Accountability act 'a bureaucrat's dream'

[stignasty]

Accountability act 'a bureaucrat's dream,' information commissioner says

Last Updated Fri, 28 Apr 2006 22:02:23 EDT

CBC News

Canada's information commissioner launched a scathing attack against Stephen Harper on Friday, charging that the prime minister has done a complete about-face on a promise to make government more accountable.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...unt-060428.html

[August1991]

Sorry, this is a non-story.

John Reid is a Liberal's Liberal. He's a hack, a pig at the trough.

In 1963 Mr. Reid became the Special Assistant to the Minister of Mines and Technical Affairs. In 1965 he was elected to the House of Commons as the youngest person elected in that Parliament, where he served from 1965 to 1984, through six elections. Among other duties, Mr. Reid served as Chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Film and Assistance to the Arts (1969 to 1972); Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (1972 to 1975); Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations (1978 to 1979) and Chairman of the House of Commons Committee on Procedure and Organization. From 1981 to 1984 he was Co-chairman, Canadian Group, of the Canada - U.S. Parliamentary Association.

Info Canada

So, if John Reid's shop writes the following (and the CBC publishes it), it means nothing:

The Harper government released its proposed reforms to the federal Access to Information Act earlier this month. They add 19 entities that would be covered by the act, but Reid pointed out that it also open 10 new loopholes that would allow civil servants to deny requests for information.

(CBC Link above.)

If Harper's Accountability Act deserves criticism, it is because it is possibly too naive. I fear that Harper is too right/wrong or black/white, and this act requires someone to enforce it. The best rules are self-regulating, and need no one to enforce them. The best accountability act would need no commissioner.

---

Side point: The CBC is really anti-Harper, and pro-Ignatieff. I get the impression that the English CBC has become a federal Liberal forum board with an agenda to promote Ignatieff. Am I wrong? Dunno.

[shoop]

Yup. The bias is *painfully* obvious.

Such is life. All the taxpayer's have to support the CBC for the minority who actually use their services.

Side point: The CBC is really anti-Harper, and pro-Ignatieff. I get the impression that the English CBC has become a federal Liberal forum board with an agenda to promote Ignatieff. Am I wrong? Dunno.

[newbie]

IMV, Harper lost all credibility re his Accountability Act by grabbing Emerson and appointing Fortier.

[shoop]

Really newbie? You figured we didn't get that point the first twenty times you posted it?

IMV, Harper lost all credibility re his Accountability Act by grabbing Emerson and appointing Fortier.

How's this for proof of the CBCs bias.

This story runs top of the fold, front and centre on CBC.ca.

Not so on the CTV Web site

or the Toronto Star Web site

or the Global (Canada.com) Web site

or the Globe and Mail Web site

.....

Why is it so prominent *ONLY* on the CBC Web site? couldn't be a bias, could it?

[stignasty]

Instead of answering the issues raised in the article it's an attack on the CBC and John Reid. Sorry, I don't buy your ad hominem attacks. If he's wrong, it shouldn't be because he's a "liberal's liberal," it should be because he's wrong. If that's the case, why don't you say so. Instead of attacking the man attack his message.

[shoop]

Hey, why don't you do the same and answer the question as to why the CBC is the only news outlet giving this story prominent play on their Web site??? That is a valid objection, I would think.

Instead of answering the issues raised in the article it's an attack on the CBC and John Reid. Sorry, I don't buy your ad hominem attacks. If he's wrong, it shouldn't be because he's a "liberal's liberal," it should be because he's wrong. If that's the case, why don't you say so. Instead of attacking the man attack his message.

[stignasty]

Info czar slams Harper for about-face on access

Updated Fri. Apr. 28 2006 2:10 PM ET

Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done a complete about-face, introducing plans that would increase government secrecy after campaigning on openness, says Canada's information czar.

The proposed Accountability Act, now being debated in the House of Commons, will actually make government less accountable when it comes to making information available to Canadians, Information Commissioner John Reid said Friday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0428?hub=Canada

Oh, and btw, I'm not required to respond to an ad hominem. If the thread were about the CBC you would have a valid point. It isn't. You don't.

[August1991]

Instead of answering the issues raised in the article it's an attack on the CBC and John Reid. Sorry, I don't buy your ad hominem attacks. If he's wrong, it shouldn't be because he's a "liberal's liberal," it should be because he's wrong. If that's the case, why don't you say so. Instead of attacking the man attack his message.

Stignasty, Harper's accountability act may deserve criticism (Harper has a policeman view of enforcing rules) but Reid's criticism has nothing to do with that viewpoint.

Instead, John Reid (as Information Commissioner, salary paid by you and me, ex-Liberal MP) says that "governments are dishonest".

Reid, Dossanjh and the rest of the Chretien/Martin Liberals have one schtick: Promote, claim and make a case. In Quebec, and in the West, this schtick has been an utter disaster for Canada.

I heard Ignatieff this morning, on RC/CBC in English and French, making strenuous attempts to claim that he's not like that. Who will believe it?

