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: Scooped!

by Paul Wells on Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:58pm - 69 Comments

Daniel Leblanc at the Globe and Mail has posted the entire Deloitte audit of Rights and Democracy on the newspaper’s website, “in the spirit of transparency.” Off I go to read it now. You can too. Let’s check back in with one another later, shall we?

Tags: Daniel LeBlanc, Rights and Democracy

More by Paul Wells

wsam

I cannot wait for Dot (aka Ariel Braun) to explain how this proves nothing. In fact, as he will explain in the most constipated tone possible, it proves the present board was right all along and have been nothing but truthful.

Accountants are known liberal sympathizers.

McC_

stay classy wsam

CAPS

Why weren't you the one to get it Paul?

Inkless

Dan asked.

CAPS

Makes sense.
john g

WTF? What have you been doing for the last 9 months if not asking?

Inkless

I've been asking for its public release, which actually hasn't happened yet. Dan's the kind of reporter who assumes MPs will ignore an embargo on a report and call them until one of them leaks the report to him. He is frequently rewarded for such doggedness.

MostlyCivil

Years back, had a reporter call me to ask if i could confirm the contents of a private conference call between three politicos and some deputies about one of those "third-rail" type subjects. I replied with something like "are you serious?".

He just said "sometimes, people say yes when you least expect it. I had to ask."

PeteTong

Don't ask, don't tell Paul.

Remember when you got bored with Canadian politics and you moved to Paris and became even more bored with European / French politics? If this saga comes to an end – where will you go to next?

Truth Monger

I nominate Kyrgyzstan.

Jan

So, if this meeting was actually going to go ahead today (cue the laff track) Latulippe and Braun should be in Ottawa. Has anyone seen them?

Jenn_

We'll have to wait until the new year for that.

Jan

O'Connor just said that the meeting was to be changed to this morning pending the availability of Latulippe and Braun. Unfortunately, they were not available. Foiled by another holiday period.

madeyoulook

Darn. If only we had that high-speed rail network up and running…

Jan

These two probably have the use of a Challenger. I would love to know where they are right now.
madeyoulook

Hmpf. Polar bear killers…
Anon

I saw Braun on the train just when all this stuff started breaking (thanks to our humble servant Paul Wells). Only the presence of who I think was his son saved me from saying, "So have you caused anybody else to die from a heart attack recently?"

Lucky Luke

So…the board alleged monthly 30,000 payments to the Geneva office…(which was closed down I believe), and the auditors claimed that no such thing happened. The auditors identified that the 'partnership' between OHCHR and R&D was perhaps a bit too vague and unspecific but hardly anything that would suggest something sinister…despite the Durban II claim. And the auditors pointed out that board members appeared unaware or ignorant of their roles and responsibilities….so, bad governance. How much did audit cost? No wonder they have been kicking and screaming about its release.

Inkless

Thanks to Lucky Luke for actually reading the audit. Other commenters are encouraged to do the same. I'll post my own thoughts before long.

tobyornotoby

Reading between the lines, this looks like standard Conservative modus operandi which is to criticize and blame staff for following the direction that has been set for them, instead of creating new policy and guidelines for direction.
andrew

The issues that stand out to me are governance, performance measurement & reporting, accounting, information management, and strategic vision. Although many of Gauthier's questions are unanswerable, or unanswered, it seems clear that nothing sinister occurred. The suggestions from Deloitte will probably take about 2 years to implement fully, and will probably cost some several hundred thousand dollars.

madeyoulook

That is my sense of a first read, too.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. — Hanlon's Razor.

Stephen B

"Unremarkable" seems about right… but I am a relatively unsophisticated reader and will be interested to see analysis from those better versed in such matters.

Tony

'better versed'? Oh gee! like a politician, or a journalist, a lawyer, or, I guess, a 'special' accountant? Yeah, I don't need anyone to explain to me what a waste of money this organization is.

Lucky Luke

Mmm…I would suggest that conducting a $400,000 audit in an attempt to disparage a dead man is the real waste of money.

Tony

oh ok – so thats the official narrative – I forgot

schooner

Hi Aurel

andrew

You don't indicate you understand the mandate, vision, and programs of the organization; you indicate that you don't really care to make the effort to do so; your tone indicates from the beginning that you are not interested in dialogue about the issue, rather you'd prefer to be vaguely offensive and mildly annoying. Tell you what: why don't you explain to the entire private sector why audits from companies like Deloitte are unnecessary? Perhaps that would be a better use of your time than duking it out with commenters here.
Tybalt

But you don't have any understanding of what it is they do. You said so yourself, above.

AIO

"Mr. Gauthier asked us to anser the following quesitons: What is the MEDA Trade Co. Inc? For what reasons does Rights & Democracy use the services of MEDA Trade Co. Inc.?"

So this guy, if I recall getting paid a salary at the time that would have amounted to more than 300,000$/year in tax payer dollars, asked a firm, that was paid more than 250,000$ in tax payer dollars, to answer a question that a 5 year old could do answer with Google.

