Consistent Constituency Offices: The Case For Minimum Standards Of Records Management and Maintenance

When a parliamentarian is defeated, retires, or otherwise creates a vacancy, what happens to their constituent case files? Are they shredded? Transferred to the next parliamentarian? Returned to the constituent? Stored someplace for an indeterminate period? Who gets to decide where these documents and this information goes? Parliamentarians who may experience partisan control while in their legislatures tend to have greater independence and freedom to manage constituency matters that come through their office. But this freedom can create havoc for constituents and tie up limited resources if their successor must rebuild the file from scratch. Establishing minimum requirements for constituent records management and maintenance can provide a sense of stability, continuity, and institutional memory when there is turnover of elected officials. In this article, the author explains why the current independent business model of constituency offices ought to be replaced by a regulated professional model that better serves the interests of constituents while still protecting a parliamentarian’s independence and ability to innovate or customise service delivery.

Will Stos

Will Stos is Editor of the Canadian Parliamentary Review. He holds a PhD in Canadian History from York University.

Within most Canadian legislatures, partisan politics serves as a primary organising structure. With the notable exceptions of the consensus-style Assemblies of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut,1 political parties wield a great deal of control over the actions of parliamentarians elected or appointed under their banners through the Whip.2

But, while parliamentarians who belong to these parties generally accept that partisan politics is a team sport that requires co-ordination of and co-operation among caucus colleagues, there are facets of their jobs that provide a great degree of independence and minimal supervision by the party leadership. And, constituency office management is just such an area.3 While a party may have a hand in how the parliamentarian fulfils their responsibilities to their local constituency, the minutiae of constituency office work is likely beyond the scope of much oversight from party headquarters.

Many parliamentarians take particular pride in their constituency work. As the Samara Centre for Democracy suggests: “Members of Parliament are meant to be the representatives of constituents in Ottawa. They exist to connect citizens to national democratic institutions, and to allow Canadians’ voices to be heard in federal decisions. But the role that MPs play in the constituency has transformed over time, becoming more focused on service delivery and events, rather than consultation and legislation.”4

As the role that parliamentarians play in constituencies shifts, it’s likely many would fiercely guard their independence in this space and centralized efforts to apply certain constraints over constituency office organisation and management might be rejected out of hand.

This is completely understandable. Yet, the historic ad hoc approach to constituency office organisation and management that privileges local control can, perversely, be quite detrimental to individual constituents.

In this article, I outline some of the problems of the “independent business” model of constituency offices that has developed within Canadian jurisdictions and propose a “regulated professional” model. This alternative would seek to preserve these offices as spaces where parliamentarians can exercise a large degree of independence and experiment with innovation, while still guaranteeing their constituents minimum standards in terms of records management that would prevent them (and their files) from getting lost in the shuffle of electoral turnover, resignations, or deaths of sitting Members.

I suggest that certain standards of records management should be uniform across a jurisdiction’s constituency offices, that transition planning involving an arm’s length non-partisan team be implemented, and that parliamentarians be encouraged to put partisan interests and self-interest aside to the extent that individual lives of constituents aren’t negatively impacted when electoral fortunes change.

Serving Others But Also Being Self-Serving

In the Canadian context, constituency offices first started to emerge (in the 1960s and 1970s) both as a response to frustrations with bureaucracy and as necessary infrastructure for parliamentarians who did not have access to private office space.

