No wonder Ottawa's "Economic Action Plan" signs cost so much—they're not footing the bill

By Philippe Gohier - Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 5:07 PM - 22 Comments

Two stories that I’m not quite sure add up to a scandal, but are nonetheless intriguing: First, Le Devoir reported yesterday that the Tories are spending a mind-boggling $800 to $7,000 to produce and install each one of those goofy “Economic Action Plan” signs that are popping up on just about any project that requires more than an x-acto knife to complete. Try as they might, Le Devoir‘s reporters couldn’t figure out just how the Tories are spending that much per sign—their half-assed call for bids found printers willing to make similar signs for about 200 bucks a pop. The second story, uncovered by RueFrontenac.com, may explain why Ottawa doesn’t mind putting up so many of those godforsaken signs no matter how much they cost—they’re not the ones paying for them:

According to our sources, the infrastructure program established by Ottawa to stimulate Canada’s economy includes unusual, publicity-related requirements to guarantee funding. The Conservative government is telling cities and provinces they have to pay for the enormous signs put up at infrastructure building sites financed by Ottawa.

Alas, neither story is getting much play. As is their wont, the Liberals suddenly don’t seem all that interested in where Ottawa’s stimulus money has gone or is going. Onto the scrap heap the story goes, left to rot alongside Suaad Mohamud, those body bags, and a bunch of “sexy” isotopes. The hot story now, at least until the next “gaffe” is uncovered, is the fact no one you know has been vaccinated against H1N1. (This situation, according to Liberal party president Alf Apps, is nothing short of “the ‘Hurricane Katrina’ of our own laissez-faire, fend for yourself government.” If the Liberals play their cards right, Sarah Polley should be appearing on a telethon any minute now to warn us that “Stephen Harper doesn’t care about feverish people.”) Meanwhile, the stimulus spending chugs along.

Mick Jagger was right: Who wants yesterday’s papers? Nobody in the world.

'4,476 pages of contempt'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, November 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM - 121 Comments

Kevin Page has apparently asked the government if it might turn over the electric version of the paper data it dumped in boxes on his doorstep last week. The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair appeared after QP on Friday with one of the boxes to unleash the following.

J’ai été, les trois boîtes, ça c’est les boîtes elles-mêmes qui ont été donné hier à Kevin Page.  Celui-ci, le 2 of 3 est marqué Ontario complete.  En réponse à une demande légalement formulée par le directeur parlementaire du budget, Kevin Page a reçu la réponse suivante du ministre Baird.  Il a reçu trois boîtes, 4,476 pages de documents, aucun résumé, aucune version électronique.

This is one of three boxes that Minister Baird sent to Kevin Page, Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer in response to his legally formulated request for information.  If you look at the Act that constitutes the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he has the right to ask for all information required to allow him to do his job.  There was no summary, no synopsis, no spreadsheet, there wasn’t even an electronic version, 4,476 pages of contempt from John Baird to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.  This one is marked Box 2 of 3, Ontario complete.  These are the actual boxes, although you’ll understand that the documents are no longer in them because every document and we have copies for you of one of the pages, every document is marked Protected A.  So these documents were sent to Kevin Page’s office.

Continue…

Blessed hindsight

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM - 11 Comments

Bit late to this, but here is Michael Ignatieff’s interview with Canadian Business.

CB: The NDP and the Liberals pushed for a stimulus plan. Now everyone’s complaining about the deficit. So what would you have done differently?

MI: Tighter fiscal control between 2006 to 2008, strategic investment in things that make us more productive, and competitive and strategic infrastructure investments that ought to have been made are only now in the pipeline. And a clearer sense, beginning in 2007, when the economic situation went south, of earlier corrective action. We would have enhanced the gas-tax transfer to all municipalities. That would have gotten the money out infinitely faster. The numbers we’re running are, not much north of 12% of infrastructure investment has actually gone out the door.

The other thing we would have done very differently is strategic investment in places that make a difference. All across the country, people want Vancouver and Halifax to be working more efficiently; they want the borders to be working more efficiently. That strategic spine of export infrastructure, we would have named that as a priority of investment. The other thing is much more robust and energetic effort, beginning in 2006, to build our export performance in China and India.

