Gerard Kennedy and the Infrastructure Spending Sunshine Express: Liveblogging the Transport and Infrastructure committee

by kadyomalley on Wednesday, October 7, 2009 3:25pm - 84 Comments

As promised, ITQ will be liveblogging the debate over at the Transport, Infrastructure and Communities committee this afternoon, so check back at 3:30 pm or thereabouts-ish — there’s a bit of routine in camera business first — for full coverage.

3:26:34 PM
Greetings from the wilds of West Block, where ITQ is currently cooling her platform heels in the hall outside 209 WB, one eye firmly affixed to the most unwelcoming sign designating the interior as strictly off limits to media, which Gerard Kennedy assures her will be coming down as soon as they’ve dealt with the first bit of fiddly housekeeping business on the agenda. After that, it’s on to his matched set of motions, the first of which would invite a no doubt entirely willing Kevin Page to discuss the PBO’s efforts to track the government’s infrastructure spending spree, and the second to coax a perhaps slightly more reticent Gordon Landon — formerly the Conservative candidate in Markham — to tell the committee what he knows about how those spending decisions are made. Doesn’t that sound informative? We’ll see if Kennedy’s fellow committee members agree.

3:35:14 PM
Well, the meeting has started; ITQ heard the sound of the gavel just as the door was closing. So, how long will she — and it is a she, not a we, for those of you who like to keep track of media attendance — end up standing out here, BlackBerry at the ready? According to the release from Kennedy’s office — posted earlier — it shouldn’t take more than a few minutes to go through the report currently under discussion, but if there was going to be a filibuster attempt by members of a certain governing party — not that ITQ is saying there will, mind you — this would be the perfect juncture.

3:42:49 PM
Oh, please don’t let them have taken ITQ’s advice.

3:48:18 PM

Report of possible shenanigans in progress: Apparently, there *was* an attempt made — by whom, exactly, we don’t know, but it seems likely that it was an opposition member — to switch around the order of business for today, which would have allowed the committee to debate the Kennedy motions first, but alas, it was unsuccessful.

4:03:02 PM
*waves*

Just in case anyone out there is still hitting refresh, ITQ is still here, monitoring the hallway.

4:17:56 PM
Hurray! We’re in! Let the debate begin!

4:19:54 PM
Well, let the debate begin as soon as the chair — Merv Tweed, as it happens — is back in position; I guess they’ve suspended for a few minutes to … come to think of it, I can’t think of any reason why they’d have to suspend; it’s not like there are witnesses to settle in.

Oh, there we go — the chair is welcoming us back with a jaunty tap of the gavel, and recaps the first part of meeting for those of us who missed it; it seems to involve Bill C-310 — the airline passenger bill of rights, if I’m not mistaken — which will have its moment in the spotlight in early November.

4:23:49 PM
Without further ado, it’s on to the Kennedy motions, beginning with that which would invite Kevin Page to appear before the committee, and give him the opportunity, according to Mover Kennedy, to give an outline of the infrastructure spending thus far. He hopes that everyone agrees, what with the PBO being an “independent position” — take that, Carolyn Bennett — and the growing need for an independent review of the program.

4:27:24 PM
Lois Brown, ITQ can report, does not look remotely convinced by Kennedy’s pitch; she and Candice Hoeppner are staring daggers across the table, particularly when Kennedy tabled his report — not as evidence, but just for information purposes. You know, for kids!

4:30:35 PM
Brian Jean is the first to respond, and notes with a weary affection that Kennedy has brought more motions than any other member of the committee, and reminds him that no Liberal member went along during the committee’s recent trip to the United States — no, ITQ isn’t quite sure how that is relevant to the issue at hand — before switching tacks and claiming that Kennedy’s staff misrepresented themselves when calling up those project, and yeah, at this point, ITQ was perilously close to losing the thread. Kennedy calls on the chair to stop Jean from making false statements about his research practices, but Tweed is unmoved: as far as he can tell, it’s a point of debate, not an order.

4:35:19 PM
Okay, how did this turn into a debate over Gerard Kennedy’s infrastructure report, and how on earth can Brian Jean suggest, with a straight face, that all the information anyone could want is available on the Building Canada website?

You know, I actually can’t tell whether Jean — by which, of course, I mean the government – going to support this motion or not. All he’s doing is sniping at Kennedy. Oh, I guess not — he just called it “unhelpful”.

