“Although we have done surveys and recommendations and those kinds of things before, it’s the first time we’ve done this kind of consultation,” said Elections Canada spokesperson John Enright, referring to the Nov. 7 discussion paper, Issues Arising from Improper Telecommunications with Electors.
“What the chief electoral officer wants is to have a broad consultation, a wide consultation on the matter, and the discussion paper is a piece of that, but it’s not the only piece,” Mr. Enright told The Hill Times.
In addition to the discussion paper, Elections Canada will be conducting a national telephone survey with a sampling of 1,000 electors from across the country, described by Elections Canada spokesperson Diane Benson as a survey “to gather insights into Canadians’ opinions and attitudes regarding political parties’ and candidates’ practice in communicating with electors.”
After a competitive process, Elections Canada has hired Ottawa-based Phoenix Strategic Perspective Inc. at a cost of $45,000 to conduct the survey. A date has yet to be set for the survey, but it will take place in time to be included in the report, due March 31, 2013.
Elections Canada is also working with the Institute for Research on Public Policy to hold a roundtable on the discussion paper and ultimately provide advice to Mr. Mayrand.
IRPP president and CEO Graham Fox, who will be facilitating the one-day roundtable discussion scheduled to take place in a Montreal hotel on Dec. 5, said they are looking to have between 15 and 20 people take part.
“We’re quite explicitly building a participant list that has very broad, sectoral representation,” Mr. Fox said. “We’re looking for academics and practitioners with political science experience, with legal backgrounds. We have some people who are coming who really have an understanding of the technology aspect of this question—where is the technology going, how are people going to use it in the future—we’re looking at people with expertise in the telecommunications industry, so it’s really a broad swathe.”
Mr. Fox, who said they were also seeking participants from the United States to talk about that country’s experience with similar issues, said he hoped the roundtable report would be published around mid-January.
As well, Mr. Mayrand has sent a letter to the designated party representatives on Elections Canada’s advisory committee on political parties, which all 19 parties registered with Elections Canada have a seat on, seeking their comments by Nov. 30.
On Aug. 20, 2012, Elections Canada reported it had received 1,394 “complaints” of misleading or harassing phone calls in 234 of the 308 ridings across Canada during the last federal election which aimed to suppress voters. Elections Canada began an investigation around these automatic calls, or robocalls, that originated in Guelph, Ont., from an anonymous person with the fake name of Pierre Poutine.
The purpose of the report is “to suggest improvement to the Canada Elections Act in order to deal with a number of issues relating to new technologies and social media, as well as to all political entities that communicate with electors during a general election,” Mr. Mayrand told the Procedure and House Affairs Committee earlier this spring.
Mr. Mayrand laid out a legal context around the placing of live or automatic misleading or harassing calls to electors, pointing out that under the Canada Elections Act there is no obligation on recipients of electors’ lists (provided by Elections Canada to MPs, political parties, candidates, these lists do not include phone numbers) to protect or control access to that information; that the “primary constraint on information in electors lists” is that recipients can not knowingly misuse the information for communications; and that existing privacy laws, such as PIPEDA and the Privacy Act, do not apply to political parties.
“The absence of a legal framework governing how personal information is managed and protected by political parties and candidates is a matter of significance, considering that the use of devices such as robocalls to deceive targeted segments of the electorate is not possible without the kind of intelligence on the composition of the electorate compiled and accessed by political parties,” reads Issues Arising from Improper Telecommunications with Electors.
Mr. Mayrand said because existing prohibitions, against things such as interfering with someone’s right to vote, are backed with criminal sanctions instead of administrative penalties—which he notes can be imposed with “greater speed and efficiency by the agency” compared to criminal investigations which are “relatively lengthy and cumbersome procedures” that result in “small fines”—their potential deterrent effect is limited.
Finally, the discussion paper outlines possible recommendations to prevent or deter “improper telecommunications with electors.”
