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: "We have been denied an important opportunity to shed light"

by Paul Wells on Friday, December 17, 2010 3:56pm - 80 Comments

A news release from Gérard Latulippe, the president of Rights and Democracy, reacting to yesterday’s events:

We do not know why the Committee meeting was cancelled. I was in Ottawa, together with the Chairman of the Board of Directors, prepared to testify. What is certain is that we have been denied an important opportunity to shed light on the events that plunged Rights and Democracy into a crisis situation.

With regard to the Deloitte Report in particular, I wish to say that Deloitte was never given a mandate to identify fraud or embezzlement within Rights & Democracy. Instead, its mandate was to analyze certain governance practices on which the directors sought an independent audit after realizing that they were not being provided proper information by the Centre administration.

While the Deloitte report did not identify any illegalities, fraud or embezzlement during the period under review, it did reveal serious problems of governance.

More by Paul Wells

andrew

"Save considerable money" is doubtful to me. I am willing to bet the refocussing of the organization will require an exercise in re-branding, visioning, strategic goals, performance measurement framework development, communications strategies, partnership outreach/development/nuturing, re-organization of management and staffing, etc. All of that requires business cases to be written, submissions to Treasury Board for the extra funds (i.e. over and above normal programming funds), possibly a capital investment in renovating/moving offices. And of course, given the Deloitte id'ing of information management issues, a whole suite of I&IT solutions that will cost easily millions of $$$.
Jeff

What "light" did he intend to shed exaclty, by insisting on an in camera hearing and refusing to divulge a report which exonerated Remy Beauregard. What is certain is that Beauregard acted with a level of integrity that this slimeball could never match.
smelter rat

"However, it is high time we turned the page and gave Rights and Democracy a fresh start"

Starting with several resignations, I hope.
gottabesaid

"We deplore the unauthorized disclosure of the Deloitte report after it was submitted to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. "

That's not surprising, given that it has been under wraps since before June.

Jan

On this I firmly believe he's being truthful.

Dot

UPDATE: This corner is big on shedding light. I will be happy to reproduce Latulippe’s and Aurel Braun’s prepared speaking notes, which they would have had ready for the committee meeting, verbatim in this space if they want to supply them.

Good luck with that. You've been effectively marginalized on this file in terms of R&D Board members cooperating. Based upon past efforts. I doubt even friendly media like Steve Paikin would welcome you back to discuss this topic, given your past performance.

Jan

Feel free to release them to another media outlet.

Inkless

Absolutely. Wherever they fetch up, I'll post a link — if those notes get sent to any reporter in the country.

Holly Stick

Golly, that sounds like Dot is speaking for the R&D Board. What's your official position, Dot?
Jan

Yes, now that you've been marginalized the cooperation has really fallen off…

Bob

How much you wanna bet Paikin would HAPPILY have Paul back to discuss R&D at some point?

Dot

At his retirement party? $5.

Holly Stick

Wow, that sounded threatening.
wsam

I'm betting 5$ you're Ariel Bruan.

Fits the current boards sleezy way of doing things.

McC_

http://www.sadtrombone.com/

MostlyCivil

If that's the best press release they could come up with, I can tell you without an audit that their PR budget is being poorly spent..

All quotes, on a Friday afternoon at 1 pm? Stéphane, you KNOW it's "take out the Trash" day, right?
Jan

I love the passive-aggressiveness – we didn't find massive amounts of criminal activiety but it was really bad nonetheless. The slagging continues. These guys need to learn some subtlety.

Jenn_

Absolutely. "They weren't mandated to find fraud and embezzlement. (ergo) They did not find fraud or embezzlement"

But my favourite part was, "Mr. Latulippe will meet with the media today, upon request, to provide further information regarding his position on the Deloitte Report and his appreciation of recent events." Wouldn't it have been better to schedule a news conference if you were prepared to answer questions? Which makes me think they were not prepared to answer questions, but rather to give another statement as non-illuminating as this one.

Having said that, I also wonder why the meeting was cancelled because I think once the Deloitte Report hit the news, the Conservatives decided to abandon their support of these guys. I'm sure that thought has crossed their minds as well.
Have a nice weekend!

kcm

'We do not know why the Committee meeting was cancelled. I was in Ottawa, together with the Chairman of the Board of Directors, prepared to testify. What is certain is that we have been denied an important opportunity to shed light on the events that plunged Rights and Democracy into a crisis situation.'

Someone once said giving Kissinger the Nobel peace prize was the death of satire ; i do not think so, it merely went into therapy.

Jan

He's now contradicting O'Connor, who said in the House that the meeting was changed to the morning, pending the availability of Latulippe and Braun and – wait for it – they were unavailable.