4:37:24 PM
Bloquiste Mario Laframboise wonders if Page is actually the right person, or, more specifically, the person who can answer their questions — he thinks that the Auditor General may have more to say. (Is she really conducting a review of the infrastructure program? Doesn’t she usually wait until the dust has settled before breaking out her much-feared microscope?)

Anyway, he suggests that they find out from the PBO what, if anything, he can tell them, and notes that he will be voting against Kennedy’s motion, but only because he doesn’t want to waste Page’s time; he thinks they can come up with a compromise motion.

4:40:29 PM
The Conservatives are definitely under instructions — well, strong recommendations, at least — to tweak Kennedy over what I gather we’re to believe is a spotty at best attendance record. Oh, and Lois Brown thinks this motion is “inappropriate” as well.

4:43:58 PM
Dennis Bevington, on the other hand, seems to be four square behind it — he can’t understand why the government wouldn’t want to get those numbers out there, and show how this program is getting things done for Canadians; he thinks the motion could be “fleshed out” with more detail via friendly amendment, but otherwise, he thinks it’s just fine.

4:45:44 PM
Although he’s still ostensibly debating his motion to invite Page to appear, Kennedy takes advantage of his second turn at the mic to mount a spirited defence of his report, and reminds Laframboise that the AG has “different responsibilities” — she investigates money that has already spent, and not — money that is in the process of maybe or maybe not being spent.

4:49:47 PM
This is the infrastructure committee, Kennedy reminds all and sundry — how can it *possibly* have taken *this* long for it to look into the government’s infrastructure program? Which is, admittedly, a good question: apparently, they’ve been swanning off to study light rail and other such tangential matters. Of course, a perfectly good response would be: What took you so long to bring forward a motion to do so, sir?

4:54:04 PM
Another Kennedy-never-shows-up shot from Jeff Watson, who claims that he’s only here when it involves a “politically sexy” issue — like this one. He then goes into a rambling diatribe against the media — by which he means ITQ, who is the only reporter in attendance, and who, contrary to his innuendo, is not in anyone’s “tow”. for the record.

He works himself into a tizzy by the end of his rant, and then huffs off to the snack table, handing the floor over to Hoeppner, who seems to think that committees have the power to call elections. Sorry, “unwanted elections”, which is how any such exercise in forcible democracy is to be styled for the foreseeable future, at least as far as the official talking points.

5:02:06 PM
Sukh Dhaliwal speaks in favour of the motion, or in favour of the *idea* of the motion, or the concept of the idea, but Mario Laframboise is still cautiously pessimistic that Page really knows much more than the rest of us, at least as far as the infrastructure rollout.

Meanwhile, Brian Jean once again pretends that he thinks Gerard Kennedy has no idea that actionplan.gc.ca exists — seriously, you guys, we’ve *all* seen the ads — and then reads from various news clippings. He’s also still after Kennedy to tell the committee who his office purported to represent when they called the various projects, which ITQ, frankly, finds baffling; is he really suggesting that this information should have been kept back from anyone other than an authorized government agency? Because that doesn’t sound like the party of transparency that ITQ remembers from the days of the *last* infrastructure spending spree.

5:10:41 PM
With that, the chair closes debate — no fussin’ or filibustering, but straight to the vote, and it fails when Laframboise and his Bloc colleague vote with the government on what seem, to ITQ, at least, to be fairly reasonable gounds.

5:12:02 PM
And now, onto the motion to invite the former Conservative candidate turned “accidental whistleblower”, according to Kennedy. Does his former party believe Gordon Landon should be “stifled” from expressing his views, or sharing what he knows about the allocation of funds? Oh, what do you *think*, Gerard? Seriously, no. “He’s still a card-carrying member of the Conservative Party,” he notes — yet he has shown a “willingness to speak out publicly” and an independent streak, all of which makes him an excellent potential witness.

5:14:48 PM
Brian Jean can barely restrain his snickers — this is a “witch hunt”, he sniffs; he’s never so much as met Mr. Langdon (sic), and the suggestion that there is a vast conspiracy at work is just a little bit “repugnant”.

5:17:22 PM
Okay, so the Bloc Quebecois is once again siding with the government — as far as Laframboise is concerned, the allocation in Quebec, at least, has been fair and equitable, and they — the Bloc, that is, and Quebeckers, presumably — are happy with how the money is being spent. For the most part. He thinks this motion is nothing more than a “settling of scores,” so he’ll be voting against it.

5:19:42 PM
Kennedy tries to be gracious in responding to the Bloc critique — he understands that Landon won’t have much to offer as far as new information on Quebec, and now *he* keeps referring to him as “Langdon”; anyway, he knows that he’s lost this round, but makes — or re-makes — his case once again.

