The most unhinged people in the province may now have access to the personal information of everybody who lives here, and there's nothing we can do about it
The revelations Jen Gerson made to Alberta elections officials should have resulted in immediate action. That they did not underscores the need for the Canadian government and its provincial counterparts to impose much tougher restrictions on the use and dissemination of voter lists.
This was a huge breach of privacy, one that the Canada Elections Act (S.C. 2000, c. 9) is practically set up to facilitate.
More generally, Canadians ought to ask much tougher questions of ALL political parties and their rights and responsibilities.
I hope there are criminal charges laid against David Parker and other principals of the Centurion Project. In my view a criminal inquiry should be called to determine whether there was collusion between Alberta elections officials and the UCP government of Danielle Smith (designed to frustrate or prevent the investigation of this breach).
Thank you to Jen and The Line for publishing this article.
Just from following some of them online, including Parker, this is very apparent. Many (not all) have utter contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their worldview. They will treat anyone who they perceive as dissidents as unworthy of their glorious and infallible republic. They feel they are justified in any of their actions or rhetoric and they have irreversibly succumbed to groupthink. They will cry fake news and bemoan the liberal media about this story but I truly believe they have no self reflection or realization of the non political and negative downstream consequences this breach of privacy could and may have caused. Their aims are so righteous and so self evident they don’t have to even ponder the ethics of their actions.
Same widespread contemptuous and belittling treatment from federalist supporters against those who wish a fundamental change to the dysfunctional Canadian political relationships... perhaps with the added accusation of seditionists and traitors thrown in for giggles. Hence it's basically equivalent treatment. Nor do I have any doubt the federalist defense against the unity referendum question uses and widely distributes the same voter list to supporting organizations we never heart anything about because it's for the Good Guys. But, hey, that's pure conjecture on my part having lived through several such referenda already (what amounts to federal bribing ie. 'investing' when it plays out leading up to the vote).
I think a lot of what you said is fair. I also am concerned with a lot of the rhetoric going the other way. I have specifically tried to caution many about this for moral and strategic reasons. For me, the rhetoric from the separatists does occasionally go beyond ad hominem insults and it’s concerning because they are the ones advocating to drastically change the place I’ve lived my whole life.
You wouldn't believe the change to Canada over the past seven decades. When 'home' no longer feels like a home but foreign not just in contemporary terms but of somehow displacing: common values, liberalism, language, history, institutions, and even losing the public square to reasonable dialogue to this rising group-based intolerant ideology now exercised with moral and legal condemnation for viewpoint diversity, when faced by masses of foreigners demonstrating and even praying on the streets and without censure by our 'representatives' and 'institutions' for fomenting foreign hostile causes, turning a blind eye and ear (but with SO much political hand-wringing and tsk tsks) to what amounts to permissible calls for violence, then you may begin to glimpse some reason for enough untreated discontent to dare to question what to do when political unity is so demonstrably hostile.
If you have a better solution, then please... this sinking ship of state needs you. But even maintaining the status quo requires more than flag waving and memorandums of understanding to correct. Nothing I'm seeing (are we really accepting foreign nationals into the CAF? Are you KIDDING me?) alters any of these deepening problems. Much that I'm seeing only exacerbates them. It's unidirectional.
If supporting all these systemic dysfunctions is 'patriotism', then please count me out because at least I'm a nationalist for wanting to support the country's liberal roots that established and built this country before it was broken for suicidal empathy and politically beneficial vibes.
Oh thou Astute Defender Of Democratic Will Of The People, beg pray which is the petition that should be invalidated ??? This one or that other one ? Or perchance both petitions should be invalidated ???
Because only toxic dictates from the toxin producing center Ottawa permanently ruled by "Liberals" are allowed ?
"They" did not break the law. One tiny group which DOES NOT REPRESENT THE INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT broke the law. This particular tiny group always creates problems in Alberta politics.
The main grouping of Alberta independence movement FOLLOWS THE LAW SCRUPULOUSLY as a matter of principle.
They are, loudly. Of course MSM do not cover the denouncements, and I do not expect people of your selective type to find, let alone acknowledge the denouncements.
The online people who are constantly calling Canada things like "shitholes", dont leave en masse; because underneath that they know this is a great country to live in even with all the problems we have created, and going elsewhere is not some magic candy land. They just like to think they are doing something with their lives by doing all this nonsense. Blaming everything they don't like about themselves or their lives on "Lilberals!!" or "The elites" is far easier than taking the cards in front of you and building your best hand (and there is plenty of opportunity to do that in Canada).
