BCTF Issue Alert

Vol. 20, No. 2, May 30, 2008

Current provincial government attempts to stifle free speech

A proud history of advocacy

BC teachers have a proud history of advocating for our students, the public school system, our profession, and the community. We understand the need to speak out on issues of equity and access, and a quality public education system that meets the needs of all students. Working in concert with others, we strive to ensure that we do our very best to secure a bright future for the children and youth we teach.

Teachers, the most credible spokespersons

The public consistently rates teachers as the most credible spokespersons on public education issues, well ahead of the premier, the education minister, MLAs, and school boards. Public opinion research strongly concludes that parents and the general public want to hear from teachers, expect teachers to speak out on education concerns, and trust what teachers have to say.

New legislation aimed at teachers and the many others who speak out
In the Spring Session of the Legislature, the government introduced two new bills intended to silence criticism and put a damper on organizing around issues that communities care about.

Bill 7, the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, applies to local government elections. This bill defines individuals or groups organizing and communicating on issues in a manner that could affect the outcome of a local government election as "campaign organizers." Campaign organizers must register with the local chief election officer, set up a separate bank account, name a financial officer, and file a disclosure statement for expenditures over $500. The Act does not stipulate any time period during which the rules would be in effect, so the entire three years between local municipal and school-board elections are governed by these rules. Internal communications with the members of an organization would also be covered by these rules. At time of writing this bulletin, no handbook or clarification of the rules has yet been produced by government, however the legislation is retroactive to March 5, 2008. How will this legislation impact on the ability of groups that sponsor all-candidates’ meetings, organize against school closures, rally against overhead power lines, speak up for services for seniors, and take action in countless ways in the political process?

Bill 42, the Election Amendment Act, applies to the provincial election. It changes the rules for third-party advertising to greatly expand the definition of advertising to mean the "transmission to the public by any means, during the period beginning 120 days before a campaign period and ending at the end of the campaign period, of an advertising message that promotes or opposes, directly or indirectly, a registered political party or the election of a candidate, including an advertising message that takes a position on an issue with which a registered political party or candidate is associated.

Previously, any advertising sponsor rules only applied to the 28 days between the writ being dropped and general voting day. This legislation extends the period to 28 days plus the previous 120 days. The government is attempting to stifle criticism and limit engagement in the democratic process for five months before an election—a move unprecedented in Canada. The five-month period will include the sitting of the legislature in the spring of 2009, when the government introduces the Throne Speech, the Budget, and any other bills it wishes to table.

The legislation brought in third-party spending limits of $3,000 per riding and no more than $150,000 overall for third-party advertising sponsors for the entire five-month period. Per month, this would amount to $600 per riding or $30,000 province wide.

Bill 42 also threatens to disenfranchise many homeless voters, by requiring identification with proof of residence instead of a deposition, to register and vote on general voting day. The numbers of homeless in BC have grown significantly since the last election.

What is not covered by the legislation?

Donations to political parties from corporations, unions, individuals, or groups can still proceed unencumbered. Like a number of other unions, the BCTF does not donate to or endorse a political party. Instead, the Federation uses the opportunity of an election to put a spotlight on the needs of public education and remind voters that teaching and learning conditions are dependent on the

decisions of politicians. Is this legislation trying to prevent the BCTF and others from advocating for students and quality public education?

The legislation does not place any limits on government’s self-congratulatory promotional materials paid for by taxpayers, which are bound to increase significantly as the province heads toward the election next May.

Can you even phone a friend? The legislation actually specifies that it’s still permitted for an individual to express his or her political views to another in a phone call, text message, or online. Only the media (news, editorials, TV, radio, columns, etc.) are exempt from the rules.

BCTF response

The BCTF has joined with other unions to challenge the legislation in court. The Federation is also working with others to inform the public about the legislation through print ads, a website, e-mail messages, and media interviews.

Widespread opposition to the legislation

One would be hard pressed to find another act of government critiqued from so many quarters. Those in vocal opposition to the "gag" order legislation have included the Civil Liberties Association of BC, the Trial Lawyers’ Association, public sector unions, the president of the Independent Business and Contractors’ Association, the major media, columnists and political commentators, Democracy Watch (Canada), the Broadcasters’ Association, and more!

Extensive public commentary includes:

"Election campaigns should be an open exchange of ideas, but that cannot be the case if only politicians have their voices heard. " –Globe and Mail, Editorial, May 20, 2008

"[T]here are occasionally situations where politicians flabbergast everyone with a stunning flip-flop that not only seems so unnecessary, but looks like a classic case of power erasing common sense and ethics. That is the situation we now face with the B.C. Liberal government’s rather astonishing attempt to vastly limit free speech when it comes to an election campaign and the four months preceding it." – Keith Baldry, chief political reporter for Global BC, Richmond News, May 20, 2008

"Ultimately, gag laws are about silencing voices and controlling the debate during an election. That the government of BC has decided it wants to do so for a full five months is frightening." – John Martin, Criminologist, Maple Ridge News, May 20, 2008

"While banning advertising by concerned citizens and groups, the government gives itself free rein to fill the airwaves and newspapers with ‘feel good’ advertising promoting itself at public expense and promote itself further with taxpayer-subsidized political contributions. Governments should be held to account at all times through free and full public debate." – Bob Holmes, president, BC Civil Liberties Association, News release, May 14, 2008

