June 21, 2014 - No. 20
Second
Session of 41st Parliament Closes
Second Session of 41st Parliament Closes
More Unprecedented Attacks on the Rights of
First Nations and All
Canadians
The Second Session of the 41st Parliament ended June 20.
In this session,
the Harper government continued its anti-social, anti-human assault on
the
First Nations and all Canadians. It continued to use its parliamentary
majority
to pass 25 self-serving and unjust laws with impunity (see list of
bills
below).
Among the laws passed was
Bill C-9, the First
Nations Elections
Act, an odious colonial and paternalistic law that usurps the
treaty and
hereditary rights of First Nations to govern their affairs as sovereign
First
Nations. It is coupled with the call issued by Dan Shapiro, chief
adjudicator
of the Independent Assessment Process regarding abuse at Indian
Residential
Schools, for the testimony and evidence of the 38,000 Indian
Residential
School survivors to be destroyed in the name of upholding the right to
privacy.
This amounts to some 800,000 documents and 19,500 rulings. Shapiro
argued
on June 20 that the public testimony from 7,000 people who have spoken
to
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is enough for the historical
record.
He has previously claimed that censoring the documents would be too
cumbersome.
This outrageous proposal shows once again the attitude
of the Harper
government to destroy the historical record of the experience of First
Nations
in Canada. Far from being destroyed, these records could be returned to
those
who testified and their Nations could decide how they should be
preserved.
Shapiro's proposal, in contravention of established norms and
practices, sheds
light on the intention of the Harper government's law which renamed the
Museum of Civilization as the Canadian Museum of History (Bill C-7).
This agenda to
rewrite history and wipe out the very existence of Indigenous peoples
shows
what kind of history Prime Minister Harper wants to celebrate.
The Parliament also passed
Bill C-24, the Strengthening Canadian
Citizenship Act, which makes "Canadian values" a condition of
citizenship. Citizenship is a matter of right. To claim that
citizenship can be
based on "Canadian values" is a move to criminalize the conscience of
those
with whom the government of the day does not agree. This measure
enables
the state to deprive people of citizenship on political grounds -- to
revoke the
citizenship of those Canadians the government of the day claims go
against
"Canada's interests." This goes against the fundamental tenets of
democratic
principle.
One of the most opposed
legislative changes of this
session was Bill C-23,
the Fair Elections Act which received royal assent on June
19.
Already there is a Charter challenge against this legislation which,
under the
hoax of curbing voting fraud, will restrict voter participation by
making it
more difficult to meet voter ID requirements. This private information
is used
to micro-target the electorate in order to manipulate election results.
It is a
retrogressive attack on the precepts of democracy.
By the end of the Second Session of this 41st
Parliament, 378 private
members' bills were tabled or brought forward from the First Session.
Of
these, five received Royal Assent; 15 were defeated; seven were not
proceeded
with; and 29 were at various stages of the parliamentary process. The
remainder will carry forward to the next session. A total of 251
private
members' bills were tabled by NDP members, while 59 were from
Conservatives, including the five that received Royal Assent.
The Harper government is
crowing that the large number of private
members' bills is proof of the democratic character of this government.
It goes
further. It is allegedly proof of the vitality of Canada's democracy
itself.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews told reporters that "private members'
bills have
been used more successfully by private members in this Parliament than
I
think in the history of Canada." Conservative MP Joy Smith has stated,
in
another example of Harperite boasting about the freedoms and powers of
its
members, that in the history of Confederation, only 17 Members of
Parliament
have been able to change the Criminal Code and more than a dozen of
these
changes have taken place since Harper's ascension to power in 2006.
These
changes include restrictions on parole hearings and the mandatory
minimum
sentences for "gang" recruitment. More than half of the Conservative
private
members' bills introduced since the 2011 election involve either
Criminal Code
matters, a crackdown on prisoners or terrorism related measures.
This session of Parliament
also saw more opposition to the Harper
government, including actions by veterans, First Nations, continued
opposition
to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program and actions in communities
across
the country to protest the Harper dictatorship and its nation-wrecking
and anti-
social agenda.
The sharp contrast between the proceedings of the Second
Session of the
41st Parliament and the actions of the people highlight the situation
facing all
Canadians -- that the current political arrangements are irrevocably
broken.
They do not function except to exclude the people from having a say in
matters which affect their lives. The task at hand is how to build the
mechanisms to negate the power of those who deprive us of political
power,
so as to exercise control over our lives.
Amended Electoral Law in Place for 2015
Election
Harper's New Electoral Law Is Self-Serving,
Incoherent and Violates
Privacy Rights
Bill C-23, the Harper Government's amendments to the Canada
Elections
Act, passed third reading in the Senate on June 15 by a vote
of 51-15 with one abstention, one month after it was adopted in the
House of
Commons by a vote of 146 to 123. Most of the changes to the Canada
Elections Act will come into force on December 19, 2014. Those
related
to political contributions and election spending will take effect
January 1,
2015. Several provisions, such as some of those related to the transfer
of the
Commissioner of Canada Elections to the Public Prosecutor's Office will
take
effect on a day determined by Governor in Council.
