~ attempt to limit abuses
<in election
~paigns?:.

: By lan Noble:
- News Reporter

behind the:

AG ON ‘free
speech or ‘a
reasonable

am

“That's : the question
I rhetoric and _
nk being spilled over the ”
275-page Election Act.

~ West Vancouver-

Capilano. MLA’ Jeremy

Dalton and a Vancouver-
based lawyer well-versed
in-.freedom ‘of speech
issues charge that Bill 28
gags press: and individual
freedoms — even though
the .NDP° government

introduced dozens of amendments, to.

the'act. : et
They. say advertising limits of

$5, 060 contained in. Bill 28 are
unconstitutional and restrictions on |

media reporting of polls are cumber-
some and shackle press freedoms.
But’ North” Vancouver-Lonsdale

MLA‘ David’ Schreck ‘defended the

bill: He said limits in the bill are rea-
sonable controls for election spend
ing and put B.C. in line with eight

other provinces with spending ‘lim-

its.” ;

‘Independent - West. "Vancouver-
Garibaldi -MLA David ~ Mitchell
called the. bill progressive in some *
respects, but added it's still a gag’
law. 0: :

The final verdict on the bill may *
not be, known for awhile: Al four::-
‘said the bill would be challenged i in

court.

third-party financing to $2,000.

“An: amendment bumped “that

amount to $5,000.

“Big deal,” said. Dalton, ithe : !
Liberal attomey gerieral critic, f

- He ‘called $5,000 unacceptable ”
and likely-unconstitutional. |." =...

“Why should third parties not ‘be!
allowed to ‘advertise their concerns:
like everybody else?” asked Dalton.:'
“They don’t. want :. third: -party?:,
interests who are likely to ‘speak ill
about : the © government, coming for~
ward,” he added. .

Roger MeConthie, a lawyer with

:” Ladner Downs who often acts for the’

media, agreed the’ law is a serious

‘infringement, on- speech freedoms:

Calling: the ‘35,000 limit “chicken
feed”. in light of the cost of advertis-'

“ing, he: noted ‘similar provisions ‘in

the federal election act have been’
trashed by the courts.
he idded a requirement that elec-

By ;SROnsOrs be registered with the chief ..,

But Schreck said the restrictions on third-party orga- 7
nizations do not apply. to issue-oriented campaigns... <<
"Only advertising that specifically targets-a candidate

or party falls under the cap, he said.”

Under. ‘the legislation, individual candidates are »
allowed to spend $50,000 on a campaign, while limits...
work out to a “couple of million dollars” for Political par- ;

ties in’ B.C.-as a whole, Schreck said. ‘

Money will be taken from the campaign war. chests of ©
parties or. candidates if advertisers overspend, unless the °

“Initially, the’ law ‘had been criti-”:-
cized as a gag law because it limited | !

——s AMENDMENTS: to Bill 28..
“announced. “by the’ Liberal Party: on.

66. Why: should
third parties not be
allowed to advertise.
their concerns like
everybody else? They

-don’t want third-party

interests who are

~ likely to speak ill
about the government
coming for ward. 1)

— LIBERAL LMA
JEREMY DALTOH.

advertisers do it without
approval fram the party.
said Schreck.

{f the -advertising is
unauthorized =o by — the
party, the advertiser faces
the conseauences, said
Schreck.

He called the caps
effective contruls on
election expenses, That.
he said, is what the
Election Act is all about.

Schreck pointed to the

recent Abbotsford
byelection —— a race he
said the Liberals spent
ubout $170,000 veinning.

“Who put forward

that kind of money?

What do they expect in

return?” he asked.
The © Election
stops that kind of abuse,
-Sehreck said.»
In this regard. the NDP has some

support from Mitchell, who said the ;

$50,000 limit should be lowered.
Although Mitchell does
believe a sophisticated electorate is
easily swayed by. glossy campaigns,
he said under the legislation parties
can spend up to $6 million. -
“That's a lot of maney.” :
Other parts’ of the bill also drew
criticism. Dalton Said that the NDP's
union friends will be able to take
paid leave to help the NDP's election
tun without their labor being consid-
ered a political contribition,
‘Liberals. want labor
declared a contribution.
Saying that the Liberals receive
help from lawyers and real estate
agents who earn commissions.

to be

‘Schreck replied that the NDP could

not determine a way that would treat

“all forms of donated labor “on a fair

and consistent basis.”