In a conference presentation for the Canadian Study of Parliament Group, Peter Macleod cited federal politicians Flora MacDonald and Ed Broadbent as early-adopters who saw both a need and value in these offices:

Though the offices are often the citizen’s main point of contact with politics, they are typically “marginal, scrappy, haphazard spaces.” The pioneer of constituency offices was Flora McDonald who needed a constituency office because she lacked the professional infrastructure of other politicians, such as a law practice or business. To keep in touch with constituents, she tithed her own salary to hire a grad student in Kingston. In Ed Broadbent’s view of deliberative democracy, the constituency office serves as a talking shop.5

Broadbent’s view was shared by other parliamentarians affiliated with the NDP. As a part of doctoral research on regional political parties, I learned that around 1970, Nova Scotia NDP MLA Paul MacEwan and Nova Scotia NDP leader Jeremy Akerman began holding “office hours” where constituents could come to discuss matters that were important to them. But rather than only visiting their MLA to encourage them to vote a certain way or to lobby the government for something the community as a whole needed as a whole, many constituents were looking for individual assistance on matters pertaining to employment insurance applications and filling out other bureaucratic paperwork.

MacEwan realised the goodwill he and his leader could gain by doing this work would be beneficial to their future electoral prospects. Indeed, when MacEwan was ejected from the Nova Scotia NDP caucus and prevented from seeking its nomination in his riding, his reputation as a strong constituency MLA saw him decisively returned to the Assembly as an Independent.

Other parliamentarians who saw the success Ackerman and MacEwan were having holding these office hours also began to prioritise offering these services. Eventually, some opened physical offices to conduct this work. Remuneration for MLAs was later adjusted so that leasing and staffing these offices was possible. Across the country constituency offices now cater to a wide variety of needs, from processing government paperwork,6 to addressing individual grievances,7 to acting as “legal aid for stuff you can’t get legal aid for.”8

The main motive behind all this work is undoubtedly to be of service to constituents. Some politicians may do this work with utter selflessness and have no ulterior motives. But, it’s easy to see how a well-served potential voter could benefit a parliamentarian who is planning to run again at the next general election. Whether this constituent actively offers positive word-of-mouth promotion that bolsters the parliamentarian’s standing in the community or silently reflects on the value of this personalised help when next at the ballot box, effective constituency work likely contributes, in part, to the well-established “incumbency bonus”9 at the polls.

In and of itself, this self-serving aspect of constituency work is not a bad thing. Constituents who are frustrated by a bureaucratic decision, find their file is gathering dust on a pile of papers elsewhere, or who simply seek a dedicated place to communicate with their elected representative without having to travel to their Assembly office, benefit from this physical infrastructure and the service-minded parliamentarians within them. When all other avenues for assistance have been exhausted, the constituent may well assume “nothing ventured, nothing gained,” and pay a visit to the constituency office(s).10

Whether or not the constituent ultimately achieves a successful resolution and the parliamentarian achieves a sense of personal or professional satisfaction, the constituent is undoubtedly the primary beneficiary of this constituency office work. Even if the parliamentarian’s work on the case ultimately doesn’t help the constituent, the trip to the constituency office probably didn’t hinder them or harm them.11

Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

When constituent casework is caught up in an electoral or other turnover,12 standard practices that could protect a constituent’s interests during this transition period may not be in place. Whether a parliamentarian’s decision to leave office is their own or the electorate’s, how they choose to close their constituency office is left almost entirely up to them.13 Practice varies widely among legislatures and individual parliamentarians, and it appears to be informed by a combination of personal ethics, partisan considerations, and whether a parliamentarian has any plans to seek the same or a different elected position in the future.

But, if a constituent has an active matter in the out- going parliamentarian’s files, what happens? Can one parliamentarian transfer this file to another? If consent is needed to provide any of the constituent’s information or documentation, has it been obtained? Will consent be obtained during the transition? If the newly elected parliamentarian is a political rival to the out-going parliamentarian (either within the same party or as a member of another party), will the out-going parliamentarian be as generous with their time, knowledge, and records?

The answers vary.

Share, Shred, Return or Store

In the 2011 federal election, the much discussed “Orange Wave” carried dozens of NDP candidates into office in Quebec. As the newly-elected parliamentarians began to establish constituency operations, some discovered they would be starting completely from scratch, while others received the benefit of the previous MP’s files.

