Government and MP openness and accountability

[cybercoma]

Openness and accountability has been a persistent theme in federal politics. Harper ran on a bringing openness and accountability to Ottawa after Liberal excesses during the Chrétien years. Justin Trudeau is currently gearing up for a run at the Prime Ministership by crafting a platform on openness and accountability. Just to gauge the forum's position on the topic, the above poll poses a few questions on government openness and accountability.

[Bryan]

What we have right now is by far the most open and accountable government we've ever had, but it can always get better. If the next election is fought over that as the key issue, that can only be a good thing for all citizens of this country regardless of their political leanings.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Bryan

[Michael Hardner]

Chretien ran on openness and honesty too - remember the Red Book ? The Mulroney years ?

There may be a recurring theme happening here.

Can we learn from this ?

[Bonam]

Can we learn from this ?

Sure: we can learn that all politicians promise openness and accountability and that none deliver. By nature of our culture and media, to be a successful politician you have to be a liar, and once you're a liar, you have to cover things up, and that hardly allows for openness and accountability.

[dre]

Sure: we can learn that all politicians promise openness and accountability and that none deliver. By nature of our culture and media, to be a successful politician you have to be a liar, and once you're a liar, you have to cover things up, and that hardly allows for openness and accountability.

I think its bigger than that... After centuries of study by political philosophers the political class has finally learned how to maintain the illusion of democracy, and the political stability you get from having a population that "thinks" they have a say in, their own rule... without actually having the hassle of it being a real constraint on their power.

Its a remarkable achievement... the result of aligning all of the mainstream political parties with the same special interests, pitting the population against each other, and constantly spreading fear, invoking safety and national security, economic security etc etc.

To dismiss them as being merely a bunch of liars does not do justice to what they have achieved.

[Topaz]

Harper and the Tories are only open and accountable when it suit them. The latest is the EI quota and the minister stood in Parliament and denied that there was one, when all facts proved there was and now we have a whistle blower who has come out and said its true and she she lost her job because of the "code of conduct" for federal workers. What's the code of conduct for a minister that lies in the House of Parliament??? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/whistleblower-suspended-leaking-employment-insurance-rejection-quotas-160726153.html?vp=1

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe politicians have learned exactly how open they need to be, and how to master the trick of seeming to be open & honest, while not necessarily being so.

For example - the trick of not answering an interview question directly, but misdirecting with a long answer about a related topic. Another example is the short short memory of the public.

So, the public needs to adapt and find ways to remember and to focus our thinking ... to find tools to deal with these problems, otherwise they will undermine the public will.

[GostHacked]

What we have right now is by far the most open and accountable government we've ever had, but it can always get better. If the next election is fought over that as the key issue, that can only be a good thing for all citizens of this country regardless of their political leanings.

I appreciate your optimism. Most open and accountable? Ahhahahahahaha.

[Moonlight Graham]

What we have right now is by far the most open and accountable government we've ever had, but it can always get better. If the next election is fought over that as the key issue, that can only be a good thing for all citizens of this country regardless of their political leanings.

I agree with your 2nd sentence for sure, but this government has some major issues with "openness and accountability". The got off to a bad start in stifling media access to the PMO and others.

"Soon after Mr. Harper won power, the Prime Minister's staff started deciding which reporters could ask questions, skipping those they suspected weren't in the government's favour," she wrote.

"Media access to the Prime Minister and his caucus, in general, has become minimal, with MPs and ministers kept on a short, silent leash."

During the 2011 election campaign, Harper frustrated reporters by taking only five questions from reporters at each campaign stop: two in English, two in French, and one from local media.

...Most of the Conservatives she interviewed believed Harper was his own worst enemy when it came to getting favourable media coverage.

They cited two main factors in the ongoing conflicts between the PMO and the press: Harper's deep-seated belief that journalists in the press gallery are ideologically opposed to Conservative governments; and Harper's character, which was described during various interviews as introverted, stubborn, impatient and controlling.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/stephen-harper-control-over-canada-media-213432966.html

But then one has to remember the "openness and accountability" of past recent governments, many of which didn't leave a very good taste in the mouth.

[Bryan]

Not playing the media's BS games hardly amounts to a lack of openness or accountability. They're accountable to the voters/taxpayers, and they allow far more information about the workings of government to become public than anyone who has come before them.

Take the senate "scandals" we're seeing right now. Previous governments did not release the spending reports of senators. When the Conservatives had a minority and wanted those expenses reported quarterly, the opposition shut that idea down. It was not until we had a Conservative majority that these reports were required.

That's accountability. Making information public, even when it's a pain in the butt for their own government. It's the same with the Parliamentary Budget Office. Yes, the govt has butted heads with the PBO many times. But they created the job that did not exist before. They knew full well that it was going to be adversarial at best, but they still created the position because it was the right thing to do.

[GostHacked]

Not playing the media's BS games hardly amounts to a lack of openness or accountability.

The media is complicit in the BS game as is the government. The media for the most part does not grill the government hard enough. They should NEVER play ball with the government, this is how things get covered up and buried in the media.

They're accountable to the voters/taxpayers, and they allow far more information about the workings of government to become public than anyone who has come before them.