Dossanjh isn't even a Liberal. He's a fraud.

The federal Liberal Party is in serious trouble, and the CBC, John Reid, Ujjal Dosanjh and Michael Ignatieff do not have quick fixes.

[shoop]

If you post an article from a source you should expect to respond to valid questions about the source.

You proved my point. The story is the most prominent story on the CBC Web site. To find it on CTV.ca you had to click on the news section and scroll past *EIGHT* stories before the non-story was present.

Care to explain the different editorial choices???

Oh, and btw, I'm not required to respond to an ad hominem. If the thread were about the CBC you would have a valid point. It isn't. You don't.

[August1991]

In sheer noise, none of us can compete with the CBC, State journalism.

But in attracting attention, we can do better, if our idea is original.

Governments have long understood that the best way to impress is to make a loud noise.

[Nocrap]

In sheer noise, none of us can compete with the CBC, State journalism.

But in attracting attention, we can do better, if our idea is original.

Governments have long understood that the best way to impress is to make a loud noise.

I didn't need this particular article to know that Harper's so called 'Accountability Act' is a bureaucrat's dream and bureaucratical nightmare.

We know that he already tries to "control the flow of information to Canadians" and I'm sorry, but again, John Baird is not the best example of an accountable and credible politician, after conning Ontarians out of 500 million dollars. When asked how much this act would cost, he said that it didn't matter because 'accountablility is priceless.' Tell that to our provincial auditor. (Google Baird and Boondoggle)

However, I agree that Harper supporters will rarely try to justify his actions, but instead when challenged immediately bring up Liberal misdeeds, or claim that the media is pro-Left wing. And why not? That's what Harper himself does.

I think that Stevie's problems are not that he is naive, but just that he does far better as an antogonist.

His longtime involvement with the Nationals Citizens' Coalition, that was created to oppose government policy (mostly healthcare), gave him a vast experience as a thorn in the side of ruling politicians.

As leader of the opposition, he again got to criticize, and he handled it admirably.

However, now that he is put on the defense, and is trying to promote the ideals of the always controversial and often racist NCC; his task has become enormous. Announcing policies and then running away to hide, just won't cut it, and this abysmal Accountalility Act simply won't work.

[scribblet]

Instead of answering the issues raised in the article it's an attack on the CBC and John Reid. Sorry, I don't buy your ad hominem attacks. If he's wrong, it shouldn't be because he's a "liberal's liberal," it should be because he's wrong. If that's the case, why don't you say so. Instead of attacking the man attack his message.

Stignasty, Harper's accountability act may deserve criticism (Harper has a policeman view of enforcing rules) but Reid's criticism has nothing to do with that viewpoint.

Instead, John Reid (as Information Commissioner, salary paid by you and me, ex-Liberal MP) says that "governments are dishonest".

Reid, Dossanjh and the rest of the Chretien/Martin Liberals have one schtick: Promote, claim and make a case. In Quebec, and in the West, this schtick has been an utter disaster for Canada.

I heard Ignatieff this morning, on RC/CBC in English and French, making strenuous attempts to claim that he's not like that. Who will believe it?

Dossanjh isn't even a Liberal. He's a fraud.

The federal Liberal Party is in serious trouble, and the CBC, John Reid, Ujjal Dosanjh and Michael Ignatieff do not have quick fixes.

Well, all the liberals have right now is some ability to take a swing at anything the CPC does, and this act hits them where it will hurt the most. Even the NDP are on side with it and are willing to give it a chance, unlike those who cannot ever see anything good about anything the CPC would ever do.

What Martin, Chretien & their band of merry theives did to Canadians and the Liberal attitude of "only liberals know whats best for Canada" along with their sense of entitlement, will not be forgotten soon.

The liberals have allready said they will not adopt the new political party financing rules until they have to, although the CPC will. We know where the liberals stand don't we.

It is obvious that the Liberals don't like the new rules because theytake political power away and hamper their ability to push their own agendas. These measures will change the way the liberals normally do business, they don't like it they simply want to return to the status quo.

What the bill would do and sounds good to me:

Reform the financing of political parties to reduce big-money influence by banning secret donations and donations from companies, unions and associations. Limit individual

donations to $1,000.

Reduce the influence of lobbyists by toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act.

Strengthen the role of the federal ethics watchdog with a new conflict of interest act and a new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner.

Create a budget officer to ensure objective analysis on government finances.

Ensure government appointments are based on merit.

Create a transparent process for awarding government contracts, including appointing a procurement auditor.

Provide protection and reward whistleblowers who disclose government wrongdoing.

Expand access-to-information legislation to cover some Crown corporations, federal foundations and agents of Parliament such as the Auditor-General.

Give the Auditor-General more power.

[BubberMiley]

John Reid is a Liberal's Liberal. He's a hack, a pig at the trough.

When they get nervous, they go for the ad hominem attack and character-assassinate the messenger every time.

[shoop]

There were other arguments made against this man, this report and the way it was covered. Any comment on those?

When they get nervous, they go for the ad hominem attack and character-assassinate the messenger every time.