I don't think it's a shit hole but I am in the process of partially leaving. We have a property and incorporated company in another country, one that is happy to have my family and me.
A lot of young people are doing the same. Canada is for boomers as the kids say.
You are certainly justifiably ticked off. What hope do any of us as simple citizens have when even a journalist such as yourself is not taken seriously?
I note that the federal parties have decided to exempt themselves from the privacy rules that govern everyone else.
Reminder that the UCPs new Protection of Privacy Act introduced severe penalties for privacy breaches: Maximum Fines: Up to $200,000 for individuals and $1 million for organizations (e.g. APP and the Republican Party) found guilty of offences. Hopefully government prosecutes and oversees the destruction of these personally identifying data.
POPA applies to public bodies. Political parties are not public bodies. We should regulate political parties under PIPA (the private sector privacy Act) like BC does, but Alberta’s PIPA explicitly excludes them from application. They fall under no comprehensive privacy law. The only penalties that may apply are from Elections Alberta.
There is a case to be made for a new (?) form of journalism that is basically the story behind the story. I am sure it exists but it is always superseded by the actual story itself. This article here is one such useful illustration for such a writing.
I am glad that you wrote this story - regardless of it being because of the truncated timelines from EAB.
And good to read about actual instances of journalistic ethics being followed. Congratulations.
And looks like your letter is basically cited in the Globe and Mail. You should perhaps update this story here with the absolute BS response from EAB when asked about your prior email to them.
If the purpose of a PER is to facilitate reasonable outreach in the context of an election (very legitimate purpose) I wonder why the entire list should have ever been distributed to this party who ran one (?) candidate in one electoral district. Why do they need my elector information in Edmonton to campaign for Cam Davies in Olds Didsbury Three Hills? I could not vote for him even if I wanted to.
Great scoop. I hope this kind of work is part of the expansion that you and Matt have been talking about - to at least have some record for future historians as to why Canada fell apart if not to actually change anything in this time.
Young Jennifer, I have to say that this is terrifically well done!
As you note, Elections Alberta definitely has some 'splainen to do.
I'm not particularly worried about my name and such getting out - in this case - but, as you note, that just isn't the case for folks for whom privacy is a real safety issue.
The degree of info could actually put everyone at risk of identity theft. Who knows who got access to that list… it contains enough info to apply for credit without a SIN.
Not to mention harassment of public figures. I have a family member who is a high-level municipal bureaucrat, and there were a bunch of meetings and emails flying around about this yesterday because of the personal safety concerns this could generate. This is a big deal.
That's a good point - I didn't even think about that one. I really don't love that my info is out there - I've taken a lot of steps over the years to keep my address off the internet. I just hope this was the old list from before I moved.
I think it might be a little naive to think that only separatist people accessed that database. It's possible avowed separatists could be targeted by everyone else. (No clue - just playing devil's advocate. Anyone can claim anything on the internet, including pretending to be a separatist to gain access to the list.)
So Centurion posted this database to help their political opponents target their own sympathizers?
That seems less likely than Centurion wanting its own sympathizers to use the content to intimidate their opponents, which they're in the news for allegedly trying to do already.
This evidence has to do with misuse of the voters' list and for that, the horsemen do need to be involved - and they are involved! Now, having said that, in what way does that connect with the referendum petition?
The fact that some goof appears to have wanted to misuse the information on the voters' list in no way negates that a whole lot of folks signed the petition in good faith of their own volition, without being prompted. Very much including me!
So, tell me again why you want to remove my democratic rights. If the petition has sufficient signatures you will get your chance to provide your (apparent) negative opinion at the time the vote is held.
Yes, If both the separate and stay in Canada sides all have the required number of valid signatures then let both of them be on the ballot. Someone tell me why one side was required to have fewer signatures?
This is disingenuous, the Swiss process for running a referendum is extremely drawn out and gives a lot of space for public debate. A practice that California and Alberta are incompetent at.
I don't know why that particular area was amended. I just don't. Is the change fair? I think that it may be fair. I can see where someone might feel otherwise. On the other hand, when is a good time to make changes if you feel that your law is insufficient, inappropriate, blah, blah, blah?
