Looking at that—I'm commenting on our own report— I think two different things are being addressed there. “Views or behaviours fundamentally inconsistent with what is generally expected of an elected official,” is one thought, and “or feelings of hatred, contempt, or deep-rooted prejudice against an identifiable group”....
The first is fuzzier. I have to admit I have some reservations myself about that. The second one is very clear. Seriously, I think in our society that saying someone is a racist is seen as being a greater slight against them than saying they are an axe murderer. It's easier to say, without any proof, that is a more effective way of destroying them. We have some definitions of an “identifiable group” that link back to the Human Rights Act and the Charter of Rights. That strikes me as very clear, and that deals with a very effective kind of potential propaganda to be used. That's the one we should concentrate on.
Thank you very much.
I want to ask you as well about the practicality of trying to implement some of these things. You mentioned provincial models that had been used. You said that some provinces require third parties to provide a telephone number or address for their tag line and that the committee might wish to consider requiring this of third parties. How successful has this been in provincial elections? Have they achieved a high level of compliance, to your knowledge?