Man, I feel sorry for those folks in Montreal. To have to deal with this…

kcm

Same thing occurred to me…but then Gauthier would still be wondering if there was more to it – hire a hacker next time bud.
madeyoulook

But the question:

"Of all the ways we can send dough around, how did this outfit come to be our preferred supplier? Why can't we just get a US dollar chequing account at BMO instead?"

… is not unfair.

AIO

Missed that question. Who asked it? The way it's phrased, sounds like it came from a Board member. Still – not unfair.

Maybe the answer has something to do with how much banks charge to send hundreds of thousands of dollars around the world in currencies that aren't all that common. It sounds like that's what MEDA does…and probably well, given all the money they transfer every year for different, credible organizations. Still, any firm could run the numbers of a bank vs a transfer firm vs whoever and see what option was most financially viable to perform such a service and go with it. Not rocket science.

What's clear is that MEDA is not a criminal outfit. And that it is amazing that a professional audit firm full of professionals charging tons of money had to the job of a 5 year old to tell a Board appointed by the Government what MEDA was. And you have to imagine that this wasn't the first time that the Board was told what MEDA was. They probably didn't believe it when they were told it previously.

Can you imagine the laugh the folks at the audit firm had when this quesiton was asked?

And we all paid for it.

madeyoulook

Missed that question. Who asked it? The way it's phrased, sounds like it came from a Board member. Still – not unfair.

That question was my reading-between-the-lines, with a little personal imaginative flourish, of that section of the mandate given to the auditors.

briguyhfx

Heh. I saw that the Google News link led to the Globe's website and the first thing that popped in my head was "Paul got scooped!". Lolz.

Sigh. I wish I had time to read this RIGHT NOW. Stupid schedule. Stupid earlier procrastination on important crap.
Budster

Well, they won't need to waste more of our money redacting the parts they didn't want us to read. This was a politically motivated attack by a government that is increasingly unable to sustain its simple minded policy of "Israel, right or wrong". The fig leaf, the last of the emperor's new clothes has been stripped away.

kcm

Need to redact…thank goodness that ship has already sailed…or has it?
briguyhfx

They will probably react to this by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring a Conservative-connected investigator to track down the source of the leak (and probably illegally harass that person, if it was an employee). I predict this from past patterns of the Board's "management" style, which can be summed up as reactionary and bullying.

MostlyCivil

I've read a fair number of audits, and this one was pretty damn boring. The 5 areas of inquiry yielded nothing but a bit of boardroom infighting, and no sign of financial shenanigans.

What most astounding though, is looking at the scope of the audit and the incredibly limited mandate of the auditor. As well, some of the assumptions made. With all those limitations, and the only source of documents being those provided by R+D, this audit should have taken a couple months, at the most.

madeyoulook

Except: in many instances there was no useful documentation at all. R&D had to rely on hired consultants and outside agencies to submit copies of stuff that should have been properly filed in Montreal in the first place. R&D employees had to ~~make stuff up~~ re-create from memory narratives to describe what went on in some files when no documentation could be conjured by other means. All that takes time.
andrew

I think there was probably a lot of wrangling between Board and auditor about scope, and probably due to cost and time the Board finally chose to stick with its original scope and mandate. Either that or staff providing documents were incredibly inept or malicious; neither strikes me as likely, however I wouldn't rule it out completely. (See Hanlon's Razor above)

kcm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/edit…

G&M has made its position known – predictably

$400,000 for a recommendation to get a centralized, standardized filing system, clean up some sloopy book-keeping and remind folks they oughta sign their names on documents before mis-filing them.
Fraser could have done in half the time and probably at half the cost.

Maybe they should invoice Gerald Steinberg at ngo monitor?

Charles H.

"G&M has made its position known – predictably "

That editorial is from April.

kcm

Oops…bet it hasn't changed.

kcm

mmm…sloppy book-keeping…i'm going back to bed.Tomorrow i'll be better.

Dot

PW and I have exchanged a few good natured and maybe not so emails over the past 12 hrs on this issue.

I may have been unfairly harsh on him, and while I do not agree with many things he writes on this topic, he is entitled to his opinion.

Personally I agree largely with what Andrew wrote above, surprisingly seconded by MYL, given his previous positions. Much ado with nothing, unless you want to get into micromanaging – a $12 million a yr GONGO.

Live and Learn, as they say.

Season's Greetings.

madeyoulook

Welcome back, Dot.

My previous positions are unchanged: the whole R&D nonsense was a dumb idea from day one, and the sooner we scrap this (and many other) silly distraction(s), the sooner we get better, less confiscatory government.

But I can read. And I can come up with a summary of what I have read. Hanlon's Razor was the most succinct summary of the Deloitte report that came to mind. That's all. So: What is it about my secondment that surprises you, Dot?

Dot

If you were to bother going back months and months ago, I suggested that it appeared to me, this may simply come down to a clash of personalities/skills. With an academic background, Braun may have been unsuited at Chair. He certainly didn't appear to be a Janice Stein.

wsap arrived on the scene in that same blog and started his low brow attacks which he continues to this date (see first entry). I recall standing alone.

