On November 28, 2007, when speaking about the Electoral Boundaries Commission and the government's attempt to modify its terms of reference, Campbell's House Leader, Mike de Jong, had some interesting thoughts on the concept of closure. He said:

Hon. M. de Jong: "I want to say this clearly for all members. The government will not impose closure on this bill."
"Bill 39, to my mind, is a unique kind of bill. I thought, actually, with the limited time available in this sitting, the members might have some interest…."
"It is unique, I believe, because it is a bill that provides - or purports to provide - authority to an independent commission to assist with the task of reconfiguring the electoral map. It goes to the heart of the electoral process in British Columbia."
"I believe, and the government believes, that the commission we ask to do that work deserves to know that the will of parliament has been freely expressed. It would be improper to impose closure knowing that the mandate that derives out of that is one that the commission would be moving forward with in pursuit of the fulfilment of its duties."
"I actually do draw a distinction between that type of bill, which goes to the heart of our electoral process, and a bill that has been on the order paper for seven months and that other considerations seem to be at play. I do make that distinction." (emphasis added)

On May 6, 2008, de Jong advised the Legislature that the government would invoke closure on Bills 20, 21, 24, 29, 32, 37, 42 and 43. In addition to controversial gag legislation during election campaigns (Bill 42), those Bills include the carbon tax and electronic health records. None of those Bills have been on the Order paper for seven months, or anything close to it. The carbon tax has been on the order paper since April 28th, amendments to the Election Act since April 30th, just a week prior to government announcing that closure would be used to force it into law. What's different between amending the Election Act with a week's notice and then applying closure, compared to backing off on closure for electoral boundaries?

All of the controversial legislation deserves attention, but none illustrates the hypocrisy of the Campbell government as much as its gag-law. In Opposition, the Campbell Liberals railed against the NDP over the issue of restricting so called "third-party" advertising during election campaigns. They promised to end restrictions, and did so for the 2005 campaign through Bill 59 (2002).

In 2004, two years after BC's elimination of restrictions on third party advertising, a case Stephen Harper started against Elections Canada reached a decision in the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled against his claim that restricting third party advertising during election campaigns is unconstitutional. While Harper lost that challenge, in discussing its reasoning ( 2004 SCC 33) the court said:

"Third party advertising is unrestricted prior to the commencement of the election period, and third parties may freely spend money or advertise to make their views known or to persuade others. Further, the definition of "election advertising" in s. 319 only applies to advertising that is associated with a candidate or party."

The Campbell government has taken election gag provisions beyond the 28 day period of the election writ and beyond advertising that is associated with a candidate or party.

Bill 42 redefines "election advertising" as meaning: " the transmission to the public by any means, during the period beginning 120 days before a campaign period and ending at the end of the campaign period, of an advertising message that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate, including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated".

Under the Campbell government's restrictions on free speech, it would be illegal to run an advertisement reacting to the February 2009 Throne Speech or Budget Speech, since those are associated with a political party, even though the election won't be held until May 12, 2009. The formal campaign period beings 28 days prior to May 12 (April 15), and 120 days prior to that is December 15th. So it would be illegal to run a radio ad over the Christmas holidays in 2008 calling on the Campbell government to do something about poverty by raising the minimum wage, because his government is associated with opposing a higher minimum wage.

The Campbell government may try to defend itself by arguing that its amendments permit third party election advertising, but subject to a maximum of $3,000 per constituency or $150,000 overall. For most individuals those limits exceed what they'd spend, but for organizations such as the Canadian Taxpayers Association or the BC Teachers Federation, that doesn't buy squat by way of a media campaign. Imagine what would happen if the Campbell government increased taxes in its February 2009 budget speech and the Canadian Taxpayers Association wanted to fight back! Such freedom of speech would be illegal according to the Campbell government.

It is inconceivable that Bill 42 will withstand a constitutional challenge, but as it did with its contract breaking Bill 29 (2002), the Campbell government appears willing to ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms until someone goes to the time and expense of taking them all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. This time the government might be stopped by an injunction long before that final day in the highest court.

One unintended consequence of the Bill 42 amendments may be its affect on websites like mine. For the past several elections I've received nasty letters from the Chief Electoral Officer saying that I need to register as a third party, even though I publish my site 365 days a year, election or no election. I respectfully tell them to bug-off, and never hear from them again. According to Bill 42, the penalty for violating the Act and engaging in election advertising (Section 235.2) is "a penalty of 10 times the amount by which the value of the election advertising sponsored by the sponsor exceeds the limit". Since most blogs cost far less than a dollar a day, the penalty for free speech over the Internet would be less than the cost of a cappuccino. That won't stop the bureaucrats from insisting that anyone who uses the Internet needs to register with them from December 15, 2008, through May 12, 2009 in order to express their opinions over the Net. The Campbell government may generate enough outrage to make an interesting court case.