Watchdog calls out Cons lack of transparency

[olp1fan]

I made a new thread about this because I didn't want it to get ignored in the other thread, it is a totally hypocritical idea that everyone should be transparent except for the government and this should not be acceptable to the people who want to see CBC's information

I'm sure Tony Clement will slash Democracy Watch now like he is planning on slashing the Auditor General

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-keep-as-many-things-secret-as-the-cbc-watchdog-says/article2249098/

Conservative MPs are expressing concern about the CBC and its reluctance to release its corporate secrets under access-to-information laws – but the government itself has something to answer for on this issue, a leading democracy advocate says.

Duff Conacher, the co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, points out that the Conservatives have failed to keep their campaign promise of 2006 to strengthen the Access to Information Act.

As part of their accountability package, Mr. Conacher points out the Tories would require all government and government-funded institutions to create records detailing all their actions and decisions, and to give the Information Commissioner the power to order the disclosure of any record, especially if it is in the public interest.

“The Conservatives broke their promises because they wanted to keep just as many things secret as the CBC does,” Mr. Conacher says in a letter to media on Friday.

[eyeball]

Reveal as we say not as we do? Good luck with that, especially with the sycophants around here.

[Jack Weber]

But but but....I thought these were the guys who were going to bring transparency and accountability back to federal politics?

[na85]

Expect 3 more years of this garbage.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I want an accountable government.

If we don't know what they are doing, how can we hold them accountable?

[Topaz]

Today, the NDP had a debate on how the Tories are cutting debates off and not let Parliament do its work and I thought Jinny Sims from B.C gave an excellent talk to why the Tories or any seating government should be allowed not to cut time in the House. They also indicated that the Speaker should take more of a role is making sure the rules and the law within the House are followed. The speaker has to learn he has no friends there and be neutral and follow the laws and rules of Parliament or he'll will look bad himself, he needs to toughen up.

[Jack Weber]

Today, the NDP had a debate on how the Tories are cutting debates off and not let Parliament do its work and I thought Jinny Sims from B.C gave an excellent talk to why the Tories or any seating government should be allowed not to cut time in the House. They also indicated that the Speaker should take more of a role is making sure the rules and the law within the House are followed. The speaker has to learn he has no friends there and be neutral and follow the laws and rules of Parliament or he'll will look bad himself, he needs to toughen up.

Frankly,Time Allocation motions were the hallmark of the Harris Gov't here in Ontario.I'm not surprised that this is what Mr. Harper,and his Harris accolytes,think is a good idea.

The problem with this is,in Ontario at least,the legislation that was time allocated was so bad that it almost always had to be ammended because it was so poorly thought out...

Edited November 26, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Battletoads]

Frankly,Time Allocation motions were the hallmark of the Harris Gov't here in Ontario.I'm not surprised that this is what Mr. Harper,and his Harris accolites,think is a good idea.

The problem with this is,in Ontario at least,the legislation that was time allocated was so bad that it almost always had to be ammended because it was so poorly thought out...

Debate? Our glorious leader Harper has a strong 39% mandate, it's obvious that Canadians overwhelmingly approve of every policy this government. If you want to squander time on undemocratic debate maybe you ought to head over to china pinko.

ps:

Edited November 26, 2011 by Battletoads

[Jack Weber]

Debate? Our glorious leader Harper has a strong 39% mandate, it's obvious that Canadians overwhelmingly approve of every policy this government. If you want to squander time on undemocratic debate maybe you ought to head over to china pinko.

ps:

Gotcha....

Nothing like blaming "pinko's' for all the con/crypto-Fascist problems....

Edited November 26, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Battletoads]

Gotcha....

Nothing like blaming "pinko's' for all the con/crypto-Fascist problems....

Eh may have needed some [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags on my post...

[Jack Weber]

Eh may have needed some [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags on my post...

Not really...

Sadly,I don't believe you're too far off....

[Shwa]

I made a new thread about this because I didn't want it to get ignored in the other thread, it is a totally hypocritical idea that everyone should be transparent except for the government and this should not be acceptable to the people who want to see CBC's information...

As part of their accountability package, Mr. Conacher points out the Tories would require all government and government-funded institutions to create records detailing all their actions and decisions, and to give the Information Commissioner the power to order the disclosure of any record, especially if it is in the public interest.

“The Conservatives broke their promises because they wanted to keep just as many things secret as the CBC does,” Mr. Conacher says in a letter to media on Friday.

The defintion of a "record" for all government and government funded institutions IS a record of their actions and decisions. So when the CPC made their promise in 2006 it was more than a titch naive and most likely they didn't follow up on it because when they took power (and took a clue) they found out the powers of the Information Commissioner were exactly what they were supposed to be.

What this article does is make Democracy Watch uninformed and somewhat pathetic. If they were that stupid, I'd be thinking about their funding too.

Salaries of CBC employees - or any other government employee - is covered by the Privacy Act, not the Access to Information Act. It is perfectly reasonable to release employee pay scales, just not the actual earnings by an identifiable person.

[Michael Hardner]

Interesting...

Maybe we should collectively see the problem of management secrecy as one we all need to solve - like pollution.

There are solutions.

For example - there is rumoured (in the Open Gov community) to be a federal web forum of civil servants where they are having an open and honest discussion of problems. Imagine that - it's like an MLW of the civil service.

How about we demand that the federal government make that forum PUBLIC so we can see what they're taking about on there ? It's our money paying for their time, so why not ? The discussion is open and nonymous (maybe a word, as in not anonymous) so why not ?

