This post has been updated. Twice.
In the interest of full disclosure, I preface this rant with an admission. My Clark-Kent-esque 9-5 alter ego (did I just call myself Superman?) does contract work for a group very interested in the Federal Accountability Act. I helped draft a press release and called a few reporters on the issue.
UPDATE: I should probably clarify, the contract is not specifically for media or public relations. The work done related to this post was supplemental to a different contract.
That said, whatever objectivity remains in me is a bit surprised that the Act has already all-but disappeared from the newspapers.
The sheer volume of the changes proposed in the Act is worthy of in-depth coverage but the potential impact from those changes is, frankly, mind-boggling. At the risk of overselling things, the bill does represent a fundamental change in the way government operates.
- Unelected, theoretically non-partisan public servants will be forced to appear before heavily-partisan Commons committees (if you still believe the lingering myth that committees are where partisan interests are cast aside in favour of informed policy debate, go read some transcripts some time, they’re brutal).
- Public servants are being offered cash rewards for blowing the whistle on unethical behaviour.
- A whole new wave of officers of Parliament are going to be created to watch over elected and unelected officials.
These are fundamental changes, yet the media have already moved on. I would imagine that when the House resumes sitting at the end of the month and the bill is read a second time and debated, the press will pick up the story again, but given the uninspired criticisms of the bill offered up by the opposition parties (who can really stand against accountable government?), somebody has to offer up some scrutiny. This isn’t the time to fall back on the trusty “let the MPs set the parameters for the debate” routine.
Finally, and I freely admit I’m plagiarizing this from the press release that, um, well, I helped draft on Tuesday, a bill that is supposed to eliminate political interference from the public service is being rushed through the process so it can be passed before the summer recess. Why? Political optics.
Ironic or hypocritical?
MORE UPDATE: I suppose I should be glad there wasn’t more coverage like that of the CBC’s Keith Boag. Read about it here.
[G]iven the uninspired criticisms of the bill offered up by the opposition parties (who can really stand against accountable government?), somebody has to offer up some scrutiny.
To rag on Keith Boag some more, he made a comment the other night on The National which solidified my view that he shouldn’t be let any where near an Ottawa bureau.
He was talking about, similar to your comment I quoted above, how there isn’t really any opposition to the act. This isn’t an exact quote, but it went something like “really, how can any MP vote against something called the Accountability Act anyway?”
Stephen Colbert always asks his guests on “Better Know a District” why they voted against the Patriot Act–after all, it has the word patriot right in the name. That’s the kind of logic we’re dealing with.