Many aspects of the new Canada Elections Act
will become
clearer once the complex package of Bill C-23 amendments is added to
the
existing law and published in final form. The impact is far-reaching.
Not only
does it affect all aspects of participation in elections, from the
obligations and
requirements of standing as a candidate to casting a ballot, but the
law will
make a further mockery of the electoral process which is supposed to be
a
method by which the popular will can be gauged and converted into the
legal
will.
In the representative form of democracy which exists in
Canada, political
parties are supposed to rally the electorate to their competing visions
for
society and on this basis compete with each other to form a government
with
a mandate from the people. The party which wins a majority of seats on
the
first-past-the-post basis forms the government.
Today, the ruling elites no longer seek to have a clear
and coherent
expression of the political will, but merely to get a party government
elected
by hook or by crook, no matter what fraud is required to achieve that
aim. The
current fraudulent practice used to achieve victory is to spend a ton
of money
to appeal to small segments of the voters in a riding that will "make
the
difference."
The political parties of the establishment are no longer
political.
Collectively representing the neoliberal agenda and the various
interests served
by it, they have formed a cartel party system to preserve the status
quo while
they dispute the turf of state power amongst themselves. They lie,
cheat and
deceive the public in any way they can to get votes and deprive their
rivals of
them. They amend the electoral act to cover up all their rotten deeds
and make
its provisions ever more favourable to the very activities that wreck
political
authority. These developments further disinform the polity because
individuals
are no longer linked to the machine of government through political
parties
and their associations. It increasingly violates privacy rights as
telemarketing
schemes replace political action and citizens are converted into
consumers of
one scam or another.
The law, another which the Harper government has rammed
through the
Parliament, further disinforms the polity not only by depriving
Canadians of
their right to privacy but, most importantly, of their right to govern
the society
they depend on for their living.
Incoherence and Violations of
Right to Privacy Increase
- Anna Di Carlo -
It is clear that the Conservative amendments to the Canada
Election
Act contained in Bill C-23 add more incoherence to
an already incoherent law. The election law has now even lost its
connection with the flawed premises upon which it was first
enacted four decades ago. These four decades have seen the
political parties in the House of Commons adopt self-serving
reform after self-serving reform without regard for the rights of
Canadians to elect and to be elected. Today, the law fully
enables the mafia-like cartel party system to function with state
subsidization and impunity. The most one can expect for violating
the law is a slap on the wrist even when it involves the use of
corrupt practices by elected officials.
The old notions and mechanisms that were used to claim
that
elections were fair and that were said to facilitate the
involvement of the people in the democracy are in a state of
disrepute. For instance, it has long been held that limits on
candidate and party spending would guarantee that those with
money cannot overwhelm the electoral process. Already, this was
laughable because the limits only apply to the 36-day election
campaign period. Political parties are allowed spend as much
money as they can raise between election periods, while the
governing party can add to that as much as it can take from
government coffers to promote itself in the name of government
advertising. The spending limits are the linchpin in the
electoral regime's logic: by restricting what any candidate can
spend to a set amount, currently averaging around $60,000, all
Canadians have an equal chance to stand as a candidate and be
elected. Similarly, political parties are only allowed to spend a
certain amount, averaging about $15 million for a party that
fields candidates in all ridings. The inherent logic here is that
parties and candidates that exceed the limit will not get away
with it, since they will have broken the rules of a "fair
election."
In reality, the political parties of the establishment
can act
with impunity. The Liberal Sponsorship Scandal revealed bags of
cash being handed over illegally to party organizers to pay
campaign workers. Canadians never even found out who was elected
through this illegal financing. It was said nobody could be
charged because of the statute of limitations in the Canada
Elections Act and the law was changed to extend the period
during which charges could be laid. In the 2006 federal election,
the Conservatives overspent by more than $1 million and faced no
real repercussions. Five years later, they signed a plea bargain
with the Public Prosecutor, paid a fine and went on to form a
majority government.
With Bill C-23, in the name of not using a heavy hand
unnecessarily, a system of monetary sanctions is officially in
place for those who exceed the spending limit. State
reimbursement for election expenses (60 per cent for candidates;
50 per cent for political parties) will be reduced if the
spending limits are violated. For instance, if a candidate
exceeds the spending limit by 10 per cent or more, the state
reimbursement will be reduced by three dollars for every dollar
that exceeds the limit. In other words, overspending to fish for
extra votes in a tight race will become a matter of even more
corrupt calculations and cover-ups than is already the case. This
is a method of imposing a penalty without even the need to advise
the public, let alone inform public opinion in a manner that the
electorate could exercise a right to recall corrupt
politicians!
