Tax-cut obsession shows Tories aren’t listening By: Editorial Posted: 7:00 PM CST Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2023

Opinion

During its nearly seven years in office, under two different leaders, Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative government has taken great pains to demonstrate to the public that it is “listening.”

On issues ranging from budget preparation, pandemic response and education reform to provincial-parks governance, water-management strategies and boreal woodland caribou conservation, the Pallister/Stefanson Tories have touted their online “EngageMB” platform as a venue for Manitobans to “share (their) ideas, discuss important topics, provide feedback on public policy and inform government decision-making.”

Of course, there’s a substantial difference between creating the illusion of listening and actually heeding what someone has said. And the actions of the PC government have often left many inclined to believe the former has been the Tories’ intent far more often than the latter.

Ask anyone who took part in the province’s extensive education-reform consultation whether Bill 64 was a fair reflection of public input, and the answer might be found in a massive mound of block-the-bill lawn signs or an anger-fuelled wave of negative public sentiment that prompted PC leadership aspirant Heather Stefanson to make rescinding Bill 64 her first action upon assuming the role.

When it comes to policy formation and implementation, the Tories have been very good at talking about listening. Actual listening … not so much, it seems.

Which brings us to the Pallister/Stefanson government’s ongoing fixation with cutting taxes and putting more money back on Manitobans’ figurative “kitchen table,” and the manner in which that obsession runs counter to poll results released last week by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

The survey, conducted by Probe Research, focused on a form of tax relief that has been among the PC government’s top priorities since taking office in 2016 — the reduction/elimination of the education portion of property-tax assessments, and the decision by the Tories to send rebate cheques to Manitobans as a means of delivering on that commitment.

In 2021, taxpayers received a 20 per cent rebate; last year the amount rose to 37.5 per cent, delivering an average rebate of $600. The initiative removed an estimated $350 million from provincial coffers.

There’s a substantial difference between creating the illusion of listening and actually heeding what someone has said.

According to the CCPA/Probe survey, which polled a “representative sampling” of 1,000 Manitoba adults, a solid majority of 58 per cent said they would forgo an education property-tax rebate (averaging $775) in 2023 in favour of having the government dedicate the associated $450 million in provincial funds to public services such as health care, education and infrastructure.

Given the current state of those fundamental considerations, one could hardly consider the poll results surprising. The PC government’s steadfast commitment to reducing taxes — from cuts to the provincial sales tax to education property-tax rebates and beyond — has occurred in lockstep with the austerity-driven unravellings that have left hospitals understaffed and overwhelmed, classrooms underfunded and overcrowded, and highways crumbling.

A desire by Manitobans to have yet another rebate rescinded in favour of increased program spending, then, would represent a golden opportunity for listening to translate into action. And yet, hard on the heels of last week’s survey-results release, Ms. Stefanson indicated her government intends to offer Manitobans more inflation relief in the form of financial-aid cheques and, very likely, another round of tax cuts.

To her credit, the premier did say, “We need to have a balance between giving back to Manitobans but also making sure that we are looking at health care, education, social services.” But the focus on dispensing government largesse in this, an election year, seems to remain the primary consideration.

Perhaps that’s what happens when listening is performance art rather than a policy-making imperative.