5:22:32 PM
This time around, not even the NDP votes with Team Kennedy: the motion is defeated, 6 to 3. So that’s that, and with no further business — oh, put that hand down, Brian Jean — we’re adjourned.

And that’s all for today’s show. Is it still raining out there? Come to think of it, given the apocalyptic skies earlier this afternoon, if it is, would that be water, or toads?

Bookmark and Share
  • Dakota

    The Little Liberal who cried wolf.

    I've heard this story before and I'm pretty sure is doesn't work out very well for the little Liberal boy.

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

      If Conservative spokespersons (ones that are allowed to comment and not make up stories about defecting Liberal MP's) have data and facts that refute Gerard Kennedy's findings, by all means let's see them present them.

      All I've seen so far is a lot of bluster from John Baird.

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

      If Conservative spokespersons (ones that are allowed to comment and not make up stories about defecting Liberal MP's) have data and facts that refute Gerard Kennedy's findings, by all means let's see them present them.

      All I've seen so far is a lot of bluster from John Baird, and parroting of that from the Con-bots like yourself on here.

      • Jesse

        I think the Conservatives are a little busy

        RUNNING THE COUNTRY.

        If a non-partisan think tank wants to run the numbers then fine. But your assertion that because Kennedy has come up with some theory its automatically true simply because the Conservatives haven't taken the time to debunk it is an EPIC FAIL at basic logic.

        A theory is not proven until its proven. Simply asserting something in the fashion Kennedy did does not make it true nor should we assume it is true.

        Oh and the whole "HE HAS NUMBERS" thing doesn't cut it. We all know how to use excel…

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

          The onus is upon the government to prove that its book are in order now that they have been put in question. Your notion that we should just trust that they are doing their job properly is out right silly.

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

          Stating that it is an EPIC FAIL at logic because someone wants a third party to look at billions in spending amid suggestions of misappropriation or a favouritism in the dispersion of funds is hardly a fail.

          It worked well enough for Ad Scam and I would hope this current government is not above the principles of accountability and transparency since we do supposedly live in a democracy (which utilizes such principles for 'checks and balances').

        • MJ Patchouli

          I've never heard of a "non-partisan think tank." Please illuminate me.

          • Mike

            MJ Patchouli…

            REALLY?!?! You want to be "turned on?!?!"
            Because I'm sure people could "enlighten you," but "illuminating" you would entail flipping a switch.

            …just sayin'…

          • MJ Patchouli

            While I would like to be turned on as often as possible, the word means "to throw light upon (a subject)" according to my OED, in addition to your more literal sense.

            Even in its literal sense, one doesn't need to flip a switch for illumination — a simple candle will do.

          • Jesse

            You used the wrong word. The guy was being cheap by calling you out on it but you just look silly defending it.

            And there's a number of "good government" groups that don't have partisan leanings.

          • Foreigner

            Name one.

          • MJ Patchouli

            English is a beautiful and sophisticated language, and the word I chose is fine. I didh't think he was being cheap at all, just humourous, and I did use a less-common choice.

            Now, name a non-partisan think tank.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Fish_30 Al O'Wishes

            illuminating – enlightening: tending to increase knowledge or dissipate ignorance; "an enlightening glimpse of government in action"; "an illuminating lecture"

            Granted, that definition comes from Princeton, and I suspect that you are not a fan of those elite ivy-league type institutions. So it would seem that your attempt at a snarky insult was a, well, imposing lack of success.

            As for the "good government" groups with no partisan leanings, can you name one? While there are a ton that claim to be non-partisan, they tend to be the most partisan.

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

            I think you may have meant "enlighten".

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

          Precisely why an Independent Budget Officer would come in handy right about now. So let us hear from the guy who is neither a Liberal nor a Conservative, or of any other party. Let us hear from him whether the Conservative numbers are up to snuff, or whether Kennedy "has the numbers" or whether both sides are out to lunch.

          • Ted

            And let's have the government give him the information he requests so he can do the job that Harper himself created.

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

    I for one am always interested to hear what Kevin Page has to say.

  • John Taylor

    If Gerard Kennedy wants to impress me by outing the Cons with his amazing research and math skillz, he could start by finishing university first.

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

      Consider the messenger shot.

      Case closed.

    • MJ Patchouli

      Maybe with one of those sought-after degrees in economics from U of Calgary? Bet that would turn your head!

      • John Taylor

        An Econ degree from UCalgary would be better than not being able to finish an arts degree at Trent U! Lol.