One MP discovered empty file folders while another “allegedly acquired a filing cabinet that was completely bare — except for a sarcastic note that read: ‘Don’t worry about it, it’s all been recycled.’”14

According to Quebec MP Guy Caron, “It’s not punishing the new MP as much as it’s punishing citizens and honestly they don’t deserve to have that happen to them. I actually find it quite childish in a sense because you lose (the election) and then you destroy the file, and then you try to make things hard for the person replacing you.”

In contrast, Caron received his predecessors’ files because the out-going Bloc Québécois MP did not want his successor to have to start from square one.

Another outgoing Bloc Québécois MP, Diane Bourgeois, returned individual constituent files to the constituents themselves in order to protect privacy and to give the constituent the option of passing it to the new MP. “There’s no rule,” she told a CBC reporter, “but I think there’s a question of confidentiality and a citizen must sign a document — that’s evident.” She added that giving the outgoing MP discretion for how to deal with these files “is how it’s happened for years.”

The concerns expressed by Caron and others are not new. During the mid-late 1970s, Paul Dick, an MP from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, brought forward a Private Member bill multiple times that sought to create a file transfer process. In motivating his bill, Mr. Dick recounted a story about how he sought the previous member’s files in order to continue constituent case work, and how his request was rejected out of hand. The previous member noted those files were private and belonged to him.

Over time, numerous constituents contacted Mr. Dick to request an update on their case. When he responded that he had no files and the constituent would need to start again with him, he learned that some had sent original, irreplaceable documents.

Those constituents never received what they deserved. Later I found out that those documents were not just thrown in the garbage; they were put through a shredding machine in the Centre Block. Those original documents belonged to the constituents. They were sent to the member representing them. They were not his. They were in his custody only because he held the office of member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton.15

Mr. Dick’s bill was never passed by parliament. While there was some interest in further discussion at committee to determine if a workable procedure for file transfers could be found, other MPs suggested common law and statutory provisions already gave constituents remedies if they discovered their private property (original documents) had been wilfully destroyed.16

If we accept that giving parliamentarians complete discretion over their constituent files is how it’s always been done, and therefore also how it should always be done in the future, then this article could conclude here.

But discretionary actions ought to have at least some guidelines or limits. Parliamentarians would serve all their constituents well if they were to discuss how to establish uniform, non-partisan standards that address:

• their own potential interest in preserving their casework;
• their constituents’ potential desire for continuity with their file(s); and,
• the general expectation that a person’s privacy must be protected when data is stored or shared.

On this last point, it’s important to note that while a parliamentarian’s official responsibilities come to an end as they leave their office, they continue to have a duty of care to people who shared confidential information. In her Alf Hales Award-winning article “Fiduciary Duty and Members of Parliament,” Lyndsey Aagaard suggested using the concept of fiduciary duty to examine “the relationship that exists between a member of parliament and a citizen, to look at the foundation of this relationship, and to find… a minimum, legal threshold of accountability to which all members of parliament must rise.”17

While conducting research on a former parliamentarian, I was unnerved to discover that when his constituency files had been transferred to a public archive, either the former parliamentarian or the archivist cataloguing the files had neglected to remove or redact certain contents – including documents containing identifying information of constituents alongside their SIN numbers.

Fortunately, I can’t imagine any Canadian political historian who came across this information sitting in archives would have been a likely candidate to commit identity theft; but this type of scenario shows that the discretion to do as one pleases with constituency files can have potentially serious consequences.18

Continuity and Institutional Memory

In a previous theme issue on constituency offices, the Canadian Parliamentary Review conducted roundtable discussions and individual interviews with parliamentarians, both past and present, who not only assumed their predecessors’ files, but also their constituency assistants.

In “‘The People’s Office’: Constituency Offices in the Far North,” former NWT MLA Frederick (Sonny) Blake Jr. noted that he kept the previous MLA’s constituency assistant on board. “She’s easy-going and knows pretty much the whole community, so that helps out a lot,” he said. “Because we have smaller communities we tend to know more people in the communities we represent. And that really helps a lot too.”19 Blake explained that the former MLA in his riding, who retired after 16 years, helped him immensely during the transition.