Inkless

Although Kady and a colleague over at the CBC say O'Connor's version was different from R&D's yesterday. Bourgon, the (third of 4) R&D comms guy, says they were never asked about a 10 o'clock plan B, not that they were asked and they were unavailable.

It's possible all of this is just crossed wires. R&D clearly face some comms challenges on their end, and a committee clerk is not always able to get a clear message out while MPs are changing and re-changing schedules.

Jan

I stand corrected.
madeyoulook

Hanlon's Razor seems to show up rather often when it comes to this organization.

dreadd

my favourite definition of stupidity is: "knowing better, and doing it anyway".
using that yardstick we could say that any action motivated by malice must therefore inevitably produce results attributable to stupidity.

Mike R

I'm sure there is some valid reason why Paul Wells is so exercised over the goings on at this hitherto unheard of organizationk, the purpose of which remains obscure to me and, i suspect, 99.99% of other Canadians. A greater question may be why the government hasn't simply dissolved what seems to be an utterly pointless QUANGO whose job could clearly be done as effectively by Foreign Affiars staff?

Jan

I thought you would want to preserve part of Mulroney's legacy. It had been doing valuable work up until now.

Mike R

If it is so "valuable" I think I might have heard of it. Just because it was created by Mr. Mulroney (blessed be his name) not every institution created by government has to survive forever. It may have had a valid object at some point. Right now it appears to be irrelevant. Worse, it diverts Mr. Wells from writing insightful and entertaining blogs about matters in which I might have some faint interest. He's getting as bad on this as Wherry was about the census or Omar Khadr – with even less reason.

Jan

Let me guess – you'd like more on th F 35, so you can try to sell it to us – am I right?

Mike R

No, there isn't much more comment on the F-35 that would be useful to hear right now. Those who don't want an air force are against it, as are those who don't like the current government. I get that. What I don't get is the fascination with the internal squabblings of an organization that appears to be of marginal utility by anyone's standars. I remain puzzled as to why the government hasn't just wound the whole thing down or told those involved that government funding will cease in a year or two and they can look to others to fund their ( I am sure well-intentioned) activities.
Tybalt

Actually Mike, lots of us who do want an air force, and who value it very much, have no interest in a slow plane that can't turn or climb.
Mike R

Yeah, Funny the Israelis do. But I'm sure we'll have a chance to chat about it elsewhere.
BCer in Mtl

Well yeah, they would. Its stealth capability might come in handy for attacking targets in places like Iran or Syria. Plus, like us, they have a vast north to patrol and protect. Oh; no they don't.
kcm

'What I don't get is the fascination with the internal squabblings of an organization that appears to be of marginal utility by anyone's standars'

Not by anone's standards; obviously the PM thinks otherwise [ he keeps appointing board members] As for anyone's standards, i take that to be just yours – it's the only opinion you're entittled too.
madeyoulook

Not just Mike R. Ever since I came to learn that this organization existed, I wished it hadn't.
s_c_f

me too
<AOL/>

In the song "It's All About the Pentiums", "Weird Al" Yankovic refers to "posting 'me too' like some braindead AOLer."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Me_too
s_c_f

fascinating
James Connors

LOFL, You cannot even find the "shift" key?

Nonetheless, Merry Christmas.
James Connors

That first Merry Christmas I gave you was without malice.

So is this one, Merry Christmas. I hope things work out for you.
wsam

Actually no. Those who don't like waste, unnecessary spending, official lies, or who dislike their government giving a free ride to a foriegn corporation are against it. Good try, though.

Olivier

Sounds like you haven't been paying attention and now you're complaining that you don't understand?

Mike R

I haven't been paying much attention – and I'm not complaining I don't understand – I'm just puzzled why anyone cares – especially Mr. Wells, who is usually more interesting. Still, carry on talking among yourselves by all means.

Tybalt

I can't speak for anyone else, but I care because a group of craven little pissweasels thought they could push around the public interest, the Parliamentary press corps, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Parliament of Canada itself, and everyone else who dared to ask them a question about what they were spending great armfuls of taxpayer dollars on.

This whole sordid affair stands for two principle that I think are very, very important – first that no one, no matter how well connected to the office of the prime minister, stands above the law in this country, and second that no one, no matter how much they scream bloody murder about how much better they are than we, stands above open and honest scrutiny.

I think that kind of attitude is unforgivable in someone who earns their crust from me, and lots of people worked damn hard at times to press members of Parliament to make sure that they got – eventually – called on the carpet. Looks like I'll still be pressuring, and others likely too.

So that's why I care. These pathetic people aren't worth a baggie of dog crap – but the principles they tried to flout are more precious than rubies.