Government does not want to be accountable. Or else we'd see swift action against those people like Duffy.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not playing the media's BS games hardly amounts to a lack of openness or accountability. They're accountable to the voters/taxpayers, and they allow far more information about the workings of government to become public than anyone who has come before them.

Refusing to take questions, or to take significantly less questions from the media than other PM's, as well as controlling who is allowed to take questions etc. is not simply about not wanting to play "media's BS games", it's about avoiding accountability and openness. Our government is also accountable to the media, who are the Fourth Estate, because they investigate and report government wrong-doings. Citizens greatly rely on the media more than anything else to keep them informed on what the government is up to, and to hold the government to account.

I can understand why a politician/PM wouldn't want to take questions from certain journalists who are a major thorn in their side, but too bad. Our Charter guarantees 'freedom of the press'. The PMO choosing from self-determined "friendly and enemy" journalists on who they will & won't take questions from is censorship.

[The_Squid]

Well said MG.

[Sandy MacNab]

Refusing to take questions, or to take significantly less questions from the media than other PM's, as well as controlling who is allowed to take questions etc. is not simply about not wanting to play "media's BS games", it's about avoiding accountability and openness. Our government is also accountable to the media, who are the Fourth Estate, because they investigate and report government wrong-doings. Citizens greatly rely on the media more than anything else to keep them informed on what the government is up to, and to hold the government to account.

I can understand why a politician/PM wouldn't want to take questions from certain journalists who are a major thorn in their side, but too bad. Our Charter guarantees 'freedom of the press'. The PMO choosing from self-determined "friendly and enemy" journalists on who they will & won't take questions from is censorship.

The lefties have plenty of opportunity to grill the government within the House. I don't see any reason for this government to expose itself to more abuse from the left-wing's MSM agents outside the House.

[Moonlight Graham]

The lefties have plenty of opportunity to grill the government within the House. I don't see any reason for this government to expose itself to more abuse from the left-wing's MSM agents outside the House.

Questions aren't "abuse". There's also a difference between taking questions from the House and the media.

Our poor government officials! Why can't we just leave 'em alone! [/openness and accountability]

Edited July 23, 2013 by Moonlight Graham

[cybercoma]

The government shouldn't have to answer questions. That's Sandy's idea of openness and accountability?

[Topaz]

I wish one of the opposition parties would bring forth a private members bill that changes the rules in the House were a question is asked of the ruling government, that minister HAS to give a straight HONEST answer. NO more lies and half truths, it just shows that minister has no respect for the House of Commons. Plus, no more person attacks, it just gets everyone going and Harper is a champion on this.

[cybercoma]

Those things are already against procedure.

[Michael Hardner]

...and you can't legislate morality. It's not workable.

[Sandy MacNab]

I wish one of the opposition parties would bring forth a private members bill that changes the rules in the House were a question is asked of the ruling government, that minister HAS to give a straight HONEST answer. NO more lies and half truths, it just shows that minister has no respect for the House of Commons. Plus, no more person attacks, it just gets everyone going and Harper is a champion on this.

How about the opposition parties asking straight HONEST questions? Were that forthcoming I would fully agree with you. It is an unfortunate "tradition" that all parties, when in opposition, try to score political points &/or deliver cheap shots via loaded questions in the House. I would like to see civilized behaviour from all MPs based on mutual respect, respect for Queen and country, and most of all respect for all Canadians.

[Bryan]

How about the opposition parties asking straight HONEST questions? Were that forthcoming I would fully agree with you. It is an unfortunate "tradition" that all parties, when in opposition, try to score political points &/or deliver cheap shots via loaded questions in the House. I would like to see civilized behaviour from all MPs based on mutual respect, respect for Queen and country, and most of all respect for all Canadians.

Truth.

It's absolutely a two-way street with the Q&A in the house. Right now, the answers given are appropriate to the questions asked. Both sides need to change their approach for that to end. If the opposition's questions were serious inquiries, rather than staged theatre, it would make a world of difference.

[cybercoma]

...and you can't legislate morality. It's not workable.

Legislate morality? That's an odd comment. I don't see anyone legislating morality or advocating it.

[Bob Macadoo]

I wish to outlaw these phrases;

"Let me be clear......"

".....but at the end of the day...."

".....the people have told me....."

Because whatever statement that is linked to these phrases is normally a bunch of pretzel speak that means absolutely sweet f-all.

I would like a politician to stand up and say, my opinion is this and I stand behind this good or bad.....now lets debate.

[Sandy MacNab]

Legislate morality? That's an odd comment. I don't see anyone legislating morality or advocating it.

Wow, you must be blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. The politically correct are constantly trying to impose their version of morality and their version of free speech, etc., etc. just about everywhere they can stick their snotty, interfering little noses. If you can't see that ..er, oh, maybe......

[cybercoma]

Wow, you must be blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. The politically correct are constantly trying to impose their version of morality and their version of free speech, etc., etc. just about everywhere they can stick their snotty, interfering little noses. If you can't see that ..er, oh, maybe......

I mean in regards to this thread. That should have been obvious.