All she has left is her pride – Diane Ablonczy/Marquee Event Funding Program Roundupdate

by kadyomalley on Tuesday, July 7, 2009 8:50pm - 24 Comments

SCROLL DOWN FOR THE LATEST UPDATES

Following up on our now almost unmanageably long original post – which, incidentally, ITQ still thinks had the best headline yet –  we have more from CP’s Karine Fortin here:

[A]nother Tory MP questioned Trost’s interpretation of events.

“My reaction from what I’m hearing is that he’s making most of it up,” said the Conservative, who did not want to be identified.

The MP said it “could be true” that funding came as a shock to the caucus but added that only a handful of members said they might have a problem in their ridings when Ablonczy told them about the funding.

“The prime minister, I’m not sure if he responded at all.”

Meanwhile, CanWest’s David Akin talks to two Conservative MPs brave enough to put their views on the record …

“It’s a tourism event, like any other tourism event,” said Calgary Conservative MP Lee Richardson. “It attracts as many people in Toronto as the Molson Indy.”

Dona Cadman, a first-term Conservative MP from Surrey, B.C., said she supports Ms. Ablonczy’s decision.

“I’m proud to see this reaching out to all sectors of the Canadian mosaic,” Cadman said in an e-mailed message.

“Minister Ablonczy should be congratulated for running an inclusive and responsive portfolio. I do think we need to be open, to consider funding non-core cultural groups, as long as they are not engaging in activity that is offensive to most Canadians. They filled out all the required paperwork properly and were treated the same as any other group.”

… but reveals that the pair seem to be in the minority, as far as willingness to go public with their comments:

More than a dozen Conservative MPs responded to questions from Canwest News Service about Mr. Trost’s criticisms but most either did not want to comment or did not want to be identified. Two MPs, who requested anonymity for fear of being disciplined by the PMO, said the issue was discussed at a closed-door caucus meeting in June and that Ms. Ablonczy was criticized by several MPs about the grant.

Meanwhile, Colleague Wherry points to a CBC.ca story that provides yet another possible explanation: apparently, Ablonczy’s office “wasn’t equipped to handle the $100 million program”. But considering that the deadline to apply for funding under the program was May 8th, it seems just a bit hard to believe that concerns over whether her office had the capacity to manage the program wouldn’t have come up sooner.

Particularly since it was her office that, according to the departmental website, is/was responsible for approving applications, which would likely be the most onerous part of the program.

So, what will this mean for the other pride events that have applied for funding under the program? There are at least two more in the queue, according to the Globe and Mail‘s Steven Chase:

Two other gay pride events have applied for funding from the Marquee program. If Ottawa gives them money, it will anger social conservatives within Tory ranks; if it rejects the applications – even for valid reasons such as failing grant criteria – it will be accused of caving to criticism.

Mr. Cunningham said control over the program – part of Ottawa’s economic stimulus package – shifted to Mr. Clement at some point “two or three weeks” ago. The Industry Minister was busy with efforts such as the auto sector bailout earlier this year, but “we’re better able to handle the workload right now.”

Mr. Cunningham said Mr. Trost’s opinion can’t be dismissed but that ultimately the decision is made based on how best to spur tourism activity.

“I do understand Mr. Trost’s concerns. The concerns that he raises are the concerns of a lot of Canadians. … At the same time, the measure that we look at is tourism,” he said.

At the moment, the application form – which is available by email from Industry Canada – still lists Ablonczy as the responsible minister:

All applications for funding will be approved by the Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism).  Applicants will be notified whether their application has been approved or not.  Applicants will be required to sign a contribution agreement that outlines in greater detail the conditions under which funding will be provided.

There is also no indication that the administration of the program has changed in recent days — or “two to three weeks” —  it’s still the Small Business and Marketplace Services division of Industry Canada in charge of delivery. The MTEP backgrounder states that funding decisions for early summer events “will be made in a timely fashion, given the economic stimulus nature of the program”.

Also what about events that have been approved by Ablonczy, but not yet officially announced? Will Clement have to sign off on Ablonczy’s decisions to date before the cheques can go out? If the organizers had gotten the unofficial thumbs up from the Minister of Small Business, can they count on final approval — and funding — coming through in time for a mid- to late-summer start date?

