To the Editor:
The big political news this past week was the long awaited verdict in the infamous "robocall" trial of Conservative staffer, Michael Sona. He was convicted of committing "election fraud" in the Guelph constituency in 2011, and is now awaiting his sentence.
Sona was accused and found guilty of participating in an elaborate scheme to prevent voters in that year's federal election from casting ballots against the Harper government. This perversion of democracy took place when some 7,000 eligible voters received automated "robocalls" on election day telling them, falsely, that their poll locations had been changed at the last minute.
Those phone messages were lies, and the only thing the 7,000 voters had in common was their intention NOT to vote Conservative. The attempt to suppress their votes - i.e., election fraud - was obvious.
That Michael Sona was convicted was no great surprise. What is surprising - and troubling - is the clear and common view among the trial Judge, the prosecutor and the defence counsel that Sona was not likely a solitary miscreant off on a romp of his own, but must have had some help.
This contradicts the Conservative line that Sona acted alone. Even though he was one of their most faithful soldiers, his Party quickly threw him "under the bus" to take all the blame all by himself. But is that credible? The Defence, the Crown and the Judge all think not.
Furthermore, in a separate court case last year, a Judge of the Federal Court hearing other robocall evidence made the explicit finding that election fraud did, in fact, occur in a number of places in the 2011 campaign, and the most likely source of the information used to identify susceptible voters was the Conservative Party's massive and highly secretive database.
So who could get access to that database? And how? What was the system for skimming off the names to be misled? Who devised the technology? Was the system hacked? Has any such hacking been reported to police and investigated?
Why did one of Sona's Conservative colleagues have to get an immunity agreement from the Crown before he testified - immunity from what? Why did another key player in the Conservative campaign refuse even to be interviewed by Elections Canada, and then suddenly moved to Kuwait?
Troubling questions call for answers, but they won't be forthcoming from the Party brass who maintain that Sona was just a devious one-man show run amuck. So the burden of getting to the bottom of this affair and protecting the integrity of our democracy falls to Elections Canada.
But wait, the Harper Conservatives have just changed the Elections Act. The power to investigate election fraud is no longer vested in Elections Canada (an agency that reports to Parliament). Instead, it now comes under the wing of the Department of Justice (an integral part of the government). Those who carry the investigative responsibility have a steep hill to climb to demonstrate their independence and their unfettered determination to protect the public interest.
And furthermore, the investigators still don't have the power, requested by Elections Canada but withheld by the government, to compel reluctant witnesses to disclose what they know about bad behaviour. That power could make a difference in dealing with someone seeking an immunity deal or considering a quick trip to Kuwait.
Ralph Goodale, MP, Wascana, SK.
