Toothless election law offers no benefit

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 19/09/2011 (5126 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

When is a law not a law? When it’s impossible to prove it’s been broken and even if you do, there are no penalties.

Last week, the Progressive Conservatives accused the NDP of 14 violations of the Elections Finances Act. At issue is Sec. 56, which prohibits government from publishing or advertising announcements “in the last 90 days before polling day, and on polling day, in the case of a fixed-date election.”

 There are exceptions. Announcements are permitted if they are a matter of public safety or health, an ongoing Crown campaign, or required by law.

 Introduced in 2008, the law was touted as a way of levelling the electoral field. In the past, some governments abused incumbency by loading up on funding announcements or feel-good ads in the months prior to an election. The blackout may have been well-intentioned, but unfortunately, it is proving nearly impossible to enforce. You can try to delay announcements, but government does not cease operations when an election is called and the public needs to know something of what is going on. And parties seeking re-election must be allowed to make campaign announcements and pledges. It has always been difficult to determine where a government announcement stops and a campaign pledge begins. Consider two recent NDP announcements.

 Last week, the NDP announced a partnership with True North Sports & Entertainment, owners of the Winnipeg Jets and the biggest story in the province, to fund an at-risk youth program. Although discussions began before the election, the program is not funded in the current budget. It’s new and legal under the Elections Finances Act and a huge coup for the NDP.

 Others are more questionable. The Tories complained that in August during the blackout period, Local Government Minister Ron Lemieux presented a $15,000 government cheque to buy new playground equipment in Landmark. Although no news release was issued, the cheque presentation was noted in local media, including a blog post and photo by Lemieux himself.

 The Tories were furious with Lemieux because the money was being used to support the Archie Plett Memorial Park, named after the father of Sen. Don Plett, the co-manager of the Tory campaign. Perhaps Lemieux assumed the Tories would not object to this gesture. He was wrong.

 The NDP argued there was no violation because no government resources were used. Lemieux drove to Landmark in his minister’s car, but because it’s in his riding (Dawson Trail) the party claimed it was permitted. In other words, he was in Landmark, but not expressly to hand out the cheque.

 If this is not a violation of the Elections Finances Act, it was certainly a violation of the spirit of the law. It was, by any standard, a government announcement, and did not qualify under any of the exceptions. Lemieux has not been charged with any offence, but he may be in the future if precedent counts for anything. In 2009, Finance Minister Rosann Wowchuk was found guilty of violating the blackout during a byelection campaign by making a cheque presentation. Wowchuk’s announcement was made in Brandon, and the byelections were held in The Pas and Winnipeg, but it was still wrong.

 However, the Wowchuk incident reveals the biggest problem with the law: Even if someone is found guilty of violating Sec. 56, there are virtually no consequences. The act does stipulate fines of up to $25,000 for other violations, but Sec. 56 is expressly excluded from those penalties. The worst that can happen is a declaration by the Court of Queen’s Bench that the party or individual violated Sec. 56 and the assignment of court costs. In Wowchuk’s case, after being found guilty, no penalty was assessed.

 In that context, we can view this whole issue in a new context. It appears the NDP did not make a mockery of the law with the cheque ceremony. Rather, the NDP law is making a mockery of the electoral process.

 Fixed-date elections are, in and of themselves, meaningless gestures.

 Touted as refinements to the democratic process, they are in fact hollow manifestations of misguided populist ideology that make elections neither more accountable nor more transparent. The NDP law was supposed to address declining voter turnout. In fact, it has only built more cynicism.

 The public now expects politicians to escape punishment for violations of electoral laws. Whether it’s questionable accounting in expense reports or overspending, it seems few politicians are ever convicted and for those few who are, there are no penalties.

 Instead of fines or court findings, perhaps our politicians should forfeit a percentage of the votes received in the last election. This might change a result, or it might not. But with votes at stake, you can bet there would be a new dedication to respecting not only the law, but the spirit of the law.

 dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca