On May 18, five days before the federal election was called by Prime Minister Paul Martin, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the long-fought Elections Act restrictions on third party financing were constitutional. The restrictions limit national spending on advertising to under $170,000 – far below what would be needed to launch effective national television, radio and print campaigns. As the dissenting justices put it, “The limits imposed on citizens amount to a virtual ban on their participation in political debate during the election period” as they referred to the limits as “draconian”.

The dissenting Justices warned in their ruling, “The effect of third party limits for spending on advertising is to prevent citizens from effectively communicating their views on issues during an election campaign.” The limits are draconian since they not only restrict advertising expenses to promote particular parties or candidates but also, and most importantly, restrict advertising on “taking a position on an issue with which they (candidates or parties) are particularly associated.” Included among such positions is the promotion of traditional marriage or opposition to redefining it to include homosexuals. All this is old news.

What is new is how far the law reaches. Not until LifeSite Daily News broke the story on August 10 did we know that churches may be silenced by this infringement of our freedom of speech, combined with the threat of losing their charitable tax status. More than two months after the meeting, it was revealed that the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) met with officials from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops to warn them that they jeopardize their charitable tax status by addressing certain moral issues (such as abortion and same-sex “marriage”) during the course of the campaign.

CRA’s own regulations say that charities cannot take part in “direct or indirect” activities that could be construed as “partisan.” What the CRA means by indirect is unclear, a matter of interpretation. CRA media relations officer Dawna Labonte told LifeSite that a church telling congregants that abortion was an overriding consideration when voting may be in violation of its regulations: “Well it would have to be taken on a case by case basis.” She said that if a party was clearly identified as taking a position on an issue, being pro or con on the same issue would amount to partisan activity. Labonte made it clear that churches should “stay away from” certain issues during an election.

Already there has been a chilling effect on Christian churches. At least one pastor has received legal counsel not to tell congregants to vote pro-life. We urge churches to ignore the policy and continue to speak the truth - that the right to life, must be the priority in voting since without it, all other rights are meaningless. We must fight for our rights, defend free speech and not be seduced into selling out for 30 pieces of silver.