19801120Th
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Turmel v CRTC (1980), 117 D.L.R.(3d)697
(F.C.T.D.)
Justice Walsh
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
"It is fundamental
law that "mandamus" lies to secure the
performance of a public duty in the performance
of which the applicant
has sufficient legal interest. The applicant
must show that he has
demanded the performance of the duty and
that performance of it has
been refused by the authority obliged
to discharge
it. It is therefore necessary for the
applicant to show that what he
seeks is a duty which the CRTC is obliged
to discharge. Nowehre in the
Broadcasting Act or the Television Broadcasting
Regulations or in the
Public Notice with respect to the federal
election, all of which were
produced by defendant is there any requirement
that the CRTC is under
an obligation to obtain from regular radio
or television stations
information to be conveyed to a member
of the public, even one such as
plaintiff herein who has sufficient legal
interest.
As he concedes
in his argument, the objective of his proceedings
are to force the CRTC to exercise more
control ov er radio and
television stations in connnection with
the allocation of free time
for what might be described as "minor
candidates." Another principle
is that a Mandamus will not be issued
to Order a body as to how to
exercise its jurisdiction or discretion.
See `Judicial Review of
Administrative Action,' S.A. de Smith,
2nd ed., page 565 in which he
states:
"In one sense,
every body entrusted with powers of decision is
under a duty to apply the law correctly;
but not all errors of law are
redressible by mandamus."
As previously
indicated, Mr. Turmel's affidavit starts off with
his complaint about the allocation of
time in the federal election in
February. He wrote a very strongly worded
letter to CJOH on February
15 setting out his mathematical theories,
demanding an apology because
his party had not got 62 seconds of time.
On the same date a reply was
written to him by Bushnell Communications
statintg that they were
aware of the equitability requirements
of the legislation and pointing
out that he had already been given an
accurate, lengthy and adequate
explanation of their position.
On February 26,
he wrote to Mr. Mahoney of the CRTC referring to
this letter of Feb. 15 and reiterating
that equitable means "just and
fair," and making some gratuitous comments
about the spelling and
mathematics of the writer of the Bushnell
Communications letter, and
asking the CRTC to obtain in writing and
graph form the algorithms
determining the allocation of the time.
On April 1, 1980,
he again wrote Mr. Mahoney about obtaining this
from CJOH even sugesting that it sbhould
reply as he has "bets that
depend on the outcome of this investigation."
No reply was received in
writing until just before the hearing
of his application when a letter
dated Nov. 14, 1980 from Mr. Mahoney refers
to Mr. Turmel's letters
of Feb. 26, and April 1, to him and Feb.
15, 1980 to the CJOH
management. It states that it was unfortunate
that a written response
was not provided previously by the Commission
but that it had been
explained to him in telephone conversations
on Feb. 13 and 14 and in
face to face conversation when he delivered
the copy of the CJOH-TV
letter, that the Commission does not agree
that "equitable" time
necessarily means "equal" time. The letter
concludes "The Elections
Committee of the CRTC reviewed your complaint
and the CJOH-jTV
response at that time and was of the view
then, and confirms now that
it finds no reason to conclude that you
received an inequitable
allocation of time in the broadcast in
question."
With respect
to the more recent Ottawa civic election, Mr. Turmel
complains that on Oct. 25, 1980, CJOH
announced its intention to give
"their favorites" 10 minutes each of live
time to express their views
and to give Mr. Alphonse Laplinted and
himself only 1 minute, 46
seconds to express their views (and that
on tape) on the basis that
they were "minor probability candidates."
He also complains
that although he had announced his candidacy in
early August, it was only reported by
CJOH on Oct. 20, two and one-
half months later. He complains that two
radio stations also treated
him in the same way: Hal Anthony of CFRA
gave Pat Nicol and Marion
Dewar two hours of live time each giving
Turmel only two minutes and
Lapointe none; Lowell Green of CKOY gave
Pat Nicol and Marion Dewar
his whole show and gave Lapointed and
Turmel no time. He states that
the affidavit is made in support of the
application for the mandamus
requiring CRTC to obtain in graph and
in writing the algorithms used
by these stations for the allocation of
the time available in an
effort to determine if there is any legitimate
basis to his complaint
that he is not treated fairly.