So, everyone has their own thoughts. When the controversy broke out I wanted to see what some other countries require and found that the results are quite varied. Make up your own mind.
I checked and the number of signatures needed to get a measure on a ballot is only 100,000 for the entire country of Switzerland as opposed to about 177,000 in Alberta. Why is that something to think about? Well, Switzerland has a greater population than Alberta but needs significantly fewer signatures.
By contrast, in California, which has a population of about 39,000,000, one needs either five or eight per cent of the population, depending on the type of question.
Saskatchewan - yes, our neighbor to the east - has similar referendum legislation and there it is required to have fifteen per cent of eligible voters which would be somewhere about 125,000.
Many other jurisdictions have legislation allowing citizens to initiate petitions for referendums; I have enquired only about the above examples but you may wish to look further.
I absolutely agree that it does seem amateurish. On the other hand, David Parker .......
As to who is running the show, that is an interesting question and one that, quite respectfully to you, Sir, I think should be somewhat self evident by now. The separatist movement is, certainly, somewhat a product of the Alberta Prosperity Project insofar as they organized and promoted (at least as near as I can tell) the organization (Stay Free Alberta) that, legally speaking, is the entity behind the petition. However, however ....
I argue that while SFA is the legal proponent behind the petition (as I understand matters a petition must have a stand alone organization behind it), the actual movement is pretty damned organic and is not subject to any top down control. Yes, the APP has a strategy and yes, SFA has a strategy but the separation movement is pretty disorganized - and deliberately so.
Now, if the petition succeeds and a referendum is called on the topic, one would assume that SFA, as proponent, would start to assert very specific direction and control but please do understand that at this time the movement - for it truly is a movement - is largely composed of independent volunteers.
There is no official mouth piece from what I can tell. It seems to me that if it were a legitimate movement, none of what happened would have happened. There is no individual leader who is the spokesperson. Want to have a referendum? Great. Legitimize your movement first, Jeebus.
I do understand your perspective but I offer two points in (kinda) rebuttal.
First, there are two phases to this process. The initial phase is to get a sufficient number of signatures on the petition - what is happening now. and that is, by it's nature, all about raw enthusiasm and such: no clear direction as it is a "movement" not a "party". The second phase is when the referendum is actually called and the specific question is set by the government. At that time one would expect significantly more direction, as below.
I direct you to the last Quebec referendum on separation, the one that almost passed. The legislation that authorized the referendum specifically set out the requirement for two committees to be proponent and opponent for the referendum and it set spending limitations, advertising this and that and so forth.
I expect that any referendum question set by the government might well have these sorts of controls and, by their nature, they would involve specific direction from a proponent (Stay Free Alberta?), controls (well kinda controls) on "enthusiasts" and so forth.
My point is that we are in the initial messy phase; will the subsequent phase be any more organized? I can only speculate but, given that this will lead to a terrifically important referendum, I suspect that the rules will be more organized than the initial petition phase.
It connects with the referendum petition in that it calls into question how many of the final petition signatures were legitimate. The voter list provides enough verifiable personal information to allow an organizer to spoof as many signatures as they want by simply forging a signature since they would already know the names and addresses will match-up with what EAB has on record. Sure, forging a signature is illegal, but so is misusing a voters list, so they have clearly demonstrated an ability to flout the law in pursuit of their objective.
I have no doubt that there are thousands of people who did, in fact, sign the separatist petition, but we will never know for sure unless every single "signature" on the petition is verified by a follow-up confirmation by EAB. This is true for every petition, including the Forever Canadian one, but I think the standard of trust needs to be raised when there is evidence that an organizer has had access to sensitive data that puts them in a position to fake what would otherwise be considered a legitimate signature based on a name and address match.
I have no idea about what process is followed to verify the hundreds of thousands of signatures on a petition. I imagine that a first-level check on validity involves confirming that names and addresses correspond to what EAB has on record followed by a spot check on a statistically relevant sampling of the accompanying signatures. That process does not work when the petitioner has access to 3.1 million name and address pairs from the very list EAB would use to verify accuracy.
At the end of the day, the best check on validity is probably for the voters to have their say, despite all of the unintended consequences that holding a referendum may bring. However, I do enjoy the sweet taste of irony that in trying to use underhanded and illegal tactics to secure an advantage, the seperatist cause have rightly shot themselves in the foot.