Fun with maps (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 30, 2009 at 11:56 AM - 3 Comments

Another interactive map to explore, this one with pretty colours.

Fun with maps

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM - 38 Comments

While John Baird’s office offers the Parliamentary Budget Office a 4,476-page spreadsheet, the folks at Spatial Databox have put together a customizable map. Enjoy.

Different numbers

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, October 25, 2009 at 6:24 PM - 39 Comments

The government releases a partial accounting of stimulus spending to support its particular case, laments that the official opposition has done likewise.

In charts provided to The Canadian Press, government officials note in particular that the major infrastructure component of the Building Canada program has allocated $1.4 billion to large projects in opposition ridings in Ontario, and just $436 million to Conservative ridings.

“This particular fund supports major projects, typically in major municipalities that tend to be represented by opposition members,” said Chris Day, spokesman for Transport Minister John Baird.

“We have different funds for different purposes. It’s wrong to highlight one fund, as the opposition has been doing, and carry that trend.”

Meanwhile, Canwest analyzes another program entirely, finds evidence that it favours opposition ridings, but concedes that its data is incomplete.

If only there existed some sort of independent officer of Parliament—call it, maybe, the Parliamentary Budget Officer—to whom the government could turn over all its data for a full accounting of what has been spent, where it has been directed and whether it’ll all amount to anything. If only.

More numbers

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 23, 2009 at 1:44 AM - 73 Comments

The CBC offers its analysis of stimulative spending.

According to the analysis of the Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, Conservative ridings have received about 60 per cent of the funding, compared with 40 per cent for opposition ridings. For example, the Saskatchewan riding of Liberal House Leader Ralph Goodale, who has been a vocal critic of the stimulus spending, has received about $4.8 million. But the Conservative riding next door received about $6.5 million. Crunching the numbers in a sample of other ridings across the country shows a similar pattern.

Meanwhile, McGregor & Maher look at what money from a specific fund for struggling communities went to what projects in the Industry Minister’s riding.

The Commons: 'Tell the truth!'

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 6:55 PM - 45 Comments

The Scene. Ralph Goodale stood, broad and booming, with a particularly provocative turn of phrase.

“The Conservatives,” he said, “are engaged in an orgy of partisan abuse.”

And you needn’t apparently take Mr. Goodale’s word for it.

“Three independent investigations confirm the research of the member for Parkdale-High Park,” he continued. “A shocking part of the stimulus plan is earmarked for partisan Conservative purposes. Will the Conservatives admit this is a threat for those who didn’t vote for them?”

The Prime Minister stood, apparently quite confused by the Liberal house leader’s tone.

“Mr. Speaker, the program for the reconstruction of leisure facilities is a very important measure for the Canadian economy and for communities. I do not understand at all why the Liberal Party of Canada opposes such projects and, even in their own counties. The allegations of the honourable member are quite untrue and, indeed, the Liberal deputy premier of Ontario said so.”

So there. Continue…

At the lonely end of the rink (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 22, 2009 at 1:55 AM - 82 Comments

The Stars gets Gerard Kennedy’s numbers on hockey rink stimulus in Toronto ridings.

Toronto 23 ridings — all but two held by Liberal MPs — got about 38 per cent less than the average Conservative riding in Ontario, prompting accusations that the government was again playing favourites as it doled out its massive stimulus fund.

The Toronto ridings got an average of $1.3 million, compared with an average of $2.1 million that was approved for Conservative ridings in Ontario — a difference of $777,787, according to Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale—High Park).

Kennedy’s office provides various figures and tables here.

The Commons: 'It depends'

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 8:40 PM - 88 Comments

The Scene. Michael Ignatieff stood looking serious, perhaps a bit unimpressed.

The Prime Minister, he reported en français, had admitted it was wrong for the government to put Conservative party logos on giant novelty cheques announcing the arrival of taxpayer dollars. But what of the public funding itself? What, for instance, of the fact that 75% of a fund for unemployed youth had been allocated in Conservative ridings?

On the government side, there was much yapping and whining.

