Wednesday, February 25th, 2009

New anti-secrecy plan surfaces on eve of damning report

OTTAWA - MPs were given a new blueprint to renovate the country's antiquated access-to-information law on the eve of a scathing report from the federal information watchdog describing a system in sorry disrepair.

A New Democrat MP introduced a private member's bill Wednesday that would adopt measures Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised more than three years ago to adopt, but has yet to act on.

The bill is based on a comprehensive package drafted in 2005 by then-information commissioner John Reid

Former Information Commissioner John Reid - image by CBC

- reforms that would make more files accessible to the public, expand the commissioner's oversight powers and introduce measures to help ensure federal agencies comply with the act.

NDP MP Pat Martin said Wednesday there is more of a need than ever to scrutinize government activities given the billions of dollars in federal stimulus spending on the books.

"This whole thing is based on the premise that people have a right to know what their government is doing."

The Conservatives took office in early 2006 partly on the strength of promises of new accountability, including reforms to Canada's outdated Access to Information regime advocated by Reid.

However, the Harper government implemented only a handful, including the law's expansion to some additional agencies such as Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail. The issue of access reform was shunted to a Commons committee for additional study.

"Nobody's going to fall for any of these stunts anymore," Martin said. "Those of us that have been around the block a few times on this issue will not accept anything other than a comprehensive reform bill."

FULL ARTICLE

Jack Straw’s right, Cabinet Government matters

I think this is a great post to at least acknowledge the other side of the argument; that cabinet deliberations should remain out of the immediate reach of FOI.

- Greg

Jack Straw's right, Cabinet Government matters

by MatGB
February 25, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Image via Wikipedia

Jack Straw has decided not to appeal a decision and instead the Cabinet has voted, using the power allowed it by law the law, to prevent the release of documents, for the first time since the FOI Act was passed. Y'know what? I disagree with Justin, Jennieand most Lib Dems on this. He's right to do so. We can, and should, be attacking this, but not because Cabinet minutes aren't going to be released. Cabinet minutes should not be released, it's one of the basic principles of our Parliamentary democracy. Here's how it's supposed to work:

• The House of Commons is elected as a representative cross section of British interests and opinions
• A Cabinet is formed representing the views of enough members of the House to command a majority
  • Appointments are made based on support within the house and talent
• The Cabinet discusses all major aspects of policy and agrees major decisions
  • The Cabinet is bound by Collective Responsibility and do not disagree in public
  • Ministers that cannot agree to a decision at all should resign
  • If the Cabinet no longer commands the support of the House, then the government should fall

In order for this system of government to work correctly, ministers have to be able to have free, open and frank discussions within Cabinet. If after discussion is over they come to a decision that a minister personally dislikes, the minister chooses whether this is a resigning issue or not. Robin Cook chose to resign before the Iraq War started. Clare Short was given assurances by the PM and had those assurances broken, so resigned after the war. That's the way it's supposed to work. That the Government didn't fall is not the fault of the Cabinet/Parliamentary system of government.

The problem lies not with the way this individual decision was made. The problem lies with the corrupted system that our Parliamentary democracy has become. This is the way it actually works:

• The House of Commons is elected using a gerrymandered system created in 1947 that encourages:
  • an unrepresentative House with a two-party duopoly
  • A predominance of white middle class men in suits
  • Safe seats allocated by party fiat in which the rebellious are penalised
  • Party loyalty over individual thinking
• A Cabinet is formed by the party leader, made up mostly of his/her friends or political allies
  • Appointments are made based on presentational ability and sucking up
• The Prime Minister makes most major decisions and reveals them to Cabinet
  • Groupthink is both likely and encouraged
  • Discussion and debate is discouraged
  • Ministers who disagree with the PM are aware that challenging is a threat to their career
  • Super majorities from one party mean the Majority is rarely threatened

If a precedent is set for Cabinet minutes to be revealed during a period in office, then full and frank discussion within Cabinet is threatened. That it currently doesn't happen enough is part of the problem. If we are to retain the good aspects of the British system of Goverment, we need to get rid of the corruption and the parts that aren't working. Not attack the chances of the bits that sometimes do from happening.

British politics has allowed, over the last 60 years, to become increasingly corrupt and partisan. This is a fault of the electoral system, and specifically the introduction of uniform single member constituencies and the abolition of alternative voting methods made by the Representation of the Peoples Act 1948.

We need to remake and revitalise the Parliamentary system of government. For that to happen, we also need to examine how and why the Cabinet system works.

If it's decided that the Cabinet should have disagreements in public, that Collective Responsibility can be abolished, etc, then so be it. I can see arguments favouring that, especially in the new information age.

But to call for the abolishing of a fundamental feature of the British system, that has been working effectively for over 300 years, over a single, specific issue in which an abominable decision was made, is to throw out the baby with the rather murky bathwater.

Parliament voted for the Iraq war. The nation almost certainly opposed it. That is thereal problem. In defending the principles of our democracy, for once in his life, Jack Straw is right.

And if you think I liked typing that last sentence you really don't know me.

· About the author: Mat Bowles is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He's a house-husband and freelance marketing consultant based in Yorkshire. A member of the Liberal Democrats, he is 34 and lives with fellow conspirator Jennie Rigg. His general interest blog is currently hosted on Livejournal and his old political blog is archived at Voting TaKtiX.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Straw: Iraq war motives must remain a secret (guardian.co.uk)
• Straw's Orwellian moment (guardian.co.uk)

Image by thivierr via Flickr

Canadian PM urged to loosen info secrecy

Published: Jan. 22, 2009 at 7:38 AM

OTTAWA, Jan. 22 (UPI) -- Canada's federal information commissioner is urging the prime minister to allow more transparency as ordered by new U.S. President Barack Obama.

In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Information Commissioner Robert Marleau praised Obama's declaration of more openness on his first day in office.

"I am thrilled to see that Mr. Obama is taking such a forceful position in the context of transparency," Marleau said. "I'm jealous, yes. Given that the president will meet Mr. Harper in the near future, I hope that they will talk about it and that the president of the United States can be an example for our own political leader."

While Obama said "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is known in Ottawa to keep a tight rein on what his ministers and members say in public.

Marleau told the Globe Canada is moving in the opposite direction of Obama as far as transparency.

"The fog is thickening," Marleau said. "Things are clearly going backwards in the amount of information that is being released, and there is a clear increase in the use of time extensions and exemptions."