You have hit the nail right on the head here. If the voter list was used at all, it calls into question the entire legality of the petition information. And if that is a possiblity than the referrendum should not be allowed, or not allowed this year until safeguards can be put in place.
Make no mistake, I would also be not one bit surprised if the Forever Canadian group also has this same list in its possession, but it sure as hell was smart enough not to advertise that fact by building a website that grants any yahoo with a web browser access to that sensitive data.
I think this whole situation is beyond the point where anything but a referendum will provide some sort of conclusion that the population can rally behind. I personally think that the Forever Canadian group did enough to get their question on the ballot by significantly exceeding the threshold required; despite Lukaszuk's tactical error in requesting that it not go to a referendum and instead have MLAs vote on the matter. I get why he did it, but it let the government off the hook by giving them an out to not put it on the ballot.
I think disqualifying the Separatist petition on the very valid grounds that it has accessed and distributed sensitive information to either aid or outright cheat towards getting their desired result actually does more harm than good and would only serve to further rally more voters to their cause.
Despite the very real risks and consequences that merely holding a referendum will have, all the risks to democracy and social cohesion that avoiding taking the question to the people would cause trumps those concerns. 'Democratic Triage' if you will. Frankly, I am tired of the clowns currently turning the legitimate beefs many of us have with Confederation into a circus where they are demanding to be the Ringmaster. I am hopeful that getting thoroughly trounced in a referendum will encourage them to take their side-show down to the US where, apparently, they love a great circus.
What a horrifying story, thanks for sharing Jen. I hope this is investigated, and the leak is found, and heavy prosecution follows. Is it possible Smith is part of this leak given her very close relationship to Parker?
I have stopped reading this column for one minute (I will return to it shortly) to ask one very specific question.
David Parker of the Centurion Project is involved in a whole lot of things: obviously, the Centurion Project but also Take Back Alberta and also the United Conservative Party. He seems to be THE big cheese at the Centurion Project and at Take Back Alberta and to be a behind the scenes influence with the UCP. So, the question: what does this doggoned guy do for a living if he can afford to spend so much time involved with these organizations?
Is he independently wealthy? Does he have a job? Does he own a business? How does he get his money to buy his groceries, to pay for his housing, and so forth?
Back maybe a month ago or so (maybe longer now) there was some interesting documents shared by the Line from one of the organizations involved in the separatist movement. Turns out their ongoing finances are pretty dismal right now (trending towards bankruptcy, donations dried up,) but the board of directors was fascinating as it included Americans.
I do think it’s possible some of the separatist groups are milking money from the cow and it’s just a way to continue doing that as their job. Keep people stirred up and the money pours in?
IS, I do not recall that data. Which means nothing as to veracity but only that I do not recall it.
A question for you. You assert that the Board of Directors include Americans. Again, I do not recall the data so I cannot comment. But. When you assert that there are Americans are you talking about Americans who are landed immigrants in Canada (i.e. permanent residents in today's parlance); Americans who live in America and have no obvious connection to Canada other than being on this Board; Americans like Ted Morton our former Finance Minister who is also a Canadian and lives full time in Canada or some other type of "American"? Also, how did you determine that they were Americans?
Again, I don't recall the information and I am asking not to dispute what you say but I am looking for information.
I am not at all impressed that this happened. I share Jenn’s concerns. Can anyone help me with context - how many people rightfully have access to this list? Anyone who volunteers with any party? Would it be hard for me to start a party and get the list? Why does this list exist anyway? What format do people get the list in (specifically, is there any way for those who have the list to prevent it being copied without notice)?
The revelations Jen Gerson made to Alberta elections officials should have resulted in immediate action. That they did not underscores the need for the Canadian government and its provincial counterparts to impose much tougher restrictions on the use and dissemination of voter lists.
This was a huge breach of privacy, one that the Canada Elections Act (S.C. 2000, c. 9) is practically set up to facilitate.
More generally, Canadians ought to ask much tougher questions of ALL political parties and their rights and responsibilities.
I hope there are criminal charges laid against David Parker and other principals of the Centurion Project. In my view a criminal inquiry should be called to determine whether there was collusion between Alberta elections officials and the UCP government of Danielle Smith (designed to frustrate or prevent the investigation of this breach).
Thank you to Jen and The Line for publishing this article.