One or two blogs ago you wrote some redneckish comments about R&D "Rights and Democracy" which I took exception to . My latest comment was in that context. And in full knowledge of some of your more choice postings a couple of years ago when you first started posting. You've evolved, in my opinion. That's a compliment, btw.

madeyoulook

OK. Thanks for the, uh, compliment. And, not that either of us should care that much, but if you would feel the urge to remind me which of my comments was/were so objectionable, I would be happy to revisit, then either amend or ratify as necessary. I can not guarantee your satisfaction in advance, however.

Tony

Wow, looks like a slush fund for uh uh I don't know what – what exactly are they doing again? Spreading democracy in Bolivia? Flying a canadian bureaucrat from Geneva to Haiti? Workshops, hmmm?

Shut it down.

schooner

Could you please point out where in the report you see that?
Tony

I know exactly what Rights + Democracy is. It is a slush fund for the political class ( there are hundreds of these little groups full of party faithful and friends needed during elections etc., but largely useless the rest of the time. How do you keep these sometimes very useful soldiers? You create organizations like communication consultants, etc. etc – hey, even a vague group of Rights and Democracy experts.

The conflict here derived when a former Liberal slush fund now was being transformed into a Conservative slush fund.

Tony

Oh I forgot to add, large groups of lawyers and accountants surround the political class more than willing to produce largely meaningless audits and inquiries (for 400G+ a pop) that act purely to continue a self-perpetuatitng cycle of waste . – all on the taxpayers dime – ( ohhhh, I hope I don't sound like a crazy tea-party hick)
schooner

You know it was created under Mulroney right?

madeyoulook

… as a double-dip income stream for a pensioner by the name of Ed Broadbent, right?

Tony

No, as in a transition from 10+ years of Liberal rule to Conservative rule. Maybe you need to reread what I wrote – "Liberal slush fund now was being transformed into a Conservative slush fund" – 'slush' being the key negative word.
madeyoulook

No, as in a transition from 10+ years of Liberal rule to Conservative rule.

I was sooooo with you on the "Shut it down" thing. Why, ever since I have come to know this bloated beast existed, I wanted the sucker deep-sixed myself. But how you get a Mulroney creation (that hired Broadbent) to be a "Liberal slush fund" is, well, it's a streeeeeeeeeeeetch.
schooner

That is some weak sauce.

Face it, you were making a knee jerk comment about the Liberal party and you had no idea what you were talking about.
Tony

It's funny you mention such an insignificant federal socialist schmuck such as Ed Broadbent.

You misunderstand my criticism of what I read.

I read a fairly expensive audit that mentions almost at the end of every section how the audit was limted to certain areas, and suggests, delicately, some sort of stated purpose for this organization. Within sections, you find vague refences to workshops, and travel, or the need for offices in Geneva.

Yet, when I filed my tax return to Revenue Canada last year, I received a phone call from them explaining that in addition to the monthly bus passes I provided for the 15% tax reduction (thats how I get to work); I also needed to provide the receipt for those bus passes.

- that's probably incomprehensible and/or meaningless to you folk
madeyoulook

Thank you for the explanation, but I fear you have now quite adequately explained away your own misunderstanding of "Liberal slush fund."
schooner

Not sure if that reply is for me or Tony. My comment above was directed at Tony.
madeyoulook

Tony. See the arrow: it is a reply to Tony.
schooner

Thanks. Kinda new to the board.
Tybalt

You are unaware that you need to keep receipts to document expenses you claim on your taxes? At least someone has now made you aware. You seem an extremely silly person.
Tony

Haha, my mistake Tybalt – you know taxes, accountability, government spending, etc etc. – silly stuff **redfaced**

Hey Paul, great investigative reporting for yourself and your friends! You are a legend in not only your mind! This is the issue that I am sure will tip the scales among them!

Good Luck!
Jenn_

Why, not at all, Tony. Audits, heck everything accounting-like, is full of things that limit their scope, limit their opinion, and above all, limit their liability. Which makes sense after Enron and such.

For your bus passes, how does Revenue Canada know that you paid for them, and it wasn't a perk provided by your employer or your parent? Because lots of employers (and parents) provide things like that so they don't have to provide you with a vehicle. Just because other people like politicians, certain board members, bankers, etc. get to make up the rules or double-dip, that doesn't mean we all do–and most importantly, it doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. As aggravating as it is, I know, please take a deep breath and consciously think about YOUR OWN ethics. Because if you base your ethics on what other people do, you don't have any. Send CRA your receipts, and spare a moment to be thankful they are asking you, because they are asking more people than just you for the same thing.
Tony

Yeah, and having been to Bolivia, Peru, Guatemala, Cambodia, Vietnam, and China, I know the poor are lighting candles tonight for Paul Wells and eagerly awaiting the next 'workshop'delivered from Ottawa via Montreal by way of Geneva from Rights and Democracy.

Here is a personal audit of myself (government-style): I verify that I spent 2500 bucks last month as proof you will see I no longer have 2500 bucks.