Dot

…besides, it beats reading Superman comics.
TJCook

In a just world, the phrase "craven little pissweasel" would appear in Gérard Latulippe's epitaph :)
Dot

Just world? Krypton?
Mike R

All the more reason, I would think, to just shut it down. As I said, I remain puzzled by why the government hasn't just done that. i doubt that "Rights and Democracy" is high on the list of interests of the core voters to whom the government is constantly accused of pandering. If it were simply abolished and the job of encouraging democracy given to Foreign Affairs, who would be offended? Anyone about whose opinion the government is concerned? I remain puzzled by this.
Dot

David Matas, current and former board member has essentially made the same argument. I agree. It has outlived its relevance. Shut'er down.

Of course, people like Wells ) will argue this demonstrates/proves some type of overall conspiracy/ sharp right shift. yada yada yada. And the no brainers here will jump on board with full vengeance.

OK, time for me to move on – your point taken. I've done my missionary work.
kcm

And like everyone who's had enough, you'll be back for more; your ego wont let you stay away.

So Dot's migrated from 'Let the auditors/board do its job to; ' Shut'er down'! Wonders never cease!
Dot

You've got what appears to be a double yolked sunny side up hanging over your nose and left cheek. Probably why you laid low until I announced my re-departure. If Cher can do it…
kcm

'Probably why you laid low until I announced my re-departure'

Deluded much. It may have escaped your notice but there are alot of others with opinions here too. Just coincidence Dot, life's like that sometimes.
Dot

True. Poached, easy over, scrambled and various omelettes have commiserated. Unhatched birds of a feather, face off together.
MostlyCivil

You've got nothing left. It's actually kind of sad, as in the beginning, you were quite entertaining. Solid arguments, good diversionary tactics and even well-plaed misdirections. You had some art.

Now, you're heading into Chet/Biff territory.Insult the intelligence of those who disagree with you, moving goalposts in daylight, and laying down weak smokescreens as you move backwards from bunker to bunker.

Do yourself a favour and just walk away. You've lost your war.
Dot

Desperate MostlyCivil. You jumped wholeheartedly onto the Wells bandwagon, and now you've been shown to have no clothes. Be a big man and admit your shortcomings, despite what appears to be a career in the cushy public service. Are you being paid time and 1/2 for this entry?
MostlyCivil

Nothing left but character aspersions.
kcm

Sadly for Dot it's his/her character that is now taking a beating. A lesson for all of us – losing graceously is hard, but trying to win this way is pathetic.
Dot

Revisionism by the simple minded is so easy to rebut:

MostlyCivil 89p · 2 days ago

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.

And then there's kcm…
kcm

You're free to keep on digging all you like Dot, i just can't imagine why.
Jenn_

First you break the system, then scrap it because the system doesn't work.
Dot

There you go….
madeyoulook

I'd prefer just scrapping it, myself.
Jenn_

I know you'd prefer to just scrap it and thereby save the money. But I also know you know that isn't how things work. It would be replaced, probably by some annex of a department either of CIDA or Foreign Affairs itself. Which involves hiring more staff, finding an office or someplace to house this staff, furninshing said office (and we can NEVER use used furniture!) basically re-creating that thing which you've scrapped. And as I know you know, re-creating a thing costs more money than keeping an already created thing. It's as dumb as selling buildings we own in order to rent space in buildings we don't own. Very short-sighted. Selling buildings we own because they are no longer used is one thing, selling them and moving everyone into rental (with new furniture, natch) is a mind-boggling waste.
brooster2

"All the more reason, I would think, to just shut it down. As I said, I remain puzzled by why the government hasn't just done that."

This is purely speculative on my part but I suspect, with a clear majority, a Harper government would terminate or privatize scores of NGOs, agencies, boards, commissions, crown corporations (e.g., CBC) that project an "activist" or "interventionist" government or, put another way, don't conduct what they regard as "core" government business.

And with every single one of these organizations, there will be a stakeholder group at the barricades defending their organization's right to exist.

I'm inclined to think (and I'm trying to be non-partisan in that prediction) that such retrenchment would be the driving animus of a CPC majority and, if it happens, there'll be some lively times ahead.

Unfortunately, this government hasn't been particularly transparent in pursuit of its goals, so I doubt that any of this agenda will be apparent before or during an election.
madeyoulook

This is purely speculative on my part but I suspect, with a clear majority, a Harper government would terminate or privatize scores of NGOs, agencies, boards, commissions, crown corporations (e.g., CBC) that project an "activist" or "interventionist" government or, put another way, don't conduct what they regard as "core" government business.