Although Blake was elected in a non-partisan Assembly, sometimes incoming parliamentarians will retain an out-going parliamentarian’s constituency staff if they share partisan affiliation. And, occasionally, a member of the constituency office will be the newly elected parliamentarian for the same constituency.

But there have also been cases where constituency staff have remained employed at a constituency office even when the incoming parliamentarian belonged to another party. In another article from the same theme issue, former Progressive Conservative MPP Elizabeth Witmer discussed her decision to retain constituency staff employed by Liberal MPP Herb Epp.20 She remembers:

I came to the conclusion that the people who had worked for Herb Epp knew the riding and had served the people extremely well, so I offered two of his constituency staff positions. One of them worked for me until she retired and the other worked for me for the 22 years I was an MPP. Their focus was on putting people first – ours was not a political office. We focused on serving the people well and I don’t ever regret that decision because I do believe constituency offices should be focused on helping all of the people all of the time and everyone should feel very welcome approaching you or your staff with problems or concerns. I believe the staff I hired did that job. Their first loyalty was to the people in the riding and I fully believe that’s how it should be. I will also say that I did receive a phone call from someone in the party who said, “You know, that’s not normally how things are done.” So I did discover that’s not what usually happens, but to this day I think it was very appropriate that I hired individuals who put people ahead of politics.

In addition to staff, Witmer retained some of Epp’s constituent files. She explains: “Those files are normally destroyed. However, in this instance we did have access to some of his files. There was some benefit to having them because it meant the constituent wouldn’t have to start all over again with a new constituency assistant who didn’t know the background of their case.”

Despite successfully retaining staff originally hired by a parliamentarian with a different political affiliation, Witmer suggested individual context was important and she doubted that this practice could be adopted more widely, particularly as partisan politics has become more polarised. She also was cool to the idea that in instances where constituency staff could not be retained between parliamentarians, having a non-partisan public servant stationed in the office would be a way to sustain institutional memory.

“Right now it’s the MPP who is the employer and there needs to be a level of trust and collaboration between the MPP and the staff who work in the constituency office,” she said.

Perhaps Witmer is correct that a non-partisan bureaucrat stationed within a constituency office would not be the best fit in what essentially operates as a small, independent business. But, I would suggest that arm’s-length public servants could serve a valuable function during constituency office openings, closings, and transitions between sitting parliamentarians. This idea is one among several that could perhaps begin a larger discussion among parliamentarians about how certain structures and supports could assist them as they manage their constituency offices without stifling their creativity and independence.

Best Practices and Training

A Constituency Office Secretariat could provide administrative assistance to parliamentarians. This branch could fulfil a variety of needs that parliamentarians (and their constituents) have relating to these offices, while not encroaching on each parliamentarian’s interests and independent management style.

Public servants (Parliamentary/Assembly staff) in a Constituency Office Secretariat, could assist by:

• Preparing best practices guidelines for opening constituency offices – These guidelines, specific to a given jurisdiction, could include suggestions for: choosing accessible locations, appropriate signage, and essential office equipment; understanding standard lease clauses; records management software; safety and security considerations; contingency planning for office closures; and human resources training for new hires.
• Providing online modules for the parliamentarian and staff that cover – how to reach and deal with ministries when working on behalf of constituents, ethics and legal liability, records management, dealing with dangerous situations in an office.
• Facilitating transitions between parliamentarians – instructions on how to close offices and constituent files, file transfers, file management and archival duties.

In recent years, Assemblies across the country have vastly expanded their onboarding and orientation programs for new parliamentarians.22 However, the focus is clearly on work in and around the chamber. A Constituency Office Secretariat could provide these services with a focus on parliamentary work outside a parliamentary precinct, or liaise with other Assembly Departments who have responsibilities to facilitate parliamentary work conducted outside of the parliamentary precinct (for example, Information Technology, or Safety and Security departments).