Bill C-23 has also brought to the fore the extent to
which the
political parties in the House of Commons not only violate the
right to privacy, but believe they should be allowed to do so by
right which they say will enhance the democracy. The bill was
passed in defiance of concerns raised that political parties have carte
blanche to compile information about
electors in
their databases, such as the Conservative Party's Constituent
Information Management System (CIMS) and the Liberal Party's
Liberalist and similar systems in the hands of the NDP. Proposals
to remove the privileged exemption of political parties from
privacy legislation were ignored in this round of electoral
amendments, as they have been in the past. While the Liberals,
the NDP and the Green Party were opposed to many things in Bill
C-23, on this question there was glaring silent
collaboration.
The right to an informed vote is violated by the
electoral law
the minute it equates being informed with being the target of a
political party's marketing. The cartel party system is comprised
of organizations that have no members and function through
marketing agencies, advertising companies, call centres and
database management. The right to privacy has fallen victim to
the electoral law's endorsement and facilitation of political
parties gathering personal information and targeting individuals
based on so-called personal preferences gathered by marketing
agencies in other contexts mostly unrelated to political life.
This will include income levels, lifestyle choices, retirement
plans, level and field of education, professional status, leisure
activities, choice of reading material, and a million other
details used to profile Canadians for purposes of tailoring a
message with the aim of either winning their vote or getting them
not to vote at all.
There are several aspects of Bill C-23 which
particularly
offend the right to privacy. For instance, the Canada
Election Act will now entitle representatives of candidates
to examine the identification papers of electors at the polls if
they choose. It is one thing to prove one's identity to an
official of Elections Canada, which has the responsibility to
ensure that only qualified electors cast ballots. Being required
to show identity papers to a representative of a candidate is
quite another thing. On the basis of what criteria will a
partisan representative judge the outcome? What other information
might this representative of a political party take from the
identity papers?
This new provision also introduces an absurd situation.
It
specifies that no elector can be barred from voting for refusing
to show a candidate's representative his or her identification
documents, which begs the question why any elector would agree to
submit to such scrutiny. The new provision sets the groundwork
for chaos at the polls and the use of disruptive tactics.
Bill C-23 further extends to political parties access to
information about Canadians by providing them for the first time
with a comprehensive report, in the form of what are called Bingo
Cards, which show who has voted at each poll. This information
will go into a political party's database to further facilitate
micro-targeting practices.
Since 2007, a representative of any candidate could pick
up
Bingo Cards at polling stations every half hour. This process
required party workers in the field going poll to poll. Any Bingo
Cards that were not picked up, were put into the sealed boxes
with the election documents. As Canada's political parties do not
have the membership or volunteers required to pick up Bingo
Cards, they went largely unused except in targeted close-race
ridings. Bill C-23 now requires the Deputy Returning Officer in
each polling station to provide all of the Bingo Cards to each
candidate after the election. The purported logic of the Bingo
Cards was to assist political parties to "get out the vote." What
is the logic of providing the candidates with this information
after the election is over? The only reason can be to assist the
data compilation of political parties that can afford to hire
telemarketing companies to put together such a vast database and
use it to determine the specific information they require.
Combined with all the other information these databases contain
on electors, this treatment of electors is deplorable. Without
the permission of electors to collect this data about them, a
fundamental breach of privacy rights, it is not difficult for
these political parties to put together a list of who has voted
for whom, which is a gross violation of the secret ballot.
What is the merit of a secret ballot? Was it not to
avert coercion of any kind?
It is a matter of a person's
conscience if they choose to vote and how. The voting process is
supposed to be protected by the secret ballot so that the elector
will not suffer reprisals of any kind from the most powerful. It
was brought into being to stop MPs from depriving constituents of
business licences, roads, permits and even citizenship and
welfare payments if they were not supporters and did not vote
"the right way." The information compiled by the political
parties that form governments is designed to calculate who voted
how and it is made much easier once they can eliminate all those
who did not vote with the information provided on the Bingo
Cards. It does not take much effort to imagine how the use of
privilege can once again usurp the rights of all.
To provide political parties with information on who
voted and
who did not via the Bingo Cards is unacceptable. The right to
conscience must be provided with a guarantee. In practical terms
it means guaranteeing the right to cast or not cast a ballot
without fear of consequence. In the absence of such measures,
talk of "free and fair elections" is a farce.
Broad Opposition to Harper Dictatorship
First Nations' Day of Resistance
On May 14, First Nations across Canada held a Day of
Action to affirm their rights and reiterate their rejection of the
colonial relationship with Canada that has been imposed on them and
demand that modern nation-to-nation relations be established as the
basis for moving forward. In particular, the rally opposed Bill C-33,
the First Nations Control of First
Nations Education Act. The event also protested against the
Harper government's refusal to establish a national inquiry into
hundreds of
missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. The Day of
Resistance also opposed Bill C-10, the Contraband
Tobacco
Act, which aims to criminalize the selling, buying,
or trading of tobacco without a federal excise tax stamp.
The main rally was held on Parliament Hill, where more
than a thousand people gathered to present the just demands of First
Nations.