It is unheard
of to make a Mandamus Order to a public body
requiring it to obtain information which
it is not obliged by law to
obtain to enable the person seeking the
order to determine whether he
has a legitimate complaint that he was
not treated fairly by a third
person, even if that third person is to
a certain extent subject to
the jurisdiction and control of the body
against which the mandamus is
sought.
Section 15 of
the Broadcasting Act gives the Commission power to
regulate and supervise all aspects of
the Canadian boroadcasting
system with a view to implementing the
broadcasting policy enunciated
in section 3 of this Act. Section 3(d)
reads as follow:
3. It is hereby
declared that
(d) the programming
should be varied and comprehensive and should
provide reasonable, balanced opportunity
for the expression of
differing vbiewsd on matters of public
concern.
Section 16(1)(b)
gives the Commission authority to "make
regulations applicable to all persons
holding broadcasting licences
and subparagraph (iii) reads as follows:
(iii) respecting
the proportion of time that may be devoted to
the broadcasting of programs, advertisements
or announcements of a
partisan political character and the assignment
of such time on an
equitable basis to all political parties
and candidates."
It is the Commission's
interpretation of the words "equitable
basis" which applicant complains of.
Again it is noted
that the word "equitable" is used. Certainly,
if it had been intended to give all candidates
equal time, the word
would have been "equal".
In connection
with the federal election, public notice was given
by the Commission which specified the
time allocation to the various
parties. It states:
"In arriving
at these figures, the Commission first allocated six
(6) minutes to each of the registered
parties. the remaining time was
divided among those partoies with members
of the House of Commons. The
division was based on three factors: the
percentage of popular vote in
the last election, the number of seats
in the House at dissolution and
the number of candidates fielded in the
last election. In this
calculation, each of the first two factors
was given double weight and
the third, single.
The Commission
however wishes to emphasize that while those
factors were considered relevant under
the present circumstances, the
above allocation is for purposes of the
current election and should
not necessarily be taken as a precedent
for future elections, where
other factors and their relative importance
may lead to a different
distribution."
This appears
to be a reasonable approach, in fact, a generous
approach with respect to certain parties
which did not have the
slightest chance of electing any members
but nevertheless were allowed
six minutes each. It is evident that it
recognized the principle
however that "equitable" time does not
mean "equal" time.
It is also evident
that similar regulations could not be
applicable to a municipal election where
the candidates do not
(officially in any event), represeent
parties but run as individuals,
and many of them have never run before,
and where there may be ten or
more candidates in a given ward for alderman,
or running for
mayoralty.
While there is
no doubt that candidates who have little or no
chance of success inevitably suffer prejnudice
by not being given
equal time, some common sense distribution
of the time available has
to be made, if for no other reason, in
the interest of the listening
public which would not tolerate, in a
twenty minute broadcast for
example, the allocation of only two minutes
to each of the two leading
candidates, with a similar amount of time
being allotted to perhaps
eight other candidates with no hope of
winning, and who may have
ulterior personal motives for running.
In stating this, I wish to make
it clear that I am not making any criticism
of Mr. Turmel who has been
a candidate in many elections, byut merely
generalizing why equal time
cannot be allocated to each and every
candidate.
The danger in
this of course is that it sets up the individual
radio or television station as the arbiter
and judge of which
candidates are serious and worth hearing
which is undoubtedly not
democratic.Mr. Turmel seems to feel that
this authority should be
exercised by the CRTC, and that it should
direct the individual
stations how the time should be allocated.
As stated, it did so for
the federal election and could probably
do the same for a provincial
election but it is difficult to see how
tyhis authority could be
exercised in a municipal election.
In any event,
it is not the function of the Court to consider or
criticize the merits of the decisions
of the CRTC, and no mandamus
should be issued against it provided provided
it
exercises the authority delegated to it
by Parliament in accordance
with the Act and Regulations. That it
has done so is apparent from the
fact that it has reviewed Mr. Turmel's
complaint and the CJOH-TV
response to it (in connection with the
Federal election) and has
confirmed that it finds no reason to conclude
that he received an
inequitable allocation of time. Whether
it has done the same in
connection with the civic election is
not apparent from the material
on the record, but in any event, this
is not what the application for
mandamus seeks, since the application
merely requires the Commission
obtain certain information from stations
subject to supervision for
such use as plaintiff may wish to make
of it.
The application
for mandamus is clearly inadmissible and must be
dismissed but defendant has not insisted
on costs in connection with
such dismissal.