Offering information on best practices and training would encompass general understandings of what many parliamentarians need and/or would want to know about setting up, running, and closing a constituency office. Obviously, each parliamentarian, in consultation with their staff, could make changes within their own office operations as they see fit. Exit interviews with parliamentarians and staff could provide valuable feedback for the Secretariat as it monitors how constituency offices are adapting to changing times, and how certain adaptations might be incorporated into best practices.

Records Management Rules

While some jurisdictions give parliamentarians carte blanche to set up and operate their constituency offices, others impose certain requirements, (either through Board of Internal Economy rules and regulations, or by statute). It is here where certain standards for records management could be incorporated.

For example, British Columbia’s Legislative Assembly stipulates that financial records for constituency offices must be retained for a period of seven years. It also “offers all Members free storage for their personal, political or constituency records for a period of up to 5 years after the date of their departure from the Legislative Assembly. After this, records will be transferred to the Legislative Library for permanent retention or destruction, subject to agreement between the Member and the Legislative Library.”23

Safely and securely storing these files before they are archived or destroyed is important. But, what happens to active constituent case files that aren’t dealt with before a parliamentarian closes their office? Does a constituent have any recourse to access their file? Can the incoming MP access it? Guidance around these questions is needed.

If parliamentarians were to adopt a uniform system for categorising case files, a Constituency Office Secretariat, could help to prevent individual constituents from being lost in the shuffle as parliamentary representatives change.

This system need not be overly complicated. But, at a minimum it should identify a constituent’s interests and their expectations of confidentiality and privacy. The role of non-partisan staff in a Constituency Office Secretariat would be to help facilitate file transfers, document transfers, or information transfers as needed while respecting the expressed wishes of a constituent and a former parliamentarian.

Sample Case Study: Immigration Application/Appeal

Let’s imagine that a constituent has applied for a work permit or permanent residency status. If there was a problem with the application (missing information, unreasonable delay, lost application/ documentation, etc.) many newcomer support groups advise contacting an MP’s office for assistance if an applicant is having difficulty communicating with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

While an MP cannot influence any decision on an application, they can follow up on behalf of a constituent and work with them to check the status of their application and offer assistance if there is a potential problem.

When the constituent visits the MP’s office, the constituency office staff arrange an intake meeting, compile documentation, and make notes for constituency office staff and/or the MP to review. Some of these cases may be straightforward, but others may be quite complicated and result in a variety of interventions with the department or Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, while helping the constituent. Consent to communicate on a constituent’s behalf is generally sought by a parliamentarian, but the forms used by individual offices or government departments are not standardised.

If progress has been made, but the matter has not been resolved prior to the MP’s defeat in an election, the constituent may not fully understand exactly which steps have been taken, which Ministry staff may know about their case, or what options they have remaining. Some MPs may take time to close out these files. They might contact these constituents to ask if they want a copy of their file or for them to forward file to the new MP. Other MPs may not. In the latter case, the constituent may be left wondering what has happened to their file and whether they have to start fresh with a new MP, who may find they are repeating steps that have already been taken.

With record management standards, some, if not all this frustration and uncertainty could be avoided. For example, something along the lines of the following system could be implemented:

Upon intake, the constituency staff seek contact information from the constituent and consent from the constituent to categorise their file according to certain levels of privacy and confidentiality.

The constituent is asked whether the constituency office should: a) provide a copy of their file to the constituent in the event the MP leaves office before it’s resolved; b) provide a copy of the file to an incoming MP, c) provide only certain information contained in the file to an incoming MP (for example, only copies of applications and official documentation as opposed to all contemporaneous notes), d) provide no information to an incoming MP unless the constituent provides consent at a future date to the Constituency Office Secretariat.25

If the constituency office is to be closed, a notice is sent through various means (letter, email, phone, local advertisement) alerting any constituent with an active file that file storage and file transfer will be taking place at a certain date. They would be directed to contact the office if the constituent wants to discuss the transfer or retention of their file (for example, receiving a copy of their file, or deciding whether to permit it to be forwarded to the new MP).

