfied if Paul had stated having read the op-ed, he sees the error of his ways and now supports the Board? Because I think you'd still find something to complain about.

kcm

"I'll respond tomorrow", is code for: "i'm a liberal hack journalist". See, that's crossing the line. If you hold your breath for long enough you can just about see it their way…best to keep some oxygen handy though.

Holly Stick

No, no, he was channelling Scarlett: "Tomorrow is another day!"

Holly Stick

Oops. AGW as in anthropogenic global warming.
Holly Stick

It's too bad this isn't about the Middle East, because there are some fun things to do:

like googling: Canada "Israel Allies Caucus" and seeing what you get;

then googling: lunney kairos, and asking yourself "Why won't he even meet with his concerned constituents?

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

but didn't you see that he is refusing to be "intimidated" by some church-folks who are phoning and requesting a meeting

can you blame him?

Holly Stick

And wondering how many MPs are members of this Caucus, and how many have travelled to Israel lately? Do they want to see it before Armageddon starts?

Tim

The recent Ivison article about the split between Libby Davies and Thomas Mulcair in the NDP over Israel is quite interesting especially when you think about the fact that the most anti Israel members of all three parties are from Western Canada such as Libby Davies whereas the most pro are from Eastern Canada including Manitoba . Think about it Keith Martin, Ujjal Dosangh, and Hedy Fry(who attended Durban I) vs Irwin Cotler for the Liberals and oil and gas conservatives Lee Richardson and Jim Prentice vs these Braun, Gauthier, Matas, Giorno types. What is interesting in the NDP is that I don't see any reason for the anti Israel Vancouver Eastside types to give into Thomas Mulcair and his new buddies in the PQ. Put it this way Libby Davies is far more secure in her seat than Mulcair.

http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomm…

Holly Stick

I have the feeling that what you call "anti-Israel" is what most people would call "pro-balance" and "pro-fairness"; as in recognizing that Israelis and Palestinians are both groups of human beings whose human rights need to be respected.