The more things change...

There's been plenty of reason for concern early in the Cons' tenure in power about attempts by Harper and company to manipulate the media - most glaringly through Colin Mayes' well-reported musings about jailing reporters. But until I stumbled onto this case (Reference Re Alberta Statutes - The Bank Taxation Act; The Credit of Alberta Regulation Act; and the Accurate News and Information Act, [1938] S.C.R. 100) a couple of weeks back, I hadn't realized that attempts to control the editorial content of the media are nothing new in Canadian politics even well outside of wartime. So let's take a look at this example of an attempt to subvert the free press...and note the seeds of a similar attitude within the Cons' actions today.

The background to the linked decision lies in Alberta's provincial Social Credit government attempting to pass legislation to create a social credit-based economy, and seeking to ensure public support for its scheme by limiting media criticism of that effort (emphasis added):

Section 3 provides that any proprietor, editor, publisher or manager of any newspaper published in the province shall, when required to do so by the Chairman of the Board constituted by section 3 of the Alberta Social Credit Act, publish in that newspaper any statement furnished by the Chairman which has for its object the correction or amplification of any statement relating to any policy or activity of the government of the province published by that newspaper within the next preceding thirty-one days.

And section 4 provides that the proprietor, etc., of any newspaper upon being required by the Chairman in writing shall within twenty-four hours after the delivery of the requirement

make a return in waiting setting out every source from which any information emanated, as to any statement contained in any issue of the newspaper published within sixty days of the making of the requirement and the names, addresses and occupations of all persons by whom such information was furnished to the newspaper and the name and address of the writer of any editorial, article or news item contained in any such issue of the newspaper.

While the wider legislation was struck down based on its interference in federal jurisdiction over banking, even 44 years before the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Supreme Court was less than shy in declaring that such an attempt to undermine the free press was not welcome. Cannon J. discussed the aims of the Alberta government as follows:

It is...essential to control the sources of information of the people of Alberta, in order to keep them immune from any vacillation in their absolute faith in the plan of the government. The Social Credit doctrine must become, for the people of Alberta, a sort of religious dogma of which a free and uncontrolled discussion is not permissible. The bill aims to control any statement relating to any policy or activity of the government of the province and declares this object to be a matter of public interest...The pith and substance of the bill is to regulate the press of Alberta from the viewpoint of public policy by preventing the public from being misled or deceived as to any policy or activity of the Social Credit Government and by reducing any opposition to silence or bring upon it ridicule and public contempt.

And lest there be any doubt what Cannon J. thought of such an attempt to slam the door shut on public debate:

(I)t seems to me that the Alberta legislature by this retrograde Bill is attempting to revive the old theory of the crime of seditious libel by enacting penalties, confiscation of space in newspapers and prohibitions for actions which, after due consideration by the Dominion Parliament, have been declared innocuous and which, therefore, every citizen of Canada can do lawfully and without hindrance or fear of punishment. It is an attempt by the legislature to amend the Criminal Code in this respect and to deny the advantage of sect. 133 (a) to the Alberta newspaper pub­lishers.

Under the British system, which is ours, no political party can erect a prohibitory barrier to prevent the electors from getting information concerning the policy of the government. Freedom of discussion is essential to enlighten public opinion in a democratic State; it cannot be curtailed without affecting the right of the people to be informed through sources independent of the government concerning matters of public interest. There must be an untrammelled publication of the news and political opinions of the political parties contending for ascendancy. As stated in the preamble of The British North America Act, our constitution is and will remain, unless radically changed, "similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom." At the time of Confederation, the United Kingdom was a democracy. Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the State within the limits set by the criminal code and the common law.

Needless to say, it doesn't seem likely that the Cons would attempt to pass any similar legislation now - particularly given that the notwithstanding clause would almost certainly be required for such legislation to be upheld under the Charter. But there are still hints of a similar view that information should be completely one-sided.

From Harper himself we of course saw a complete refusal to answer media questions on any terms other than his own, an attitude which he's now spread to Lebanese refugees being used for his political purposes, who have been told to send an e-mail to Harper's office rather than disturbing his flight of fancy. And then there's Peter MacKay, who has parroted the Social Credit view all the more strongly, demanding the names of sources and claiming that no critical article should be written without a government rebuttal.

Now as in the 1930s, there's little reason to think that public-pressure methods alone will manage to suppress information to any great degree. But there's still a serious danger in even a small incremental decrease in the media's willingness to report truths which the government doesn't want told. And in that sense, we can only hope that the Cons' current attempts to suppress dissent end up a historical footnote like Social Credit's...and not the start of any new pattern in Canadian media relations.