OTTAWA - Political parties or candidates are breaking the law if they buy provocative headlines on Internet news sites during election campaigns without declaring the expense and notifying the viewing public, says Elections Canada.
But practically speaking, Canada's elections watchdog is powerless to detect or sanction the practice.
The observation comes as a debate rages in Canada's political blogosphere over the effectiveness of high-profile Conservative TV ads targeting Liberal Leader Stephane Dion.
Two public opinion polls suggest the English-language ads - which are about to be followed by the Tory release of French ads - haven't had much influence. But their very release in a non-election period has been enough to generate a great deal of media attention, and pollsters concede the longer term impact of the ads cannot yet be measured.
While the Tories are proudly touting their anti-Dion TV spots as both warranted and effective, no individual or party is claiming credit for a parallel campaign that's been waged for weeks on the popular Bourque Newswatch news site.
In the eyes of Elections Canada, that too is advertising - at least if it happens during an election campaign.
"Election advertising means the transmission to the public by any means during an election period of an advertising message that promotes or opposes a registered party or the election of a candidate," spokesman Stephane Bechand of Elections Canada said in a recent interview.
That includes messaging that "takes a position on an issue with which a registered party or candidate is associated."
Friday was a typical day on Bourque, which openly advertises its headline service for sale.
The top four "news" links on the site all slammed Dion, along with an unflattering photo. "Is Dion Tanking?" screamed the top headline, linking to a story about a Leger Marketing poll that showed the Conservatives leading nationally but the Liberals making significant gains in Quebec.
While not speaking about any specific headline, Elections Canada said the practice is indeed political advertising.
"The answer is yes, if it takes place during an election," said Bechand.
And as such, the headlines would have to carry a disclaimer stating if they were paid for by a political party or candidate.
Bourque's business model
Bourque's business model allows paying clients to have flattering or negative headlines on the Bourque page that link to news stories, web log entries, news releases or anything else the client chooses.
Pierre Bourque, a one-time Liberal party candidate, has not responded to repeated requests for an interview with The Canadian Press.
While there's nothing to prove the last two months of anti-Dion headlines were paid for, it's difficult to write them off as simply partisan editorial decisions by a news manager with deeply conservative convictions. That's because Bourque's web site has also been posting a series of flattering headlines about the Ontario Liberal party.
The government of Ontario has had a large banner ad on the Bourque site for weeks, and critics at Queen's Park say it is no coincidence that the accompanying news headlines have promoted Premier Dalton McGuinty and his Liberal party.
One recent top headline shouted: "Daltonmania Sweeps Punjab." Another trumpeted the Ontario Liberals' "Awesome Byelection Ads."
Past and current Bourque clients privately tell The Canadian Press there's a quid pro quo for advertisers on the site, who can expect flattering headlines and links.
The Ontario government banner ad on Bourque is part of the province's $300,000 Internet campaign targeting the fiscal imbalance issue - a campaign, incidentally, which was deemed too partisan under Ontario law to be aired on TV. The law doesn't apply to Internet ads.
For New Democrat MPP Peter Kormos, the issue is clear.
"McGuinty and the Libs are buying themselves flattering and, by the way, in most instances false headlines with taxpayers' money," he said in an interview.
Provincial political parties are not covered by the federal Canada Elections Act, but even if they were, reporting provisions in the act don't provide a transparent accounting of advertising spending.
It is simply lumped in as part of each federal party's voluntary year-end accounting of expenses. The same goes for election-period expenses.
Campaign disclosures for the 2006 federal campaign do not indicate whether any political party employed Bourque's headline services - or any other ad agency or Internet site, for that matter.
The federal New Democrats and Liberals say they have not paid for Bourque's services in years, although both acknowledge buying banner ads in the past and a Liberal source says the party briefly purchased the headline service in 2005.
The Conservative party flatly refuses to discuss Bourque, or any other commercial contract the party might have.
At least one federal Liberal, MP Stephen Owen, wants a Commons committee to take a look at the practice of buying Internet headlines.
"The key question is, is this simply a different version of a legitimate practice that is unlimited outside of election writ periods, or is there something about it that's misleading or takes us beyond ordinary advertising?" Owen said in a recent interview.
"Is it mixing news with advertising in a way that is unethical from a news services point of view? Are you maybe creating some toxic monster?"
Owen said he'll propose having the Procedure and House Affairs committee examine the issue.
