Skip to main content
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Access every election story that matters
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

A homemade election sign supporting Tavis Dodds is seen in this file photo.

Diana Nethercott/The Globe and Mail

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld a B.C. election law requiring all who sponsor advertising to put their names on a public registry, even if they spend little to no money.

Critics said the B.C. Election Act muzzles the poor by requiring that all third-party sponsors of election advertising register with the chief electoral officer, who documents their names and addresses in a permanent public record. Even individuals with a simple handmade sign in their window would need to register, under the chief electoral officer's interpretation.

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association, a non-profit group that challenged the law, said that interpretation would cast a chill on the expression of political views. It said registration should start when anyone spends $500 on advertising, a threshold found in a federal election law.

Story continues below advertisement

But the Supreme Court rejected the challenge by a count of 7-0, saying the chief electoral officer was mistaken and that the law leaves homemade signs and individuals speaking out on their own behalf alone. The law is "directed only at those who undertake organized advertising campaigns – that is, 'sponsors' who either pay for advertising services or who receive those services without charge as a contribution. In no case does the registration requirement apply to those engaged in individual self-expression," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote for the court.

She said the law's purpose is to ensure the public knows who is behind advertising during elections, to promote informed voting. "It was intended to require individuals and organizations who 'conduct parallel advertising campaigns' – and who can be described as 'forces' that 'influence' provincial elections – to register, so the public knows who they are," Chief Justice McLachlin wrote. She said the law's benefits outweigh the harms, which she said would be felt by very few. It is therefore a reasonable limit on the constitutional right to free expression, she said.

Laura Track, a lawyer with the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, which intervened in the case to say the law requires a $500 threshold to be lawful under the constitution, said the ruling "is an affirmation of freedom of speech for individuals engaged in political expression and debate." But she said the group remains concerned that small community groups may self-censor because of the requirement to register.

The election law is under a spotlight as voters head to the polls on May 9 in the province's 41st general election. British Columbia will not make any changes to the rules around third-party advertising as a result of the court ruling, Justice Minister Suzanne Anton said in an interview. But she may introduce legislation this spring to ensure greater transparency around party fundraising activities.

"This has never been about t-shirts, bumpers stickers, or signs in windows saying you love or hate a particular candidate. This is about paid advertising and the public's ability to know who is paying," she said. "There is no reason why anyone should feel stifled."

Transparency is the government's refrain when it comes to party fundraising as well. Faced with criticism around cash-for-access fundraisers and big-money influence in politics, the governing B.C. Liberal party has started releasing some details of its political contributions in "real time."

Now, Ms. Anton said, changes to provide more frequent disclosure of campaign contributions could become law. The proposal falls short of demands for a ban on corporate and union donations, a measure proposed by both the opposition New Democrat Party and the B.C. Greens. This month, Premier Christy Clark abandoned her annual $50,000 stipend from her party, saying media coverage of the payments had become a "distraction."

Story continues below advertisement

Two lower courts had also upheld the constitutionality of the law, but both had accepted the chief electoral officer's interpretation and failed to recognize the law's narrow scope, the Supreme Court said.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the authors of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies