On needless secrecy

Thanks in large part to NDP MP Charlie Angus, there's been no lack of talk about the Cons' about-face on Celebrate Canada funding, which like so many programs has only grown by leaps and bounds under Deceivin' Stephen after forming a frequent target for the Cons while in opposition. But the Montreal Gazette points out that in addition to throwing more money into the pot, the Cons have also gone out of their way to make the funding more difficult to trace:

In 2006, a Citizen analysis of Celebrate Canada records found that after the 2004 election, 79 per cent of funding went to projects based in Liberal ridings. The government denied political considerations factored into funding decisions.

The Liberal ridings may have appeared to do better because many of the larger projects were based in urban areas, where Liberal representation tends to be strongest. Applications for projects are sent to provincial and territorial Celebrate Canada committees, which then make recommendations on funding the federal government.

A similar comparison with records for this year is not possible because the government, citing privacy concerns, will not release the address of organizations and events it funds.

Now, frequent readers of this blog will know that I'm one of the first to recognize and highlight real privacy concerns when they turn up. But it should be obvious that in this case, the only privacy that's being protected is the Cons' ability to funnel money where they see fit without oversight.

After all, the funding in question is public money being granted to public organizations for the purpose of organizing public events...meaning that nobody involved could have a reasonable expectation that the details would be hidden from public view.

Moreover, there's similarly no reason to think that any information involved consists of anything more than the names and addresses of the organizations who are putting together the events. And it's generally understood that such "business card" information isn't considered protected information under any but the most unusual circumstances.

Which means that the Cons' concern for "privacy" seems limited to making sure that the media can't compare their riding-by-riding breakdown to that of the Libs. And if the Cons are willing to offer up such a painful excuse for keeping the information hidden, it seems fair to infer that it's because Oda's management is matching - or exceeding - even the Libs' high standard for patronage.