Mr. Mayrand suggested that Elections Canada promote public awareness of how the agency operates (namely, the fact that they don’t communicate via phone) and that the federal government consider adopting legislation similar to Ontario’s Bill 196, which creates harsher penalties for interfering with elections or impersonating elections officials. The report also recommends that telecommunications companies providing services during elections should register with Elections Canada and that clients of such companies during elections should also register, and verify, their identity. The report also argues that the chief electoral officer should be given more auditing and investigative tools, such as the authority to compel testimony.
“In this regard, however, it is important to keep in mind that legislative measures alone cannot prevent improper conduct from taking place,” wrote Mr. Mayrand.
Conservative MP Joe Preston (Elgin-Middlesex-London, Ont.), chair of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, said he was three-quarters of the way through the paper when he spoke to The Hill Times on Nov. 13. Mr. Preston said he doesn’t think the committee will sit down to discuss the discussion paper because, he said, “I would think that the discussion paper is for the chief electoral officer to come up with thoughts to bring back to the committee.”
Mr. Preston said he would like to see Elections Canada take a look at “what works well for politicians in elections,” but also said “we need to solve” the issue of misleading or harassing phone calls.
“I mean as a politician myself I made thousands of phone calls to people in my riding, all with my voice, with me saying who it was and why I was calling, and those other politicians across Canada did the exact same thing, followed the rules and got it right. So we have a discussion paper correcting the minority, the very slim minority, rather than what works well for politicians in elections,” said Mr. Preston. “I recognize we have to investigate when abuses have taken place, but perhaps we could look at what went right as a method of how to fix what went wrong.”
Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski (Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Sask.), a member of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, said he hadn’t yet had a chance to read the paper, but said he thinks it will be challenging for Elections Canada to be able to prevent the misuse of communications technology.
“It’s going to be very challenging. … Illegal robocalls should not be tolerated and frankly they should be prosecuted severely,” said Mr. Lukiwski. “I don’t think you can really prevent them, because if they’re done legally, they’re obviously an effective means of communications from all political parties. All political parties have used them in the past. The key is that they’re done properly and within the law.”
NDP MP Craig Scott (Toronto-Danforth, Ont.), who read the entire discussion paper said that he thinks it does a good job of understanding the challenges Elections Canada faces. He said a number of suggestions in the discussion paper are “compatible” with his private member’s Bill C-453, the Preventing and Prosecuting Fraudulent Voice Messages During Election Periods Bill, introduced on Oct. 17, 2012, which is also referenced in the paper, such as the registration of contracts between political parties and candidates, and their telecommunications companies.
However, Mr. Scott said he had some concerns that the privacy issues highlighted in the paper—such as the lack of laws governing political parties’ use of electors’ information—could “slow down the response … on preventing fraudulent election calls,” and said he thought the two discussions could be addressed sequentially instead.
MPs unanimously passed an NDP motion in the House of Commons committing the government to, within six months, table amendments to strengthen Elections Canada’s investigative capabilities in response to the robocalls issue, but the government has not yet introduced any new measures.
“It’s a good thing Elections Canada is taking the lead because … the government is putting forward nothing,” said Mr. Scott.
Meanwhile, a Federal Court battle over allegations of voter suppression in six federal ridings during the 2011 election will begin five days of hearings on Dec. 10 in Ottawa.
Eight voters from ridings in British Columbia, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Manitoba are asking the court to overturn the election of Conservative candidates in all six ridings, based on claims that they and other electors received telephone calls purporting to be from Elections Canada and wrongly advising them their polling station locations had changed. The challenge is supported by the Council of Canadians. The six ridings are: Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, B.C.); Tory MPs Jay Aspin (Nipissing-Timiskaming, Ont.); Kelly Block (Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Sask.); Ryan Leef (Yukon); Lawrence Toet (Elmwood-Transcona, Man.); and Joyce Bateman (Winnipeg South Centre, Man.).—With files from Bea Vongdouangchanh and Tim Naumetz
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: LAURA RYCKEWAERT
No comments:
Post a Comment