Ottawa
Kahnawake
Six Nations
Sault Ste. Marie
Saskatoon
Veterans' Mass Action
Veterans of the Canadian military
rallied on Parliament Hill on June 4 to protest the unjust treatment
they are
facing from the Harper government. Veterans called the event "Rock the
Hill"
and their website explains that it was organized to denounce the "total
breach
of trust that this government has shown towards us and the disregard of
the
sacred oath that has been in place since World War I." The website also
points
out that veterans want to "enlighten the public on the amount of
misinformation that this government is putting out..."
Veterans have been particularly upset by the so-called
New Veterans
Charter imposed by the Harper government, which eliminates the
veterans'
pension and replaces it with a one-time lump sum payment. The veterans
said
they feel betrayed by the government. They denounced the government's
spending of millions of dollars on television ads that describe the
government's
services that veterans say are totally inadequate to meet the needs of
injured
and disabled veterans and their families.
The main speaker at the rally was Col. (Ret.) Pat
Stogran, who was
appointed as the first ombudsman for veterans and served from 2007 to
2010.
He said that his experience in representing veterans was very
frustrating and
he was totally disillusioned by dealing with a "deceitful and
disgraceful
government." He called for the immediate repeal of the Veterans Charter
and
demanded that a Royal Commission of Inquiry be established to
investigate the
injustices to veterans carried out through the activities of the
Department of
Veterans Affairs. He was followed by several other speakers. The
organizers
concluded the rally saying, "This will not be just a one-day event, as
we plan
on staying as long as it takes!"
Community Actions
London
On May 2, local activists,
environmentalists, injured workers and union members gathered to
denounce
the Harper government outside the Marconi Club in London, where Prime
Minister Harper was visiting. His trip to London became known only 48
hours
before his arrival, but that did not stop people from organizing to
Stop
Harper!
While in London, Harper visited Fanshawe College where
he announced
funding for paid internships for post-secondary graduates in
high-demand
fields. His visit to London came just two months after General Dynamics
announced it had been awarded a 14-year, multi-billion dollar contract
to build
armoured vehicles for Saudi Arabia. According to the Federal Minister
of
International Trade, the contract will create and sustain more than
3,000 jobs
a year across the country at 500 Canadian firms, with approximately 40
per
cent of those jobs located in southwestern Ontario. The armoured
vehicles will
be designed and manufactured in London making the city the centre of a
national supply chain. Officials say Harper was involved in the process
to land
the deal, which beat out competing bids from defence contractors in
France
and Germany.
Toronto
On the evening of February 8, about 100 people including
postal workers
and youth -- many of them First Nations youth -- rallied outside the
Metro
Convention Centre to condemn Prime Minister Harper who was there at a
banquet as a special guest of the Confederation of Greater Toronto
Chinese
Business Association.
The main theme of the rally was that Harper must go --
he has done
enough damage to this country and its people. Various people spoke
about the
utter disregard that the Harper government has displayed for the
concerns of
the people. First Nations youth denounced Harper for his disregard for
rights
of aboriginal peoples and his catering to the rich and their interests.
Other
speakers denounced the Conservative government's cuts to social
programs that
have created insecurity and hardship for the people.
Speaking specifically of
the recent attacks on the postal workers, Learie
Charles, a representative of the Scarborough local of the Canadian
Union of
Postal Workers said that the Harper government has mounted the biggest
assault on the rights of the people by privatizing public assets
including the
privatization of the public post office, which is proceeding rapidly.
He cited
not only the loss of door-to-door delivery, but the closure of postal
retail
outlets and the laying off of thousands of postal workers. He spoke
about the
Harper government's attacks on public assets such as the sale of Atomic
Energy of Canada Limited to the monopoly SNC-Lavalin. He noted that it
is
only the organized opposition of workers that can stop these assaults.
Darryl
Ellis, President of the CUPW Toronto Local thanked the people for
coming
out and said that other actions to keep the postal service in Canada
public would
be organized in the coming days and weeks.
Charter Challenge Against Fair Elections Act
On June 19, the day that Bill C-23, the
Conservative
government's widely opposed Fair Elections Act received royal
assent, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Federation of
Students announced that they would together mount a Charter challenge
against
the legislation on the grounds that it violates section 3 of the
Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which enshrines the "right to vote in an election of the
members of
the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified
for
membership therein."
It is reported in the media
that their lawyer Steven Shrybman will
challenge the constitutionality of the Bill C-23 provision which strips
the
powers of the Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand to the extent of
even
preventing him from encouraging citizens to vote, particularly to
groups
of
voters "most likely to experience difficulties in exercising their
democratic
rights."
As well, the two groups will challenge the new voter ID
provisions that
make it more difficult for students, aboriginal peoples and seniors to
vote. This
is a concern for many Canadians, political organizations, academics and
advocacy groups which opposed the tightening of voter ID restrictions
on the
basis of the self-serving fiction put forward by Harper's so-called
Minister of
Democratic Reform Pierre Poilievre that there was widespread voter
fraud in
the federal election of 2011.
National Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of
Students
Jessica McCormick stated that her organization decided to challenge the
new
law because it will further reduce the youth vote. She noted that in
the last
election only 38 per cent of students voted and that the Fair
Elections
Act will only reduce this number even more.