You know, for a group that is ostensibly for Albertans these separatists sure show a lot of contempt for most Albertans.
My gratitude for your efforts here Jen.
Just from following some of them online, including Parker, this is very apparent. Many (not all) have utter contempt for anyone who doesn’t share their worldview. They will treat anyone who they perceive as dissidents as unworthy of their glorious and infallible republic. They feel they are justified in any of their actions or rhetoric and they have irreversibly succumbed to groupthink. They will cry fake news and bemoan the liberal media about this story but I truly believe they have no self reflection or realization of the non political and negative downstream consequences this breach of privacy could and may have caused. Their aims are so righteous and so self evident they don’t have to even ponder the ethics of their actions.
Pot, kettle.
Care to elaborate?
Same widespread contemptuous and belittling treatment from federalist supporters against those who wish a fundamental change to the dysfunctional Canadian political relationships... perhaps with the added accusation of seditionists and traitors thrown in for giggles. Hence it's basically equivalent treatment. Nor do I have any doubt the federalist defense against the unity referendum question uses and widely distributes the same voter list to supporting organizations we never heart anything about because it's for the Good Guys. But, hey, that's pure conjecture on my part having lived through several such referenda already (what amounts to federal bribing ie. 'investing' when it plays out leading up to the vote).
I think a lot of what you said is fair. I also am concerned with a lot of the rhetoric going the other way. I have specifically tried to caution many about this for moral and strategic reasons. For me, the rhetoric from the separatists does occasionally go beyond ad hominem insults and it’s concerning because they are the ones advocating to drastically change the place I’ve lived my whole life.
You wouldn't believe the change to Canada over the past seven decades. When 'home' no longer feels like a home but foreign not just in contemporary terms but of somehow displacing: common values, liberalism, language, history, institutions, and even losing the public square to reasonable dialogue to this rising group-based intolerant ideology now exercised with moral and legal condemnation for viewpoint diversity, when faced by masses of foreigners demonstrating and even praying on the streets and without censure by our 'representatives' and 'institutions' for fomenting foreign hostile causes, turning a blind eye and ear (but with SO much political hand-wringing and tsk tsks) to what amounts to permissible calls for violence, then you may begin to glimpse some reason for enough untreated discontent to dare to question what to do when political unity is so demonstrably hostile.
If you have a better solution, then please... this sinking ship of state needs you. But even maintaining the status quo requires more than flag waving and memorandums of understanding to correct. Nothing I'm seeing (are we really accepting foreign nationals into the CAF? Are you KIDDING me?) alters any of these deepening problems. Much that I'm seeing only exacerbates them. It's unidirectional.
If supporting all these systemic dysfunctions is 'patriotism', then please count me out because at least I'm a nationalist for wanting to support the country's liberal roots that established and built this country before it was broken for suicidal empathy and politically beneficial vibes.
Ron, don’t be an asshole in the comments. That’s a warning. Next is a ban.
The entire petition should be invalidated.
Oh thou Astute Defender Of Democratic Will Of The People, beg pray which is the petition that should be invalidated ??? This one or that other one ? Or perchance both petitions should be invalidated ???
Because only toxic dictates from the toxin producing center Ottawa permanently ruled by "Liberals" are allowed ?
Because they broke the law.
"They" did not break the law. One tiny group which DOES NOT REPRESENT THE INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT broke the law. This particular tiny group always creates problems in Alberta politics.
The main grouping of Alberta independence movement FOLLOWS THE LAW SCRUPULOUSLY as a matter of principle.
If one lies down with dogs, one gets up with fleas. The scrupulous movement isn't exactly disavowing this bunch, are they?
They are, loudly. Of course MSM do not cover the denouncements, and I do not expect people of your selective type to find, let alone acknowledge the denouncements.
This is the kind of thinking that results in Canada becoming a worse and worse shithole.
So do us all a big favour and leave. Check out the shithole to the south.
The online people who are constantly calling Canada things like "shitholes", dont leave en masse; because underneath that they know this is a great country to live in even with all the problems we have created, and going elsewhere is not some magic candy land. They just like to think they are doing something with their lives by doing all this nonsense. Blaming everything they don't like about themselves or their lives on "Lilberals!!" or "The elites" is far easier than taking the cards in front of you and building your best hand (and there is plenty of opportunity to do that in Canada).
I don't think it's a shit hole but I am in the process of partially leaving. We have a property and incorporated company in another country, one that is happy to have my family and me.