In the event that contact with the constituent is not made before the office is closed, the files are sent to the Constituency Office Secretariat for storage.

If the constituent (or new MP) learns that an open case file is with the Secretariat, they may contact the Secretariat to access information in accordance with the pre-existing category of consent.

If consent is unknown, uncertain, or the out- going MP has set any other restrictions on their files, the Constituency Office Secretariat would use guidelines/judgement about what documentation could be released and/or what information could be provided (erring on the side of caution so that both the constituent and the former Member of Parliament are protected). The former MP may also stipulate specific conditions about when or if they should be contacted about any issues pertaining to these files.

After a specified period of time, any files not transferred to the new MP or returned to the constituents would be destroyed or released to an archive if the out-going MP has made an agreement to donate their files.

The “Regulated Professional Model”

Parliamentarians can serve for periods that range from months to decades. Some knowledgeable and experienced parliamentarians and constituency staff may be more than happy to share advice with newly elected and newly hired people, but others may have their own reasons for wanting to move on quickly once they’ve closed up shop.

The knowledge of parliamentary and Legislative Assembly staff provides stability and continuity within parliamentary precincts. But constituency offices are far removed from these environs; and, without permanent administrative staff who are familiar with day-to-day operations, much institutional memory is simply lost. Longtime parliamentarians will cycle through staff during their time in office, and while efforts may be made to pass along information to new hires, time and resources are limited and some staff may not be leaving on good terms.

While non-partisan parliamentary staff need not be placed in each of these offices to provide this institutional memory, a Constituency Office Secretariat could partially serve this function. As a resource for new parliamentarians and constituency office staff, it could help to facilitate training that would take some of the guesswork out of the hands of people who may have no prior experience managing such an operation. As an arms-length repository for constituency office files, it could prevent some constituent casework from being unnecessarily disrupted, while also sorting through files to ensure proper privacy protection if they are to be placed in archives one day.

To become a parliamentarian is to assume “a job with no description.” It must be wonderful to have freedom to carve out your own niche, but it is also likely terrifying to try to piece together what you can, should, or must do as you fulfil your role as a democratic representative.

A  Constituency  Office  Secretariat  that  assists parliamentarians and their constituents could provide the structure necessary to establish a “Regulated Professional Model” for constituency offices. This model would ensure reasonable standards of records management are in place. It would work with parliamentarians and constituency office staff to offer resources and training that could be very helpful as they serve their constituents and communities. And it could provide a sense of continuity that would give constituents a sense of trust that their information will not be lost, destroyed, or handed over without their consent.

It’s been more than half a century since constituency offices emerged in Canada’s parliamentary landscape. It’s time to bring some uniform professional standards to these operations. Ultimately, the proposals made in this article may not be the preferred way to establish these standards. However, they do offer a starting point for discussion amongst parliamentarians themselves.

By putting aside partisanship and addressing this matter as colleagues with a shared interest in building trust in parliamentary institutions and representatives, parliamentarians can ensure the positive changes that standardisation would bring to their constituents and successors would not negatively impact their own independence and privilege to perform their role as they see fit.

Notes

* The author would like to thank Charlie Feldman, Alex Marland, and members of the CPR editorial board for their comments and suggestions. The views expressed in this paper belong solely to the author and any errors or omissions are his own.