Nov. 20, 1980.
--
19831206Tu
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Turmel v. CRTC (1983) 24 A.C.W.S.(2d)
129
John Turmel VS CRTC & Bushnell
Justice Walsh
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This motion was
argued at the same time as that bearing No. T-
2883-83 Turmel vs Bushnell Communications
Ltd. A mandamus is sought
against the Defendant to prevent Bushnell
from broadcasting a free
time political broadcast in which only
three of the four registered
candidates for office have been invited
to participate on the grounds
that such distribution is in violation
of Section 9(1) of the
Television Broadcasting Regulations. An
Injunction is sought
restraining Bushnell from airing the said
debate for the same reason.
Both motions
were made presentable on Dec. 6, 1983 and sought an
order abridging the time for service of
them as the program in
question was to be broadcast on the evening
of that day. Because of
the urgency of the matter, both motions
were heard and fully argued on
such short notice by Mr. Turmel, representing
himself, and by counsel
representing the two defendants, and at
the conclusion of the hearing,
the Court advised Plaintiff that neither
motion would be granted but
that full reasons for failure to do so
would be issued since, as
Plaintiff contends, the issue is a serious
one which will be
continaully invoked from time to time
unless and until definitive
rulings are obtained disposing of the
arguments raised once and for
all.
Mr. Turmel is
an independent candidate in almost every election
for which he is eligible to fun, whether
federal, provincial or
municipal, or, as in the present case,
a by-election. He has never
been successful, nor even obtained a high
proportion of the votes, but
by virtue of running, he obtains exposure
and publicity to propound
his somewhat unorthodox views, which he
has a right to do.
Section 3(d)
of the Broadcasting Regulations says programming
must be "varied and comprehensive and
should provide reasonable,
balanced opportunity for the expression
of differing views on matters
of public concern."
Section 16(1)(b)
gives the Commission authority to "make
regulations applicable to all persons
holding broadcasting licences,
or to all persons holding broadcasting
licences" and "broadcasting of
programs of a partisan political character
and the assignment of such
time on an equitable basis to political
parties and candidates."
It is the Commission's
interpretation of the words "equitable
basis" which the Applicant complains of.
In a somewhat
similar action brought by the Plaintiff against the
CRTC arising out of an Ottawa municipal
election, I stated:
"Again, it is
noted that the word "equitable" is used. Certainly,
if it had been intended that all candidates
be given equal time, the
world would have been "equal."
While in that
case, what was sought was a mandamus requiring the
Defendant to obtain information respecting
the methods used by three
broadcasters for the allocation of the
time available to candidates on
free election broadcasts, the principles
involved were the same. One
of the reasons for judgment was that Appellant
had failed to show that
there was a duty upon the CRTC to obtain
the information requested.
An argument was
raised in that case and repeated in the present
cases by Mr. Turmel that in a federal
election, public notice had been
given by the Commission specifying the
time allocation to various
parties, allocating six minutes to each
of the registered parties and
dividing the remaining time among the
parties with members in the
House of Commons and specifying how the
division was to be made. The
notice given was however careful to specify
that "The Commission
however wishes to emphasize that while
those factors were considered
relevant under the present circumstances,
the above allocation is for
purposes of the current election and should
not necessarily be taken
as a precedent for future elections, where
other factors and their
relative importance may lead to a different
distribution."
At page 42 of
the judgment, in commenting on this directive, I
repeated "It is evident that it recognized
the principle however that
"equitable" time does not mean "equal"
time. I stated on the same
page:
minor candidates
suffer prejudice
listening public
would not tolerate
equal time cannot
be given to all danger of setting up station as
arbiter undemocratic.
Although in arguing
the present motions, Mr. Turmel seemed to
find some of the statements I made during
the course of the said
judgment helpful to him, it is evident
from the passages I have quoted
that a firm conclusion was reached that
"equitable" cannot be equated
with "equal" in connection with time allocations
and that it would
frequently not be feasible to allow all
candidates an equal
opportunityto present their views.
I have not changed
my views nor has any subsequent jurisprudence
altered it.
