The Unknowable Country’s weekly look at news about the state of democracy, openness and accountability in Canada will return in January after a brief winter respite. In the New Year, I’ll also be posting columns on the affect newsroom downsizing is having on issue advocates, a simple change that could make our legislatures more democratic and the personal information our representatives should be disclosing to the public but aren’t. But, in the meantime, my best holiday wishes to you and yours.
Monthly Archives: December 2013
THE WEEK THAT WAS — DECEMBER 14, 2013

What would happen if MPs had to produce an annual report for their constituents? (Graphic by Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority)
• Last week, I argued representation should not only be done but should be seen to be done. Tory backbencher Michael Chong’s reform bill may not help on either score. But a recommendation from the United Kingdom’s Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, if implemented in this country, might help on the later one.
The authority, which oversees and regulates MPs business costs and expenses, has recommended all elected officials should produce an annual report. If such a report included metrics on MP voting behaviour and public engagement — including how often they toe the party line — it could help show constituents how much representation is being seen to be done on their behalf. And if that representation isn’t being seen to be done, those reports could pressure MPs to publicly express their views and those of their constituents.
• During my nine years as a legislative reporter, it seemed to me that public officials and institutions in British Columbia became increasingly willing to ignore requests for comment from the news media. I would hazard journalists in other provinces have experienced similar problems. But NPR’s On The Media has come up with a novel solution.
After the program was unable to get answers from the Department of Homeland Security about policies related to the treatment of American citizens at airports and borders, it setup an online tool so listeners could ask those same questions of their elected representatives. But I wonder what resorting to that strategy means for the press’s position relative to the powerful in North American society.
• “Bloomberg News has an an unusual practice of paying some of its reporters explicitly for publishing “market-moving” stories,” reports Business Insider Australia. A spokesperson for the wire service acknowledge that practice — which has raised eyebrows in some quarters — saying, “We strive to be first to report surprises in markets that change behaviour and we put a premium on reporting that reveals the biggest changes in relative value across all assets.” But I wonder what would happen if general interest news outlets adopted a similar practice, paying reporters explicitly for enterprise journalism that make a societal or political difference?
• University of Manitoba political science professor Royce Koop and his University of Regina colleague Jim Farney will be soon be once again weighing in on place and status of constituency associations in our democracy. Over the summer, Koop and Farney presented a paper on that subject at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association. And now Koop announced, in a twitter posting, that he and Farney will be updating that democratic audit.
• The workings of our lobbyist registry and how it compares to those in the United States were among the subjects discussed at the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws‘s annual conference. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff Guy Giorno, a partner with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, was there and tweeted some of the proceedings:
You can find more of Giorno’s commentary on the conference here.
Have a news tip about about the state of democracy, openness and accountability in Canada? You can email me at this address.
REFORM BILL MAY DO LITTLE TO LIFT POLITICAL SECRECY

What does Tory backbencher Michael Chong’s bill actually do for the public? (Photograph by Parliament of Canada)
It has oft been said “justice should not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
But that 1923 legal aphorism is just as applicable to our system of political representation — helping bring into relief its deficiencies and whether Tory backbencher Michael Chong‘s reform bill will address them.
Under that system, representation isn’t often seen to be done in Canada, unless you define it as MPs toeing their party’s line.
Instead, as I’ve discussed before, representation usually happens in spaces shielded from scrutiny — such as caucus or cabinet meetings.
In those meetings, MPs are supposedly allowed to freely express their views and those of their constituents.
But outside those spaces, MPs are mostly expected to cast the same votes and speak in the same voice as their party colleagues — risking punishment if they don’t.
That means it’s almost impossible for Canadians to know the extent to which representation is actually being done in this country.
Chong’s bill would empower those representatives as a collective — legally enshrining caucus’s authority to remove party leaders.
It also blunts the authority of those leaders, taking away their final say on who gets to run for their party and who doesn’t.
And, if Chong’s bill becomes law, the power to remove MPs from caucus would firmly rest with caucus.
But what does any of that do to facilitate representation being done and being seen to be done?
On the first score, it’s conceivable party leaders would have to take better account of the views expressed by MPs during the private meetings where much the public’s business is discussed.
On the second score, it’s conceivable MPs may be emboldened to publicly break ranks when they disagree with their party or its leader — confident their chances of being expelled from caucus or not being able to run for their party in the next election have been reduced.
But all this is predicated on the willingness of MPs to resist the rewards of conformity, the penalties for dissent and a culture of deference.
After all, being expelled from caucus or barred from a party candidacy are just two of many punishments that can be inflicted on rebellious MPs.
And party leaders will continue to be able to check that rebelliousness by holding forth the lure of political promotion.
As such, while I strongly support the intent of Chong’s bill, I worry that legislation may, at best, just entrench and empower the private debating clubs that are party caucuses — doing little to show Canadians that representation is being done.
And if representation isn’t seen to be done, how do we know it’s even taking place?
THE WEEK THAT WAS — DECEMBER 7, 2013