“Having admitted it was wrong to put logos on cheques,” the Liberal leader wondered aloud, “will the Prime Minister admit now that partisanship in spending must stop immediately?”

The Prime Minister would not, if only because he was elsewhere. Absent too was John Baird, the government’s usual choice to enunciate a response on this file. So here, instead, came Industry Minister Tony Clement, waving his arms and pleading for your respect.

“We are on the side of Canadians,” he declared. “We are producing these projects because they mean jobs and opportunity. They mean getting behind and beyond the recession to a better and more prosperous economy through economic recovery. That is our message to Canadians and that is what Canadians want of us.”

Oddly enough, Mr. Ignatieff did not find satisfaction in this explanation.

Continue…

At the lonely end of the rink (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 4:09 PM - 33 Comments

The Globe does its own analysis of stimulus spending on ice rinks, playgrounds and such.

A high-profile Harper government stimulus program created to build hockey rinks and other recreation projects has funnelled about 33 per cent per cent more money to Conservative seats than to opposition ridings in the battleground province of Ontario.

An analysis by The Globe and Mail shows Tory ridings received an average of $2.1-million, compared to $1.5-million on average for opposition ridings.

If only we had a commissioner who was responsible for ethics

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 7:05 PM - 33 Comments

CBC explores the irony of news that the ethics commissioner will be investigating the ethics of giant novelty cheques.

Canada’s ethics commissioner will investigate dozens of allegations that Conservative MPs are using taxpayers’ money for partisan purposes. But Mary Dawson says she’s not sure how far her mandate allows her to go into ethical issues, despite her job title.

… in her annual report, Dawson highlighted that while the word “ethics” appears in her job title, it does not appear in the Conflict of Interest Act or the Code of Conduct for MPs. ”It’s quite unclear as to the extent to which my mandate extends into ethical issues that are not expressly referred to in either the code or the act and, in fact, one would wonder whether it extends there at all,” Dawson said at parliamentary ethics committee meeting.

At the lonely end of the rink

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM - 29 Comments

The Chronicle-Herald’s Stephen Maher and the Citizen’s Glen McGregor continue to investigate the distribution of federal stimulus.

Funds from a federal stimulus program designed to put hockey rinks and other recreation projects in communities across the country appear to be have been awarded disproportionately to Conservative ridings, an investigation shows.

Tory ridings have landed 66 per cent of all projects so far announced under the Harper government’s Recreation Infrastructure Canada program, also known as RinC.

Million dollar questions

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 20, 2009 at 1:36 AM - 87 Comments

The Ottawa Citizen and Halifax Chronicle-Herald join forces to scrutinize what information the government has released about its stimulus spending.

An Ottawa Citizen-Halifax Chronicle-Herald investigation shows 57 per cent of the projects, with more than $1 million in federal funding nationwide, went to Conservative ridings. The party holds only 46 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Conservative ridings therefore received 23 per cent more million-dollar-plus projects than if the projects were divided evenly among all ridings…

The difference between government and opposition ridings is particularly pronounced in Quebec, where the Conservative ridings received 22 per cent of large projects, although the party holds only 13 per cent of the ridings, which means they received 62 per cent more per riding than if the money were divided evenly.

A spokesman for John Baird’s office says “the totality of infrastructure funding” will show fairness in distribution. At the same time, the government has declined to release a list of projects, despite the Prime Minister’s assurances that such a list was available.

The Commons: And so we come full circle

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 19, 2009 at 6:36 PM - 112 Comments

The Scene. The Prime Minister was not in his seat this afternoon when Question Period began. Which seems a shame. Not least because of the profound moment in the history of his government that he was not there to witness firsthand. The rest of us will at least be able to say we were there, that we saw it with our own eyes and heard it with our own ears. The Prime Minister will have to suffice with seeing it on TV. Or perhaps hearing about it from a member of his staff.

Although, maybe it was best he wasn’t there after all. Indeed, in a way, it’s better he was spared the awful sight.

