On open government

The Ottawa Citizen discusses one noteworthy Harper-proofing proposal in the form of limits on how political staffers give directions to civil servants. But notwithstanding the fact that the issue comes up in the context of an issue of denial of information (which can be dealt with in other ways), I'd have to wonder if this may be one area where openness will do more than prohibitions.

After all, it would seem to be a simple enough work-around for staffers to give orders which are nominally signed off on by the minister responsible - and there would be no less deniability for that type of process than there already is when staffers exercise delegated authority. So there's relatively little to be gained by simply requiring that orders formally originate with the minister.

With that in mind, rather than merely providing that staffers never give orders, why not instead create a general rule that political orders - whether originating with ministers or staffers - are binding on our public servants only if they're made open to the public to begin with through a registry of ministerial instructions?

This wouldn't necessarily result in anything more being made public than should already happen now. But rather than requiring researchers to request access to records reflecting instructions after the fact, such a system would ensure that the directions given to the civil service are made known up front, giving Canadians a far better idea what priorities are being set by the political branches of government.

Of course, there would be some circumstances where secrecy might be justified. But the Access to Information Act already provides a model as to how to weigh the relative interests of confidentiality and openness in government operations. And aside from somewhat more of a presumption that the orders themselves should be open, there's no reason why a similar policing process couldn't be applied to the disclosure of orders.

It's worth noting that some of the other ideas suggested by the Citizen's sources - including a more professional view of a political staffer's role - are certainly deserving of some consideration as well. But the simplest step to limit political abuses of Canada's civil service would seem to be to pull back the curtain on what political orders are actually being given. And if the result isn't to actually improve the performance of a government like the Cons', then at the very least such a system would expose exactly how our public institutions are being manipulated.