Bafflegab battleground heats up as Harris, Chretien exchange attack ads

Who's telling the truth about healthcare funding levels? Richard Shillington says the fibs outweigh the facts on both sides.

By: Richard Shillington

  Last week Ottawa spent our tax dollars for ads that complain that Ontario's ads, our taxes again, were misleading. Did these ads inform taxpayers? Were they intended to? Is the use of tax dollars to buy ads intended to shape public opinion a dangerous practice?
  Both ads use marketing techniques and selective data, to sell one side's point of view. Ontario's ads said that Ottawa's contribution to health care was a measly 11%. Ottawa called foul -"that's misleading," they cried. In Ottawa's view of things, Ontario had only counted part of the money. The federal contribution is partly 'tax room', partly cash. If you count only cash you get Ontario's 11%; include the tax room and it's 34%.
  Whose figures are right? Depends on your purpose. If you are concerned about Ottawa's ability to enforce the principles of Medicare, Ontario's 11% is pertinent since Ottawa can only withdraw cash to enforce standards. But if you want to gauge the federal contribution more broadly then you may want to include the tax points.
 

Advertisers selling cars or appliances can neither lie nor mislead. Those that do get dragged into court. But sadly, in the field of government advertising, deceit is acceptable so long as its accurate.

  But wait, it gets even more complicated. Ottawa's transfer to Ontario, the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), is for Health, post-secondary education and welfare. The statistics above depend on how much of the transfer was 'for health' - (pick a figure that serves your political purpose).
  Neither Ottawa nor Ontario can claim the moral high ground here.
  Ottawa claims that it 'increased health spending in Ontario in each of the last four years'. But this only serves to remind us that their cuts 5 years ago were so drastic there was tons of room for the small increases since.
  Ottawa gets confused between cuts and increases. In 1997 Ottawa decided to 'ease' the planned cut to CHST and called it an increase in spending. That's like deciding to cut someone's wages by 5%, instead of 10%, and calling it a raise. Similarly, half the 'tax cuts' in the last budget were actually the cancellation of planned increases.
 

In the "we can picture it now" department. The next provincial ad claiming that Premier Mike Harris, in an attempt to save health care, has decided to double as an unpaid neonatal nurse.

  On the other hand, Ontario's ads complain that they can't afford Health Care because of the $1.7 billion loss in federal contributions. This conveniently ignores their $5 billion income tax cuts. That's kind of like complaining that you have no money left for milk, having spent the pay-cheque on beer.
  Ottawa pointing a finger at Ontario's creative use of figures is even more bizarre given its own prior willingness to fudge the facts.
  In 1997, for example, the government boasted "Canada's job creation exceeded Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy." The accuracy of this statement depended on major job losses in Germany. When the Prime Minister's Office was caught in the deceit they pointed out that the statement was 'accurate'. Asked if that was a good enough standard, they replied that they thought so.
  But Ontario can't claim its hands are clean... Just before the last election, the Harris government set new low standards in the use of government advertising for political purposes - to shape public opinion.
  There are ombudsmen and press councils to complain to if you think news coverage is unfair. Reported corporate earnings are checked by independent auditors for accuracy and fairness. Advertisers selling cars or appliances cannot lie, but also cannot mislead. Those that do, can be, and have been dragged into a courtroom.
  None of these kinds of checks exist for government advertising. Sadly, in the field of public affairs deceit is acceptable so long as it is accurate.

Richard Shillington, Ph.D., is a statistician who specializes in the quantitative analysis of health, social and economic policy. He appears regularly before committees of the House of Commons and the Senate, and frequently provides commentaries for television, radio and newspapers on issues of taxation, human rights and social policy. Richard's Straight Goods column appears weekly.

Other articles from Richard Shillington
  Brilliant spinning places welfare recipients in cottages
  Poor but proud in Pakistan
  Federal policy flip-flops kill politics
  What I learned on my Pakistani vacation
  Budget: something for everyone - with any political clout - and nothing for Canada's poorest families
  Death by the rules
  House Finance Committee gives more windfalls to wealthy; rotten apples to poor kids
  Attn: Paul Martin - a REAL "children's budget", please
  A poor measure of poverty
  Are RRSPs really for you?

[ Front Page ]