A lot of young people are doing the same. Canada is for boomers as the kids say.
dope.
dope.
You are certainly justifiably ticked off. What hope do any of us as simple citizens have when even a journalist such as yourself is not taken seriously?
I note that the federal parties have decided to exempt themselves from the privacy rules that govern everyone else.
Holy shit.
Magnificent work by Jen Gerson.
Epic and perhaps unprecedented institutional failure by Elections Alberta and the GOA.
Heads should roll. Resignations must occur.
We should now assume all of our data is available to anyone who wants to pay for it.
Again, amazing work by Jen Gerson.
Reminder that the UCPs new Protection of Privacy Act introduced severe penalties for privacy breaches: Maximum Fines: Up to $200,000 for individuals and $1 million for organizations (e.g. APP and the Republican Party) found guilty of offences. Hopefully government prosecutes and oversees the destruction of these personally identifying data.
POPA applies to public bodies. Political parties are not public bodies. We should regulate political parties under PIPA (the private sector privacy Act) like BC does, but Alberta’s PIPA explicitly excludes them from application. They fall under no comprehensive privacy law. The only penalties that may apply are from Elections Alberta.
There is a case to be made for a new (?) form of journalism that is basically the story behind the story. I am sure it exists but it is always superseded by the actual story itself. This article here is one such useful illustration for such a writing.
I am glad that you wrote this story - regardless of it being because of the truncated timelines from EAB.
And good to read about actual instances of journalistic ethics being followed. Congratulations.
And looks like your letter is basically cited in the Globe and Mail. You should perhaps update this story here with the absolute BS response from EAB when asked about your prior email to them.
If the purpose of a PER is to facilitate reasonable outreach in the context of an election (very legitimate purpose) I wonder why the entire list should have ever been distributed to this party who ran one (?) candidate in one electoral district. Why do they need my elector information in Edmonton to campaign for Cam Davies in Olds Didsbury Three Hills? I could not vote for him even if I wanted to.
I had this exact same thought. (Also in Edmonton)
Gaining access to this kind of information may have been the whole point of creating the Republican Party to run in the Olds-Disbury election.
Great scoop. I hope this kind of work is part of the expansion that you and Matt have been talking about - to at least have some record for future historians as to why Canada fell apart if not to actually change anything in this time.
Young Jennifer, I have to say that this is terrifically well done!
As you note, Elections Alberta definitely has some 'splainen to do.
I'm not particularly worried about my name and such getting out - in this case - but, as you note, that just isn't the case for folks for whom privacy is a real safety issue.
Definitely, some 'splainen needed.
The degree of info could actually put everyone at risk of identity theft. Who knows who got access to that list… it contains enough info to apply for credit without a SIN.
Not to mention harassment of public figures. I have a family member who is a high-level municipal bureaucrat, and there were a bunch of meetings and emails flying around about this yesterday because of the personal safety concerns this could generate. This is a big deal.
That's a good point - I didn't even think about that one. I really don't love that my info is out there - I've taken a lot of steps over the years to keep my address off the internet. I just hope this was the old list from before I moved.
You're an avowed separatist. Centurion isn't targeting you.
I think it might be a little naive to think that only separatist people accessed that database. It's possible avowed separatists could be targeted by everyone else. (No clue - just playing devil's advocate. Anyone can claim anything on the internet, including pretending to be a separatist to gain access to the list.)
So Centurion posted this database to help their political opponents target their own sympathizers?
That seems less likely than Centurion wanting its own sympathizers to use the content to intimidate their opponents, which they're in the news for allegedly trying to do already.
They sat on it for a month. Wtf elections alberta?
Well that seems more than enough evidence to bring in the Mounties. And stop the referendum.
This evidence has to do with misuse of the voters' list and for that, the horsemen do need to be involved - and they are involved! Now, having said that, in what way does that connect with the referendum petition?
The fact that some goof appears to have wanted to misuse the information on the voters' list in no way negates that a whole lot of folks signed the petition in good faith of their own volition, without being prompted. Very much including me!
So, tell me again why you want to remove my democratic rights. If the petition has sufficient signatures you will get your chance to provide your (apparent) negative opinion at the time the vote is held.
Yes, If both the separate and stay in Canada sides all have the required number of valid signatures then let both of them be on the ballot. Someone tell me why one side was required to have fewer signatures?