[cybercoma]

I made a new thread about this because I didn't want it to get ignored in the other thread, it is a totally hypocritical idea that everyone should be transparent except for the government and this should not be acceptable to the people who want to see CBC's information

What's hypocritical is the CPC running on the platform of transparency and accountability against the Liberals, which I fully supported at the time. The fact that they're even remotely being criticized for it is damning enough. The party is just as bad if not worse than the Liberals.

[cybercoma]

What this article does is make Democracy Watch uninformed and somewhat pathetic. If they were that stupid, I'd be thinking about their funding too.

Oh... you're another one of those people that likes to call people or groups "uninformed" and "pathetic" when they criticize the CPC, without actually considering the content of the what they're saying. I see. Good argument, bro.

[Shwa]

Oh... you're another one of those people that likes to call people or groups "uninformed" and "pathetic" when they criticize the CPC, without actually considering the content of the what they're saying. I see. Good argument, bro.

Quite the opposite "bro." I have provided good reasons as to why Democracy Watch looks foolish in this instance and all you can come back is with sarcastic ad hominem?

But the argument is, the accuracy of the complaint of Democracy Watch. If you can counter my rebuttal, please do - for everyone's sake. Otherwise, nice dodge bro.

[Shwa]

How about we demand that the federal government make that forum PUBLIC so we can see what they're taking about on there ? It's our money paying for their time, so why not ? The discussion is open and nonymous (maybe a word, as in not anonymous) so why not ?

Because not all ideas and information discussed by government employees are for public consumption. Really, what a ridiculous idea.

[Michael Hardner]

Because not all ideas and information discussed by government employees are for public consumption. Really, what a ridiculous idea.

Well, who decides that ? And why are they not for public consumption ? Is the government afraid to show its warts to the public that pays the bill ?

[Shwa]

Well, who decides that ? And why are they not for public consumption ? Is the government afraid to show its warts to the public that pays the bill ?

Who do you think "decides that?" The notion that all government information, including conversations between members of the public service, is for "public consumption" because the "public pays the bill" is completely ludicrous and absurd.

And, quite frankly, beneath the usual quality of your posts.

[Michael Hardner]

Who do you think "decides that?" The notion that all government information, including conversations between members of the public service, is for "public consumption" because the "public pays the bill" is completely ludicrous and absurd.

And, quite frankly, beneath the usual quality of your posts.

Are these conversations "private" in a legal sense? Obviously these are open discussions - why shouldn't they be published?

[Shwa]

Are these conversations "private" in a legal sense? Obviously these are open discussions - why shouldn't they be published?

Because of many reasons. If you can't be more specific, then why should anyone else be?

[Michael Hardner]

Because of many reasons. If you can't be more specific, then why should anyone else be?

How can I be specific ? I don't have the reasons why this can't be done - you do... presumably.

[Shwa]

How can I be specific ? I don't have the reasons why this can't be done - you do... presumably.

- because the information contained are not "records"

- because they might compromise some business transactions, adversely affect market competition

- because they might result in unintended misinformaton being released to the public

- because the information might be misinterpreted

- because it might break a law, embarass a government or political official

- because it might compromise internal security or put lives at risk

Etc.

[Michael Hardner]

- because the information contained are not "records"

They shouldn't release these discussions because they're not 'records' ? Huh ?

They're also not "private" so...

- because they might compromise some business transactions, adversely affect market competition

Doubtful. If so, then they wouldn't be discussed in a forum that's open. Anyone can repeat what they've seen on there. These are clearly not secrets.

- because they might result in unintended misinformaton being released to the public

- because the information might be misinterpreted

- because it might break a law, embarass a government or political official

- because it might compromise internal security or put lives at risk

Etc.

Might... might... we're talking about an open forum where people are talking about improving government here, not private emails... you really are interested in keeping the status quo intact as long as possible.

[Argus]

Are these conversations "private" in a legal sense? Obviously these are open discussions - why shouldn't they be published?

There are a number of reasons why government doesn't want you to see what leads up to announcements. Basically, it boils down to the government is the government. The civil service administers programs, and it makes recommendations to government. But all information is boiled and cleaned before it ever reaches the deputy minister, let alone the politicians. And the politicians are the ones who deal with the press and the public, not the anonymous public servants. You might have a lot of open debate at lower levels about how to carry out a given action. As those discussion work their way up the chain, the information and decisions are narrowed and more focused (not to mention massaged) so that ultimately, the ADM has a single recommendation for the minister, who presents it to cabinet.

What you want is for all those earlier debates by lower level, anonymous civil servants to be played out in the press where the arguments could be rehashed. But that's going to place those lower level people right in the spotlight. People whose jobs have nothing to do with the public might be confronted by journalists asking them to comment on why their recommendation wasn't accepted, and how the government has made a mistake. Not only are they unprepared for such things but it's unfair to them to pit them against the eventual decision of government and ask them to reiterate their earlier opposition to the eventual decision.

There's also the fact such lower level discussions could cause embarrassment all around, as, for example, a large regular meeting I take part in which discusses fraudulent tax activity. Regular attention is paid to the abundance of ethnics involved in such activity, especially around Toronto. Lord only knows what the NDP and their ilk would make of that. No doubt there'd be outrage in the House and the government would have to make apologies. And the individuals in question would again unfairly find themselves the target of the media. Civil servants at that level present arguments and information upwards, not to the media.