Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Rights and Democracy: We have a date

by Paul Wells on Friday, November 26, 2010 3:22pm - 75 Comments

The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee met in camera yesterday, and when the members emerged, this appeared in the minutes:

“It was agreed, — That the Committee ask Gérard Latulippe, President of Rights & Democracy, and the Chair of the Board of Directors, Aurel Braun, to appear before the Committee on Thursday, December 16, 2010; and that members of the Committee be provided with the forensic audit report from Samson Bélair-Deloitte & Touche and the investigative report prepared by Sirco, no later than Monday, December 13, 2010.”

That gives our friends a bit more than two weeks to cough up the reports.

The “Sirco” report refers to the report of a private investigator who was brought in to investigate the theft of computers from the Rights & Democracy offices , a theft which apparently took place on the day of Rémy Beauregard’s funeral. I’ve never found the assorted contradictory speculation about who might have done that theft very useful, and since there have been no arrests, one presumes the Sirco investigation was inconclusive. That report will not be without interest, however. The first time the staff of Rights and Democracy heard of the firm was after three staff members had been questioned by R&D board appointee Jacques Gauthier in the presence of Sirco principal Claude Sarrazin — whose business affiliation and role was not disclosed to the staffers when they were questioned. They were later fired and are suing for wrongful dismissal.

This is, by my count, at least the fourth time the committee has asked for the Deloitte audit (and, I believe, also the fourth time it has asked for the Sirco report, about which I have written less often). Now they have put a time limit on their request. We’ll see how the Rights and Democracy board responds.

Bookmark and Share
  • LaxAtlDfwYow

    I'm having trouble imagining the RnD Board is playing dodge ball without an Ottawa coach.

  • Jan

    I don't about this. This date comes dangerously close to a major holiday period, and as we know, they have a tradition of not being able to respond during these times.

  • kcm

    Is it possible our emails put some stiffener in the committee's collective backbone? Nah, just happenstance, coincidence…it'll never happen again.

  • Dot

    Let the conspiracy theories begin! This could be fun. We already have a "major holiday period" wrench thrown in via Jan.

    What can we find on Gossip Central?

    Not to disappoint, DinklessSmells starts off with:

    One suspects the Aurel Braun op-ed in the National Post singing the praises of transparency will not be long coming.
    about 4 hours ago via ÜberTwitter

    Then the Dr (of PolySci with 22 followers woohoo!) who describes himself as "I am a political scientist whose research examines the relationships between rights, governance and public policy" weighs in from Haaavaaad: http://www.emmettmacfarlane.com/

    @DinklessSmells They should invite someone from Deloitte to testify that the report they get hasn't been altered.

    Not to pass up the libellous opportunity, Dinkless forwards to his 4,298 followers, adding:

    V good idea

    Meanwhile, Jady O'Rally! picks up the theme , and reiterates to her 5,653 followers that:

    I'm assuming the cttee will make it clear to the R&D board they mean the cmplte reports. None of this "as advised by council" silliness. #hw

    Look at that! Just a few hrs and we've got a few conspiracy theories well underway.

    "Game on! ….180!!!!!"

    • Jan

      Pace yourself. Dot – this could be a long one.

      • Dot

        You'll note I didn't comment on this:

        The first time the staff of Rights and Democracy heard of the firm was after three staff members had been questioned by R&D board appointee Jacques Gauthier in the presence of Sirco principal Claude Sarrazin — whose business affiliation and role was not disclosed to the staffers when they were questioned.

        I'd say – so what? They'd have altered their story had they known? Asked for lawyers? Yes, it's so conspirational!

        • kcm

          Dinkless smells…your invention? And yet you blather on about credibility? It's gotten to petty name calling now has it?

          • Dot

            Yeah, that's the issue. I'm calling a fake name a fake name.

          • http://www.translucid.ca/site/flacklife-the-translucid-blog/ bobledrew

            Dot, it seems to me that a major issue here is that a Parliamentary committee has repeatedly asked for, and R&D has repeatedly promised, the Deloitte and Sirco reports, while R&D's new leadership has continued to advocate for things such as "transparency" and "accountability."

            To me (and I have no connection to Parliament or to R&D), R&D has seemed at the very least evasive and at worst hypocritical during this process. How do you feel about the way R&D has interacted with the partliamentary committee charged with their oversight? Do you feel it's been positive and respectful? I do not.