This is disingenuous, the Swiss process for running a referendum is extremely drawn out and gives a lot of space for public debate. A practice that California and Alberta are incompetent at.
I don't know why that particular area was amended. I just don't. Is the change fair? I think that it may be fair. I can see where someone might feel otherwise. On the other hand, when is a good time to make changes if you feel that your law is insufficient, inappropriate, blah, blah, blah?
So, everyone has their own thoughts. When the controversy broke out I wanted to see what some other countries require and found that the results are quite varied. Make up your own mind.
I checked and the number of signatures needed to get a measure on a ballot is only 100,000 for the entire country of Switzerland as opposed to about 177,000 in Alberta. Why is that something to think about? Well, Switzerland has a greater population than Alberta but needs significantly fewer signatures.
By contrast, in California, which has a population of about 39,000,000, one needs either five or eight per cent of the population, depending on the type of question.
Saskatchewan - yes, our neighbor to the east - has similar referendum legislation and there it is required to have fifteen per cent of eligible voters which would be somewhere about 125,000.
Many other jurisdictions have legislation allowing citizens to initiate petitions for referendums; I have enquired only about the above examples but you may wish to look further.
Respectfully, Ken. For me, it screams amateur hour. Who is running the show? Who is the legit voice of the separatists?
I absolutely agree that it does seem amateurish. On the other hand, David Parker .......
As to who is running the show, that is an interesting question and one that, quite respectfully to you, Sir, I think should be somewhat self evident by now. The separatist movement is, certainly, somewhat a product of the Alberta Prosperity Project insofar as they organized and promoted (at least as near as I can tell) the organization (Stay Free Alberta) that, legally speaking, is the entity behind the petition. However, however ....
I argue that while SFA is the legal proponent behind the petition (as I understand matters a petition must have a stand alone organization behind it), the actual movement is pretty damned organic and is not subject to any top down control. Yes, the APP has a strategy and yes, SFA has a strategy but the separation movement is pretty disorganized - and deliberately so.
Now, if the petition succeeds and a referendum is called on the topic, one would assume that SFA, as proponent, would start to assert very specific direction and control but please do understand that at this time the movement - for it truly is a movement - is largely composed of independent volunteers.
There is no official mouth piece from what I can tell. It seems to me that if it were a legitimate movement, none of what happened would have happened. There is no individual leader who is the spokesperson. Want to have a referendum? Great. Legitimize your movement first, Jeebus.
I do understand your perspective but I offer two points in (kinda) rebuttal.
First, there are two phases to this process. The initial phase is to get a sufficient number of signatures on the petition - what is happening now. and that is, by it's nature, all about raw enthusiasm and such: no clear direction as it is a "movement" not a "party". The second phase is when the referendum is actually called and the specific question is set by the government. At that time one would expect significantly more direction, as below.
I direct you to the last Quebec referendum on separation, the one that almost passed. The legislation that authorized the referendum specifically set out the requirement for two committees to be proponent and opponent for the referendum and it set spending limitations, advertising this and that and so forth.
I expect that any referendum question set by the government might well have these sorts of controls and, by their nature, they would involve specific direction from a proponent (Stay Free Alberta?), controls (well kinda controls) on "enthusiasts" and so forth.
My point is that we are in the initial messy phase; will the subsequent phase be any more organized? I can only speculate but, given that this will lead to a terrifically important referendum, I suspect that the rules will be more organized than the initial petition phase.
It will have to get it's crap together. We're at May 1st now. Going to be an interesting month methinks
It connects with the referendum petition in that it calls into question how many of the final petition signatures were legitimate. The voter list provides enough verifiable personal information to allow an organizer to spoof as many signatures as they want by simply forging a signature since they would already know the names and addresses will match-up with what EAB has on record. Sure, forging a signature is illegal, but so is misusing a voters list, so they have clearly demonstrated an ability to flout the law in pursuit of their objective.
I have no doubt that there are thousands of people who did, in fact, sign the separatist petition, but we will never know for sure unless every single "signature" on the petition is verified by a follow-up confirmation by EAB. This is true for every petition, including the Forever Canadian one, but I think the standard of trust needs to be raised when there is evidence that an organizer has had access to sensitive data that puts them in a position to fake what would otherwise be considered a legitimate signature based on a name and address match.
