Illegal advertising or unlimited advertising?

Hey boys and girls, how would you like to go for a walk through the tundra of obscure government regulations? Watch out for the loop holes...

Last post, where I discussed a fascinating little ad that I got in the mail from the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, I wondered if this was legal and all. My concern was that partisan material was being sent as something resembling an official government communication, and was almost certainly being paid for with tax dollars.

A commenter, Paul St.D, suggested that using the legislative return address might be a violation of section 54 of the Election Finances Act. I had a look at section 54 and didn't see it. I saw something else that looked like a possible violation though:

54.2 tells us that advertising by a registered political party must be authorized by the party's chief financial officer, and that this authorization must be printed on the advertisement.

This is clearly advertising by a political party (see 54.1(6) for descriptions), but there is no authorization to be found anywhere in the ad, unless it's written in microscopic type using carbon nanotubes. Is that not a violation? Looks like one to me.

... and then I read the very short, one scentence, sub section 54.1(5) a little more carefully. It says:

If an allowance is paid under The Legislative Assembly Act respecting an expense incurred by a member of the Assembly or by the caucus of a political party, that expense is not an advertising expense under this section.

Now I'm not a loophole-ologist, but that looks like a loop hole to me. The way I read that is: if you bill the tax payers for your ad, then it isn't an ad. The rules of ads, like spending limits and authorizations, and so on don't apply to you. That one sentence apparently renders the entire section of the act null and void -- but only for the party in power of course. Good luck to any opposition party getting allowances for your ads.

Surely there must be some limit to this? I scanned the The Legislative Assembly Act and was unable to find anything relevant. Maybe you have sharper eyes. My impression is that this loophole creates a no-limits advertising free-for-all for the ruling party.

This loophole, by the way, was part of the ammendments that Gary Doer enacted his first year in office. Just thought you might like to know.

I am sure I am interpreting this incorrectly. I am not a lawyer. I am not familiar with navigating the dull and cold terrain of government acts. Still, something doesn't pass the sniff test here. Maybe I should just keep my nose out of this stuff and concentrate on more useful things like perfecting my mojito recipe before summer arrives. I like the smell of mint.

A fitting way to go

Doer announces $10-M UNESCO trust fund

The Manitoba government is contributing $10 million towards a new trust fund in support of winning a UNESCO World Heritage status for the east side of Lake Winnipeg.
...
The protection of the boreal forest and the rivers that run through it is the main reason the Doer government opted to build a new hydro transmission line down the west side of the province rather than the shorter route down the east side.

The Free Press staff writer made an error in the above quote. Protection of the boreal forest is not the reason, but the excuse. I suspect the reason has more to do with political expediency: not having to negotiate with stubborn Indians. Negotiating with chief Bushie could get especially ugly. Don't want to go there if you don't have to, and you don't have to if you have a bottomless well of money to draw from.

Regardless of the actual reason, it is bad policy, but it sums up Doer's tenure nicely: solve problems by spending money, and to hell with the environment.

As you know by know, the west side route will cost something like $410 million more than the east side route, through the proposed UNESCO site, plus the additional costs of preparing for the UNESCO designation like the $10m mentioned above, and the half-mil for land use plans. You should also know that the longer route means greater lines losses (waste) of electricity, which will add millions more to the tab via reduced sales to the US. These have been estimated at between 28 and 70 MW. According to this report, 1 kwH of coal-produced power produces 2.095 pounds of CO2. At that rate, using the lower estimate of line losses, Doer's west side route will add 513,861,600 lbs of CO2 to the atmosphere each year if you assume that the lost power would have been sold to the US where it would displace coal power.

So to summarize: hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of pollution spilled into the atmosphere each year. Sounds about right.

I was going to write a letter to UNESCO urging them to reject the request for heritage status, to remove the lame excuse for choosing the west side route, but then I read this:

An official submission to UNESCO should be made by 2012.

2012? They can't reject something that hasn't been submitted! Submitting it in 2012 should ensure that the west side route is already under construction if UNESCO rejects our request. So, we are committed to wasting all this money and electricity for an application for a designation that has not yet been submitted, may not get approved, or may have been approved in spite of a transmission line. Yet, Gary has a reputation for being a "green" and fiscally responsible Premier. No wonder he smiles a lot.

Farewell, Gary.

**update**: I may need to revise my pollution calculations:

MANITOBA Hydro's Bipole III transmission line could be even longer than predicted, with one proposed route sending power 66 per cent farther than the rejected path down Lake Winnipeg's east side, according to a draft map

The obligatory Goodbye Doer post

I am a blogger (among many other things) and I live in Manitoba, therefore I am required by blogging convention to do a post about Doer's resignation, whether you want to read it or not.

A few months back I wrote about Doer potentially resigning. I did not predict it one way or the other, but what I said was:

Will his remarkable timing continue? Much depends on what happens federally. If the Conservatives stay in power as the economy recovers, or if the Liberals manage to get a majority, you can bet that they will again be looking for ways to chop spending and get the federal budget back on track, right about the time of our next Provincial election. This would put Doer in the same shoes as his predecessor, faced with declining revenues and tough decisions to make, should he get re-elected. You can bet that Doer will keep a watchful eye on that possibility, and quit while he's ahead if that's where things are heading. Whatever happens, you can bet he'll retire from politics smelling like a rose.