          • Dot

            I have commented on this a few times in other blogs of Wells. In fact, when Cannon rose in the HofC to indicate he would ask his official to request the audit, I encouraged follow-up in Committee.

            However, I am getting past my tolerance for these types of gratuitous cheap shots. If my contempt was correctly interpreted in my latest post, then my communication was effectively delivered.

          • Tybalt

            Sorry, just to be clear… *you* are getting tired of gratuitous cheap shots? Really. Well, that's something.

          • Nuckman

            "If my contempt was correctly interpreted in my latest post, then my communication was effectively delivered."

            Your contempt and ignorance of Canadian tort law were both effectively disseminated.

          • LaxAtlDfwYow

            Dot's having his Period.

          • lgarvin

            As interesting as the R&D debacle is, Dot has managed to construct an even more interesting little subplot of his own…

            I suspect at some point he's going to chew off his own tongue in this one-man orgy of indifference to the issue. .

          • Dot

            Not to worry Lawrence, unlike Turner's site where we were both banned in close succession by trying to hold him accountable for his b.s. , I'll shortly be biting off more than my own tongue. Kill off another commenter – no big loss.

            Sorry to deprive you of any further entertainment and smugness.

          • lgarvin

            Don't go away mad… I'm just puzzled about your curious hostility on the whole thing.

            You've been claiming for months that Wells is making too much of it, and you're constantly proclaiming your own indifference to the thing, and yet you're getting downright childish over it now… "Dinkless Smells?"

            What's the deal, Dot?

          • Dot

            I've never claimed indifference. I've been very consistent in advocating due process and fairness. Allow the process to play out.

            I'll tell you what my turning point was – a TVO The Agenda with Steve Paikin debate with Paul Wells, Chris Selley and David Matas, a former and current board member – who had previously taken the time to email an explanation to Wells in the midst of this whole media crisis/circus and, from my perspective, was treated extremely shabbily by Wells in his blog commentary.

            I listened to all sides of the debate, and came to the conclusion that the positions put forward by Mr Matas were consistent with what he had written, and made sense enough. He also seemed to me to be a decent individual. I found Wells to be not credible and emotional/irrational, despite the fact that I had read him for quite some time.

            If decent enough people are not going to be given a fair shake and due process, then a pox on all our houses.

            And I don't really want to get into further debates on my conclusions with the zealots that remain.

          • lgarvin

            Wells is certainly fair game for criticism, but I'll take an imperfect, but tenacious, journalist over a perfect gentlemen anyday. What's happening at R&D is important and the antics of that board deserve full scrutiny and harsh criticism. If we don't have all the information we need to be perfectly objective… well it's not like we haven't been trying to get that information, right?

          • Dot

            well it's not like we haven't been trying to get that information, right?

            Tell me Lawrence, what SPECIFICALLY are *you* expecting in the audit report? I think this is extremely important – because I can tell you definitively, it ain't what Wells and O'Malley claim.

            Tell me what "antics of that board" that "deserve full scrutiny and harsh criticism" do you believe will be found in the audit? Feel free to dream out loud.

          • Bob

            What exactly has Wells claimed will be in the report? It was the BOARD that was looking for evidence of malfeasance from the previous members, if you'll recall…

          • Dot

            It was the BOARD that was looking for evidence of malfeasance from the previous members, if you'll recall…

            No, I don't recall. Can you direct me to where the BOARD said that?

          • Jan

            This is no time to start playing silly bugger, Dot. If the board isn't looking for malfeasance, why has it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on investigators and auditors?

          • Dot

            And I don't really want to get into further debates on my conclusions with the zealots that remain.

          • DerekPearce

            So, like, is R&D your boyfriend? Is that it?

          • lgarvin

            MONTREAL, Feb. 19 /CNW Telbec/ – Jacques Gauthier, interim president of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, announced today he has engaged Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche to conduct a forensic audit the organization's financial transactions from 2005 to 2009.

            Gauthier stressed in making the announcement that the purpose of the audit is to guarantee full transparency in the proper spending of Canadian taxpayers' dollars.

            "Democracy demands accountability and rights require responsibility," Gauthier said. "As an institution that receives $11 million annually from the federal government – in other words, from the taxes of Canadians – Rights and Democracy must be accountable for the way our funds are spent. We are responsible to ensure they have been properly managed."