Poll reporting precedures in the -
bill also came under fire. Again, with jf

amendments, the NDP has lightened
up, but the burden on media is still
too onerous, said Dalton. |

Due to an, amendment. media

outlets will be allowed to-run polls |

without the consent of the sponsor.
But they’ still must initially print
eight poll particulars, including who
conducted the survey, the dates when
it. was conducted, the number of
individuals contacted and the exact
wording of each question.
McConchie said newspapers may
not have enough space to print: all

that information, so the legislation is’

de facto censorship.
“Governments: have absolutely

“no business dictating what should go
* in newspapers,” McConchie said. .

. Schreck said the polling Tegula-
tions are not“restrictive and- will
ensure the public receives full infor-
mation.

Moving to another part of the bill, Schreck said it will
improve accountability. The public wil] know exactly .

who finances election campaigns and political . parties,

Schreck said.

lic consultation. °

.. Mitchell lauded the bill’s full disclosure for campaign |
spending, new poll-reporting regulations and call for an
independent chief electoral ‘officer. He castigated the
NDP for introducing such an’ 1 important bill without pub-

The bill also contained some goodies for Mitchell He
noted the new bill allows independent candidates to issue
tax credits for donations,: which puts independent candi-
dates on a more level playing field with candidates sup- \-
ported by major parties. Provincial politicians in Victoria: ‘
“are now debating the act ‘clause by. clause.

ACL

not a

Right .
“Reform party. They have some
“excellent policies, ©

bees

Sunday, July 9, 1995 ~ North Shore News ~

row RECENTLY released sur-

vey of S01 B.C. residents by
Marktrerid Research indi-
cated that 46% of decided
voters would support the
Liberal party if an. clection
was held today. The May
poll also placed the Reform
Party of B.C. in second place

with the support of 28% of

decided voters. The ruling
New Democratic. Party
wound up with
decided support. Poll

respondents also’ selected,

23% of

inguiring
reporter

Liberal leader Gordon Campbell (41%) as the ¢ party leader
who would make the best premier, followed by the NDP’s
Mike Harcourt (19%) and Reform’s Jack Weisgerber
(11%), When respondents were asked to predict which party

would: win the next provi

incial election, 51% said the’

* Liberals, 11% said the NDP and 10% said the Reform party.
So how do those numbers measure up on the North Shore?

Which party will you

support in
provincial

Valerie Ward ,
North Vancouver!

I'm interested in getting the:
NDP out. They haven't done one -

thing right. (ll vote for the party
that has the best chance of beat-
ing them. 73.0

David Doherty , i :
North Vancouver - : i
now I'd support

especially
regarding ‘fiscal restraint and
_feducing the size of government.

Horseshoe Bay
Dundarave/Ambleside

British Properties
Norgate/Pemberion Heights.
Capilano/Delbrook Hightands
Lower Lonsdale

Central and Upper Lonsdale
Lyne Valley :

Bluerid; ge/Dee Cove «

the ~

the next:
election?

Longman -

fy Vancouver malo

Probably. Liberal. Probably”

because of NDP scandals ‘and ,

thrifty: spending. * I think . their >}
ideology. gets in the | way of prac-
ticality,: ; :

- Don Bokic .

North Vancouver :' ed

Liberals. { think their ideas are: |

what B.C. needs. We spend too 4

much...and’ need _. restraint
Campbell ted “Vancouver | City"

quite competently.

Undecided

713%
58%
37%
70%
re |B
"ore. |S
Gi
Ik

NDP REFORM “LIB
8% Ah
19% - 21%
te 32%
4% 26%
20% Bk.
4% 35%:
Te 21%
2% 14%
O% 4%