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

          I'm sorry, John, I didn't get the memo that only university graduates need apply for any voice in governing. Are we allowed to vote? I imagine we can stop paying taxes though, right?

        • Ted

          So let me get this straight because the Conservative rules on who is legitimate and allowed to govern and who is not can get pretty complicated.

          - You are not allowed if you are a high achieving academic
          - You are also not allowed if you aren't one of the 20% of Canadians with a post-secondary eduction
          - You aren't allowed if your success is from outside of the country
          —- unless you were in Afghanistan and want to run for the Conservatives
          - You aren't allowed if you are from Toronto, the city that hasn't produced a PM
          - You aren't allowed ever if you've signed an agreement to work with the NDP and the Bloc to take down the government, but you are allowed if you reached an agreement with the NDP and the Bloc to take down the government if the government is a Liberal government.

          Am I missing anything here?

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

            Yes, the very obvious observation that John Taylor is not a Conservative party spokesperson.

        • Foreigner

          Given that Harper had to recant his own thesis, I bet he doesn't think so.

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

          Have you checked out how many Con MP's that haven't got a great education and didn't finish university. I'll name one – Pierre Poilivere didn't finish university.

          You're argument is really dumb.

        • MJ Patchouli

          Last I heard, a degree in economics is an arts degree.

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

    Isn't it the obvious move for the Conservatives to request the participation of some mayors from Liberal held ridings where there is a lot of infrastructure spending? I would think the BQ would be all for that motion, if the ridings were outside of Quebec.

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

    Isn't the obvious move for the Conservatives to request the participation of some mayors from Liberal held ridings where there is a lot of infrastructure spending? I would think the BQ would be all for that motion, if the ridings were outside of Quebec.

    • Ted

      No one is saying the Conservatives haven't spent money in some non-Liberal ridings, so I'm not sure what that would prove. The accusation is that (1) hardly any of the 90% the Tories are claiming is out the door is in fact out the door and (2) of the little that has been spent or "committed", most of the taxpayer infrastructure money is going to Tory ridings.

      The Conservatives have provided no numbers to counter Kennedy's very detailed analysis, which lends credence to Kennedy's accusations.

      All they have to do is provide Kevin Page with the numbers, and they aren't even doing that which lends even more credence to Kennedy's accusations.

      It should be pretty easy to refute. And they haven't.

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

        The purpose of producing Landon is to suggest that the money is being spent in Conservative ridings. That is a charge that could well have some merit, but Kennedy's attempt to get Landon to prove it is a very weak effort.

        On the charge of how much is spent this minute, even Page will not be able to give a satisfactory question to that. It is an AG type question because the accounting is not timely, it involves way too many departments and the coordination of other levels of government.

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

        The purpose of producing Landon is to suggest that the money is being spent in Conservative ridings. That is a charge that could well have some merit, but Kennedy's attempt to get Landon to prove it is a very weak effort.

        On the charge of how much is spent this minute, even Page will not be able to give a satisfactory answer to that question. It is an AG type question because the accounting is not timely, it involves way too many departments and the coordination of other levels of government.

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

          Is it true that at any given moment, the apparatus of government has not the slightest idea whether cheques have been cut and the money has left Ottawa? That seems far-fetched.

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

            So you would be satisfied that the current government is not committed to expenditures for which the cheque is not yet cut? Interesting.

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

            My satisfaction isn't at stake.

            I would be concerned about the announcement and re-announcement of projects that are made out to be underway when they're not.

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

            But Ed, the current government ISN'T committed to expenditures for which the cheque is not yet cut. It's part of the requirements for the infrastructure stimulus fund. If the deadline of March 31, 2011 is not met for the projects to be completed, the money comes back to the Feds. Now, I don't mean every dollar at this point will go back to the Feds, but we are in October and I'm not sure how much longer road crews would be willing to start working on roads before winter. Leaving only next spring, summer and fall for that kind of construction–March 31, 2011 is the end of next winter and might as well be October 31, 2010 for road construction. Have you noticed how the vast bulk of all the projects is some form of road construction?

          • juxtaposeur

            For MTO contracts, the winter shutdown begins on the last Friday of November and goes to the first Monday of April (next year is an exception since a holiday falls on the first Monday in April).

            A lot of municipal roadway contracts have shutdown seasons starting mid-November. I've seen some projects have a spring start-up as early as mid-March, or as late as mid-May.

        • John.K

          A quick review of building permits issued in the municipalities wouldn't be too difficult, to see if the shovels are in the ground, or even near it.