            The interim president said neither he nor the board of directors has direct evidence of any individual impropriety. However, financial reviews have turned up transactions that require the attention of forensic auditors.

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

            Samson Belair/Deloitte & Touche representatives will begin the audit immediately, and expect to report with recommendations in three weeks. Results will be made public as soon as possible after the report is accepted by the board of directors, Gauthier said.

            http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/Februa…

          • lgarvin

            I'm expecting that the audit will show that the smears & innuendos against Remy Beauregard are baseless. But I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

            The antics of the board I'm talking about are not easily summarized but -in part – they include the aforementioned smearing of a dead man, the clownish behaviour of various board members, and the questionable integrity of many of those same board members.

            If you can tell me "definitively" that Wells and O'Malley are making false claims about the matter then it ought to be easy to identify the specific claims that you know to be false. Right?

          • Dot

            I'm expecting that the audit will show that the smears & innuendos against Remy Beauregard are baseless. But I'm trying to keep an open mind about it.

            OK Lawrence – a bit of background is req'd. Is it conceivable that a nice agreeable easy to get along with earnest person can be a good manager but not a good leader? Because when corporations are being turned around, it is not uncommon for there to be two phases – the take charge portion, where all the big drastic changes occur, and the recovery/building phase where the changes are implemented. Is it possible that there are two differing skill sets req'd? Because that is a part of Organizational Behaviour/Management theory (you know – MBA b.s stuff).

            Also, if the President was aware that the Chair and certain board members had strong views on certain types of grants to certain groups, would it be deemed wise to make these types of grants from one's discretionary funds? If one didn't sufficiently anticipate the conflict, and didn't do the necessary checks, could one realistically anticipate problems?

            Btw- those q's won't be answered in the audit either.

            Also the audit was commissioned by the Board – and scope of work determined by the Board. Take that into consideration when you anticipate what they may be paid to review. It ain't gonna be minutes of Board meetings where some of your q's might be subjectively answered, notwithstanding that a key member is not available to participate and respond.

          • lgarvin

            Btw- those q's won't be answered in the audit either.

            Of course not, the purpose of the audit is not to address any of those issues at all. The purpose of the audit – by the admission of the people who ordered it – is to prove that Remy Beauregard was NOT DOING HIS JOB and that all the smears they made against him in the "secret" job review have some basis in fact.

            Which is precisely why so many people are rightly suspicious of these people who have behaved – so far – as if they were cowardly and underhanded. We can't PROVE that they are cowardly and underhanded – at least not yet – but we certainly can discuss our opinions of them and why their ongoing behaviour supports the theory that they are underhanded cowards.

    • madeyoulook

      @Dot: Just who peed in your Corn Flakes every morning so far this year, anyways?
      —@MYL (number of followers undefined)

      • Dot

        The same one who then took them whole and made peanut butter chews for you.

    • Jenn_

      Just to remind you, Dot, that Jan didn't come up with the holidays thing, that was R&D unable to comply with something because it was early June. And of course the staff's holiday schedule completely ruled out anything getting done.

    • Halo_Override

      That was just bloody embarrassing to read. I've wondered for a while now what your hidden horse in this race is, but after this juvenile tantrum I'm just gonna let that one go.

    • s_c_f

      I've been sympathetic to the HRD members' case as well, and I've never bought into Wells' jabs either. I'm not really sure what Wells is trying to accomplish, other than make a few bureacrats act like professionals. In that vein, however, we've been waiting forever for these two reports. So, until these HRD people can deliver what they say they will deliver (even if the audits found nothing, they should say so), they have no leg to stand on.

  • madeyoulook

    So, Paul, I was wondering: got any plans for the 16th? I hope that's not the day of the Rogers Publishing Xmas Winter Festive Party in Toronto…

  • BGLong

    Maybe the Wikileaks diplomatic carnage will be cleaned up by then.

  • Dot

    And with that Dot officially retires from commenting on Macleans blogs. Consider my first entry here to be my swan song.

    One piece of wisdom that the bloghost might chew over for quite sometime. In his own words in response to another commenter:

    Don't sell yourself short. "WTF is wrong with you?" are some pretty good words.

    • MostlyCivil

      I'd like to be charitable and say your final posts were classics, and you'll be missed…

      I'd like to be, really.

