Ottawa, ON (January 13, 2012) –The Honourable Tim Uppal, Minister of State for Democratic Reform, today announced that the Harper Government will ensure that Canadians are no longer penalized for early communication of election results.
Minister Uppal confirmed via Twitter that the Government will introduce legislation to repeal sections of the Canada Elections Act prohibiting the early transmission of election results.
“Our Government is committed to bringing Canadian elections into the 21st century by getting rid of this dated and unenforceable law,” said Minister Uppal. “Canadians should have the freedom to communicate about election results without fear of penalization.”
The original purpose of the ban was to prevent Western Canadian voters from knowing results from the Atlantic Provinces before casting their ballots. At the time, there was a four hour difference between the closing of the polls in Atlantic Canada and in British Columbia. To address this gap, Parliament introduced staggered voting hours in 1996 which ensures that the outcome of any general election cannot be known before polls close anywhere in Canada.
“We’re in the 21st century,” added Minister Uppal. “The ban, which was enacted in 1938, does not make sense with the widespread use of social media and other modern communications technology.”
For more information, visit www.democraticreform.gc.ca.
For information, contact:
Kate Davis
Office of the Minister of State for Democratic Reform
(613) 943-1835
Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits the transmission of election results to a riding where voting is ongoing. Paragraph 495(4)(d) and subsection 500(4) of that Act state that anyone who willfully contravenes section 329 is guilty of an offence and liable on a summary conviction to a maximum fine of $25,000.
The ban was adopted in 1938 to prevent voters in Western Canada from knowing determinative results of an election before casting their ballots. At the time, voting hours were uniform across the country, which represented a real-time difference of four hours between Atlantic Canada and British Columbia (Newfoundland was not yet a part of Canada).
In 1996, Parliament adopted staggered voting hours so that the difference between the polls closing on the east and west coasts was reduced from four and a half hours to three hours. Under staggered voting hours, only results from less than ten percent of ridings could be available to late voters since the majority of polls across Canada open and close at the same time. Despite this, the prohibition on the transmission of election results remains in place.
Following the 2000 general election, the constitutionality of the ban was challenged as being contrary to the freedom of expression protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In 2003, the Supreme Court of British Columbia declared the ban unconstitutional. Although the decision was appealed, the judgment would not be delivered until after the 2004 general election. Consistent with past practice, the Chief Electoral Officer relied on the existing state of the law and suspended the ban during the 2004 general election.
In 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v. Bryan. While the Court was unanimous that the ban limited freedom of expression, a majority of the Court found the limitation to be reasonably justified. Although the Court upheld the validity of the ban, it accorded significant deference to Parliament to alter or repeal the ban as it sees fit, noting that “within constitutional bounds, policy preferences of this sort remain the prerogative of Parliament, not of the courts.”
Repealing the ban is consistent with recommendations by the Chief Electoral Officer, who highlighted the difficulties associated with enforcing the ban in his report following the 41st general election, and recommendations by the 1991 Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, which concluded that communications technologies rendered the ban obsolete.