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

            That would be an accounting method with nearly zero precision. Not all infrastructure money will be at the issue of a building permit, and not every building permit will have an accurate figure on what the federal government contribution to the total planned improvement figure would be.

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

            If the federal government has final approval of all contracts, doesn't it have this information sitting somewhere as we debate this?

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

            If the federal government has final approval of all contracts, doesn't it have this information sitting somewhere as we debate this? Why should the opposition or even any Canadian have to resort to 'zero precision' investigation into where tax dollars are going and the effectiveness of such?

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

            If the federal government has final approval of all contracts, doesn't it have this information sitting somewhere as we debate this? Why should the opposition or even any Canadian have to resort to a 'zero precision' investigation into where tax dollars are going and the effectiveness of such?

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

    I see the Conservatives wasted no time wheeling out their favourite logical fallacy: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

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

      As opposed the the many and varied logical fallacies that other parties waste no time using.

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

        Of course.

      • Foreigner

        Thank you for illustrating tu quoque so ably.

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

          Yes, very often in politics, an argument is advanced merely by pointing out the inconsistencies in your opponents logic.

          A point on which, it could be added, that Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is not a logical fallacy. It merely states that pointing out your opponents hypocrisy does not prove your point. For politicians, they are often happy enough to point out the opponents hypocrisy.

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

          Yes, very often in politics, an argument is advanced merely by pointing out the inconsistencies in your opponents logic.

          A point on which, it could be added, that an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque is not a logical fallacy. It merely states that pointing out your opponents hypocrisy does not prove your point. For politicians, they are often happy enough to point out the opponents hypocrisy.

  • Bob

    Sorry about the mutliple posts, could a moderator delete them?

    And just to follow up on that point, before you go off and suggest that I'm some con-bot and that Kennedy wasn't misleading anyone and there are no projects in Toronto or Montreal (which would certainly come as a surprise to the mayors of those two cities), why don't you look at the list of projects (and their locations) on the government website (and yes, the civil servants may be lying to cover their political masters, though since the projects all enjoy joint financing with municipal and provincial partners, that's unlikely, and easily disproved if true) and compare it to the list prepared by Gerard Kennedy and tell me with a straight face that he wasn't playing games with his stats. The link is here http://actionplan.gc.ca/eng/map.asp

    • Ted

      That's easy: he's not playing games. My face is straight and serious. This graft is outrageous.

      See my post above.

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

      Bob – "No one is saying the Conservatives haven't spent money in some non-Liberal ridings, so I'm not sure what that would prove."

      Lots of information missing from the website compared to its United States counterpart. A few pertinent details that would be helpful right now:

      - Date announced (and any re-announcements made)
      - Whether money has flowed
      - If the project has actually broken ground

      Billions of new (and old) announcements since this issue was raised by the opposition. The date of announcements would be interesting to see, especially in the case where the government may be making new announcements in other ridings to obscure its favouritism towards Conservative and swing ridings.

      Has the money left Ottawa? That's the other big question.

      Are the shovels in the ground? The whole reason that Parliament gave billions of 'no-strings-attached' funds to the government back in the New Year was so that projects could get underway *this* construction season.

      All of this kerfuffle could have been avoided but the government chose the method of fund distribution that is least efficient and most prone to political interference.

      • Bob

        Except, if you looked at Kennedy's report, that's exactly the conclusion you would draw, because you might think that the Tories haven't spent a cent in either Toronto or Montreal, cities which account for roughly half of the Liberal caucus.

        All I'm saying is given these massive ommissions (and how could Kennedy not include the stimulus funds spent in Toronto? He's from there for god's sake, he didn't even include the several million dollars worth of projects in his own riding!) I would take Kennedy's "research" with a BIG grain of salt. And I can tell you that, at least in the case of Toronto, the feds announced their spending a month before Kennedy's report came out – and it was only that late because the Toronto City council didn't follow the rules with their initial request for cash.

        As for the criticism that the money hasn't flowed as quickly as the opposition parties want, frankly I'd rather the government take their time and fund the right projects then just throw money out the door at the first-comers.

        • Ted

          Bob – there are no omissions. The Toronto data was not there. There is Montreal data. And there is complete data across the country to the extent it is even made available by this non-transparent government.

