Ottawa (CLN) A shocking piece of legislation was slipped through the House of Commons with remarkable haste by an all-party agreement on October 25, 1983. On that day, in less than an hour, the first, second and third reading of a bill amending the Canada Elections Act was passed. At least one of these amendments could have a far-reaching effect, not only on pro-life organizations, but also on many other organizations in Canada.

The purpose of one of these amendments is apparently to stop all “third parties”, such as Campaign Life, from advertising in federal elections. In effect, it is an attempt to muzzle any single-issue organization, no matter the issue – anti-nuclear, pro-baby seals or the Canadian Police Association, from publishing, printing, or distributing any advertisement, flyers, placards or posters, etc., during the course of a federal election, unless it has the consent of the candidate or candidates of a registered party. Further, any printer who prints any such material, and any newspaper, which publishes it, could also be charged under this provision of the Act.

S. 72 of the Canada Elections Act, as amended, reads as follows:

Every printed advertisement, handbill, placard, poster or dodger that promotes or opposes the election of a registered political party or candidate and that is displayed or distributed during an election by or on behalf of a registered political party or candidate shall indicate that it was authorized by the registered agent of the party or by the official agent of the party or by the official agent of the candidate, as the case may be, and bear registered agent’s or official agent’s name.

This prohibition does not include broadcast advertising, nor does it prohibit apparently editorial comment in newspapers. However, it will undoubtedly create enormous difficulties for third parties who may wish to raise an issue during an election campaign by way of newspaper advertising, flyers, etc.

Even during the hasty debate on this bill, some of the M.P.’s expressed concern about the validity of such extraordinary legislation. For example, Mr. Chuck Cook PC (North Vancouver-Burnaby) stated: “… it is controversial because I think it will undoubtedly end up being tested in the courts. This amendment would eliminate third party or special interest groups advertising during the election period unless the third party had the express consent of a party or candidate for such advertising. In that case, the party, or candidate would have to include the cost of that the advertising as an election expense”.

“… However, I suspect that any number of groups in the country may wish to challenge that provision as it strikes me as somewhat of an interference with the rights of an individual to lobby on behalf of a political party or candidate.”

NDP Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill) was equally as direct: “… I share the concerns of the Conservative Party that this may be an area, which would be hard to enforce under the Charter of Rights. It does in some way impinge upon the rights of individuals or organizations to represent their opinions during an election campaign.”

The section of the Charter of Rights which this legislation would appear to contravene, is as follows:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.

However, it is Mr. Murphy’s party, the NDP, which has the most to gain by this amendment to the Canada Elections Act. The reason for this is that the NDP has had a long-standing national policy in support of the abortion on demand, and in July this year, the party voted overwhelmingly at its national convention in Regina, in support of free-standing abortion clinics across the country.

Because of this pro-abortion policy, the NDP party has felt the brunt most heavily of pro-life pressure during recent campaigns. (Recent polls indicate that the NDP would be fortunate if it held on to eight seats in the forthcoming 1984 federal election, and twelve seats are required in order to be recognized as a national party). This no doubt explains the further remarks of Mr. Murphy during the debate, when he stated: “… I submit that all Members recognize that some of the most partisan, vicious and one–sided adverting takes place during election campaigns on behalf of so-called third parties. I believe it is incumbent upon the House not to follow the American example where all sorts of groups spend enormous amounts of money during an election campaign to emphasize a single issue while not always being bound by the truth, fairness or honesty. They are simply pushing a very emotional issue to the extent that it clouds the real political issue of a campaign.” (italics ours)

The real significance

It is significant though that a check made of both PC and Liberal Members of Parliament, revealed that they were not told in caucus of the real significance of the amendment to the Canada Elections Act. Rather they stated, without exception  that, they were told only that the amendment to the Canada Elections Act was to deal vaguely with “election expenses” and that at no time were they advised of the extraordinary ramifications of this amendment. It would appear that all three Government House Leaders did not want to take any chance that this amendment would be challenged in the House during the debate, and therefore, all but a few members were kept in the dark as to its real effect. Clearly, all three parties saw the advantage of eliminating third party advertising during an election campaign and reached an agreement to push it quietly through the House.

In summary, the effect of this amendment, if strictly enforced, would be to prevent voters from casting a truly informed vote in subsequent federal elections. This is due to the fact that any group or person which has any relevant information about the candidate may be subject to prosecution if he advertises, prints or distributes this information to the public without the candidate’s or the party’s approval. In short, the candidate, not the people, would be in control of the issues raised during the campaign. The only option open for interested third parties would be to use the broadcast media – but as is well known, the costs of this are beyond the financial reach of most organizations.