Some interesting discussions

So I went on Monday night to an event put on by the Information Commissioner, for Right to Know Week.

It was really interesting, particularly to see the journalist's perspective on these issues. They talked mostly process, which was disappointing. David Akin, tried talk about his issues with DFAIT regarding some kind of fee for his ATIP request. This was very much about being annoyed about process and less about the broader question, but was quite interesting in seeing how journalists use ATIP.

One of the more interesting characters, was a journalist from the UK whose access to information request led (after 4 years) to the UK expense scandal. What was interesting was that the reason for this being possible was their Freedom of Information Act applies to Parliament. In the federal parliament expenses are controlled by a small cabal in the Board of internal economy. They won't even let the auditor general have a look at their expenses. Can't say I blame them, if spending a few dollars on items the public doesn't like, causes careers to end.

Apparently something like 50 MPs are going down because of this, and not all of it justified.

The other interesting was by an unassuming young woman name Jennifer Bell who works for an NGO called Visible Government. They are using some interesting tools to get information out there. I really saw the possibilities of what you can do with searchable tools and some information. It was really interesting and I think some of this could be used even within government to shed light on things. It was clear to me why this kind of available and searchable information databases have so much potential. She also pointed out what the Obama administration has been able to do in the U.S.

There were also two interesting chats and debates this week. Macleans and CPAC, held a roundtable discussion between a whole cast of characters, that included Ed Broadbent and Eddie Goldenberg as well as Paul Wells, Andrew COyne and John Ralston Saul.

They discussed our 'broken' democracy. You really do get the sense that Andrew Coyne hates politics and politicians, which is why I find it kind of ironic that he comments on them, though perhaps that is why he is a journalist, and not that involved in te actual day to day business of government.

Overall i thought there was some good discussion, more and more I find myself agreeing with Paul Wells on a lot of things, I'm becoming a bigger fan, and have seen him 2 or 3 times on Sparks street in the past 10 days. Maybe next time I'll go say hello.

The other event was hosted by CBC's Michael Enright. They had Jane Taber. She is annoying, though had some interesting things to say. This discussion got sidetracked a lot and was not that interesting. They had some guy from Democracy watch who kept saying politicians are liars and that we need a truth in politics law to keep them honest. This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! For two reasons, the public won't stand a politcian who actually tells the truth in many situations. Imagine what would happen to the party right now who said, we need higher taxes and lower spending. Second, circumstances change but we still want out politicians to act tough and strong and as if they know all the answers.

I though that both events brought up interesting issues, but they are always difficult ones. I really think that there are some changes to the institutions of government that are possible. However being in a minority, particularly with a federal government led by a party with no natural allies make these kinds of changes difficult or imposisble. I wonder if there will be this clamour for change, when we have a majority government.

Speaking of which there may be a conservative one soon.