There is already an appeal before the Supreme Court
from a case
launched in British Columbia in 2007 in which three BC voters
challenged the
new voter ID requirements enacted by the Harper government in the first
round of its electoral reforms. Prior to 2007, it was not necessary for
a person
to have ID in order to vote as long as his or her name appeared on the
voter's
list. In seeking to have their appeal heard by the Supreme Court, the
three
BC voters cited the Fair Elections Act and argued the
court
could provide "guidance" to federal and provincial legislatures on
constitutional issues around voter ID laws. The Supreme Court has not
made
its decision on whether to hear the appeal.
For Your Information
Bills Enacted in Second Session of 41st
Parliament
There were 25 bills enacted in the Second Session of the
41st Parliament
which are:
C-4: A second act to implement certain provisions
of the budget
tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures -- Economic
Action
Plan
2013
Act
No.
2
C-5: An Act to amend the
Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic
Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum
Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for
certain other measures -- Offshore Health and Safety Act
C-7: An Act to amend the Museums Act in order to
establish the
Canadian Museum of History and to make consequential amendments to
other
Acts -- Canadian Museum of History Act
C-9: An Act respecting the election and term of
office of chiefs
and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council
of those
First Nations -- First Nations Elections Act
C-14: An Act to amend the Criminal Code
and the
National Defence Act (mental disorder) -- Not Criminally
Responsible
Reform Act
C-15: An Act to replace the Northwest
Territories Act to
implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Lands and
Resources
Devolution Agreement and to repeal or make amendments to the
Territorial
Lands Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, the Mackenzie Valley
Resource Management Act, other Acts and certain orders and regulations
-- Northwest Territories Devolution Act
C-16: An Act to give effect to the
Governance Agreement
with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to
other Acts -- Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Governance Act
C-19: An Act for granting to Her Majesty
certain sums of
money for the federal public administration for the financial year
ending
March 31, 2014 -- Appropriation Act No. 4, 2013-14
C-20: An Act to implement the Free Trade
Agreement between
Canada and the Republic of Honduras, the Agreement on Environmental
Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras and the
Agreement
on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Honduras -- Canada-Honduras
Economic
Growth
and
Prosperity
Act
C-23: An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act
and other Acts
and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts -- Fair
Elections
Act
C-24: An Act to amend the Citizenship
Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts -- Strengthening Canadian
Citizenship Act
C-25: An Act respecting the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First
Nation Band
Order -- Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation Act
C-28: An Act for granting to Her Majesty
certain sums of
money for the federal public administration for the financial year
ending
March 31, 2014 -- Appropriation Act No. 5, 2013-14
C-29: An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain
sums of money
for the federal public administration for the financial year ending
March 31,
2015 -- Appropriation Act No. 1, 2014-15
C-30: An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and
the Canada
Transportation Act and to provide for other measures -- Fair Rail
for
Grain Farmers Act
C-31: An Act to implement certain
provisions of the
budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures -- Economic
Action
Plan
2014
Act,
No.
1
C-34: An Act to give effect to the
Tla'amin Final
Agreement and to make consequential amendments to other Acts -- Tla'amin
Final
Agreement
Act
C-37: An Act to change the names of
certain electoral
districts and to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment -- Act Riding
Name
Change
Act,
2014
C-38: An Act for granting to Her Majesty
certain sums of
money for the federal public administration for the financial year
ending
March 31, 2015 -- Appropriation Act No. 2, 2014-15
C-39: An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain
sums of money
for the federal public administration for the financial year ending
March 31,
2015 -- Appropriation Act No.3 , 2014-15
C-217: An Act to amend the Criminal Code
(mischief relating to
war memorials)
C-394: An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the
National
Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment)
C-444: An Act to amend the Criminal Code
(personating peace
officer or public officer)
C-462: An Act restricting the fees charged by
promoters of the
disability tax credit and making consequential amendments to the Tax
Court
of Canada Act -- Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act
C-489: An Act to amend the Criminal Code
and the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act (restrictions on offenders)
Excerpt from Canadian Federal Political Parties and
Personal Privacy
Protection: A Comparative Analysis
Two years ago, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of
Canada
commissioned a study on privacy issues and political parties. The study
was
done by Colin J. Bennett, a Professor of Political Science at the
University of
Victoria and Robin M. Bayley (BA, MPA, University of Victoria),
President
of Linden Consulting Inc., Privacy & Policy Advisors.
During the Bill C-23 hearings of the Senate Legal and
Constitutional
Affairs Committee, Professor Bennet appeared and once again raised the
concerns about privacy. He reminded the Senators of the many efforts
made
by Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand and others to have the privacy
issues
related to the electoral law addressed. He pointed out that not only
have these
problems continued, but Bill C-23 will exacerbate the dangers posed to
the
right to privacy. Below is an excerpt with an overview of how databases
kept
by the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Greens function based on the
limited
knowledge available.
***
From various sources, we can begin to build some idea of
how data on
voter identification is captured and processed. The starting-point
appears to be
the poll-by-poll results released by Elections Canada after the prior
election.