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

          Bob, you do realize that in order to qualify for infrastructure stimulus funding, a project must be COMPLETED by March 31, 2011, right? And if not, the Feds take their money back, leaving the municipality and (presumably) the province on the hook for the funding shortfall? So holding back the funding commitment endangers the projects completion date, which endangers the funding. If you are a prudent city mayor, you might tend to make sure the funding commitment is solid on the part of the Feds before going ahead with a project, by which point you might still not go ahead with a project, fearing it won't make the deadline. So, when the Feds say that they have committed 90% of the funds–out of that, how much is already known not going to be actually spent. Looking at the projects in Toronto for example, if they did all those projects (I assume watermain replacements and lead service replacements will require road closings) at the same time, pretty much every road would be churned up thereby grinding Toronto to a halt.

          So, as of September 11, 2009, 190M has been committed to Toronto. Will that equate to 30M?, 40M?

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

          Bob, you do realize that in order to qualify for infrastructure stimulus funding, a project must be COMPLETED by March 31, 2011, right? And if not, the Feds take their money back, leaving the municipality and (presumably) the province on the hook for the funding shortfall? So holding back the funding commitment endangers the project's completion date, which endangers the funding. If you are a prudent city mayor, you might tend to make sure the funding commitment is solid on the part of the Feds before going ahead with a project, by which point you might still not go ahead with a project, fearing it won't make the deadline. So, when the Feds say that they have committed 90% of the funds–out of that, how much is already known not going to be actually spent. Looking at the projects in Toronto for example, if they did all those projects (I assume watermain replacements and lead service replacements will require road closings) at the same time, pretty much every road would be churned up thereby grinding Toronto to a halt.

          So, as of September 11, 2009, 190M has been committed to Toronto. Will that equate to 30M?, 40M?

  • anonymoose

    You know, I just flpped thorugh Kennedy's report. He conveniently misses some huge projects in non-Con ridings here outside of the lower mainland, such as here in the north in skeena bulkley valley(NDP) ($178million) and BC southern interior (NDP) ($1million or so for the city of Trail). Those are two that I remember hearing about in the last while, and if I do some digging, I know that I can find that info. I wonder why Kennedy can't. I don't understand that why he can't understand that time from proposal, through engineering, to approvals, to tenders, to action is at least 7 months. Any construction project goes trough the same process. I know some in our own city can take up to a year.

    • Bonnie N

      Moose
      I agree to a point but the implication in the ads and website is there are shovels in the ground. But the bogus cheques and the suggestion that people are working away on projects will not get to the shovels until 2010 – Baird is not telling the truth..

      The idea behind stimulus this year was to create jobs and the government missed the mark which has implications for the unemployed. Let's not forget how serious our unemployment numbers have been and will continue to be.

      You seem to have faith in the government. I wonder out loud if in the end, how many of these commitments will really come to pass next year/ I guess I am more cynical – I just think the government is hoping the recession end will coincide with their plans for next year. If not, I think they will not honour their commitments because of the ballooning deficit.

      • anonymoose

        I know directly about some of them: from my office I can see the excavators working; some of them at this point, the "shovels" are the engineers pens, with proposals going out. the funding is secured for the projects adn they are going ahead. Can't speak to other places, but they are moving along.

        • Boonie N

          Moose
          Yes but the white collar workers are not the subject of huge unemployment numbers although that could follow and in some cases is true.. You are not getting what is going on here. It's not an easy path to creating jobs – there is an immediate need to stimulate the unemployed.

          The truth is some of these jobs will never come back – I am unsure there is a plan to create jobs other than at
          Tims.

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

      Hard to judge whether those projects have been announced before or since the opposition initially raised the alarm, since this information isn't made available. According to David Akin, billions of dollars in new projects have been announced since Kennedy's report was made public.

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

    My satisfaction isn't at stake.

  • Foreigner

    Conbots. Is there nothing they won't lie about?

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

    And unfortunately, that is a concern that won't be properly answered for quite some time.

    For me the bigger concern is that they deem haste as the order of the day, with little concern for waste.

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

      I still find it hard to believe that such information cannot be made available. The US Recovery.gov site has extensive data fields available for every project receiving federal funds. Here's a very partial list of those fields:

      Created date, Modified date, Recipient name, Recipient DUNS, Federal award ID, Federal award ID date modified, Fiscal year, Fiscal quarter, Federal funding amount, Non-federal funding amount, Total funding amount, Funding start date, Funding end date, Dollars obligated, Contract value, Date signed, Effective sate, Current Completion date, Ultimate completion date, Contractor vendor name, Legal name, Competition category, Extent competed, Reason not competed, Vendor organization type, Number of employees, Annual revenue, etc.

