NB government must reform third party disclosure clauses
Right To Know week should remind NBers of their right to be able to access more information, not less
The CTF's British Columbia Director Maureen Bader explains the importance of full disclosure by government when it comes to P3s (public private partnerships):
Governments have a lot of money and a lot of power tied up in very few hands. And when so much money and power is concentrated in such a small place, the vultures start to circle. People are fallible, and that is why openness and transparency should be the rule, not the exception in the business of government.A very good point indeed. And one that brings me back to a situation which I have been wrestling with over and over again ever since the New Brunswick government handed over millions of our tax dollars to bail out the Caisse Populaire de Shippagan without demanding full disclosure of their books to the public. Yes, I know it's not a standard P3 case, but it still involves government funds being allocated to an institution, in this case a credit union, that is only accountable to its shareholders, not taxpayers.
Governments are turning more and more to public private partnerships to build core infrastructure. This creates a challenge in terms of transparency and accoutability, because as taxpayers, we need to know that our money is being spent wisely, honestly, and fairly.
In B.C., the contracts between government and industry are on the government's website, but information harmful to the business interests of a third party is not disclosed.
Not to mention, what is more interesting about this situation is that Consumer Affairs Minister TJ Burke defended the bailout on the grounds that "it would be more expensive for New Brunswick if the financial institution folded." But who is he to make that case without properly opening the Caisse books for all NBers to see, especially if there is damning information contained within those financial statements which may make us think otherwise.
Furthermore, since it is our money they are using to bail out the struggling credit union, shouldn't we [taxpayers] be entitled to know the entire story even if it means disclosing information harmful to the business interests of the Caisse? At least then (and maybe then) citizens can make up their own minds on whether or not government is using their money wisely and honestly instead of relying on the punctilious arguement of an obstinate politician as a benchmark.
1 Comments:
First, not only is it NOT a 'standard P3', it is nothing even remotely similar to a P3. If that were the case, then EVERY business that got any money from govenrmetn would be a P3.
Second, since it is not a P3 then different regulations must be met. We've heard you talk about this consistently for awhile. Let's compare apples, currently, the major lease holders of crown land and other forest companies are getting bailouts for over ten times the amount of the Caisse. Where are the cries for Irving to 'open the books'?
With Irving it at least makes sense. They have been getting bailouts and been propped up by government for decades.
However, for the Caissie, which is a credit union, which, by the way, doesn't have 'shareholders' but 'owners', then there are huge issues. How would you like it if your business got a loan from the Scotiabank (which also gets subsidies) and then suddenly informed you that the specifics of your loan was going to be front page because the public demands it?
If you ever got a loan then you know there are privacy laws, which means 'opening the books' is a violation of both law and financial ethics. Both of which could easily be grounds for lawsuits.
I see your point, nobody likes to see what they think may be nepotism or shady dealings. But really, compare this to the billions of dollars going out to forestry companies, resource companies, highway companies and of course Irving, and this is a tiny drop in the bucket. Perspective.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home