    • SamDavies

      Well – I may not have agreed with you all that often, and I certainly think you are way out of line in this thread, but I will actually miss Dot. Sure – he was mean and surly lots of times, but he did have those occasional moments of wit that were very well played. Should you really not return, I wish you all the best.

      Full disclosure – Not sure why, but until this thread (where Dot was referred to as a "he"), I somehow thought Dot was female. I feel kinda silly now.

    • Mulletaur

      Don't be such a bloody baby. I need the entertainment.

    • Nuckman

      "It's better to burn out than fade away"?

  • Inkless

    One hardly knows what to say.

    • Jan

      Sometimes hand gestures are more appropriate…

      • kcm

        You're a cad Wells. First Jack and now Dot. Who's next on your hit list, fiend from hell.

        Still miss Jack though.

        • SamDavies

          LoL! The same thought crossed my mind…

  • Emmett

    I almost forgot I even had a website under my name. I guess I've been too busy using twitter to vent about the Habs and to occasionally slander innocent government-funded institutions (seriously? You think THAT was "libellous"?)… Thanks Dot!

  • Budster

    Good for you Paul for keeping this sordid mess in the public eye. Remy Beauregard deserves to have the details exposed given the disgusting treatment he received from these anti-human rights polititions and their appointed hacks.

  • AbPouv

    What these two reports will bring forth is that there is no proof that Mr, Beauregard, the Institution or the employees ever financed terrorist organizations and that the Board had it all very wrong. The Board has spent hundreds of thousands trying to save face on the backs of a great man, now dead, a revered Institution and its loyal employees in an incredible show of abuse of power at its worst.

  • wellwell

    In their cynicism about government, the new Board members apparently consider "Yes, Minister" to be a valid operations manual. No doubt they'll proceed briskly to Stage 4:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-ezkbWCuOQ&fe…

    They've already borrowed from this exchange:

    Jim Hacker: This file contains the complete set of papers, except for a number of secret documents, a few others which are part of still active files, a few others lost in the flood of 1967. Was 1967 a particularly bad winter?
    Sir Humphrey: No a marvellous winter, we lost no end of embarrassing files.
    Jim Hacker: Some records which went astray in the move to London, and others when the War Office was incorporated in the Ministry of Defence, and the normal withdrawal of papers whose publication could give grounds for an action for liable or breach of confidence, or cause embarrassment to friendly governments. Well that's pretty comprehensive. How many does that normally leave for them to look at? How many does that actually leave? About a hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Zero?
    Sir Humphrey: Yes Minister.

  • Inkless

    Somewhere in his sad and spectacular public breakdown above, Dot asserts that I treated David Matas "shabbily" on this blog.

    What I did was post, immediately and verbatim, what Matas sent me (and several other bloggers and news organizations across the country).
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/06/rights-and-dem…

    I refrained from comment until the next day. Then I wrote this analysis, which certainly does take issue with Matas' argument.
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/06/rights-and-dem…

    It is worth noting that in his comments below that post, Dot offered no criticism of the treatment I offered Matas.

    If he is running from these comment boards, that's his choice. But I'll put my reporting and commentary, signed and archived, up against his anonymous revisionism any day.

    • James Connors

      Cheers to both you guys:
      http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2010/11/cr…

      [Presuming, of course, Dot is a guy.]

    • Truth Monger

      Sad & spectacular hissy fit #1: "You win, whoever you are. I won't be blogging much this spring — wasn't going to anyway, for reasons that have to do with my day job. (Blogging was never part of my job description, always a sideline, tolerated and then encouraged but never reimbursed by my employer.) When I do, I'll close comments. That applies only to the Inkless Wells blog, the only one I control. But more broadly, this will be the last comment I post on the comment boards of anyone's blog. We aim to please." http://macleans.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/note-to-…

      Sad & spectacular hissy fit #2 (4 days later): "Comments are re-opened. I won't participate in the discussion — this is your board, not mine. I will, however, be ruthless in deleting comments that contain personal insults aimed by one reader at another. So don't even try it. Here's a chance to discuss ideas instead of slinging mud. I know most readers will welcome that." http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/29/canada-150-tow…

      # of comments published by P. Wells since sad & spectacular hissy fit above: 250+

      He'll put up his "reporting" (i.e. emails from a few sources inside R&D: real hardcore Woodward & Bernstein stuff I tell ya) and commentary (snide, self-absorbed BS 90% of the time) whenever he's not actually throwing a public hissy fit. He aims to please.