These are searchable online, and provide a listing of polls in each
riding, and
the raw number of votes cast for each candidate at that poll. Parties
then can
cross-reference this data with the list of electors and addresses
provided by
Elections Canada. These data provide the "basement starting point" for
building more complete databases on voters' attitudes, affiliations and
intentions.
We know that each of the main political parties has
developed their own
customized databases, using off-the-shelf voter list management
software,
either for download to a desktop personal computer or laptop, or for
access
through the Internet.
The Conservative Party of Canada uses the Constituent
Information
Management System (CIMS) reportedly the first centralized Canadian
system
for voter management developed back in 2004. The Liberal Party has
introduced "Liberalist" a "Voter identification and relationship
management
system" -- similar to the US Democratic Party's Voter Activation
Network.
That system, we are told, will: "Easily keep track of your membership
levels,
donors, sign requests and supporters; manage your local campaign team,
events
and volunteers; strategically contact voters by telephone, e-mail,
canvass or
direct mail; map out support and opposition across your riding down to
a
household level; track key or emerging local and national issues;
facilitate
grassroots campaigns using Obama's neighbour-to-neighbour model;
develop
micro-targeted and demographic-specific messaging." The NDP uses its
own
custom database system called "NDP Vote."
In the absence of an oversight authority that is
authorized to audit or
investigate these systems, evidence on what is included in these
databases
tends to be anecdotal and speculative. The practices of the parties
probably
also differ in some significant ways. Howard and Kriess suggest that
parties
might capture information about voters from a variety of sources
including:
publicly stated positions (such as letters to local newspapers or
postings on
blogs); public petitions; telephone polling; canvassing by phone,
writing or on
the doorstep; donor databases; and by the observations of party
volunteers who
record the addresses at which opposition election signs are posted.
Inferences
about party preferences and voting intentions (strong, leaning, or
none) can be
gleaned from many places. From these sources, parties can track key
issues
and voting trends for use in polling, advertising, direct mailing and
strategy
formation, especially in marginal seats. These data are now
considered
crucial for parties in making decisions about how, when and where to
target
their limited resources. Given the number of Canadian elections over
the last
ten years, the data have been refreshed quite regularly.
The party, which provides the most detail about the
operation of its voter
management system, is the Liberals. The Liberalist website contains a
significant amount of information for party members in the form of FAQs
and
User Guides. We know, for instance that Liberalist provides three
levels of
access: Basic (for new users); Intermediate (for those allowed to a
Search
facility); and Advanced (allowing for the creation of lists and
contacts).
Liberalist is divided into two groups: MyVoters, the complete Elections
Canada list of voters in the riding; and SharedContacts, anyone who may
have
had contact with the Liberal campaign in that district. The User Guide
then
offers instructions on creating and managing lists, door canvassing,
phone
canvassing, robocalling, e-mail "blasting," volunteer and event
management,
and get-out-the-vote strategies.
Some of these practices are long-standing and
uncontroversial. But it is
questionable that the average voter would expect doorstep conversations
with
party canvassers about current issues to be recorded, along with their
identity
and address. Even raising concerns or asking the representative about
the
party's policies on pensions, schools or health care can be done in a
way that
divulges employment, family and health status. Sharing such information
with
canvassers entails privacy risks. Canvassers may live in the same
community
and may be temporarily active in the party and not subject to training
about
the appropriate use of personal information. Parties are also beginning
to use
applications for their mobile devices, which allows them to send
information
directly from their canvassing activities to central databases. The
Liberals, for
instance, are now reportedly using the Voter Activation Network's
"MiniVan"
app for the i-Phone and i-Pad.
Often we get anecdotal reports on party practices from
ex-politicians.
Garth Turner was dismissed from the Conservative caucus in 2006, and
ultimately crossed to the Liberals. He later blogged about the
Conservative
Party's use of the CIMs database in the 2004 campaign: "When I went to
bang
on doors in a neighborhood, my team dug into CIMS, and printed out a
walk
list for the poll. It told me who lived in each house on each street,
along with
any known information on what party they support. Every name was
followed
by a bar code. After talking to each person, I assessed their political
leaning
and marked it on my sheet. Back at the campaign office, teams of people
keyed in the data while using bar code readers to match it up with
voters'
names." It was reported at the time that the Liberals and the NDP
have
separate databases for voter tracking and constituency management.
Of course, some voters will have individual contact with
their MPs from
time to time. If a voter or potential voter discloses personal
information to his
or her MP in order to seek assistance with a problem, that MP might
legally
disclose the information in a number of ways, including to a relevant
minister
or agency, or in the course of parliamentary proceedings. That
disclosure
would generally fall under the doctrine of parliamentary privilege.
Should that
MP enter the personal information into an electoral database for the
purpose
of party fundraising, however, this use or disclosure would presumably
fall
outside the doctrines of parliamentary privilege, and would also
probably fall
outside the reasonable expectations of the Canadian electorate. Could
it also
have a chilling effect on voters' willingness to contact their elected
representatives? Furthermore, if communications with elected officials
are
merged with voter data, the potential for differential treatment based
on
political support is a serious risk that could undermine the integrity
and
fairness of our representative system. On the other hand, there is
nothing in
current Canadian law that prevents this form of data-sharing or data
linkage.