In the present
cases, in addition to referring to the directive
which was made by the CRTC in connection
with a federal election
(supra), Mr. Turmel states that in the
1979 and 1980 elections, he was
permitted to participate in all debates
as an independent candidate as
well as in 1981 when CJOH itself invited
him to participate. On two
occasions when he had at first not been
invited to participate, the
stations eventually backed down and permitted
him to do so. He feels
that this created a precedent and should
be applied in the present
instance. He contends that it might he
"equitable" if time constraints
do not permit all candidates to be heard,
to
make a selection among
them by flipping a coin, or other applications
of the laws of chance,
but that it is inequitable to permit broadcasters
or program directors
to themselves make a decision as to which
candidate or candidates are
worthy to be heard and exclude the others.
While there is some merit
to this argument particularly when viewed
in the light of the
Nicholson case which consecrated the duty
to act fairly, even in
connection with administtrative decisions,
the Court is in no better
position to judge what is a fair allocation
of the time than the
broadcaster, and in fact, probably less
so, and less likely to be well
informed as to the political trends in
any given election.
Unless one accepts,
which the Court does not, that "equitable"
time should be interpreted as meaning
"equal" time, it would be
necessary to have some guidelines to follow
to determine how to treat
all candidates fairly without giving independent
candidates, or in
elections where there are no political
parties, candidates with little
chance of success equal time on the air
or on television.
While it can
be said that no one, whether the producer of the
program or even the Court is in a position
to or should attempt to
judge in advance which candidates, if
any, have little chance of
success, someone must make this decision
and in the absence of
guidelines from the CRTC, independent
broadcasters are left to make
their own decisions in this connection.
Such decisions
are administrative and should not be interfered
with by the Courts except in cases of
such flagrant abuse as to
indicate that they have not been made
fairly. Such a case would arise
if a broadcaster indicated political bias
by, for example, excluding
representatives of one party, or any candidate
generally recognized to
be a major candidate, from any participation
whatsoever in a political
broadcast by it. This would then be in
contravention of Section 9 of
the Television Broadcasting Regulations.
Counsel for the
CRTC submitted that there are some 1500 licensed
broadcasting stations and that it would
be impossible to attempt to
define "equitable" in a manner which would
apply to all stations, in
all locations in the country, in all elections,
whether federal,
provincial, municipal, or by-elections,
as local conditions would
require individual stations to make this
determination for themselves.
It can only intervene after the fact if
a complaint is made and impose
sanctions on an offending station, perhaps
by suspending its licence.
It has no authority
to issue an order to Bushnell such as it is
sought to prevent the broadcast of the
free-time political debate in
which Mr. Turmel was not invited to participate.
The question
of what powers the Broadcasting Act gives to the
CRTC to control the content of programs
being broadcast by a network
of individual stations was dealt with
at considerable length in
National Indian Brotherhood vs Juneau
& CRTC on the significance of
the fact that although the Section 18(2)
provides that Commission may
require a licensee to broadcast any program
deemed to be of urgent
importance, there is no similar provision
whatsoever for an order to
be issued prohibiting the broadcast of
any given program.
It further stated
that "If this had been intended, surely
provision would have been made somewhere
in the Act givein the
Commission authority to order an individual
station to make changes in
a program deemed by the Commission, after
an inquiry, to be offensive
or to refrain from broadcasting same.
Instead of that, it appears that
its only control over the nature of programs
is by use of its power to
revoke, suspend, or fail to renew the
licence of the offending
stations."
While it may
of little consolation to an aggrieved candidate to
file a complaint with the CRTC that he
has not been given "equitable"
treatment in connection with a political
broadcast after the broadcast
has already taken place and the damage,
if any, been done, it is clear
that mandamus does not lie against the
CRTC in a situation such as the
present.
While the CRTC
has a duty to see that the programming should
"provide reasonable balanced opportunity
for the expression of
differing views in matters of public concern
on an equitable basis,
such a regulation was made by Section
9 (supra).
No special direction
was given to the broadcasting stations in
question in connection with this by-election
as to how time should be
assigned on an "equitable" basis as was
once done previously in the
case of a general election. There is no
obligation to do so in
connection with each and every election
in Canada. The CRTC,
therefore, performed all the duty which
it was required to perform and
no mandamus will lie. Mandamus will only
lie if an applicant
establishes a clar legal right to have
a duty performed which is
actually due and obligatory at the time,
and that it will not lie
merely because of an anticipated breach
of duty. It wioll not lie to
one person to command another to do the
required act and no person
othertan the party whose conduct is called
into question need be made
party respondent.
In the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal case McNutt v Int.
