Bill 57 is entitled An Act to protect elected officials and to promote the unhindered exercise of their functions. It is presented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a response to situations of intimidation, harassment and threats faced by people elected to the National Assembly or within municipal councils. The purpose of the bill “is to promote the role of elected officials and encourage candidacies for elections, and to contribute to the retention of elected officials by promoting the unhindered exercise of elective functions within Quebec’s democratic institutions, in particular the “exercise such functions free from threats, harassment and intimidation”.
But its overly broad provisions risk having an inhibiting effect on citizen participation in public affairs.
Bill 57 proposes to punish what constitutes an “undue obstruction” to the exercise of the functions of the elected official. Thus, it allows, when a deputy or municipal elected official “is the subject of comments or gestures which unduly hinder the exercise of his functions or infringe his right to private life” to request an injunction from a judge of the Superior Court in order to stop these comments or gestures.
The bill also provides that a person who “obstructs the exercise of functions [d’un député ou un élu municipal] by threatening, intimidating or harassing him in such a way as to cause him to reasonably fear for his integrity or safety” may be ordered to pay a fine. The same would apply when a person, during a meeting of any council of a municipal body, “causes [rait] disorder in such a way as to disrupt the progress of the session.”
The Chief Electoral Officer would also see his powers broadened so that he can initiate criminal proceedings for the benefit of a Member of Parliament and conduct an investigation.
Inhibitory effect
What poses a problem with this bill is the very broad nature of the notion of “undue hindrance”. It would be punishable under these provisions to utter words or make gestures that “unduly hinder” the exercise of the elected official’s functions or infringe on his or her private life.
No one disputes that aggressive gestures, such as threats, harassment and intimidation, against elected officials as well as against any person involved in public affairs must be combatted. But the bill aims much broader by proposing to make punishable comments which, without constituting violations of laws that already exist, would “unduly hinder” the work of an elected official.
But in fact, there already exist laws in Quebec that penalize threats made against an individual. Likewise, there are provisions punishing intimidation and harassment. Other provisions already protect the right to privacy of elected officials. Unless we take it for granted that the law speaks without saying anything. The undue obstruction of the exercise of the functions of the elected person would result from something other than these misdeeds already prohibited and already punishable. So, what are the proposed provisions aimed at?
Adding, as proposed, a ban on making comments or gestures that “unduly hinder” the exercise of the functions of an elected official amounts to making acts and gestures that fall within the freedom to express opposition punishable. with regard to a government measure. Otherwise, what words, actions or actions could constitute undue obstacles within the meaning of this law? As the laws already punish intimidation, harassment or threats, what other undue obstacles are we seeking to suppress?
The notion of undue hindrance is not defined in the bill. Its application is likely to depend on the level of sensitivity of elected officials. Some might equate expressions of disagreement with undue obstacles to the exercise of their work. The behavior of certain municipal elected officials observed in recent months clearly indicates that there is a risk in making available to certain politicians remedies based on notions as vague as that of “undue obstruction”. When an elected official has the deep conviction of doing good, he can be quick to find that the slightest action of protest is an intolerable obstacle to the accomplishment of his mission!
Obviously, it is a judge who would ultimately have to determine whether the obstruction of which the elected person complains is actually “undue” to the point of making it unlawful. But this would only occur at the end of a legal proceeding which could last long enough to put an end to any manifestation of dissent and leave a hefty legal bill for the protesting citizen.
The intent of Bill 57 is laudable. But before thinking about adding laws, we must demonstrate the insufficiency of those that already exist. The most effective way to fight against intimidation of elected officials is to do everything possible to speed up the progress of the legal processes by which we apply current laws which punish threats, intimidation and harassment of elected officials and other participants in the public life.