Parties may also populate their voter management
databases from
non-identifiable, but geographically precise information from other
sources,
such as Statistics Canada. They have also begun to use geo-demographic
databases available from marketing companies. Employing systems such
as
"Prizm" from Environics Analytics, the parties can break down a
population
in a critical riding into a large number of types. It has been reported
that the
Conservative Party has been combining these data with internal polling
information since the 2006 election to allow more and more refined
segmentation according to a host of demographic and attitudinal
variables,
permitting ever more precise targeting of specific messages.
The power and implications of these "micro-targeting"
technologies is
readily evident from the marketing pitches on the Environics website:
"With
consumer segmentation, businesses and not-for-profits can classify
their
customers according to shared demographic, lifestyle and behavioral
traits. Our
pioneering PRIZM C2 segmentation system captures the diversity of
Canada's
population using 66 segments based on the most important drivers of
consumer
behaviour: demographics, lifestyles and values." For example:
"Gaybourhoods
provides neighbourhood-level data on the propensity of residents to be
gay and
details the spending potential of the gay population for key
categories. Derived
from a variety of sources, Gaybourhoods is currently available for the
first
wave of major metros, including Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and
Vancouver."
Finally, of course, parties are becoming increasingly
sophisticated in their
uses of social media to get targeted messages across to supporters. The
political use of social media has generated a good deal of research in
Canada,
as elsewhere. The extent to which parties process and mine the enormous
amounts of user-generated data from sites such as Facebook and Twitter
is less
well known. Numerous companies now track social media for marketing
purposes. Those data already constitute a rich source of "voter
intelligence" in
the United States and have become, according to some sources, a key
strategic
advantage for the Obama campaign in the 2012 election.
All the websites of the major parties have links to a
variety of social media
platforms. To differing extents, these sites encourage the sharing of
personal
information. For instance, the exercise of the "Like" button in
Facebook
displays the icon of that party on that individual's social media page,
perhaps
unintentionally displaying that individual's political beliefs.
Friending a
political party on Facebook without the user implementing the
appropriate
privacy controls can result in the users' name and photo being listed
on the
parties' social media page. Thus, the practices of Canada's political
parties,
and the privacy rights of their members, are closely related to the
privacy
policies and mechanisms embedded within these social media platforms,
as
well as to the privacy choices that individuals make according to
varying
degrees of knowledge about privacy and sophistication about the
technology.
Information on Candidates, Volunteers and Employees
There is a trend for political parties to ask more and
more increasingly
sensitive information of candidates for political office, under the
logic that they
do not want embarrassing personal information to be revealed in the
heat of
a campaign. This long standing vetting process has become more
comprehensive as technologies have grown more sophisticated. Most
political
parties administer an extensive questionnaire including authorizations
for
information to be communicated to the party from federal agencies such
as the
Canada Revenue Agency, the Canadian Border Services Agency and
Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
[...]
Finally, and a little recognized aspect of this issue
concerns the extent to
which parties might be collecting information through clearly
commercial
activity. Two parties sell a variety of products on their websites:
logo clothing,
signs, books and other souvenirs. Arguably, these commercial activities
are
covered by PIPEDA or other substantially similar provincial legislation
governing the private sector. Privacy policies for the online stores
are posted
and give the typical assurances. Purchases of party merchandise may
provide
clear indications of potential support. These privacy policies do
indicate,
however, that there is no disclosure of personal information from the
commercial operations to the electoral arms of the parties.
The Conservative Party of Canada uses a third party to
operate its online
store, where logo wear and other branded items are sold. This
commercial
enterprise has its own, fairly extensive, privacy policy (that of
Brymark
Promotions Inc. of Ottawa). That policy indicates that personal
information
may be shared with third party advertisers, that it may be used for
satisfaction
surveys, and that an opportunity will be provided to opt-out of
subscriptions,
indicating that one could get on a mailing list if one makes a
purchase. It also
has a description of information security practices and a disclaimer
that
transmission of information is at the risk of the individual. The
response to an
inquiry to the company could also result in an individual getting on a
mailing
or call list. The policy also indicates that personal information
provided for the
purpose of making a purchase is only used for order fulfillment and is
not
shared.
The Green Party's online store, GPC Gear, also has a
separate privacy
policy that indicates it will "never share or sell your personal
information with
any third parties," describes its information security and provides
contact
information for questions.
Risks to Privacy
The conclusion of this survey suggests that parties can,
and do, collect a
significant amount and variety of information on Canadian citizens,
only some
of which is openly understood and regulated by the CEA. The personal
information practices of political parties affect their employees,
donors,
volunteers, members and supporters as well as registered voters whose
information they obtain from Elections Canada. They can also affect
anyone
with whom the parties' canvassers come in contact. A disparate and
fluctuating
number of employees and volunteers might also have access to these data
--
individuals who may have no privacy training. Increasingly the data are
communicated through highly mobile electronic formats.