Woodworkers, it stated: "While mandamus
may lie to compela statutory
board to perform its statutory duty, it
does not lie to compelsuch a
board to exercise that duty in a particular
way."
The motion for
mandamus against the CRTC is dismissed with costs.
On the facts
of the present case, the program Mr. Turmel objects
to commences with the 6p.m. news in which
it is proposed to devote 3
minutes to giving the profile of the riding,
and after the 11p.m.
news, each candidate will have 60 seconds
to make a statement which
was taped in advance.
There would then
be a 15 minute debate between the candidates of
the three parties, in which Mr. Turmel
was not invited to participate,
although his name and candidacy would
also have been mentioned in the
profile and introduction.
It was estimated
that he would in all receive 5% to 6% of the air
time and it was suggested that this is
at least as much as the
percentage of the vote which he had ever
received in an election,
although no proof was submitted of this.
While Mr. Turmel complained
that his tape was censored, it was disclosed
in argument that this
isso only to the extent that his five
minute tape would have to cut
down to one minute. Certainly he could
not elaborate his views in one
minute, but that is the nature of the
time restraint necessitated by
the news program, and the Court should
not interfere with the program
director's allocation of the news time
allotted to the director for
this program. While there is some doubt
in my mind as to whether a
program devoted to the presentation of
the views of the candidates in
a local election is strictly speaking
a news program, presumably, it
is to considered as being "current affairs."
Quite aside from
the question of jurisdiction, therefore, the
application for injunction is dismissed
with costs.
Justice Allison A.M. Walsh.
Dec. 16, 1983.
--
19840724
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Turmel v. CRTC, CBC, CJOH, Global, FCC#T1516-84
Justice Muldoon
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Applicant,
John C. Turmel (who inappropriately styled himself
plaintiff, but filed no Statement of Claim)
seeks an order of mandamus
against the Respondent.
It appears that,
for the purposes of the 1984 general election
for the House of Commons, to be held on
Sept. 4, next, two television
programs, one in the French language and
the other in the English
language are to be broadcast featuring
the leaders of the three
political parties which were represented
in the House immediately
prior to Parliament's recent dissolution.
The Applicant complains that
this arrangement is not "equitable" in
terms of Section 9(1) that
allocated political time should be divided
on an equitable basis to
all rival candidates.
The Applicant
desires the court to make an order compelling the
respondent to supervise the allocation
of free-time political
broadcasts so that the time will be divided
equitably among all
registered political parties. The Applicant
contends that such
supervision should apply to tonight's
and tomorrow's planned
broadcasts even if, as he believes, they
would have to be postponed
and re-cast.
The Applicant
and the Respondent are not strangers to each other
in litigation. They previously met in
a case style Turmel v. CRTC
reported (1980) 60 C.P.R.(2d) 37. There,
Mr. Justice Walsh held that
"equitable" time does not mean "equal"
time, and dismissed the
Applicant's motion for mandamus. The parties
met again in 1983 under
the same style of proceedings where the
Applicant again sought an
order of mandamus against the Respondent
in order to prevent a
broadcaster of a free-time political debate
in which only three of
four candidates were invited to participate,
on grounds that such
arrangement violated section 9(1). Again
Walsh, J. dismissed his
application. In his exhaustive judgment,
Mr. Justice Walsh reasoned in
the second case as follows:
"He contends
that it might he "equitable" if time constraints do
not permit all candidates to be heard,
to make a selection among them
by flipping a coin, or other applications
of the laws of chance, but
that it is inequitable to permit broadcasters
or program directors to
themselves make a decision as to which
candidate or candidates are
worthy to be heard and exclude the others.
While there is some merit
to this argument particularly when viewed
in the light of the
Nicholson case which consecrated the duty
to act fairly, even in
connection with administrative decisions,
the Court is in no better
position to judge what is a fair allocation
of the time than the
broadcaster, and in fact, probably less
so, and less likely to be well
informed as to the political trends in
any given election. Unless one
accepts, which the Court does not, that
"equitable" time should be
interpreted as meaning "equal" time, it
would be necessary to have
some guidelines to follow to determine
how to treat all candidates
fairly without giving independent candidates,
or in elections where
there are no political parties, candidates
with little chance of
success equal time on the air or on television.
While it can be said
that no one, whether the producer of the
program or even the Court is
in a position to or should attempt to
judge in advance which
candidates, if any, have little chance
of success, someone must make
this decision and in the absence of guidelines
from the CRTC,
independent broadcasters are left to make
their own decisions in this
connection."