1. While non-aligned Canadian senators have been present throughout Canadian history, the introduction of a non-partisan appointment process in the Senate has led to the emergence of caucuses with no ties to political parties. Although the Senate continues to have one partisan caucus, the majority of the membership of this chamber is also no non-partisan.
2. See: Martin Westmacott. “Whips and Party Cohesion,” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol 6(3), 1983. URL: http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue. asp?param=106&art=544; and Alex Marland. Whipped Party Discipline in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2020, 480p.
3. Federally, the Whip’s Office does have a role in providing continuity of services when there is a vacancy, however. The Member’s Bylaw, created by the Board of Internal Economy, provides that: “In the case of a vacancy resulting from the resignation of a Member, services to constituents provided through the former Member’s Parliamentary office or constituency office shall be continued by (a) the Whip of the former Member’s party, who shall manage the day-to-day operations of the offices and the selection and setting of remuneration of employees; or (b) the Speaker, in the case of an independent Member, who shall manage the day-to-day operations of the offices and the selection and setting of remuneration of employees.” Member’s Bylaw, “Part 6 – Former Members and Former House Officers, Services to Constituents,” Section 108 (1), version current as of April 1, 2024.
4. Samara Centre for Demorcarcy. Beyond the Barbecue: Reimagining Constituency Work for Local Democratic Engagnement, July 2018, https://www.samaracentre.ca/ articles/beyond-the-barbecue-2
5. Peter Macleod “The Low Road to Democratic Reform: Constituency Offices, Public Service Provision and Citizen Engagement.” Conference Report: All Politics Is Local: The Constituency Dimension of Federal Politics. Canadian Study of Parliament Group, December 9, 2005. http://cspg-gcep.ca/pdf/2005_Dec_9_Conference_ Report-e.pdf
6. Sarah Marriott. “Discretionary decision-making in constituency offices: A new (political) front-line of Canadian immigration processing.” Masters Thesis, University of Ottawa, 2018. URL: https://ruor.uottawa. ca/bitstream/10393/37760/3/Marriott_Sarah_2018_ thesis.pdf
7. Bruce McKenna. “Thinking Critically About Casework: A View from an Ontario Constituency Office.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 45(2), 2022. URL: https://www. revparlcan.ca/en/thinking-critically-about-casework-a- view-from-an-ontario-constituency-office/
8. Louise Cockrum. “‘Legal Aid for Stuff You Can’t Get Legal Aid For’: Constituency Role Orientations among MLAs in Nova Scotia.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 41(3), 2018. URL: http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue. asp?param=236&art=1815
9. Alex Marland, “The Electoral Benefits and Limitations of Incumbency,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 21(4), 1998. URL: http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue. asp?param=69&art=124
10. Secondary or satellite constituency offices are permitted by several jurisdictions in Canada. Parliamentarians with geographically large ridings or constituencies where there are disparate population centres have often opted for additional office locations.
11. In many cases, the parliamentarian may only learn of a constituent’s case file if their staff have not been able to resolve it and escalate the matter to the parliamentarian’s attention.
12. See: Alex Marland, Mireille Lalancette and Jared J. Wesley. No I in Team: Party Loyalty in Canadian Politics. (Forthcoming). The authors note that in some cases, if a parliamentarians is removed from a caucus or chooses to leave, they are restricted by their former party from accessing electronic data on constituents. In their recommendations, they write: “Relatedly, it is concerning that political parties can prevent former caucus members from accessing electronic files about their constituents. In some instances, parliamentarians and constituency office staff are locked out from casework files and emails after leaving a party. As well, they lose access to local campaign data, including information about donors, supporters who have taken campaign signs and volunteer lists. The central issue is ownership of the data collected and stored about electors, and whether individuals who share their information with a local party representative give informed consent for that information to become the exclusive property of the party. This control over local data grants political parties excessive power over parliamentarians, which can negatively impact constituents. Specific rules must be established to ensure that parliamentarians can keep access to constituent files after leaving a party.”