Privacy risks come in a number of forms, and stem from
various sources.
Some risks include personal information getting into the wrong hands or
being
used for unauthorized purposes. Information can also get into the wrong
hands
through carelessness, lack of appropriate controls, inappropriate
sharing, or
nefarious intent. This may result in harm to individuals in terms of
identity
theft, harassment or the denial of services and rights. The various
complaints
to federal and provincial privacy commissioners over the years provide
ample
testimony to the range of serious harms that individuals can suffer
when basic
privacy rules are not followed.
Beyond the individual risks, there are also social risks
as individuals lose
trust in organizations when it is discovered that personal data is
being used and
disclosed for purposes they were not aware of, and to which they had
not
consented. There are social costs to excessive monitoring, just as
there is a
social value in ensuring that personal information is only collected,
used, and
disclosed for legitimate and transparent purposes.
With respect to political parties, a series of incidents
that might prove a
harbinger of further trends have already occurred. We report them in
chronological order.
In 2006, Conservative Party MP Cheryl Gallant sent
birthday cards to her
constituents using data from passport applications. The Privacy
Commissioner
of Canada was asked by several of her constituents to investigate this
incident,
even though she could not, for lack of jurisdiction. The Office of
the Ethics
Commissioner subsequently took up the matter under the Conflict of
Interest
Code for Members of the House of Commons. Although the Ethics
Commissioner did not find that there was any breach of the code because
no
"private interest" was advanced, he did remind MPs of Canada's privacy
protection laws and that: "As legislators, members should be guided by
the
principles they themselves have established in the various pieces of
legislation
related to the privacy of information That is, personal information
should only
be used for the purpose for which it is gathered, or for a use
consistent with
that purpose." Thus, an officer of Parliament has established the
principle that
despite Canadian privacy laws not applying to Members of Parliament,
their
treatment of personal information should be guided by the very
principles
derived from those laws.
Also in 2006, the RCMP found lists of voter names and
addresses in the
office of a Toronto cell of the Tamil Tigers, classified as a terrorist
organization. The documents were allegedly used to target potential
supporters of the Tamil cause. The case was later cited in a larger
Privacy
Commissioner audit report of four government agencies. The Commissioner
commented, "maintaining full control of electoral documents is a
significant
challenge."
In October 2007, Rosh Hashanah cards were sent by the
Prime Minister's
Office to supporters with Jewish sounding names, many of whom were
reportedly unsettled by this practice, and left wondering how such a
list could
be compiled. The Privacy Commissioner received a number of complaints
about this incident, but determined that the issue fell outside her
jurisdiction.
Religious beliefs are widely considered to be some of the most
sensitive
personal information, warranting special protections.
In April 2011, a Conservative Candidate from Winnipeg
mistakenly sent
a misdirected e-mail, containing the names, address, phone numbers and
e-mails of six thousand of her constituents to a local environmental
activist.
The case prompted several to question why candidates receive this
information
in the first place. The incident also highlights the need to ensure
that
candidates understand privacy principles and how to safeguard personal
information entrusted to them.
In the context of the reform of Nova Scotia's election
laws in 2011, the
provincial Privacy Review Officer raised objections to the fact that
the
provincial chief electoral office was providing political parties with
voters'
year of birth. Ostensibly this information was provided to promote
turnout
among young people. Review Officer Dulcie McCullum said that she did
not
believe that Nova Scotians would be comfortable allowing parties to
regularly
compile lists that have each voter's year of birth attached to their
name,
address and voting rate.
In the 2011 election, a woman from Oshawa complained
that email
correspondence with her MP about changes to CRTC regulations resulted
in
her receiving Conservative campaign literature. In response, a
Conservative
party spokesman stated that it was party policy to remove a name from
distribution lists on request.
[...]
Finally, the recent 2012 controversies over potential
vote suppression in
key ridings through the practice of "robocalling" are, at writing,
still under
investigation by Elections Canada and by the RCMP. Regardless of the
results
of these investigations into voter suppression, these incidents have
shed light
upon the previously opaque internal practices of political parties.
Voters have
learned, for instance, that their information is disclosed to
telemarketing
organizations, some of whom may reside outside Canada. They have
learned
that many of the CRTC's calling rules do not apply to political
parties. The
online and offline commentary on these controversies have been
extensive, and
demonstrate a high level of interest and engagement in the broader
issues
about Canadian electoral processes. Not far beneath the surface,
however, lay
a number of unanswered privacy-related questions.
[...]
Even as data practices support political participation
and mobilization, they
come with a social cost. While the risks of poor data management
practices
may be partially borne by political parties, ultimately it is citizens
whose
personal records have been compromised. Political data is collected and
traded
on a vast and opaque market, with documented cases of breaches in
security.
Meanwhile, the extent and nature of political data has the potential to
threaten
associational freedom, as citizens become increasingly aware that much
of their
online and offline behavior is subject to monitoring and act
accordingly.
PREVIOUS
ISSUES | HOME
Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|