Details, and More Damn Irritating Details

It's really fascinating to see that incidents occur leading to investigations which appear to reveal that those most apt to criticize rival parties in government are themselves held accountable for actions proving to be less than reflective of good judgement, and which in fact offend legitimacy of action. A number of Members of Parliament have received fines over the use of robocalls. The Canadian Ratio-Television and Telecommunications Commission takes its regulatory rules seriously.

Those bloody irritating calls that ring through to householders' telephones at the most inconvenient times of day, deliberately scheduled to interfere with dinnertime, as an example, to ensure that people will be at home and hear those important messages, are supposed to initiate and conclude with vital identification. So that people will know who is responsible for driving them to distraction particularly around election time, and how to contact them to vent their irritation, though most seldom do.

Ottawa Centre NDP Member of Parliament Paul Dewar loves acting the gadfly, holding the government to account for infractions real and imagined, as a member of the loyal opposition. An former aspirant for the leadership, calls made on behalf of his campaign failed to identify who was responsible for those calls.

"While this has been a common mistake by political campaigns, the CRTC has made it clear that automated calls must begin with a message identifying the person on whose behalf the call is made, including a mailing address and a local or toll-free number at which a representative of the originator of the message can be reached", he clarified sanctimoniously. But surely a requirement well known to him as a seasoned campaigner.

Stressing the issue to be one faced often by political campaigns; politicians and their hired professional voice-broadcasting firms specializing in robocalls being innocent of the intention to mislead; it just having slipped their notice that the identification requirement is paramount. However, Mr. Dewar has paid the $7,000 fine levied against him to the satisfaction of the CRTC

Strategic Communications Inc. of Toronto hired by the New Democratic party to raise the indignant objections of those who voted for a New Democrat candidate in the last federal election but who chose soon afterward to cross the floor to join the Liberals, was also in default of robocall identification. This company has agreed it also erred. No word whether their campaign succeeded in eliciting complaints from voters over Lise St. Denis's decision to leave the NDP.

"There was no attempt to hide the client but we didn't follow the correct procedure. To us, it's an administrative matter. The CRTC procedures are not always crystal clear", explained Bob Penner, CEO of Strategic Communications. Which seems most peculiar indeed; this is, after all, someone who makes his living at communicating, someone who should be well versed in the routine and legal requirements of self-identification.

He did, after all, appear as an expert witness for the Council of Canadians in their Federal Court challenge seeking to set aside the 2011 election results in six ridings. On that occasion he swore an affidavit regarding the use of telephone calls to identify political supporters to bring them to vote.  An application that the presiding judge ultimately dismissed for lack of evidence required to overturn the election of six Conservative MPs.

"We expect candidates who are running political campaigns and telemarketing service providers to put appropriate safeguards in place to ensure compliance with the Unsolicited Telecommunications Rules", stressed Andrea Rosen, chief compliance and enforcement officer with the CRTC, while commending Mr. Dewar and Strategic Communications for their much-appreciated co-operation.

In fact the CRTC has been quite busy fining representatives of all three major political parties in Canada for breaking telemarketing rules with robocalls. Voter contact firms have also been fined for their lack of forthcoming identification in sending out calls. And Elections Canada is in possession of over 1,300 complaints relating to robocalls considered to be harassment, or providing misleading voting information.