I just felt a tingle. Thanks, brooster2. I wish I could believe you.
brooster2

Were that scenario to unfold, it would be interesting to see, after 5 years of CPC government already, how attached its own adherents will be to the array of patronage appointment opportunities that would be sacrificed. Seems to me governments of every stripe get addicted, sooner or later, to the power and influence that patronage confers. Harper must have realized this early in his tenure, or he would have been more diligent in putting a commissioner of appointments (or whatever the title was) in place as he once promised.
s_c_f

I wish I could believe him too. But alas, there's no way in heck that would ever happen.

BCer in Mtl

"I'm just puzzled why anyone cares"

Indeed.

Obviouly the government cared so much that they had to appoint some goons to hound its president to death, then p*ss away tons of money to justify their actions.
wsam

Have you ever paid attention to anything, ever?

Dot

PW, just saw Gérard Latulippe on RDI 24-60 , started around 7:30 pm. I understood <50%. What I recall was "Pitou est perdu. C'est d'hommage. et "Gaston Gavroche – l'enfant terrible…"

Maybe you can get the tape and transcribe or link to it and report what he said….

Truth Monger

Shouldn't you be vowing to never return? For the fifth time?
AIO

RDI and SRC were all over this today when you go on their websites.

On SRC, amongst other things, Latulippe said he agreed with steps taken by Beauregard to improve administrative practices and that he would continue them. The interviewer sat there and listened, did not actually ask why hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent to (now) allegedly investigate governance issues that he now (allegedly) agrees with. Pretty useless interviewer.

For the answer to such a question, helps to then watch RDI, like I did. There's a show, "Le Match des Elus" that talked about rights and democracy. The Tory MP, Blaney (?), squarely said that this was about how some organizations sometimes, no matter how valid their mandate, end up supporting terrorist groups and that there was a need to ensure this wasn't happening. Then he spent 7 minutes trying to explain how that's not what he said.

Jan

Whoops – so it was about the 3 groups?

AIO

Seems like that was somewhere in the talking points. Maybe it was an old version of talking points, as the new version is all about governance.

AIO

Unless this press release is aimed squarely at a Board that does not seem to have a clue about governance, this press release is a farce.

Given the nature and quality (or lack there-of) of some of the questions asked in the audit and given that many of the other answers were in previous Board decisions, minutes, documents, and material the auditors found (the amount of the severance package being the exception), can someone please tell me how the heck this became about governance?

It was about a group of men spending a lot of our money to obtain answers they wanted to questions that no credible firm, no matter what they were paid and no matter how hard they tried, could find.

So now it is about governance, which most dictionaries will tell you is defined is how power is exercised. How did Beauregard exercise power? According to the audit and the actions of his former employees, pretty well. His background would testify to that. You don't run huge government ministries within knowing about governance. And these guys on the R&D Board? The audit goes as far as citing evaluations which stated the Board was told in previous evaluations to obtain governance training. One is hard pressed to find any examples of the Chair of the Board or this new President ever governing anything effectively.

Wells – whatever the quality of your writing or your agenda – you have an enormous amount of patience to keep wanting to read this stuff.

Budster

And look who are playing the victims and trying to spin their way out. Doesn't get much more sickening than that.

tobyornotoby

So I see R&D has gone with the Michael Kelso defence. Well played and good luck.
Budster

Maybe these two self-serving creeps would like to shed some light on their own dirty laundry when it comes to R&D. Let's not forget that the assault on R&D was prompted by unfounded accusations about 2 small NGO's partially funded by R&D in a letter to the PM from an Israeli lobby group. The same lobbyist followed his success with unfounded accusations about other NGO's which were then denied funding. The common thread is that they dared criticize Israel. Given Harper's speech on anti-semitism and this pattern of shutting down NGO critics of Israel we should all be concerned about his attacks on free speech. The consequences of Harper'a zealous support of Israel lead to the smearing of the reputation of a good and decent man, the destruction of a highly regarded organization and the destruction of the world view of Canada as a fair-minded nation. He is apparently so convinced of his own moral superiority that it should alarm all of us.
Fido

Rights:

Place your right hand squarely in the crux of your left elbow.
Fold all but your middle finger under your thumb.
Face your antagonist.
Hold the pose for 30 seconds..

Democracy:

Find someone who agrees with you.
Spend your whole life looking.
canon70

I couldn't agree more with this statement from the Ottawa Citizen:
Democracy does demand accountability. That's why Canadians — even Canadians who don't particularly care about Rights & Democracy — should be incensed.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/Scandalous+s…
dreadd

yeah, but assange does have rather more justification for that secrecy. no matter how much they might deserve a solid thrashing for the part they're playing in protecting those who drove a good (better than these, anyway) man to an early grave, neither latulippe or deloitte needs fear an assasin's attentions, as improbable as that may seem.