Considering that opposition members were already griping about the seeming lack of progress in getting money out the door for the summer festival season back in June, it seems utterly bizarre that they’d just decide to switch ministers midway through the program just because Clement’s office has a little more time on its hands. It’s enough to keep ITQ digging away at this story, so check back for updates.

UPDATE: Colleague Wells has much, much more about the trainwreck-in-the-making that is the Marquee Event Funding Program.

MACLEANS.CA COMMENTERS ARE SMARTER THAN ME: Commenter Darrell points us to Pride Toronto’s official statement on this whole federal funding business, which answers just about any pointed question that a sceptical taxpayer might possibly have. (Well, maybe not MYL, but he’s a special case, and he’d be just as aggrieved if it was a parade for orphans and puppies):

Pride Toronto went through the same stringent application process as all other recipients and Industry Canada was extremely thorough in checking details before approval was granted. We are proud of the fact that we were successful when judged objectively against the criteria for the grant. The $397,500 that was awarded to Pride was allocated for specific items such as improved access for disabled people, infrastructure spending and top caliber entertainment. A portion of the funding was directly applied to bringing in a top international artist (Kelly Rowland) for this year’s festival, and this will help raise the bar for future festival entertainment that will increase the appeal to tourists. There is also a post-event reporting process that will focus on how the money was used, in accordance with the criteria for which it was awarded.

Bookmark and Share
  • Darrell

    …and what good digging it is. Great job.

  • Darrell

    Some digging of my own – Toronto Pride has an official statement on their website.

    http://www.pridetoronto.com/news/official-stateme…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      I will add that – thank you!

  • –dB

    Good for Lee Richardson and Dona Cadman.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/KadyITQ KadyITQ

      That was a really sweet, positive statement from Dona Cadman, especially, wasn't it?

      • –dB

        Yes, Richardson's was a little more utilitarian, but it's still fairer to see Pride as a generator of funds (like all other events) than a scene of depravity I suppose. Cadman's statement was very principled. They both have my respect.

  • Lord Kitchener's Own

    It's interesting that, funny enough, it would seem that NONE of the money actually went into the parade. It was spent on accessibility improvements, infrastructure and Kelly Rowland. Surely even people afraid of the "homosexual agenda" can't object to accessibility improvements, infrastructure and Kelly Rowland, can they?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/futurepm matthew

      I think you're vastly underestimating the ability of certain people who make it their business to be afraid of the "homosexual agenda" to lather themselves into an outrage over even the smallest thing…

  • http://pacificgazette.blogspot.com/2008/10/stealthcon-lxxxviiithere-can-be-no.html RossK

    Say what?

    Ms. Cadman is actually allowed to speak to Mr. Akin now?

    And no Horsemen swooped in to scoop-up the MP formerly known as 'Stealth-Con Candidate #88' and spirit her away to safety, side-saddle?

    Incredible.

    .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    (Well, maybe not MYL, but he’s a special case, and he’d be just as aggrieved if it was a parade for orphans and puppies)

    Nice to be thought of, I guess. And we can update the line to "as long as they spell my anonymous initials right."

    But.

    Where in the blessed constitution does it say that taxpayer dollars for exhibitionist septuagenerians, orphans and puppies is a FEDERAL responsibility?

    Right then. Good night.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

      Well. Thank the Whatever that it's all a silly budgetary concern.

      A constitutional crisis would be a crisis too far.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Your point stands of course, but just because I'm spreading the word about the fact that the money apparently didn't actually go to the parade I'd point out that it wasn't really spent on exhibitionist septuagenarians per se.

      Some of the money was spent getting Kelly Rowland's to perform at Pride Week (an expense I'm sure you'd also object to, and fair enough) but the rest appears to have been spent on accessibility upgrades for disabled visitors at certain venues, and for other assorted "infrastructure". Not knowing the specifics of the accessibility and infrastructure upgrades involved, can we nonetheless assume that you'd deem this type of work (which will presumably outlast Pride Week and continue to be of benefit) at least much less objectionable (if not outright acceptable) then had the money actually been spent on a parade for old naked guys or parent-less children and young dogs?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        If a city wants to improve accessibility for disabled residents and visitors, that's wonderful. Maybe the city could do the work. And pay for it. Of course, maybe the city would like to keep the rats and raccoons at bay by taking away the garbage, too…

        This website is full of glowing references to the cultural, feel-good-vibey-whatever, and economic (including tax revenue) benefits of Pride Week. Magnificent. Does that all really dry up if Ottawa doesn't tender a ramp or two? Does EVERY wee bit of tax-revenue-generating economic activity require a government kickback?

