Regarding the leak in Alberta, I think there's a conflict between the idealistic view that all government discussions should be transparent and public (instead of "behind closed doors") and the realistic view that running a government - discussing and arguing about the full range of options, not just the one that the government eventually pursues - requires confidentiality. As you note, the negative reaction to the leak was from across the political spectrum, and especially from people who have worked in government.
Jean-Sebastien Rioux, responding to a journalist who said that "habitually weighing these factors behind closed doors is concerning": "I understand why this would be your view. Another view is that the government and civil servants must be able to be candid. Add this to why there is Cabinet confidence. If all that opens up to public scrutiny in real time, then what you get is Question Period."
At the federal level, I have similar concerns about the Parliamentary health committee requiring the government to hand over all memos, emails, and documents relating to the pandemic response. Paul Wells: "That’s just one of seven wide-scale fishing expeditions listed in the motion. All requiring massive deployment of government resources. All with potentially zero utility even to the motion’s stated purpose, because if this committee sat until Doomsday it would not be able to examine or discuss the thousandth part of the haystack this motion would order up." A recent news article says that there's probably close to a million pages of relevant documents, and the Parliamentary law clerk's office can only process about 50,000 pages a week. (Which still seems insanely fast to me.)
Well, "Independent oversight and scrutiny is essential, but within narrowly defined limits" is eyebrow raising, to be sure.
What's the public interest case for "narrowly defined limits" in regards to non-partisan, independent officers of legislatures, like auditors general, parliamentary budget officers, and commissioners of the environment and sustainable development?
I wonder, too, if the partisan, politically-imposed "narrowly defined limits" standard should be applied to other practitioners of ostensible "independent oversight and scrutiny," too, such as journalists and researchers? What say you? I recall the Stephen Harper Conservatives imposing such a regime on government researchers and scientists. Better not to bother citizens with facts.
Lastly, what I wonder would have been Ontario Premier Doug Ford's response regarding "narrowly defined limits" if Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk's report had been full of praise for Ford's government's handling of COVID-19? Would he have been in high dudgeon about praising the government being outside of the AG's mandate?
Independent, non-partisan officers of legislatures charged with providing oversight and scrutiny do a valuable public service when they, in the interest of the public, go beyond narrowly defined limits when they deem it necessary and useful. Let the public decide what credence to give their views, just as they do with journalists' musings and scientists' findings.
Journalists do operate within "narrowly defined limits." We are limited by libel law; our research into government affairs is limited by privacy legislation; and we conduct our ability to research and scrutinize as mere citizens who have no special power to compel evidence, nor charge or arrest officials for wrong-doing.
Our mandate is broad precisely because our actual power is so limited. That's the role and function that we serve.
Are journalists' "narrowly defined limits" as narrowly defined as the term was used in the article? Everyone is limited by libel law except politicians in legislatures. Journalists, also, are quite free to use whatever unscrupulous means they can to 'research' a story, including misleading and lying to sources.
"What's the public interest case for 'narrowly defined limits' in regards to non-partisan, independent officers of legislatures, like auditors general, parliamentary budget officers, and commissioners of the environment and sustainable development?"
Dale Smith argues in "The Unbroken Machine" that scrutinizing government operations - especially the budget - is the responsibility of Parliament. Setting up a range of independent offices to do it for them (presumably modelled after the GAO in the US) is basically evading this responsibility.
Regarding the leak in Alberta, I think there's a conflict between the idealistic view that all government discussions should be transparent and public (instead of "behind closed doors") and the realistic view that running a government - discussing and arguing about the full range of options, not just the one that the government eventually pursues - requires confidentiality. As you note, the negative reaction to the leak was from across the political spectrum, and especially from people who have worked in government.
Jean-Sebastien Rioux, responding to a journalist who said that "habitually weighing these factors behind closed doors is concerning": "I understand why this would be your view. Another view is that the government and civil servants must be able to be candid. Add this to why there is Cabinet confidence. If all that opens up to public scrutiny in real time, then what you get is Question Period."
At the federal level, I have similar concerns about the Parliamentary health committee requiring the government to hand over all memos, emails, and documents relating to the pandemic response. Paul Wells: "That’s just one of seven wide-scale fishing expeditions listed in the motion. All requiring massive deployment of government resources. All with potentially zero utility even to the motion’s stated purpose, because if this committee sat until Doomsday it would not be able to examine or discuss the thousandth part of the haystack this motion would order up." A recent news article says that there's probably close to a million pages of relevant documents, and the Parliamentary law clerk's office can only process about 50,000 pages a week. (Which still seems insanely fast to me.)
Well, "Independent oversight and scrutiny is essential, but within narrowly defined limits" is eyebrow raising, to be sure.
What's the public interest case for "narrowly defined limits" in regards to non-partisan, independent officers of legislatures, like auditors general, parliamentary budget officers, and commissioners of the environment and sustainable development?
I wonder, too, if the partisan, politically-imposed "narrowly defined limits" standard should be applied to other practitioners of ostensible "independent oversight and scrutiny," too, such as journalists and researchers? What say you? I recall the Stephen Harper Conservatives imposing such a regime on government researchers and scientists. Better not to bother citizens with facts.
Lastly, what I wonder would have been Ontario Premier Doug Ford's response regarding "narrowly defined limits" if Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk's report had been full of praise for Ford's government's handling of COVID-19? Would he have been in high dudgeon about praising the government being outside of the AG's mandate?
Independent, non-partisan officers of legislatures charged with providing oversight and scrutiny do a valuable public service when they, in the interest of the public, go beyond narrowly defined limits when they deem it necessary and useful. Let the public decide what credence to give their views, just as they do with journalists' musings and scientists' findings.
Journalists do operate within "narrowly defined limits." We are limited by libel law; our research into government affairs is limited by privacy legislation; and we conduct our ability to research and scrutinize as mere citizens who have no special power to compel evidence, nor charge or arrest officials for wrong-doing.
Our mandate is broad precisely because our actual power is so limited. That's the role and function that we serve.
Are journalists' "narrowly defined limits" as narrowly defined as the term was used in the article? Everyone is limited by libel law except politicians in legislatures. Journalists, also, are quite free to use whatever unscrupulous means they can to 'research' a story, including misleading and lying to sources.
"What's the public interest case for 'narrowly defined limits' in regards to non-partisan, independent officers of legislatures, like auditors general, parliamentary budget officers, and commissioners of the environment and sustainable development?"
Dale Smith argues in "The Unbroken Machine" that scrutinizing government operations - especially the budget - is the responsibility of Parliament. Setting up a range of independent offices to do it for them (presumably modelled after the GAO in the US) is basically evading this responsibility.