      It makes Actionplan.gc.ca look like a brochure for a cheap motel. We honestly can't do better? Don't people deserve to know exactly where their money is going and why?

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

      I still find it hard to believe that such information cannot be made available. The US Recovery.gov site has extensive data fields available for every project receiving federal funds. Here's a very partial list of those fields:

      Created date, Modified date, Recipient name, Recipient DUNS, Federal award ID, Federal award ID date modified, Fiscal year, Fiscal quarter, Federal funding amount, Non-federal funding amount, Total funding amount, Funding start date, Funding end date, Dollars obligated, Contract value, Date signed, Effective date, Current Completion date, Ultimate completion date, Contractor vendor name, Legal name, Competition category, Extent competed, Reason not competed, Vendor organization type, Number of employees, Annual revenue, etc.

      It makes Actionplan.gc.ca look like a brochure for a cheap motel. We honestly can't do better? Don't people deserve to know exactly where their money is going and why?

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

        The BLOC doesn't share you suspicions. It kind of makes the Liberals look a bit hysterical – for information that is obviously forthcoming.

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

          If the focus was 100% Québec, I'd be inclined to agree.

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

          It seems the PBO does share my suspicions, esp. wrt. lack of data.

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

          It seems the PBO does share my suspicions, esp. wrt. lack of data. This is reflected in the latest report published, Third Quarterly Update of a Monitoring Framework for Measures Contained in the Economic Action Plan.

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

          It seems the PBO does share my suspicions wrt. lack of data. This is reflected in the latest report published, Third Quarterly Update of a Monitoring Framework for Measures Contained in the Economic Action Plan.

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

          It seems the PBO does share my suspicions wrt. lack of data. This is reflected in the latest report published, Third Quarterly Update of a Monitoring Framework for Measures Contained in the Economic Action Plan. Bring on the hysterics!

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

      I still find it hard to believe that such information cannot be made available in short order. The US Recovery.gov site has extensive data fields available for every project receiving federal funds. Here's a very partial list of those fields:

      Created date, Modified date, Recipient name, Recipient DUNS, Federal award ID, Federal award ID date modified, Fiscal year, Fiscal quarter, Federal funding amount, Non-federal funding amount, Total funding amount, Funding start date, Funding end date, Dollars obligated, Contract value, Date signed, Effective date, Current Completion date, Ultimate completion date, Contractor vendor name, Legal name, Competition category, Extent competed, Reason not competed, Vendor organization type, Number of employees, Annual revenue, etc.

      It makes Actionplan.gc.ca look like a brochure for a cheap motel. We honestly can't do better? Don't people deserve to know exactly where their money is going and why?

  • Ted

    Bob:

    You said he didn't include Montreal. He did.

    You said he cherry picked when clearly he did not. Look at the BC or NB reports which were separated out because of their thoroughness.

    As for the blog link, you are being too cute by half. The blog is not the source of the analysis it is just reporting the analysis.

    And once again, you folks just don't get it: you are trying hard to distract but the facts are the facts. This is outrageous Tory graft on a scale never before seen in Canada.

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

    When does the Auditor General get to check the books?

    • Gawd

      constantly

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

      And in reply to my own Q I offer "in the fullness of time".
      I seems the AG is reporting on 2007 2008 now so we wouldn't likely see info on the current stimulus/infrastructure spending till 2010/11 ish.

      So would the PBO be tasked to respond in a timely way to requests for information from MPs? And if every MP asked a question at the same time how might that be prioritized?

      Doh a quick read of the mandate of the PBO ;

      " The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. "

      And so in that sneaky lawyerese that parliamentarians speak addressing the efficiency or fairness of the dispersal of stimulus funds is outside this mandate as long as the 'cost' is the same or less than what's in the budget/legislation?

  • knick

    It would be reassuring to have a complete and accurate list of infrastructure project spending that does not include projects approved prior to the introduction of infrastructure spending. That way those of us who aren't forensic accountants would have some idea of how much real employment will be created with that great whack of dollars that puts us into the red for the next number of years.

  • tobyornotoby

    This whole debate is crap. It should be routine for government spending of this sort to be detailed and easily available. The scandal here is that the party that pretended it was for accountability is now running the least transparent government since war tim and giving us pap instead of facts. How dare they spend a cent on that stupid website (and how much did that cost by the way?) with its stupid map when they can't even produce a list of spending with timelines and locations and project details. Baird says the spending is there, the projects are underway, well fine, just show us the list. I can't believe anyone on this forum would even dare to criticize the inadequacy of Kennedy's report when it is the most detail we have seen on infrastructure spending to date. I don't know if it's accurate or not, I can't judge for myself, because the facts are unavailable! Why does the opposition even need to ferret out pulbic spending? The list, Cons, the list, put up or shut up!

