Are the CON-bots broken?

Nope.  It's an article with "Clement" and "transparency" in the title.  Comments: 136.  Not a one praising or defending harper or gazebo.

"Clement seeks ‘culture change’ on government transparency"

...Mr. Clement acknowledges the criticisms directed at his government when it comes to openness, but says he hopes Wednesday's announcement will serve as a signal to all government officials that the Conservatives are serious about a “culture change” in favour of transparency.

OK, so government officials need to know that the CONs are serious and we the public are being told this as well, so next time a Parliamentary aide oversteps and blocks an ATIP request, or a Minister interferes or flat out refuses to provide information,  if it can't be blamed on the public servants, the CONs can get Poilievre to not-respond to questions on his party's lack of transparency by blathering on about this particular move.

That's like a driver up on charges for a hit and run DUI saying, "but Your Honour, I constantly lecture my neighbours on safe driving and I don't understand why the prosecutor doesn't do the same."

If you gots nothin’ ta hide, why ya worried?

Right, wingnuts?

Or how about: If’n ya didn’t do nuthin’, what’d ya sweatin’ over?

Or how about Steve’s and Johnnie’s own words:
“We promised to stand up for accountability and to change the way government works,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper.  “Canadians elected this government to deliver on that commitment and today the Federal Accountability Act has received Royal Assent.  From this day on, accountability in government is the law and we can all be proud of that fact.”

John Baird: “The Federal Accountability Act is a significant and substantive step by Canada’s New Government to help restore Canadians’ trust in government and the democratic process.”

Sure, but that was when Canadians were lead to believe that legislation applied to all Canadians.  Stevie has informed us that such is not reality.

That might explain why Baird thumbed his nose at his and his master’s promise of transparency and accountability by refusing the legitimate demand of the Information, Privacy and Ethics committee for the electronic correspondence of a political aide who – can anyone make this shit up? -  blocked the release of an Access to Information request. 

Mr. Baird defended the decision, saying cabinet ministers, and not their staff, are responsible to Parliament (and that) parliamentary and constitution convention dictates that the political communications related to decisions and actions of cabinet ministers are never disclosed.



What a fucking  troll.

Let’s look at that statement in the context of this issue.  The political staffer Sébastien Togneri “unreleased” documents requested by a Globe and Mail reporter when Mr. Paradis headed the Public Works department.

Togneri apparently wrote a series of e-mails relating to this.  Since Paradis as Minister is responsible to Parliament, any e-mails Togneri sent to him as Minister should be available for scrutiny.

As for e-mails to public servants within the department, Stevie and Johnnie passed through that nifty accountability act in December, 2006 giving us clear direction on that.

The accounting officer system was put into place in Canada after considerable debate about whether the traditional model of ministerial and public service accountability was satisfactory.  The adoption of the accounting officer system could clarify accountability and improve the dialogue between Parliament and the professional public service by specifying that deputy ministers are indeed accountable for a few select areas, such as ensuring that an effective system of internal control is in place and signing the accounts of their organization.  It may make deputy ministers devote more attention to their management responsibilities, and may provide deputy ministers with an incentive to say no to inappropriate political interference in departmental administration.  It could do this by making them aware that their actions could potentially be the subject of parliamentary inquiry.

And public servants are accountable to their supervisors, so through the deputy minister, are responsible to Parliament as well.

So any e-mails Togneri sent to public servants within the department should be available to the committee as well.

Basic common sense tells us as well that parliamentary staff are responsible to their superior, and ultimately, the elected member they work for.  Because of that, their e-mails sent in course of their job are no longer their own property, but belong to the transaction or issue which is managed by the elected member.  The staffer doesn’t own the e-mails.  So, Baird can dance around all he wants trying to please his portly master, but if he keeps to that line, it isn’t Togneri who is in contempt by refusing, it is Paradis.

By Baird’s account, Togneri is not really responsible for whatever action was taken.  He was simply the post man, and the post man doesn’t own the mail he delivers nor can he grant that mail some vague diplomatic-type immunity.

So Baird, Harper, quit trying to interfere with the legitimate demand of the legitimate Information, Privacy and Ethics committee.  Because -  ‘Such interference would be unprecedented and abusive!’ 

(But hardly unprecedented coming from the Hamper party of Canada)

Proroguing access to information

Though little known to ordinary Canadians, the information commissioner is considered an essential player in ensuring accountable, transparent democracy.

You would think that a government that made transparency and accountability the focus of their election in ‘06 would make sure we have a good commissioner in place.

Not so.

The federal office charged with prying the lid off government secrecy has been without a permanent leader since June and is unlikely to get one for several more months.  Critics argue the failure to swiftly replace this key watchdog is part of a pattern by Stephen Harper’s government of cloaking information from the public.

Understanding the role of the Commissioner explains why Steve would really rather not have one.  They kind of get in the way, like having a sitting Parliament does.  Two birds with one stone for Harper, here.  The appointment of the information commissioner has to be approved by the House and Senate, but since Stevo prorogued Parliament, this can't happen until March.  Then of course, there will simply be too much to do.

The lack of a permanent leader is “particularly troubling because of all the officers of Parliament, it is the access to information commissioner that has been most concerned about the performance of government vis a vis accountability and compliance with the law,” said Liberal MP Paul Szabo, former chairman of the Commons committee on access to information, privacy and ethics.

On Saturday, all across Canada, Canadians held rallies to protest prorogation and the general undermining of democracy this government is engineering.  This is yet another instance of Harper’s systematic attack on democracy. 

Col. Michel Drapeau, a lawyer with expertise in access to information, said he found the federal government’s delay in naming a permanent commissioner “disturbing.”  The government, he said, has not only hesitated to name a permanent information watchdog, but has also not replaced other key commissioners, such as the chair of the military police complaints commission. It only recently named an interim RCMP complaints commissioner.

“They all, in their own way, serve to enhance democracy and permit checks and balances within our system of government,” Drapeau said.

Several of us have been saying that for years.  The public service needs to be protected from Harper’s attacks.  Keen, Measner, Tinsley...getting rid of accountability and destroying democracy by slashing one public servant at a time.