Yes.
It's probably my not expressing myself clearly enough, so I'll try to clarify what I meant when I said that perhaps there would be an issue in whether it should be broadened.
Section 91 as it reads now applies only to candidates or prospective candidates, and yet people could make some very damaging comments about, for example, a political party or a senior organizer in a political party that, by nature of these words, could have a very detrimental effect on the outcome of an election.
The question I am putting to you is, when this was passed in 1908 perhaps we didn't have the same kind of involvement by senior officials of parties, or parties, so that issue, to me, is an open issue in whether you'd like to broaden it. That's why I am saying this.
In terms of narrowing it, I am suggesting looking at the way that courts and judges have applied that provision in various court cases. You find they are looking for something that's pretty narrow. For example, one of the judges said that if you make a comment about the way somebody carried out their official duties, a lot of leeway will be given to people making those kinds of statements, but if you impugn or attack somebody's personal reputation, that's something else. That's why I'm saying to you that false statements.... You may wish to add words to clarify so that courts have an indication of what Parliament would like them to do, or would like the legislation to say.
As I said at the outset, we are in the realm of freedom of expression, so it is extremely important for any new legislation—if you decide to open it up and change it—to bear that in mind. The court will give lots of leeway to people expressing themselves in the course of a political debate, so you have to make sure that your objectives clearly outline and define, and that the means you use are as narrow as possible to achieve the goal.