On selective rule-making

As if we needed yet another example of the Cons seeing rules as something to be wielded against others rather than something of any real value, the Cons are apparently arguing against their own campaign platform in order to avoid added scrutiny on Harper's cabinet:

In their campaign platform, the Conservatives promised to implement Information Commissioner John Reid's recommendations for reforming the 23-year-old access law.

The Federal Accountability Act tabled Tuesday would expand the scope of the access law to cover three foundations, several agents of Parliament and seven additional Crown corporations - including Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail.

But the legislation does not include Reid's proposals to make cabinet documents more accessible and limit the scope for withholding sensitive information from release...

Instead of including Reid's full slate of recommendations in the Accountability Act, the government bundled them into a "draft bill" for consideration by a parliamentary committee.

The Tories also issued a discussion paper that raises questions about a number of Reid's proposals. The document says several elements of access reform are "extremely complex and require further analysis, discussion and debate."

In other words, added oversight is just fine for Crown corporations (which the Cons are presumably happy to put to added expense given the opportunity). But when it comes to extending accountable government to those who actually govern, Harper seems to want to delay and distract rather than making the changes promised during the campaign.

Of course, with the Cons holding a minority, the other parties can presumably team up to make sure that Harper can't set more stringent rules for everybody but himself. And hopefully they'll be able to work together to at least that extent, so as to make sure that Harper can't further insulate his cabinet from any public access or attention.