I admit to being a little surprised by the furor over moving expenses playing out in Ottawa right now. Not by the sums, mind you.

No, I’m surprised by the number of people now claiming to be surprised that officials, elected and unelected, enjoy paid moves to and from the capital. People in Ottawa are claiming to be Entitled To Their Entitlements. Stop the presses.

Actually, what’s really surprising about this business is that the relocation expenses of PMO Chief of Staff Katie Telford and Principal Secretary Gerald Butts became public at all.

In response to an order paper question, documents tabled in the House of Commons last week detailed $1.1 million paid to move nearly 50 staffers to Ottawa last fall, including $207,000 for the aforementioned staffers. That this information was disclosed at all is nothing short of a miracle. I’m not quite sure whether to put that down to a commitment to transparent government on the Liberals’ part — or just a lack of political acumen.

That information would never have been released through to an Access to Information request. Canada’s privacy laws prohibit the disclosure of “personal information”, and what a specific official is reimbursed for is considered private, even when it’s public money.

The Harper government was a little more calculating with order paper questions. Because these information requests require some level of research, a Member of Parliament asks it in written form and the government is given so many days to respond.

Years ago, when I was still a member of the Conservative caucus, I asked a series of order paper questions regarding salaries and expenses at the CBC. When the question was finally “answered”, the response turned out to be a blanket denial citing the Privacy Act — which was odd because Parliament is not subject to the Privacy Act and the information I was seeking was about branches of an institution.

But governments — all governments — cite the need for privacy when it suits them. And since the Speaker will not intervene on the quality of an answer, my question went unanswered.

Governments also release information when it suits them. The Privy Council Office recently tipped off the media that Harper’s office approved $93,000 in moving expenses for a single staff member.

There was a time when politicians would circle the wagons on something like this — protect each other. It was comparable to the military theory of ‘mutually assured destruction’. There was a time when politicians would circle the wagons on something like this — protect each other. It was comparable to the military theory of ‘mutually assured destruction’.

That should have been the end of the story. It’s the Liberals who now control the distribution of expense information; that fact, coupled with the observation that generous relocation expenses is a game both Liberals and Conservatives play, should have put the matter to bed.

Turned out it was just getting started. MP Brad Trost, now running for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada, called out Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff Guy Giorno over his relocation expenses. Giorno fired back with a devastating reminder of Trost’s travel expenses and per diems.

Now this is efficient use of 140 characters: “Relocation program is more accountable than the generous per diems (no receipts, no explanation @BradTrostCPC claims and collects.”

Well, maybe not more accountable. Definitely equally unaccountable.

Per diems, without receipts, are gravy for all MPs. They are designed to reimburse Parliamentarians for meals and incidentals while they’re working away from home. Fair enough — but while in Ottawa, it’s not uncommon for an MP to attend breakfast meetings and evening receptions where food is served. There is always hot food at committee meetings and in the House of Commons lounges during the lunch and dinner hours.

An MP might go days without having to spring for so much as a sandwich.

Maybe it seems a little trivial but, over the course of an MP’s career, those per diems can really add up — along with relocation expenses, $16 glasses of orange juice and a range of other expenses, both legitimate and questionable.

There was a time when politicians would circle the wagons on something like this — protect each other. It was comparable to the military theory of ‘mutually assured destruction’: As long as politician A and politician B have roughly the same dirt on each other, neither has a motive to rat the other out.

But since the media and the public are more attracted to scandal than to detailed policy debate, “outing” has become a default partisan tactic.

So the public is finally getting a tiny glimpse of elected and unelected officials’ expenses. But a system where the government of the day determines disclosure is entirely inadequate and prone to obvious political manipulation.

It’s time to amend Canada’s outdated Access to Information legislation to include Members of the House of Commons and the Senate. Voluntary proactive disclosure, which cannot be verified, is no substitute for completed access requests. And Canada’s Privacy Act must be amended to allow disclosure of all expenses of all federal public servants. My 2013 private member’s bill, C-461, would have accomplished this, but it was doomed the minute the government withdrew support for it.

These changes still are long overdue — the events of the past week have proved that. Disclosure benefits the public and the media. It seldom benefits the government — unless it has enough dirt on the former government to mitigate any harm done to itself.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.