(This article ran in the Globe and Mail Online on Tuesday May 19, 2015)
Government advertising can range from informative to irritating to downright partisan, and all of it is paid for by you, the taxpayer. But in Ontario, taxpayers have been lucky enough to be protected from partisan government ads, at least those paid for by the provincial government.
That is, at least for now.
In December 2004, Ontario passed the landmark Government Advertising Act, the only law of its kind in Canada, which gives the Auditor General the final say on whether a government ad will make it onto the airwaves. Under this law, a government ad will be rejected if it uses tax dollars to pay for a partisan message.
Until now, the definition of partisan has been at the discretion of the Auditor General, who is supported by a four-person independent body called the Advertising Review Board. Her office has developed a set of criteria to determine whether an ad is partisan. The Advertising Review Board asks if the ad is fair, balanced and objective, if it is factual, if it is self-congratulatory, timed for political gain, or if it makes inappropriate use of the colour associated with the governing party.
But the Ontario budget tabled April 23rd has proposed amendments to the Government Advertising Act which would narrow the definition of partisan, and remove the Auditor General’s discretion. The changes are so drastic, that on May 12th, the Auditor General tabled a special report to the legislature warning that these changes would turn her office into a “rubber stamp” for partisan ads.
The changes would narrow the definition of a “partisan” ad to only those ads which contain a voice or image of an MPP, the name or logo of a party, or the colour of the governing party “to a significant degree.”
The changes have been justified by deputy premier Deb Matthews, who complained that the Auditor General cancelled ads as partisan for showing a red apple. The Auditor General has explicitly denied Matthew’s allegation that her office cancelled an ad because it contained a red apple. The government also put together a before and after look at an ad promoting Ontario Savings Bonds, which the Auditor General said had too much red brick. Changing the colours in that particular ad cost $20,000.
These arguments about colour are, pardon the pun, red herrings and attract attention because they harken to images of smoke filled rooms with scotch fueled Mad Men ad agency types. The truth is that the public should be less worried about red apples than the truly partisan ads that the government has already tried to produce.
For example, in 2010 the Auditor General rejected ads promoting the HST, which the Auditor General at the time said were aimed to persuade the public on the “benefits” of HST rather than providing any facts. Similarly, the Auditor General rejected an ad in 2014 which “strongly implied that manufacturing in Ontario was booming,” which she called “misleading” and factually inaccurate.
Under the proposed new guidelines, the Auditor General would have been forced to approve these ads, and the taxpayers would have been forced to pay for it. To avoid becoming a rubber stamp, the auditor general has asked to be relieved of the responsibility of reviewing government ads.
This may be the Premier’s long game. While a provincial election is far from the minds of voters, she can empower herself and her government to campaign for their re-election with our money.
Neutering the powers of the Auditor General and using taxpayer money to promote partisan ads should have all taxpayers seeing red.
Christine Van Geyn is Ontario director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