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

    This whole debate is indeed crap. I don't want to get overly critical on Macleans or O'Malley, because at least they provided some coverage, and it is great to get liveblogging from committees.

    There are two things that jump out at me concerning this particular committee meeting. The first is the very obvious political theatre going on with the suggestion of questioning Landon. Obviously he could not possibly shed anything credible on the matter of the distribution of the entire program spending. Clearly it is an issue that should go under the microscope, but Landon is a ridiculous choice as the instrument for that examination.

    The second thing that jumps out at me is that Kennedy could not muster the support of the other opposition parties. That speaks to his credibility within the committee. If he was widely respected for his committee work, I suspect he would have been able to get at least one of the other opposition parties to support his second motion, and probably both of them on the first. Why did he not get their support? Probably because they view his committee work as lacking, and its not surprising to hear the Conservatives loudly reminding the other committee members of his attendance. That, along with the fact that those committee members would recognize the political theatre for what it was.

    Here's the part where I start ranting- Infrastructure spending is definitely not the kind of thing that you can have an accurate up to the minute spending figure on. Take an look at the programs. They have obligation ranges, e.g. $1-$5M. Once you start digging up a pipe, you have only a rough idea what the cost will be – until the new pipe is in and the road paved over. That is the nature of the beast, and especially so given the ad hoc nature of these projects, where they often have little precedent to base an estimate on.

    I suspect that the other committee members recognize that, and resented the light their committee was being placed under. We are in a time in our political history when their is unprecedented opportunity for committe work to bear real fruit, they have the power. Seeing that opportunity being frittered away on cheap political theatre tricks is a shame.

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

    This whole debate is indeed crap. I don't want to get overly critical on Macleans or O'Malley, because at least they provided some coverage, and it is great to get liveblogging from committees.

    There are two things that jump out at me concerning this particular committee meeting. The first is the very obvious political theatre going on with the suggestion of questioning Landon. Obviously he could not possibly shed anything credible on the matter of the distribution of the entire program spending. Clearly it is an issue that should go under the microscope, but Landon is a ridiculous choice as the instrument for that examination.

    The second thing that jumps out at me is that Kennedy could not muster the support of the other opposition parties. That speaks to his credibility within the committee. If he was widely respected for his committee work, I suspect he would have been able to get at least one of the other opposition parties to support his second motion, and probably both of them on the first. Why did he not get their support? Probably because they view his committee work as lacking, and its not surprising to hear the Conservatives loudly reminding the other committee members of his attendance. That, along with the fact that those committee members would recognize the political theatre for what it was.

    Here's the part where I start ranting- Infrastructure spending is definitely not the kind of thing that you can have an accurate up to the minute spending figure on. Take an look at the programs. They have obligation ranges, e.g. $1-$5M. Once you start digging up a pipe, you have only a rough idea what the cost will be – until the new pipe is in and the road paved over. That is the nature of the beast, and especially so given the ad hoc nature of these projects, where they often have little precedent to base an estimate on.

    I suspect that the other committee members recognize that, and resented the light their committee was being placed under. We are in a time in our political history when there is unprecedented opportunity for committee work to bear real fruit, they have the power. Seeing that opportunity being frittered away on cheap political theatre tricks is a shame.

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

    Committees should be restricted to studying bills referred to it by the House, nothing more. All these pointless bits of political theater should go.

  • Ted

    That's just quite simply false.

    And quite irrelevant to the province by province analysis done and presented in full. The same graft is being seen across the country. The analysis of BC and NB for example looked at every single riding if I am not mistaken. And what's more, it is consistent with what has been independently mapped out by others.

    But the solution is simple. Why doesn't the government release the numbers so we can all judge for ourselves?

  • Ted

    That's just quite simply false.

    And quite irrelevant to the province by province analysis done and presented in full. The same graft is being seen across the country. The analysis of BC and NB for example looked at every single riding if I am not mistaken. And what's more, it is consistent with what has been independently mapped out by others.

    But the solution is simple. Why doesn't the government release the numbers so we can all judge for ourselves?

  • Bob

    Ted, what did I say that was false? Kennedy's report doesn't include anything from Toronto and only includes two projects from Montreal. Look in his data appendix online.

    And I'm not sure citing a blog called Liberal Video Depot is neccesarily a prime example of "independent" research.

From Macleans