Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Finlayson Christopher: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:642;Page:12350] 
8.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Why does he disagree with the Human Rights Commission’s statement regarding the Electoral Finance Bill: “the inroads on freedom of expression which will result from the Bill are disproportionate and in the Commission’s opinion do not amount to a reasonable justification under s.5 of the BoRA.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Because I am persuaded by relevant case law by contrary legal advice and by the clear and real danger that unlimited freedom of expression ultimately benefits the very few wealthy to the detriment of the many. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister given his frequent reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in  
Harper v Canada 
 tell the House where in that judgment the Supreme Court of Canada says that a regulated period of 1 year or one-third of the electoral cycle is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The court in  
Harper v Canada 
 says clearly that limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation in the electoral process and are therefore beneficial. But the danger with unlimited freedom of expression is that it ultimately benefits the very wealthy. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Has the Minister seen any other statements on the bill’s impact on freedom of speech? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes. I have seen the comment of another submitter on the bill: “The bill is designed to control only those who have many tens of thousands of dollars to spend promoting their preferred party or candidates. This is fundamentally different to freedom of speech. It is more like the freedom to speak louder than or even drown out ordinary people.” 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister’s view based on the fact that there will not be any erosion of freedom of speech in the proposed bill but parties’ expenditure will be required to comply with the law? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Precisely. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister confirm that  
Harper v Canada 
 is a decision that states that a 6-week regulated period is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression as opposed to the 1-year regulated period in the Electoral Finance Bill so his reliance on the decision in answering questions both today and last week was misplaced; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot confirm that but I can confirm that of course the decision relates to the jurisdiction from which it comes. It does not however state what the member seeks to give the impression of and that is that it would disagree with a longer period. It simply does not specifically refer to it.  
Harper v Canada 
 relies on the principle that is clearly articulated in the judgment. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can he tell the House where in  
Harper v Canada 
 the Supreme Court of Canada says that being able to publish a handful of newspaper advertisements over the course of 11 months is a justifiable limit on freedom of expression; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: With respect I think the member now simply seeks to trivialise  
Harper v Canada 
. What the court clearly does is lay down the principle and it is the principle that matters in this judgment. I say again: it says clearly that limits on third parties allow all citizens to have meaningful participation. That is the fundamental purpose of the ruling. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can he confirm that all that  
Harper v Canada 
 says is that some limits on third-party spending are beneficial and that the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada would probably be aghast to hear that the Minister is peddling their judgment as some kind of justification for electoral finance reform that includes the most draconian provisions in the world with the possible exception of North Korea? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I cannot agree with the complexion the member paints because of course the Supreme Court of Canada gave its ruling in the context of Canadian electoral law. As the member knows caps on electoral spending and limits on advertising are a fundamental part of that jurisdiction’s electoral law.