      • Jan

        Back so soon, Dot?

        • Truth Monger

          Oh, Paul's got plenty of enemies, Jan, don't you worry about that.

          • MostlyCivil

            How can we miss you if you won't go away?

            Wait…hold on a minute…"enemies"? Really? You realize that this is a comment board on the net, right?

            I mean, unless he has your spouse tied to a railroad track, or his great grandfather insulted your great grandfather's moustache back in the old country, I'd hardly consider this to be worthy of being "enemy" material.

            Examples:
            North Korea/South Korea? Enemies
            Justin Beiber/Teenage Boys? Enemies
            Ezra Levant/Libel Law? Enemies

          • Truth Monger

            Ah, the School of Droll! You must have been studying under Dr. Wells.

          • s_c_f

            In defense of Ezra, I don't think he's lost a case yet. It's not so much libel law that is his enemy, it's nuisance suits.

          • MostlyCivil

            Fair enough, as this didn't get much press last week.
            http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Judge+ord…
            "
            "In all, the judge found Mr. Levant defamed Mr. Vigna on six occasions between March and May 2008. "

          • s_c_f

            $25,000 for his ridicule of the statements "I feel dizzy. I feel anxiety and I am not in a serene state of mind," he said. "I have a lot of things worrying me right now and I don't want to elaborate."?

            Seems excessive to me. I think he should appeal.

  • Dot

    Look PW,

    I'm making this one last cameo. You acknowledged quite sometime ago in the comments of either your blog or one of Aaron's that I had long been your biggest critic on the R&D file, and no matter what I said, you would continue on unabated. As you have. So, at this stage, it really doesn't matter what I say or write here. You won't accept it.

    Since journalists don't belong to any professional associations with ethical standards (unlike say engineers) where one could seek advice, and review the issues I have raised ("revisionism" as you claim) why don't you ask the former dean of Journalism at Western – Peter Desbarats for comment; or alternatively in politics- Ken Dryden or Glen Pearson, who have demonstrated interest in these issues- for their commentary. I doubt you will receive unbiased reviews from what remains of your "Inkless Irregulars".

    Regards

    • ColdStanding

      Now taking odds on the length of time before Dot posts again.

      • BGLong

        He/she/it will be missed if he/she/it really goes. If he/she/it holds and asserts views
        that are outside the usual Bloods and Crips fandango that happens here, that's fine
        by me.
        Meanwhile I can follow what I believe to be he/she/it's interventions at WCI with interest.

    • kcm

      Even if your suggestion was followed what good could it possibly do – other than offer a different view or perpective, something you can aquire by simply heading over to the NP. In other words it's mostly subjective opinion. You have consistently missed the point Dot. Yes we cannot know, may never know if PWs assertions as to the boards motives are in fact as he has surmised. What is really in dispute here is the method, the process, a sense that an injustice may have occured. You have consistently [IMO] taken a doggedly contrarian view. This is of course your right, but please stop trying to spin it out as: my experience in the world of corp/board management has been consistently rejected out of hand because i 'know' Wells and his merry band is biased. Wells has simply presented a more compelling and plausible scenario based on the available facts than you have.Sore loser, take your ball and go home if you wish.

      • Kaplan

        "Yes we cannot know, may never know if PWs assertions as to the boards motives are in fact as he has surmised."

        Much as I support Wells' work on R&D, I do find that his readiness to infer motives without proof, and to extrapolate on a guess and, in his own word, a hunch, can be troubling. That's the Jane Taber/Mark Steyn route of disinformation, spin and outright lazy reporting, and he seems to be going down that road more and more these days. (Oops, was that a hunch based on nothing more than a few anecdotes and comments by others, bereft of proof and a sound, rational analysis of the evidence?)

        • kcm

          I wouldn't say without proof [ unless you're holding him to a legal standard, which would be unfair]. On many occasions he seems to be responding to assertions or actions taken or not taken by the board; I wouldn't put that in a category with Taber/Steyn at all [ one is apparently [i almost never read her] a gossip columnist, the other a fabulist who has been outed on a number of occasions – once quite memorably by PWs himself. I take your point though, i just wouldn't catorgorize his style as unsubstantiated allegations, which would most certainly bother me…and at every point that i can recall the board has had a opportunity to respond…it's just that up to now they've done a piss poor job of it, and i doubt that'll change.