In the United States, citizens may soon have a bigger say in budget decisions. (Graphic by The Participatory Budgeting Project)
• While Canada debates a bill that could give our elected representatives more power to represent us, the United States government is promising to simply give its citizens more power. Last week, the Obama administration released its second U.S. Open Government National Action Plan. The plan commits the government to promoting participatory budgeting for local projects. That’s a process by which “community members directly decide how to spend part of a public budget.” Under the action plan, the United States will also be rolling out metrics next year that can be used to measure public participation in government.
• In British Columbia, the government must disclose information that is in the public interest — regardless of any protections those records enjoy under the province’s freedom of information law. But, according to a investigation by information and privacy commissioner Elizabeth Denham, that requirement “has never been applied by a public body.” That’s because the information must also be of an “urgent” nature. As a result, Denham is calling for a legal change that would require “public bodies to disclose information of a non-urgent nature where disclosure is clearly in the public interest.”
• “Alberta’s ban on publicizing the names and photos of children who die in provincial care is one of the most restrictive in the country, robbing grieving families of their ability to raise concerns in public about the deaths, and sheltering government officials from scrutiny.” So reports the Edmonton Journal and the Calgary Herald, whose reporters Karen Kleiss and Darcy Henton have been investigating those deaths. Human Services Minister Dave Hancock said that law — which is enforced by a fine of up to $10,000 or up to six months in jail — will be discussed at a roundtable of MLAs and experts scheduled for January. But an Alberta College of Social Workers spokesperson said the group supports the principle of the ban for the benefit of the family and any siblings.
Have a news tip about about the state of democracy, openness and accountability in Canada? You can email me at this address.
PUBLIC EYE’S ARCHIVES REOPEN
More than seven years and 6,000 stories worth of British Columbia political reporting is back online.
Due to technical issues, my old investigative news service Public Eye has been down for over eight months.
But, with the assistance of City Caucus blog co-founder Mike Klassen, its coverage is once again accessible. So if you’ve been missing those archives, now’s your opportunity to revisit them.
MPS TO WHIP THEMSELVES INTO SUBMISSION?

Will MPs vote to curtail the power of our political leaders? Don’t bet on it. (Graphic by CLIFF HAMAN)
Canada’s MPs may soon have a chance to steal fire from their gods. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t seize it.
As first reported by the Huffington Post’s Althia Raj, Tory backbencher Michael Chong plans to “bring forward legislation next week to curb the power of all party leaders” and, in doing so, potentially give MPs more power to defy them.
That may seem like something most elected officials would and should support. But the forces that ensure MPs rarely vote against the party line also preserves the power of their leaders — and may continue doing so.
Even in the privacy of their caucus rooms, many MPs could well oppose Chong’s bill thanks to their fear of punishment (including social exclusion), their grasping hope of reward and a culture that often seems to prioritize deference, stability and efficiency over freedom.
So if the parties publicly come out against that bill, I wouldn’t expect MPs to provide a lot of selfless — or even self-interested — support for it.
To find out more about all of this, I’d encourage you to watch my documentary Whipped: the secret of party discipline, which is streaming online here on CPAC’s Website.
Via candid interviews with past and present elected officials, it reveals why so many of our representatives act like trained seals — and may keep acting that way.