I have no idea about what process is followed to verify the hundreds of thousands of signatures on a petition. I imagine that a first-level check on validity involves confirming that names and addresses correspond to what EAB has on record followed by a spot check on a statistically relevant sampling of the accompanying signatures. That process does not work when the petitioner has access to 3.1 million name and address pairs from the very list EAB would use to verify accuracy.
At the end of the day, the best check on validity is probably for the voters to have their say, despite all of the unintended consequences that holding a referendum may bring. However, I do enjoy the sweet taste of irony that in trying to use underhanded and illegal tactics to secure an advantage, the seperatist cause have rightly shot themselves in the foot.
You have hit the nail right on the head here. If the voter list was used at all, it calls into question the entire legality of the petition information. And if that is a possiblity than the referrendum should not be allowed, or not allowed this year until safeguards can be put in place.
Make no mistake, I would also be not one bit surprised if the Forever Canadian group also has this same list in its possession, but it sure as hell was smart enough not to advertise that fact by building a website that grants any yahoo with a web browser access to that sensitive data.
I think this whole situation is beyond the point where anything but a referendum will provide some sort of conclusion that the population can rally behind. I personally think that the Forever Canadian group did enough to get their question on the ballot by significantly exceeding the threshold required; despite Lukaszuk's tactical error in requesting that it not go to a referendum and instead have MLAs vote on the matter. I get why he did it, but it let the government off the hook by giving them an out to not put it on the ballot.
I think disqualifying the Separatist petition on the very valid grounds that it has accessed and distributed sensitive information to either aid or outright cheat towards getting their desired result actually does more harm than good and would only serve to further rally more voters to their cause.
Despite the very real risks and consequences that merely holding a referendum will have, all the risks to democracy and social cohesion that avoiding taking the question to the people would cause trumps those concerns. 'Democratic Triage' if you will. Frankly, I am tired of the clowns currently turning the legitimate beefs many of us have with Confederation into a circus where they are demanding to be the Ringmaster. I am hopeful that getting thoroughly trounced in a referendum will encourage them to take their side-show down to the US where, apparently, they love a great circus.
your hollering up a dead horses ass
What a horrifying story, thanks for sharing Jen. I hope this is investigated, and the leak is found, and heavy prosecution follows. Is it possible Smith is part of this leak given her very close relationship to Parker?
Good responsible journalism, analysis and commentary.
I have stopped reading this column for one minute (I will return to it shortly) to ask one very specific question.
David Parker of the Centurion Project is involved in a whole lot of things: obviously, the Centurion Project but also Take Back Alberta and also the United Conservative Party. He seems to be THE big cheese at the Centurion Project and at Take Back Alberta and to be a behind the scenes influence with the UCP. So, the question: what does this doggoned guy do for a living if he can afford to spend so much time involved with these organizations?
Is he independently wealthy? Does he have a job? Does he own a business? How does he get his money to buy his groceries, to pay for his housing, and so forth?
Back maybe a month ago or so (maybe longer now) there was some interesting documents shared by the Line from one of the organizations involved in the separatist movement. Turns out their ongoing finances are pretty dismal right now (trending towards bankruptcy, donations dried up,) but the board of directors was fascinating as it included Americans.
I do think it’s possible some of the separatist groups are milking money from the cow and it’s just a way to continue doing that as their job. Keep people stirred up and the money pours in?
IS, I do not recall that data. Which means nothing as to veracity but only that I do not recall it.
A question for you. You assert that the Board of Directors include Americans. Again, I do not recall the data so I cannot comment. But. When you assert that there are Americans are you talking about Americans who are landed immigrants in Canada (i.e. permanent residents in today's parlance); Americans who live in America and have no obvious connection to Canada other than being on this Board; Americans like Ted Morton our former Finance Minister who is also a Canadian and lives full time in Canada or some other type of "American"? Also, how did you determine that they were Americans?
Again, I don't recall the information and I am asking not to dispute what you say but I am looking for information.
https://www.readtheline.ca/p/jen-gerson-who-gave-the-alberta-prosperity
I am not at all impressed that this happened. I share Jenn’s concerns. Can anyone help me with context - how many people rightfully have access to this list? Anyone who volunteers with any party? Would it be hard for me to start a party and get the list? Why does this list exist anyway? What format do people get the list in (specifically, is there any way for those who have the list to prevent it being copied without notice)?