          • Kaplan

            Wells is a great journalist – one of our country's best, and pretty much my favorite read, despite my tiresome and repetitive carping. My roundabout point in comparing him to Taber and Steyn was to point out what's really my only complaint about his work in recent months, and that's been his ongoing apologia with regards to Maclean's claim that Quebec is the most corrupt province in Canada, a claim that's easy to believe but difficult to prove.

            But maybe I'll let that one go…it's so last week.

    • Guest
      • s_c_f

        You poor baby, you don't like what Steyn says. Your drive-by attack on Steyn is even more pathetic than Dot's tirade about Wells.

        • Guest

          No. Read it. It's not about "not liking what Steyn says". It's about whether what is reported is true or flatly, demonstrably false, as in his misquote, flatly wrong figures and other falsehoods. That, like Maclean's accidentally killing off entire national groups by mistake, is much more serious than anything in these posts or this thread. Context.

          • s_c_f

            Like I said pathetic. Steyn posts corrections when they are warranted, and he is very careful with his facts. You jut don't like what he says. And there is no context. Nor is there anything "much more serious than anything in these posts".

          • Guest

            Bull. Just a couple examples of demonstrable falsehoods – Steyn: "The cap-and-trade bill recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, is a bold assault on property rights: in order to sell your home—whether built in 2006 or 1772—you would have to bring it into compliance with whimsical, eternally evolving national ‘energy efficiency’ standards, starting with a 50 per cent reduction in energy use by 2018. Fail to do so and it would be illegal for you to enter into a private contract with a willing buyer”.

            Like the "10 million dead Finns" report, that is flatly untrue, but no correction was offered, only a letter in Maclean's. Factcheck.org: "There’s no such requirement in the bill… no requirement for energy audits or energy-efficiency inspections in the bill".

            Or this one – Steyn in Maclean's: “Aly Hindy, a Scarborough imam, told the Toronto Star that he’d performed 30 polygamous marriages just in the last few weeks”.

            The Toronto Star report reads: “In the past five years, Hindy said he has officiated or "blessed" more than 30 polygamous marriages; the most recent was two months ago.”

    • s_c_f

      Geez, the lamest thing on earth is to declare one's departure momentously in a sanctimonious manner, and then not even lasting a day before showing up again. That is absolutely pathetic.

      Frankly, I've never bought into Wells' tirade against HRD, but I find your holier-than-thou reactions even more perplexing. It appears that your idea of ethical standards is that journalists should never be wrong, and you are the arbiter of when a journalist is wrong. I'd rather a journalist show a little guts and make a mistake once in a while, as opposed to being a pussycat that can't break a story even if it fell into his lap. Then there's journalists like Jane Taber and pretty well the entire CBC including O'Malley, who write the same story over and over again regardless of what has actually happened in the real world.

      So what if Wells is going after HRD? They're big boys, if they can be be on the board of a government agency then they should have the balls to stand up for themselves. That's politics. It's a government agency. I've never bought into Wells' story line either (I'm pretty sure that the current leaders of HRD are far less clownish than the leaders that preceded them, and in fact the entire staff at that place has long been a joke before Braun et al came along), but I don't see any problem with the fact that he continues to peddle it. One thing is for sure, we've been waiting forever for these reports to appear.

      • AbPouv

        "… in fact the entire staff at that place has long been a joke before Braun et al came along"

        What a statement! And how did you hear about this "joke"? R&D is known internationally in HR circles, but for the past 20 years, it would have been difficult to find anyone in Canada who knew anything about R&D, let alone the capacities or lack thereof of it's staff, before Braun et al came along…! Good job Aurel!

        • kcm

          In fact the staff does have a somewhat chequered past history ; at least the president before RB did. [ Roy ??]
          Beauregard was brought in to clean up that mess, and quite successfully – according Parliamentary record.

          Is a R&D history primer in order PWs?
          I got mine from a Terry Glavin piece, who while pointing out past R&D history forgot to mention that Beauregard was appointed to clean up a mess…which according to parliamentary record he did…obviously not to Braun and companys liking.

          • Sosa

            As I understand it, all Presidents at R & D, including Roy were appointed by the PMO (governor in council appointments) just like the R & D board members. As I understand it, Beauregard didn't get rid of any staff whatsoever during his tenure…the "Roy problems" had more to do with management style and structure than with the staff's competency.

From Macleans