Did PCs cross line in policy promotion?
The Edmonton Journal
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Suppose, hypothetically, that in its first months in office back in 2004, Paul Martin's Liberal government had spent taxpayers' money on media advertising that prominently quoted the prime minister saying, "I made a commitment and I delivered."
Would you have considered this a legitimate communication of information by a government to the citizens it served, like, say, an explanation of new tax rules or boat-licensing regulations?
Or would you have deemed it a shameless, transparently political statement by someone in pre-campaign mode for a looming election?
Now, hold your answer for a moment. As some readers doubtless realize, it's a trick question whose real target is not the failed, deposed regime of the former finance minister, but rather the recent Ed Stelmach ads in support of the Alberta government's new royalty regime.
And the point of this question is not to imply that Stelmach deserves Martin's fate, or must be placed on an identical moral plane to the former Ottawa Liberal administration. Rather, it is to make sure that we don't allow partisan inclinations to colour our answer.
The fact is that while Stelmach did indeed deliver on a commitment, that commitment was made to Conservative voters during a Conservative Party election, as the premier made clear both in his recent television address and in his press conference after the royalty decision. The taxpayers of Alberta, a group that also includes Liberals, New Democrats, Alberta Alliance supporters, Greens and non-voting citizens -- who still haven't been given a chance to choose Stelmach as their premier -- shouldn't have to pay for such an act of partisan accountability.
In fairness to Stelmach, the line between acceptable and unacceptable advertising is a very fuzzy one, and governments of all stripes stir a little self-congratulation into explanations of their agendas. Indeed, it would be almost worrying if they didn't give readers the impression in their communications that they thought this or that policy was a good idea.
But there is a line, as the reasonable reader can see by comparing Stelmach's rather personal "I made a commitment" ad in Alberta papers last weekend, and the much more neutral, informative two-page affair on Tuesday entitled "Report to Albertans: Alberta's new royalty framework."
What should be done? Perhaps, for starters, the government could refer the question to Auditor General Fred Dunn and the legislature's public accounts committee for an opinion and possible guidelines. How do other governments handle difficult questions, they could ask. And how could effective rules be drawn up to make what is really a subjective distinction?
But while we're waiting for that to happen, members of the Conservative Party could make a greater effort to remember there's a distinction between their organization and the government of Alberta.
And taxpayers could remind themselves to be critical of governments that spend public money on communication with too strong a political flavour -- even if they approve wholeheartedly of the decisions and agendas being promoted.
The Edmonton Journal
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Suppose, hypothetically, that in its first months in office back in 2004, Paul Martin's Liberal government had spent taxpayers' money on media advertising that prominently quoted the prime minister saying, "I made a commitment and I delivered."
Would you have considered this a legitimate communication of information by a government to the citizens it served, like, say, an explanation of new tax rules or boat-licensing regulations?
Or would you have deemed it a shameless, transparently political statement by someone in pre-campaign mode for a looming election?
Now, hold your answer for a moment. As some readers doubtless realize, it's a trick question whose real target is not the failed, deposed regime of the former finance minister, but rather the recent Ed Stelmach ads in support of the Alberta government's new royalty regime.
And the point of this question is not to imply that Stelmach deserves Martin's fate, or must be placed on an identical moral plane to the former Ottawa Liberal administration. Rather, it is to make sure that we don't allow partisan inclinations to colour our answer.
The fact is that while Stelmach did indeed deliver on a commitment, that commitment was made to Conservative voters during a Conservative Party election, as the premier made clear both in his recent television address and in his press conference after the royalty decision. The taxpayers of Alberta, a group that also includes Liberals, New Democrats, Alberta Alliance supporters, Greens and non-voting citizens -- who still haven't been given a chance to choose Stelmach as their premier -- shouldn't have to pay for such an act of partisan accountability.
In fairness to Stelmach, the line between acceptable and unacceptable advertising is a very fuzzy one, and governments of all stripes stir a little self-congratulation into explanations of their agendas. Indeed, it would be almost worrying if they didn't give readers the impression in their communications that they thought this or that policy was a good idea.
But there is a line, as the reasonable reader can see by comparing Stelmach's rather personal "I made a commitment" ad in Alberta papers last weekend, and the much more neutral, informative two-page affair on Tuesday entitled "Report to Albertans: Alberta's new royalty framework."
What should be done? Perhaps, for starters, the government could refer the question to Auditor General Fred Dunn and the legislature's public accounts committee for an opinion and possible guidelines. How do other governments handle difficult questions, they could ask. And how could effective rules be drawn up to make what is really a subjective distinction?
But while we're waiting for that to happen, members of the Conservative Party could make a greater effort to remember there's a distinction between their organization and the government of Alberta.
And taxpayers could remind themselves to be critical of governments that spend public money on communication with too strong a political flavour -- even if they approve wholeheartedly of the decisions and agendas being promoted.
Comment