        Final comment for the night: I am a little bit troubled that you placed "Your point stands" and "exhibitionist septuagenerians" in the same sentence. Must think of something else before falling asleep. Must think of something else before falling asleep. Must think of something else before falling asleep…

        • Lord Kitchener's Own

          LOL

          Well, I get that the feds should pay for fedy things and the province and city for provincy and city-y (damn, that fell apart) things, but surely that ship has long since sailed (keep tilting at the wind turbine though, just keep in mind that it was probably built with help from a federal grant).

          In the context of the discussion though, even if it's totally inappropriate, the program exists, and so long as it does surely Toronto ought to get their share of the booty (huh… booty) for our homoerotic infrastructure and pop stars just like Calgary gets their share for their homoerotic cowboys and broncos.

      • JusDeFaxx

        Check out story … NONE of the money went to improving D/A accessibility …
        How did Pride spend its grant?
        NEWS / Less than 10 percent to touted disability enhancements …
        http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/How_did_Pride_s…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      "Where in the blessed constitution does it say that taxpayer dollars for exhibitionist septuagenerians, orphans and puppies is a FEDERAL responsibility?"

      I can't remember the precise section number, but it's in the Constitution – right after the clause outlining federal responsibilities for ownership of major automakers.

    • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

      "Where in the blessed constitution does it say that taxpayer dollars for exhibitionist septuagenerians, orphans and puppies is a FEDERAL responsibility?"

      I can't remember the precise section number, but it's right after the clause outlining federal responsibilities for ownership of major automakers.

      • Lord Kitchener's Own

        LOL

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        Go ahead and LOL, LKO. But what is so funny about our country losing any sense purpose towards the stewardship of its future?

  • Tim Nielsen

    I doubt this is why Ablonczy was fired, but is it so wrong that some people don't like their tax dollars going to an event like this? I admit, I've never seen a gay pride event myself, but I understand they are somewhat risque, and not suitable for families, yet family people who critisize this funding are unfairly labeled as homophobes.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Well, "risque" maybe, but I'm not so sure about "not suitable for families" (depends upon one's perspective I guess). There are plenty of families both attending, and IN the Pride Parade.

      That said (and am I getting annoyingly repetitive here?) it doesn't seem from what I've seen that any of the money actually went to the parade itself at all. It would seem the money was allocated for accessibility and infrastructure improvements to venues, and for bringing Kelly Rowland in to perform at one of the events (the grant was for Pride WEEK, not the Pride Parade specifically). I think ("moral") critics of the funding link it to the parade because of the perception that the parade's "risque" and "not family friendly". It'd be more difficult to argue that ramps and the widening of footpaths and doorways is "risque" or "not family friendly". Now, I'm sure Kelly Rowland's performance was probably, by some people's definition, "risque", but I'd be willing to bet it was no more so than the outfits that Calgary Stampeders cheerleaders wear at some of the Calgary stampede events (like the Stampede Parade, for example). Heck, I'd go so far as to say that 98% of the actual Pride Parade is no more risque than the Calgary Stampeders cheerleaders, and I don't think anyone suggested that the Stamps Cheerleaders be banned from the Calgary Stampede because it gets about $2 million in federal funding.

    • Kevin

      Then you should attend one – especially the parade – because it would disabuse you of the notion that they are not suitable for families. You'd see the parade route lined with many people cheering on their son, their daughter, neice, nephew, grandson, granddaughter. You'd also see people who bring their family to watch, even if they have no one participating.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    Kady I think you, and a couple of others, made life in PMO yesterday a bit more difficult than they expected. Good job, more please.

    Tho I do agree with myl that Feds should not be funding parades, even if they are pro-kittens, lollipops and rainbows.

  • Justin

    http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/How_did_Pride_s…
    If you attended the festival, you would know all D/A "infrastructure" is temporary.i.e. only for the wknd.

From Macleans