The Reminder is making its archives back to 2003 available on our website. Please note that, due to technical limitations, archive articles are presented without the usual formatting.
Election financing, which used to be secretive, has been more of an open book since governments brought in stiffer laws and started giving away public money to political parties in election campaigns. Federally, parties get so many dollars a vote if they reach a minimum vote total, which means that the Green Party, which has never elected an MP, has a lot of money for their next campaign. Jean Chrtien brought in this rule when he stopped businesses and other public organizations from directly contributing to campaigns, but they have all found ways to get around the regulations. The sensational story about the RCMP raid on Conservative headquarters in Ottawa Ð which was filmed by the Liberals, no less Ð is related to the Elections Finance Act and backed by the excuse that public money is going to the parties. At issue is the accusation that the 2006 Conservative campaign overspent by a million dollars. The party denies any wrongdoing and the issue is before the courts. The claim is that the Ôin and outÕ practices, which are most likely practiced by all major parties, is wrong. But is it? As I understand it, money is channeled in and out to riding campaigns from the national or provincial party central campaigns to pay for advertising, brochures, staffing and the like. Each riding constituency has a spending limit, as does the central campaign, which uses the spending room available to meet the spending limits. For example, if St. Boniface riding had $10,000 left on its limit, the federal party could use this ÔroomÕ and it would not be added to their tally. By the way, election donations by donors or fundraisers are private money given by supporters. Why should government have a major say in how this is spent or who/what it is spent on? Former Manitoba NDP cabinet minister Sid Green, in a recent column, blasted Elections Canada for worrying about this issue and spending huge public dollars on it. Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale disagrees, saying that the extra money spent might have cost the Liberals a shot at a minority. This is a bit of a stretch, but what would you expect from Ralph, whose musings as finance minister cost investors a lot of money in the 2006 campaign and certainly hurt the Liberals? One prominent MP told me it is a matter of interpretation as to whether the party can use the financing room of its riding campaigns. If the interpretation is no, then the financial practices of all parties will be investigated. If Ôin and outÕ is found to be okay, then surely the local ridings should not get any tax credits for the extra money spent that was not their money. LetÕs see what the courts decide. Financing provincially, not in elections but in budgets, is much closer to home for the average taxpayer. The latest Manitoba budget allocates $4.1 billion for health care, an increase of $300 million for the coming year. Liberal Leader Jon Gerrard criticized this, noting that Manitoba is above the Canadian average in health care spending while the health of Manitobans is sub-par. He claims that adding more doctors and nurses to a bad system will neither solve the wait times nor provide better care. Dr. Gerrard, of course, does not have the answers for what will. The provincial government spent a lot of money on ads trying to convince the public that its budget was so wonderful. But there was no mention of the five per cent increase in the pharmacare deductible, which will have quite a negative effect on seniors with health problems and modest incomes, as PC Leader Hugh McFadyen pointed out in a recent speech. McFadyen also noted that the NDP has raised the deductible six times Ð over 30 per cent since taking over in 1999. The excuse is that prescription drugs are increasing in price. This is certainly not true in the U.S., where in some areas you can get a 30-day supply of a generic prescription for $4, with no dispensing fee. McFadyen also criticized the $395 million increase in the provincial debt, after the province received millions in transfer funds from the Feds. He claims it is an unnecessary burden on our future taxpayers. RogerÕs Right Corner runs Wednesdays.