"Bill 42 is shameful. Its effects will be severely harmful to citizens and organizations in need of exercising their right to free speech. Freedom of expression is supposed to be fundamental throughout our country. It is also fundamentally important when it is comes to issues of concern to individuals and society as a whole." – Stephen Frame, president, Trial Lawyers’ Association of BC

"If a union or a business group—or any organization–wants to speak out on the important issues facing our province, they should be able to." – Michael Smyth, The Province, May 2, 2008

"There’s nothing new in a party in power revising the rules to give itself a better chance of staying in power…

"What was right when the Liberals were in Opposition is still right. Third-party spending limits are an unwarranted and unnecessary abrogation of the right of free speech. The Liberals should withdraw this bill." – Editorial, Vancouver Sun, May 6, 2008

"The Liberals have been called hypocrites for their that-was-then, this-is-now stance… But the complete reversal, unaccompanied by any acknowledgment of the amazing convenience of the switch, invites stronger language… Extreme, I’m thinking, and treacherous. Or maybe profoundly false and dishonest." – Vaughn Palmer, Vancouver Sun, May 7, 2008

"The limit will skew BC elections even further in favour of wealthy individuals and corporations," he said. "BC has the best government money can buy, mostly corporate money right now." – Duff Connacher, Democracy Watch, The Tyee, May 12, 2008

What is the Campbell government afraid of?

Teachers, parents, and the public know that the government has not solved the class-size and composition problems in schools. Since the last provincial election, teachers have not seen the much needed increase in support for students with special needs. In fact, the opposite is true. The number of classes with four or more students with special needs has increased. Special education teachers and other non-enrolling teachers are struggling to meet impossible paperwork demands and unmanageable caseloads. Many students are waiting for the support they deserve, while the government appears to have lost interest in the Learning Round Table and any improvements to learning conditions for students in public schools.

There has been an epidemic of school closures in BC, 150 in the last five years and at least another 46 are slated for closure or under threat of closure. Between 2002 and 2007, 22,000 students have been displaced from their neighbourhood school due to closures.

The minister of education frequently parrots the message that education funding is at the highest level ever. But it’s certainly no secret that government has continually downloaded costs to school boards, expanded their mandate without any new funding, and diverted education funding to outside groups and agencies. As a result, school boards continue to face annual funding cuts, schools rely on fundraising for the basics, and students still wait for the support they need.

Our communities are full of people who have a great deal to say about how local and provincial government policies affect the quality of their life and that of their families. In passing Bill 42 and Bill 7, the provincial government may be hoping to silence those who speak up for students, patients, seniors, the homeless, resource communities, the environment, public assets, and much more. However, active, democratic engagement is a sign of a healthy, democratic society. Teachers teach students the skills of engagement in democratic decision-making and we model that engagement in our advocacy for public education.

Teachers' freedom of speech affirmed over and over

Sometimes this has meant that teachers in BC have had to speak up, even when others in the system try to pressure us not to do so. We’ve had to take our right to communicate on public education issues to arbitration and even to the courts, and we’ve had that right affirmed time and time again.

For example:

• In 2004, arbitrator Don Munroe, dealing with teachers’ right to hand out information on class size to parents, concluded that teachers had a right to communicate in such a way with parents.  
• The BC Court of Appeal upheld Munroe’s decision and affirmed teachers’ right to speak out once again, concluding, "Through the various materials the BCTF asked its members to distribute, teachers voiced their concerns about government policies on issues of particular importance to them. This is, of course, political expression of a kind deserving of a high level of constitutional protection."

  The ruling also stated:

  "[f]ree expression in the labour context benefits not only individual workers and unions, bus also society as a whole.’ The same holds true for teachers. Their political expression benefits society as a whole even where the concerns arise out of a labour relations dispute." and "It is difficult to see how discussion about class size and composition in relation to the needs of a particular child by an informed and articulate teacher could do anything but enhance confidence in the school system." 
• The Supreme Court of Canada denied the employer’s (BCPSEA) application to appeal the lower court ruling and awarded costs to the BCTF.  
• In 2006, the BC Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the Federation and against Translink and BC Transit’s refusal to carry BCTF advertising prior to the 2005 election, concluding that Transit and Translink’s policies were contrary to the Charter’s guarantee of freedom of expression. Further the courts concluded that the political advertising promotes the values of the guarantee of free expression, namely, truth seeking, democratic discourse, and self-fulfillment, more than commercial advertising.  
• And, in the recent arbitration ruling on the right of Cranbrook teachers to provide parents with a brochure outlining concerns with the FSA, arbitrator John Kinzie, concluded, "I direct the employer not to interfere in this manner with its teachers’ freedom of expression concerning FSA testing in the future."

The issues are just too important

Teachers know that to teach is to advocate for our students. We are respected voices for quality public education and for strong, healthy communities. We need to continue to be the determined and committed spokespersons we’ve been for decades. Our students’ future and the future of public education depends on it.

For more information, go to www.bctf.ca.

To send the government a message, go to www.justshutupbc.com 

To read the complete text of Bills 7 and 42, go to

www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/votes/progress-of-bills.htm

Contact your local association to find out how you can participate in the action plan for next year.