The Applicant's
contention comes to this: that "equitable" is
basically a term of mathematical import,
and does not involve any
element of judgment or discretion. And
yet, in terms elections in a
parliamentary democracy such as Canada's,
it could be quite
inequitable to allocate broadcast time
equally among all parties,
because such an arrangement could be most
unfair to those whom the
vast majority of voters have favored at
the polls. One must make the
assumption here that broadcasts do actually
shape electoral results.
One could go further and allocate time
to a party which, although not
represented in the previous Parliament,
nevertheless showed promise
(through public opinion polling) of gaining
a certain significant
proportion of seats in the ensuing election.
This is certainly
not to say that unpopular or minority opinions
are to be suppressed, quite the contrary.
It is not to be suggested
that freedom of opinion and expression
of opinion are to be
suppressed. It is however clear from the
experience of other
parliamentary democracies that the attempt
to pretend that a plethora
of parties expressing a cacophony of contending
policies are all of
equal weight is more than a parliamentary
democracy can, with
reasonable stability, withstand. Such
experiences, which are well
know, must have been complicated when
an "equitable" allocation of
time was enunciated in the regulation.
It is not a purely mathematical
term, devoid of all judgment or discretion.
It is unfortunate
that neither the statutes nor the regulations
address these problems squarely. Indeed,
it is unfortunate that the
Respondent itself seems not to have issued
adequate or any directions
pursuant to section 9(2). Without such
directions, the Respondent
makes a self-fulfilling argument to the
effect that all it can do is
regulate after the fact, thus creating
the possibility, if not the
probability, that its own equitable concept
will have been violated.
Counsel for the Respondent does argue
persuasively however, in these
poor circumstances, that the equitable
allocation of time is not
fastened onto any one program, but to
the broadcast programming during
the entire election campaign. That appears
to be correct, but may be
small consolation to a party which has
been found to have had
inequitable treatment after the election.
A valuable reform
in this regard would reside in clarification of
the statutes and the regulations.
The Respondent's
counsel, instead of presenting a preliminary
objection, argued that the Applicant lacks
status to bring this motion
because the Applicant approached the Respondent
through counsel this
time as he had on the two previous occasions.
Although the Applicant
himself gave short notice of his application,
nevertheless the
Respondent was too late here in attempting
to block the Applicant from
presenting his motion. Citing Karavos
v. Toronto, the Respondent
contends that, for the first time, a formal
demand in writing for
rectification of the situation ought to
have first been made by the
Applicant, followed by a formal refusal
in writing. Such may well be
needed in any future litigation, if time
then permits, but will not do
for this case.
The Applicant's
mathematical diagrams do not advance his case
beyond confirming it to the purely mathematical
sense of the
expression "equitable" which Walsh, J.,
a judge of concurrent
jurisdiction, has already held cannot
be equated with "equal." For
this among other reasons expressed above,
this application is to be
dismissed with costs.
July 24, 1984.
840725We
@PAPER = London Free Press, Warren Caragata
C P
@HEADLINE = Turmel loses case against
two debates
@NEWS = OTTAWA -- The Federal Court of
Canada dismissed an application
Tuesday from political gadfly John Turmel
that would have forced
cancellation of the televised leaders'
debates, the first of which
began only hours after the ruling was
handed down. Turmel, a perennial
fringe candidate, had gone to the court
asking it to force the
networks to include the leaders of the
other 16 registered political
parties or cancel the debates as unfair.
A similar move by Marc
Gauvin, an associate of Turmel's who asked
the Ontario Supreme court
in Toronto for an injunction against the
debates, was rejected by
Justice Joseph Potts. Federal Court Justice
Francis Muldoon had
reserved judgment after a two-hour hearing
Tuesday morning, saying he
needed some time to figure out Turmel's
argument. In his five-page
decision issued later, Muldoon said giving
equal time to all
candidates could be as inequitable as
not giving the time "because
such an arrangement could be most unfair
to those whom the vast
majority of voters have favored at the
polls. Pretending that a
"plethora of parties expressing a cacophony
of contending policies are
all of equal weight is more than a parliamentary
democracy can, with
reasonable stability, withstand, he said.
Muldoon, however, gently
slapped the wrists of federal regulators
for not giving broadcasters
clear enough directions on how they should
provide equitable coverage.