Indeed he is, although the timing of his resignation appears to be more of a happy coincidence than the cause. His successor, and I will not speculate on who that may be, will not have as easy a go of it for two reasons: the first is referred to in the quote above, and the second is that they will not have Doer's smiley charm that allowed him to slither away from scandals and failures.

Ok then .. what grade should we give him? What will his legacy be? For sure, he will go in the books as a successful Premier. He presided over a prosperous era, recorded a series of balanced budgets (sort of), and ran a boring show in a profession where "exciting" usually corresponds with "controversial" and "short lived". He made a series of modest tax cuts and kept most voters happy. One might look at this record and give him a B or B+. Nothing astounding for sure, but steady.

In my mind, however, Doer's term in office represents a wasted opportunity. It corresponded with one of the most prosperous eras in this country's history. Instead of taking this opportunity to reduce our provincial debt, he increased it. Instead of reducing our dependency on equalization payments, he increased it dramatically. Instead of reducing corporate taxes to draw private investment, he decreased small business taxes which will have a very marginal return in terms of job growth. Instead of keeping our personal income taxes in line with our neighbouring provinces, he kept tax brackets frozen and opted for small decreases, making us less competitive.

In short, he didn't take the opportunity to use the economic boom, which is now over, to position ourselves for the future. Our province's economy, including our valuable hydro resource, is burdened by debt and overly dependent on government jobs and government spending. This isn't as much of a problem now as it will a few years down the road. It's Doer's successors who will really feel the pain of his economic mis-management, and will be forced to transfer that pain to the people.

Further, his administration has been plagued with scandals, and he has failed miserably in the environment department (although he has a green image because most of our power comes from Hydro electricity) as well as in health care. He never did keep his initial promise to end "hallway medicine". Curtis Brown says that he is sure Doer has repeatedly regretted making those promises. To the contrary, I am sure he does not. Those promises got him elected. He knew it wasn't doable without massive reforms to the health care system and/or massive tax hikes, but he didn't care because it got his ass into the Premier's chair.

Gary Doer is not a man of bold action. He is more of a "don't rock the boat" sort of guy." He is not a leader, but a caretaker. I challenge any of you to point out a difficult decision that he made during his tenure in office. A truly difficult decision ... the kind of unpopular choice that a real leader would make for the betterment of the province. They are few and far between, if they exist at all.

Doer may make an excellent ambassador to the US. His charisma and rolodex (do they still make those?) will serve him well, and I suspect that he can be quite compelling in closed door discussions. As a Premier, however, he didn't have the fortitude to do what was right. C-

Timing is everything

In politics, like in comedy, timing is critical. A new party can sweep into power on the heals of a major shit storm or unpopular war, for example. The ebbs and flows of the economy can also have a major impact on who gets elected and if they stay that way. If I convinced you that I could get you your job back then you would probably vote for me. (I can't by the way. Didn't mean to get your hopes up. Sorry...)

Here in Manitoba, Premier Doer's timing has been impeccable:

In the late 90s Federal Finance Minister Paul Martin chopped transfer payments to the provinces in order to slay the Massive Federal deficits, resulting in a "health care crisis" in every province of the confederation. But because health care is provincially managed, provincial governments generally took the hit. This was Doer's first big break, allowing him to roll into power on promises of health care reform. (remember "No More Hallway Medicine"? How did that go anyhow?)

The following years saw a world-wide economic boom, big revenue growth for the Canadian government and unprecedented increases in transfer payments to the provinces, but especially Manitoba, who's share of equalization payments (a.k.a. provincial welfare) consistently increased.* This allowed Mr Doer to avoid making difficult decisions, much like those that doomed his predecessor, choosing instead to throw money at problems. For example, without making any real health care reforms, Doer more than doubled health care spending.** Health care didn't really improve, but we got a couple of jazzy new buildings filled with health care administrators in downtown Winnipeg. In fact, most new jobs and construction are a result of government spending. The result is that the government is popular and everything seems to be fine. Life is good when you have money to spend, especially if it's somebody else's money.

Oh, but dark clouds loomed on the horizon: the economy began to stumble, portending the end of the massive transfer payment increases. This would have been bad news for Doer, but for one more timely new development: Keynesian deficit spending suddenly became in vogue. This produced a brand new revenue stream for Manitoba: Fiscal Stimulus! It also gave Doer an important 'out', allowing him to continue to increase spending under loosed balanced budget rules. And if he happens to run a deficit, then oh well ... we're in a recession you know!

Will his remarkable timing continue? Much depends on what happens federally. If the Conservatives stay in power as the economy recovers, or if the Liberals manage to get a majority, you can bet that they will again be looking for ways to chop spending and get the federal budget back on track, right about the time of our next Provincial election. This would put Doer in the same shoes as his predecessor, faced with declining revenues and tough decisions to make, should he get re-elected. You can bet that Doer will keep a watchful eye on that possibility, and quit while he's ahead if that's where things are heading. Whatever happens, you can bet he'll retire from politics smelling like a rose. He may be power hungry, but he's not dumb.


*2009: equalization: 2063m / fed transfers: 3782m
1999: equalization: 970m / fed transfers: 1723m

**2009: health spend: 4723m
1999: health spend: 2119m

source: http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/provincialbudgets.html