The Editorial
On Oct. 25, l983, Canada’s parliament passed Bill C-169, and killed free speech in this country. The bill concerns the Elections Act and amendments to it “in Regard to Third Party Organizations.”
Squirreled away in the bill, which had been pushed through all three readings in the space of one hour, were new provisions aimed directly at muzzling pro-lifers during elections, and specifically aimed at blocking the activities of Campaign Life. The new provisions are as follows.
72. (1) Every printed advertisement, handbill, placard, poster or dodger that promotes or opposes the election of a registered political party or candidate and that is displayed or distributed during an election by or on behalf of a registered political party or candidate shall indicate that it was authorized by the registered agent of the party or by the official agent of the party or by the official agent of the candidate, as the case may be, and bear the registered agent’s or official agent’s name.
(2) Everyone who prints, publishes, distributes or posts up, or who causes to be printed, published, distributed or posted up, any document referred to in subsection (1) is, unless it bears the name and authorization required under that subsection, guilty of an offence against this act.
Strangely, pro-life MPs of both the Liberal and Conservative caucuses all stated that they had been led to believe that the amendments were intended to regulate election expenses. None were aware of the real thrust of the changes – a dagger aimed at the heart of the pro-life effort.
Accounts in Hansard showed clearly that some of those who supported the changes, e.g., Rod Murphy (N.D.P.) and Chuck Cook (P.C.), did so with the full knowledge that the new provisions could be challenged as unconstitutional and as violating rights guaranteed by the Charter.
This legislation must not remain unchallenged. As it is, it presents an affront to the civil liberties of all Canadians. It denies citizens the right to the freedoms of expression, of the right to be informed on major issues, and of the right to know unambiguously the stand of each candidate.
We should all be grateful that the National Citizens’ Coalition has begun to challenge this bill in the courts (see page 9).
Some MPs who voted for the bill had been conned by glib rationales such as Rod Murphy’s, that they were “not to follow the American example where all sorts of groups spend enormous amounts of money to emphasize a single issue while not always being bound by truth, fairness or honesty.” Other MPs saw the bill simply as a means to insulate themselves from pressure groups and from criticism – or so they claim, now, emphasizing the word “criticism.” It’s stretching credibility a bit.
No one, of course, will admit that the intent was to attack Campaign Life’s practice of advertising each candidate’s stand on key life issues. The bill is mute testimony to the efficacy of those tactics.
Failing that admission, it seems that there are more and bigger gulls inside the houses of parliament than circle the river outside, scavenging. On the other hand, a basic principle of both politics and war is, you are better off if your opponent thinks that you are dumb than that you are dangerous. Let us not fall for that one.
What people are saying
The Interim was not the first newspaper to notice that the passage of Bill C-169 imposed on the rights of Canadians but we were the first to give a full analysis of the real meaning of this amendment to the Canadian Elections Act and we did so in our December issue.
Since the December issue was printed much has been said all across the country about Bill C-169.
– “The MP’s are telling us that elections are strictly for members of the club and only party members belong. The rest of us can’t play”
– – Don Braid The Edmonton Journal Jan. 5, 1984
–
– “An act that confines public argument during elections ‘solely to the parties and the candidates who are running’ is an affront to the Canadian Constitution and the deep traditions of democracy itself. “Shame on all the national parties for supporting this terrible amendment. Surely it is doomed in the courts, as it should have been killed in the Parliament of the land.”
– – Editorial The Edmonton Journal Jan. 7, 1984
– “I believe that you should seek to have the courts strike down sections 70.1 and 72 of the Canadian Elections Act on the basis that they offend our unwritten British constitution in common law and sections two and three of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms – particularly the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.” – Al Hunter Lawyer for The National Citizens’ Coalition
– The National Citizens’ Coalition in a statement of claim filed in Calgary on Jan. 16, 1984, argues that the restrictions imposed by Bill C-169 contravene the right to freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The federal Attorney-General is named as defendant. The NCC has a membership of more than 30,000.
At a press conference held at The National Citizens’ Coalition offices in Toronto on Jan. 16, a reporter asked Ken McDonald, a member of the NCC advisory council how could the politicians police themselves as extra campaign money could easily be channeled to third party promotion of a candidate and goes unaccounted for. Mr. McDonald replied saying he wasn’t sure.
Indeed it is perhaps significant that some politicians might realize that they need policing, but it must not be at the expense of the freedoms of the electorate.