13. There are some guidelines and rules in place about constituency office transfers, but constituency case files are a grey area. For example, federally, the Members’ Allowance and Services Manual outlines that “a newly elected Member may use the constituency offices of the former Member for up to 120 days after the election, subject to certain conditions… To continue using the assigned office beyond 120 days, the newly elected Member must negotiate a new lease.” (Chapter 14-5) “Newly elected Members assume custody and use of constituency office furniture, computers, equipment and other furnishings from the previous Member.” (Chapter 14-5) A non-elected Member can charge costs for “janitorial and shredding services; costs for postal and courier services, and costs for the local transportation of office files.” (Chapter 14-14) “All assets in the constituency office will be transferred to the newly elected Member.” (Chapter 14-21) “Personal belongings left behind in parliamentary offices will be kept for a 90-day period following the general election. Should former Members not retrieve their belongings or make arrangements to do so with their party Whip (or with the Speaker in the case of independent Members) within that period, their belongings will be disposed of safely.” (Chapter 14-32) “Also, they are responsible for ensuring that all data on their parliamentary office computers is backed up and then deleted.” (Chapter 14-33). See: Member’s Allowance and Services Manual, House of Commons, current as of October 1, 2024. URL: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/MAS/mas-e.pdf
14. “NDP slams constituent file-shredding.” CBC, July 24, 2011. URL: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp- slams-constituent-file-shredding-1.1043355
15. Paul Wyatt Dick. 30th Parliament, 3rd Session, Debates, “Private Members’ Public Bills: Constituency Records Act, May 26, 1978. URL: https://www.lipad.ca/ full/1978/05/26/19/#3162595
16. Roderick Blaker. 30th Parliament, 3rd Session, Debates, “Private Members’ Public Bills: Constituency Records Act, May 26, 1978. URL: https://www.lipad.ca/full/ permalink/3162610/
17. Lindsay Aagaard. “Fiduciary Duty and Members of Parliament,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 31(2), 2008, p. 31. URL: http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue. asp?art=1289&param=189
18. Historians greatly appreciate when public figures donate their papers to public archives, and this anecdote should not be read as a cautionary tale to promote record destruction. Rather, a standardised process to review all constituency files upon the retirement, defeat, or death of a parliamentarian would be an additional safeguard that could better prevent this type of error.
19. Frederick (Sonny) Blake Jr., Kevin Menicoche, and Michael Nadli. “‘The People’s Office’: Constituency Offices in the Far North,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 37(2), 2014. URL: https://www.revparlcan.ca/en/vol37- no2-the-peoples-office-constituency-offices-in-the-far- north-2/
20. Elizabeth Witmer. “Changing Partisan Representatives While Maintaining Office Staff,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 37(2), 2014. URL: https:// www.revparlcan.ca/en/vol37-no2-changing-partisan- representatives-while-maintaining-office-staff-2/
21. Ismail Albaidhani and Guillaume LaPerrière-Marcoux, “Building Capabilities for the Future – Keeping Up with Change.” Canadian Parliamentary Review 45(1), 2002. URL: https://www.revparlcan.ca/en/building- capabilities-for-the-future-keeping-up-with-change/; Clare Clancy, “‘First day of school’: Incoming Alberta MLAs learn the ropes at the legislature,” Edmonton Journal, Apr 24, 2019, URL: https://edmontonjournal. com/news/politics/first-day-of-school-incoming- alberta-mlas-learn-the-ropes-at-the-legislature
22. “Information and Records Management,” Legislative Assembly of British Columbia Web site. Accessed October 1, 2024. URL: https://members.leg.bc.ca/home/ gettingstarted/managing-your-constituency-office/ information-and-records-management/
23. The “Working for an MP” website, which bills itself as a resource for anyone working for a British Member of Parliament or with an interest in how Parliament works, offers some best practice suggestions for open constituency casework, data retention, and privacy. See: “How to survive your first ten days in the constituency office,” W4MP. URL: https://w4mp.org/ library/welcome-to-your-new-job/how-to-survive-your-first-ten-days-in-the-constituency-office/