Dec. 21, 2011 - Issue #844: The Artist
Political Interference
Fracking with the rules
Kowalski sets a dangerous precedent for accountability
On December 5 a concerning precedent was set in the Alberta legislature. During question period, Edmonton Strathcona MLA Rachel Notley stood up and asked the following question: "Well, Mr Speaker, given that the Ethics Commissioner's illogical decision included a finding that the government had approached CAPP based in part on an interview with Alberta environment staff and given that documents released last week clearly show that this information is false, can the Premier explain why the government officials are not providing full or truthful information to the lobbyist registrar?"
The question refers to a situation brought to light by the Alberta Federation of Labour back in August, when they revealed a government briefing note suggesting that the government had been approached by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) requesting input into the enhancement of a communications strategy around shale gas and fracking.
The Alberta government had determined, in conjunction with the governments of BC and Saskatchewan, that environmental organizations were winning the communications war around the dangers of fracking. As such, they decided that a high visibility public relations campaign was necessary to reverse that trend. According to the briefing note released by the AFL, this is the strategy CAPP wanted input on.
Because CAPP approached the government on this issue, and because the three experts they offered up to the government were not registered as lobbyists for CAPP, the AFL asked the lobbyist registrar, through the ethics commissioner, to investigate a possible violation of the Lobbyist Act by CAPP.
On November 28 the Ethics Commissioner released his report and determined that there was no violation of the Lobbyist Act (this is the report that Ms Notley references in her question above). The main reason: what CAPP had requested was "collaboration to enhance public communication on Alberta shale gas development," and that by definition collaboration was different from lobbying. He also cited that, according to his investigation, the government had actually invited CAPP to participate in the discussions. In Alberta, if the government initiates the conversation, it does not constitute lobbying.
Two days after the release of the Commissioner's report, the AFL released another set of government documents (obtained through a freedom of information request) highlighting the fact that CAPP had taken the lead on drafting the government’s communications strategy to sell Albertans on shale gas and fracking. These were documents that the Commissioner apparently was not privy to over the course of the investigation. This was the essence of Ms Notley’s question—the new information released by the AFL rendered the Commissioner's initial report illogical. Either the report was wrong, or the people interviewed during the investigation provided false information. Ms Notley’s question was trying to get to the essence of this problem
Unfortunately, she did not receive an answer. In fact, the opposite happened. The Speaker of the legislature, Ken Kowalski, actually reprimanded Ms Notley for her question and made her withdraw it. According to his ruling, referring to a report or decision by an officer of the legislature as "illogical" constitutes a "personal attack" against the officer, and as such is against the rules of the Legislative Assembly.
This ruling by Mr Kowalski is incredibly concerning. Rules in the legislature are enforced largely based on precedents, and this sets a dangerous one. The assumption has been that making someone an officer of the legislature increases the transparency and accountability of that position because they have to report back to all of the elected members. This is why Alison Redford made such a big deal recently about making the province's child and youth advocate an independent officer of the legislature.
This entire tradition could be meaningless by Mr Kowalski's ruling. It is right that personal attacks against officers of the legislature should not be permitted, as those officers are not in the legislature to defend themselves. But the ability to criticize and question their work and findings is the very essence of why those officers report to the legislature in the first place. If you take that away, you remove yet one more layer of accountability from a government.
Mr Kowalski recently announced that he will be retiring once the provincial election is called this spring. He has often been contentious and controversial during his tenure as Speaker, but he has not really done any permanent damage until now. Thank you for the legacy Mr Speaker. Let's hope future Speakers choose to over-look this ruling as they work to keep democracy and accountability alive in the Alberta legislature. V
Ricardo Acuña is the executive director of the Parkland Institute, a non-partisan, public policy research institute housed at the University of Alberta.
More stories in front »
vueweekly.com comments: powered by DisqusPrivacy Policy:
Vue respects your privacy. We will not forward your personal information to any other organization except as required by law, and will use your e-mail address only to respond to your comments. We reserve the right to edit and remove comments for length, clarity and/or if they are illegal or inappropriate. Your email address is never shown to visitors to vueweekly.com. Read the whole policy at: http://vueweekly.com/privacy
Comments policy
Comments go online directly without first being seen or reviewed by editors at Vue. Don't personally attack people, don't be defamatory, don't be spam-atory, don't hawk your band, don't pretend to be someone else, be clear, be on topic, be nice. Read our extended comments policy here. »
We use Disqus for our comments system. What's that all about?
We found that managing the comment community at Vue was easier to do with a system like Disqus. If this isn't straightforward to you, get help here.