The non-issue of crown donations to the human rights museum

I've been following with some interest the controversy over four provincial crown corporations and agencies (Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, Manitoba Public Insurance, and the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission) each donating $1 million to The Canadian Museum For Human Rights (see story here and responses by Dan Lett and PolicyFrog here).

I suppose eyebrows are raised because the organizations in question are owned by and accountable to Manitobans, and because two of them (MLC and MLCC) pour their revenues directly into those of the government. But are the donations in question unreasonable or inappropriate?

Q. If the crowns were private corporations, would they likely donate?

A. Almost surely, if the Museum's list of major donors is any indication (available in one of the Museum's promotional kits) -- the list of companies reads like a who's who of Manitoba's private sector. If Canad Inns, CIBC, HudBay Minerals, Friesens, Ben Moss Jewellers, and Bison Transport, to name a few, are all leading the way with big donations, is it unreasonable to expect that our crowns might pony up a few dollars? I think not. In fact, given the growing list of big ticket public, private and union donors, the crowns might well appear conspicuous by their absence if they chose NOT to donate.

Q. Are the amounts the crowns are donating unreasonable?

A. Hardly. A million bucks is peanuts for Hydro, which has annual revenues exceeding $2 billion. And if Wawanesa Insurance can afford to be in the $1,000,000 to $4,999,999 donor category, surely fellow insurer MPI can do the same. And MLC and MLCC will directly benefit from the new museum as any additional tourism will boost casino/VLT traffic and liquor sales, so it makes good business sense for them to chip in for the cause. That $2 million that might otherwise have ended up in government coffers doesn't seem like an unreasonable investment.

Q. Is it unusual for the crowns to support the community through sponsorship?

A. Not at all; show up at any event in town and you'll see they do it every day. I didn't see any complaints registered over MLC's sponsorship of the Manitoba Marathon nor of Hydro's support for the Winnipeg Folk Festival. And I've never heard any boos for the crown sponsors at any of the Bomber games I've attended.

Q. Is it inappropriate for the provincial government to direct the crowns to support the human rights museum?

A. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the very rationale for having crowns that they enable us to achieve social ends that might otherwise not be achieved in their absence? In MLC's case, they advertise very publicly their specific mandate to direct moneys to support the community through donation and sponsorship. In this case, the crowns are supporting a project likely to boost tourism to the city, generate significant economic spin-offs, and educate people about human rights.

The opposition might have had a point if the sums being given were so huge as to threaten the financial well-being of the crowns in question or to risk putting the government in a deficit position, but the donations are entirely appropriate and reasonable. And, to be frank, they might just help to put Winnipeg "on the map" with a much more realistic plan than trying to revive a long-gone NHL franchise.

The saddest part is that, as this same opposition grasps for straws in any attempt to find anything to pin on what's been a fairly resilient administration, it's the Canadian Museum of Human Rights itself that gets caught in the crossfire.

When I contrast the scale of corporate and well-to-do backing for the museum with the provincial Tories' pooh-poohing of crown support for the museum, it makes me think it's probably a good thing the Tories aren't so reliant themselves anymore on corporate donations.

The Museum website: http://www.canadianmuseumforhumanrights.com/

Photo: artist's conception of The Canadian Museum of Human Rights, to be located at The Forks, in downtown Winnipeg.

Manitoba Hydro and McFadyen's Tories

In the last week, we've heard a lot of debate about whether Hugh would privatize Manitoba Hydro once elected Premier.

The NDP was the first to raise the issue by warning voters that, regardless of what the Tories promise, they will privatize Hydro. The Tories countered by saying simply that they'd never, ever do such a thing. The Filmon Tories said exactly the same thing in the 1995 election about MTS, promptly before selling that, the NDP point out. It sure doesn't help the Tories' case that Hugh was one of the architects of the Filmon government's privatization of MTS and an alleged advisor to the Ontario government on their experiment with privatizing Hydro.

In a bid to reassure us all, the Tories actually held a big press conference, handed out bottles of water, and spent what amounts to one campaign day to announce they'd pass a "Legacy Act" that would essentially prevent Hydro from ever being sold. It's a risky move, but it's one that will probably pay off, I think.

In an otherwise funny take on the issue, Curtis Brown describes it as being "as defensive a posture as you'll ever see in a political campaign," which is never the place a campaign wants to be. Of course, bending over backwards to address the issue loudly and clearly while the campaign is still in its early days almost certainly blunts the "they'll sell Hydro" attacks in the coming weeks.

So will the Tories sell Manitoba Hydro?

It seems to me the debate thus far has missed the boat a little. Reviewing track records, resumes and personal blog posts are all fine, but when I reflect on whether a party will keep a particular promise if elected, I turn to what I know about their ideals and what the party stalwarts believe and preach daily. Tories of the modern variety believe in privatization. It's a fundamental tenet for them that the market is the best allocator of labour, investment capital, wheat and other commodities and -- yes -- hydro-electric power.

Elect the Tories and they may not sell Hydro in their first term, and maybe not even in their second term, but given enough political capital, they will sell it. You can bet the bank (or public utility) on that.