SCC access decision

The Supremes made the right decision.  If they had gone the other way, it would have had some pretty serious cost and security consequences.

Parliament has created multiple safeguards to provide for reasonable access to the doings of government.  But access needs to be weighed against efficiency, too. As Justice LeBel wrote:

“I agree completely with my colleague that this interpretative approach must be reconciled with “the need for a private space to allow for the full and frank discussion of issues” (para. 41).  I also agree with her that in s. 21 of the Act, Parliament has recognized “the need for confidential advice to be sought by and provided to a Minister and [that], consequently, records in a government institution offering such advice are exempt from disclosure at the discretion of the head of the institution” (para. 41).

From a CBC story that skims over the decision:

“…At issue was whether documents physically housed within the Prime Miniser’s Office and the offices of ministers are accessible to the public under the legislation, and whether they are considered officers of the government institutions they head, or are separate.

The legal battle began in 1999 with a campaign to view former prime minister Jean Chrétien’s schedules, and those of the transport and defence ministers. A member of the Reform Party used the access to information law to try to get the records dating back to 1994.

During that time, Chrétien was leading a majority Liberal government and had to fend off a number of controversies. Requests for the records were made to the PMO, the Privy Council Office (the bureaucratic arm of the PMO) and the RCMP, which provides the prime minister’s security detail.”

 


Face to Face: I won’t lie down

We went to see Face to Face at the Phoenix after last night’s SFH show – and, my God, it was incredible.  The place was packed (overpacked, in fact).  Must have been well over a thousand punks in a space that could barely accomodate that.  And they were just amazing – and the Toronto crowd was just crazy.  “You guys are animals,” said Trever Keith, as dozens of punks stage dived (and more).

It was one of the best shows we’ve seen in ages.  Looked a lot like this vid, but crazier.


The Sun’s Chris Blizzard: Hudak better be careful

“[Tim] Hudak seems to be taking a leaf from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s playbook, by limiting questions from reporters.

That’s an interesting strategy. But it won’t work.

You can’t walk away from reporters in Opposition. And he’s going to have to come up with a more substantive platform than merely scrapping the controversial Samsung green energy deal.

Voters have learned through bitter experience with helicopters and the Pearson airport deal that when you break contracts for purely political reasons, you end up wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars.

 


Timmy Hudak’s PCs: say one thing, do another

TORONTO, May 13 /CNW/ – Senior PC MPP Frank Klees sits on the board of directors of an energy company that has filed an application for a FIT contract – a program that rookie leader Tim Hudak is so strongly opposed to that he says he will scrap it – for the Mar Wind Project; a huge 240 MW project on the Bruce Peninsula.

Klees sits on the board of Tribute Resources and holds stock options in the company (MPP Public Disclosure Statements, 2010. Click on public disclosures>2010).

Klees is thumbing his nose at his rookie leader in support of the McGuinty Liberal plan for Ontario to replace dirty coal with clean energy and make the province a world leader in clean energy jobs and innovation.

Hudak’s short-sighted policy has drawn severe criticism from across the province, including from another senior PC MPP,Ernie Hardeman, who has already distanced himself from Hudak’s plan (St. Thomas Times-Journal, March 11, 2011).

Klees and Hardeman join fellow PC caucus members who are critical of Hudak’s knifing of long-time caucus stalwart Norm Sterling to please radical right-winger Randy Hillier.

Other caucus members who have distanced themselves from Hudak’s leadership include:

Like many Ontarians, an increasing number of Hudak’s colleagues are realizing that Hudak is just not right for them.

 


Told you so

Here’s a Tweet from the CBC’s Julie VanDusen:

“Campaign life coalition says 65 tory mps are pro-life expect a private members bill in Fall to restrict abortion”

Last night, I was chatting with a pro-choice woman who likes some of the stuff Stephen Harper has done. She told me she felt Harper would never re-open the abortion debate.

I suggested this abortion PMB was coming in a Sun column a while ago, and was thereafter roundly mocked by my friends John Snobelen and Monte Solberg. They, too, said it would never happen.

Well, I guess it’s happening, isn’t it?

Oh, and any of you pro-choice women who voted Conservative? Spare the rest of us your expressions of regret, will you?

People get the government they deserve.


Tim Hudak: job killer, cont’d.

Hudak’s antiquated attitude toward energy doesn’t just stand to harm the environment. It will be a colossal blow to this region, which is in the midst of a diversification plan driven by the green energy sector.

Several companies have chosen to locate here thanks to government incentives, and with each new factory comes jobs -direct and indirect -and the opportunity to lead the way in cutting-edge research and development.

That would change in an instant if Hudak were able to fulfil his promise. “It would mean, basically, that we would close our factory and leave,” said Paco Caudet, general manager of Siliken Group, the Spanish manufacturer of solar panels (which, ironically, will host its grand opening Friday in the shadow of this sudden threat).

More here and here and here and here.


Habit-forming politics

I was chatting with a couple folks in the Canadian publishing industry last night, and we were (like everyone else) dissecting last week’s election results.  And, particularly, the results as they related to the Liberal Party of Canada.

The continued preoccupation with the Liberals fascinated me.  The party has been reduced to a wispy shadow of its former self in every part of the country – but here we are, I said, still talking about them.  They have less than three dozen MPs, little fundraising strength, and even less organizational depth.  They have no leader, and no unity. But the media were still decamped outside the Liberal caucus meeting space, yesterday afternoon, waiting patiently for someone to come out and talk to them.

As I say, this fascinates me, and you can see ongoing preoccupation with the Grits here and here and here and here and here and here.  In fact, seven out of seven of the main stories promoted on the influential National Newswatch site are about the Liberals.

If you’re Jack Layton, this has to drive you bananas.  (If you’re Stephen Harper, you’re delighted, because you would prefer the media didn’t exist, or at least never wrote about you.)  Why, Layton might say, are the media still so focussed on a political party that has been reduced to a third-place rump?  Who cares what they do, and who their leader is?

They’re fair questions.  My hunch: the media continue to write about the Liberal Party of Canada out of habit. They grew up with the party; it’s been a fixture in their professional and personal lives.  They haven’t yet processed the huge change we all witnessed last Monday night.

What’s your view?  Am I right?  Comments are open.