Kenney sparks privacy debate with unsolicited email on gay refugees

OTTAWA – Canadians expect answers from their politicians, but an unsolicited message sent to citizens concerned about gay refugees from Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has sparked a debate about privacy in politics.

Kenney sent a bulk email from his MP’s office to thousand of Canadians titled “LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) Refugees in Iran.” The text outlined how the Conservative government was supporting the rights of homosexual refugees.

The message, sent largely to members of Canada’s LGBT community, surprised some who received it. They say they had no idea how Kenney got their email address, learned their sexual orientation or knew their political preferences.

Kenney’s office said the explanation is simple: the email was a response sent to individuals who communicated with the office about gay refugee issues.

The situation has raised questions about whether a one-time contact with a politician or political party should lead to a long-term, one-way relationship.
“People did not sign the petition thinking they were going to sign up for ongoing newsletters or propaganda from the Conservative government on whatever issue they thought we cared about,” said Michael Erickson, a high school teacher and former NDP candidate form Toronto.

Erickson posted an online petition in 2011 supporting Alvaro Orozco, a gay artist from Nicaragua facing deportation. The petition forwarded a letter to Kenney’s office and asked for a response.

Petitioners did not get a response on Orozco, but a year later they got the missive about support for Iranian refugees.

“It didn’t feel ethical. It didn’t feel right,” Erickson said.

Political parties are not subject to privacy laws, but they keep information on voters to help them identify supporters, solicit fundraisers and target messaging.

The backbone of the data is the list of electors provided to all parties by Elections Canada, but as voters contact parties or politicians, they offer information such as age, religion, ethnicity and email or mailing addresses.

Kenney’s email suggests Erickson and other petitioners were identified as those concerned about gay rights or refugees.

Canada’s privacy commissioner’s office called the reports “troubling,” but said because political parties are not subject to the country’s public and private sector privacy laws, it has no jurisdiction.

Others like Alex Marland of Newfoundland’s Memorial University say the unsolicited contact is actually refreshing.

“Canadians as citizens feel disconnected from government, so it is a positive thing when you have governments reaching out and actively communicating directly with people,” said Marland, who is an assistant professor in the school’s department of political science.

Marland said there is value in politicians communicating with people on the issues that matter to them, like gay rights.

Erickson said the communication has to go two ways and the fact he didn’t get an answer on Orozco proves it isn’t.

“There isn’t communication between the government and its people. There is communication from the government to the people,” he said.

Data collecting and micro-targeting is simply a fact of life, according to Royce Koop, who teaches political science at the University of Manitoba.

“We do expect parties to actively pursue our vote and support, but they have to be mindful of privacy concerns and those sorts of desires as well,” he said. “The problem comes when we are not exactly sure where they got the information.”

Koop said Kenney’s actions are in a grey zone since the respondents volunteered their information at some point, but that shouldn’t stop Canadians from contacting their MPs.

“We haven’t seen any evidence that the parties pass on information to the civil service or agencies that might actually threaten our civil liberties,” he said. “The worst case in this scenario is that you get an email you don’t appreciate, that you think is invasive.”

Federal privacy commissioner Jennifer Stoddart is concerned though after regularly receiving questions about the privacy practices of political parties.

Back in 2006, Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant raised eyebrows after sending birthday cards to constituents using information from passport data. The next year the Prime Minister’s Office caused a stir for sending Rosh Hashanah cards to supporters with Jewish sounding names.

Most recently, the allegations of voter suppression using robocalls during the 2011 election has many Canadians worried about how parties identify and use lists of supporters.

Last year, Stoddart commissioned a study of the issue led by University of Victoria professor Colin Bennett, an expert in surveillance and privacy.

“The question is one of consent,” Bennett said, who wants to see politicians ask for consent or allow voters to opt-out of future correspondence in order to better protect their privacy, according to Bennett.

Having choices would help ease some of Erickson’s concerns: “The idea of government or potential governments having access to communicate with people isn’t a bad thing….as long as there is an additional mechanism to add out.”

Bennett’s study also predicts a rising tide of complaints as Canadian political parties continue to capture and use personal data without giving Canadians answers about what is in databases or how they are stored and secured.

“It raises suspicion and creates a lack of trust,” he said. “The trust in our political parties and political systems is at a pretty low ebb right now.”

Politicians themselves may be the only ones to reverse that trend. Stoddart has said in the past there is a gap in the privacy laws, but only parliamentarians can change them.

In the meantime, Bennett advises the parties to start developing self-policing measures like updating, developing and publicizing their privacy policies.

And while the Conservatives are taking heat right now, none of the parties are free of blame, according to Bennett.

“None of them can be self-righteous about this issue,” he said. “Some of them have developed voluntary policies, but none of them in my view are very good.”