Ontario teacher unions are fighting for their right to throw organized labour’s weight around both before and during an election campaign.

The heads of the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) and the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) appeared before a legislative committee Thursday to slam the government’s proposed clampdown on third-party election and pre-election campaign ad buys.

The Liberal government’s election finance legislation, Bill 201, would ban corporate and union donations to candidates and parties, but also restrict third-party spending. A third-party, such as a teachers’ union, could not rack up more than $100,000 in advertising expenses during a campaign or more than $600,000 in the six months leading up to a fixed-date election period.

Bill 201 would also cap spending by a political party in the six-month run-up to an election campaign at $1 million. It would not, however, do the same for government advertising – there are no limits at all included in the bill.

ETFO, the largest teacher federation in Canada, isn’t opposed to ad spending limits in principle, but union president Sam Hammond said the Liberal government's proposed ceiling should be “increased significantly.” Hammond also said the pre-election cap would essentially scuttle public campaigns that are near and dear to teachers – and that third-party spending outside of an election period should be unlimited.

“Such a limitation is an unreasonable infringement on the right of organizations like ETFO to freedom of expression,” Hammond told the committee. “The right of citizens to discuss and debate ideas is a cornerstone of any democratic society and this right extends to third parties such as ETFO.”

Hammond’s comments prompted some pushback from committee members, particularly the Progressive Conservatives, who have been targeted by attack ads funded by teachers’ unions in the past.

“My concern would be that you can dump $100,000 or $500,000 in the week before [a campaign period],” said PC MPP Bill Walker. “I have no ability to even come close to being able to counter that.”

Hammond, however, disagreed: “We think it’s completely inappropriate to have any limits during that [six-month pre-election campaign] period.”

NDP MPP Catherine Fife sided with Hammond on the issue, saying that “limiting those voices should not be part of this act.”

The general government committee has been studying Bill 201 throughout the summer. A clause-by-clause review of the legislation will start at the end of August, and both opposition parties are planning to submit amendments. Afterwards, the bill will return to the legislature for second reading; in a rare move, the legislation was sent to committee for consideration after first reading.

But ETFO was backed up in its concerns by OECTA, which represents nearly 45,000 Catholic educators in Ontario.

OECTA president Ann Hawkins began her presentation by showing the committee one of the union’s ads, which, with others, cost $2.3 million, she said. This would be well outside the $100,000 election spending limit proposed by Bill 201.

“Given the proposal, none of that would be out in the public domain, which is what needs to happen for us to have a truly democratic system,” Hawkins told the committee. “This proposed bill will be challenged as unconstitutional. Pre-campaign periods limit and stifle free speech. Third parties speak for the voiceless.”

Like Hammond, Hawkins said the government should not restrict third-party advertising in the pre-election campaign period, while also hiking the proposed campaign spending limit.

Hammond and Hawkins also objected to the definition of political advertising in the legislation – which “includes advertising that takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated” – as too broad.

“It threatens to infringe the right of third parties to engage in public advocacy campaigns that contribute to the public discourse on important issues,” Hammond said.

The Liberal government has said Bill 201, if passed, would “help level the playing field” in the province’s elections.

Liberal MPP Mike Colle also said he hadn’t seen any studies showing that third-party advertising actually makes a difference in an election.

“It’s really all over the map, but it’s all on suspicion; it’s not on any kind of real hard evidence that has been compiled, that so much third-party advertising had this effect in this election and that election,” Colle said. “We all have our theories, and as candidates, we all have our paranoia about what caused us to lose the election.”

Ontario Chief Electoral Officer Greg Essensa also appeared before the committee Thursday. The elections watchdog has said an ad praising or attacking parties or politicians should could towards a third-party’s election spending.

Essensa warned about year-round third-party spending as well.

“This advertising, which exceeds what any political party spends between elections, is wholly unregulated, there is no contribution or spending limit, and it’s financing is hidden from public scrutiny,” Essensa told committee members.

The two teacher unions have been big spenders during election campaigns as well.

ETFO spent $1,275,528 on third-party advertising in the 2014 Ontario election. OECTA went further, dropping $2,174,433 on ads.

ETFO and OECTA were also big contributors to Working Families, a coalition of unions that launched attack ads in the 2014 election on then-Progressive Conservative leader Tim Hudak. The two unions gave the group $250,000 each.

To contact the reporter on this story:
gzochodne@qpbriefing.com
416-212-5913
Twitter: @geoffzochodne

Teacher unions bristle over proposed crackdown on pre-election advertising

Read this for free.