@NEWS = Turmel, who calls himself a member
of the Green party although
he has previously run federally and provincially
as an independent and
under the banner of what he calls the
Christian Credit party, argued
his own case in court. The Ottawa engineer
and self-proclaimed
professional gambler, his white hard hat
sitting on the polished
wooden desk beside his lectern, told the
court that by the principles
of Boolean algebra, Venn diagrams and
other such mathematical
esoterica, the debates involving Turner,
Broadbent and Mulroney were
unfair and undemocratic. During his dissertation,
Turmel also brought
in the political situation in Nicaragua,
his university marks, and
electrical circuits into play. At one
point, a genial Muldoon
interrupted to say: "You're getting rather
far afield."
@NEWS = Turmel said the networks were
doing a disservice to Canadian
voters by allowing Broadbent, Turner and
Mulroney to present their
solutions which would not work while he
had solutions that would work
but had no opportunity to set them forth.
"I'm not so sure you know
what to do either" Muldoon said. Turmel
said the CRTC was not doing
its job of making sure the debates were
fair to all Canadian political
parties. His actual request to the court
was for an order requiring
the CRTC to supervise the debate so it
would be equitable to all
parties or order the networks to take
it off the air.
@NEWS = CRTC lawyer Bill Howard told the
court the broadcast
regulatory commission does not have the
power to tell the networks how
they should run their programs. While
the CRTC has issued guidelines
to make sure broadcasters are fair to
all parties during an election
campaign, Howard said "equitable" coverage
does not necessarily mean
equal time. The networks provide time
for all political parties during
a campaign. The debates, however, are
not considered free time
advertising because they are run by the
networks, which consider them
part of their news coverage. In Toronto,
Potts commended Gauvin for
standing up for what he thought was right
but said he must realize the
concept of democracy is never a perfect
concept. "We must take a
realistic view of it," Potts said. "This
is not a mathematical
concept."
@PAPER = Toronto Star
@HEADLINE = Court rejects bid to halt
debate or have 16 other leaders
join
@NEWS = The Federal Court of Canada has
dismissed a perennial fringe
candidate's bid to have the televised
leaders' debates expanded or
canceled. John Turmel asked the court
to force the television networks
to include the leaders of the nation's
16 other registered political
parties or cancel the debates as unfair.
@NEWS = (Where they got the notion that
there were 19 parties amazes
me but it is a convenient mistruth that
makes it look impossible for
it to be done and makes me look stupid
for asking. When in a corner,
lie.)
@NEWS = The ruling was handed down yesterday
only hours before the
French language debate started in Montreal.
They will debate in
English tonight.
@NEWS = In Toronto, Ontario Supreme Court
Justice Joseph Potts
rejected a similar move by Marc Gauvin
-- an associate of turmel --
who asked for an injunction against the
debates. In a 5 page decision
delivered in Ottawa, FCC Justice Francis
Muldoon said giving equal
time to all candidates could be less fair
than giving the air time.
"Such an arrangement could be most unfair
to those whom the vast
majority of voters have favored at the
pools," the judge wrote.
Pretending "that a plethora of parties
expressing a cacophony of
contending policies is all of equal weight
is more than a
parliamentary democracy can, with reasonable
stability, withstand,
Muldoon wrote.
@NEWS = CHRISTIAN CREDIT
@NEWS = Muldoon criticized federal regulators,
however, for not giving
broadcasters clear directions on how they
should provide equitable
election coverage. Turmel said he is a
member of the Green party,
although he has previously run federally
and provincial as an
independent and under the banner of the
Christian Credit party.
@NEWS = Neither Turmel nor Gauvin are
spokesmen for the Green party,
said Trevor Hancock, a founder of the
environmentalist party in
Canada. "They're not financed by the Green
Party of Canada, nor will
we endorse their candidacies" if they
run in the Sept. 4 election,
Hancock said. (So Hancock, the supposedly
figurehead leader has
decided to use the full power of the leader
to disallow our
memberships in the federal contest. I'm
sure he did it on his own with
no input from other Greens in Canada.)
@NEWS = An engineer and self-described
professional gambler, Turmel
argued his own case in court. During his
dissertation, Turmel referred
to Nicaraguan politics, his university
marks and electrical circuits.
"You're getting rather far afield," Muldoon
remarked.