The session began simply enough with the obvious, the Liberal leader wondering aloud about a potential conflict of interest involving a Conservative senator and a sizable government contract. “Mr. Speaker, a pattern is becoming all too clear,” Michael Ignatieff posited. “The Conservative government is using stimulus spending to buy votes and reward its friends. This morning, we learned that one of the Prime Minister’s newest senators works for a company that has just won $1.4 million in infrastructure spending. At a time when the middle class is struggling, would the Prime Minister explain why infrastructure spending that is needed by all Canadians ends up in the hands of a member of his own—”

His time expired, the Transport Minister stood smirking to dismiss Mr. Ignatieff’s concerns. The Liberal tried again, this time en francais. John Baird once more swatted the question away. “Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to jump to the conclusions that the Leader of the Opposition does,” Mr. Baird declared. “If he has any evidence of any wrongdoing, rather than pontificating in this place, he should put his facts on the table and be accountable for those. We have been completely open, completely transparent with the infrastructure spending that we have made.”

The Liberals howled with mocking laughter.

“The grant in question was made by a crown corporation,” the Minister finished, “with no lobbying and no involvement whatsoever of my office or the office of the Minister of Public Works.”

Here, then, is where it happened. Where everything that once was up turned down. Where left became right, day became night and blue became red.  Continue…

Royal Galipeau Maverick Watch

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 19, 2009 at 8:00 AM - 15 Comments

The Conservative backbencher admits the giant novelty cheques he handed out upset his stomach.

The design of the cheques provided to one area MP to highlight infrastructure spending left him feeling “a bit queasy,” he said. Royal Galipeau, MP for Ottawa-Orléans, said he insisted that the cheques provided to him didn’t have the Conservative party logo but said he still wasn’t happy with the design. ”That didn’t look like a government cheque to me. I would preferred it looked like a government cheque.”

… Galipeau was photographed in March handing over a $21,339 cheque for a francophone seniors program in Ottawa with his name printed at the top and his signature below. He says he still thinks the large cheques are a good way to highlight government work and plans to continue handing them out, but using a design based on a real government cheque.

'Canadians' tax dollars are precious'

By Aaron Wherry - Sunday, October 18, 2009 at 4:29 PM - 100 Comments

Jim Flaherty, Nov. 27. We cannot ask Canadians to tighten their belts during tougher times without looking in the mirror. Canadians have a right to look to government as an example. We have a responsibility to show restraint and respect for their money. Canadians’ tax dollars are precious. They must not be spent frivolously or without regard to where they came from.

Canadian Press, today. The Harper government spent well over $100,000 staging a one-hour event in June to deliver an update on its efforts to help the recession-ravaged economy. Invoices obtained by The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act show a nominal bill to taxpayers of $108,000 for the carefully scripted “town hall” meeting in Cambridge, Ont … Some $30,000 was spent on audio visual equipment and staging, another $10,000 was spent buying the rights to use photos and web images and almost $50,000 went toward printing glossy copies of a 234-page Economic Action Plan “report card.” Another $5,700 went to an outside editing service and more than $3,300 was spent on a communications firm. Almost $10,000 was spent on airfare, ground transport and hotels for some 20 individuals who flew in from Ottawa, not including their meal expenses … The invoices don’t cover the cost of the use by Harper and his staff of the government’s Challenger jet to get to Cambridge, about an hour’s flight from Ottawa. In opposition, Harper and other Conservatives repeatedly said the jets cost about $11,000 an hour to operate.

Everything explained

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM - 90 Comments

An anonymous Conservative MP helps us understand why his or her side simply had to buy its own giant novelty cheques, and all the money they are saving you in the process.

When we formed govt the crats stopped bringing cheques to announcements & we were FORCED to cough up the $ to buy our own. Specifically, at [a government department I was involved with] the crats used to like to be in the photo ops giving out chqs, as though it was coming from them. They detested Conservatives being photographed handing out chqs, so they stopped bringing the chqs – when they even bothered to show up for announcements. They’ve screwed up dates for announcements so badly (trying to schedule announcements while the House is in session) that we don’t even bother to include them, thereby saving taxpayers thousands of $s in travel claims from the crats.

Mea culpa

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 16, 2009 at 2:29 PM - 20 Comments

Conservative MP Bruce Stanton twitters his feelings on the partisan use of giant novelty cheques.

stanton_brucemp I can see the reasons why other attributes to the MP on the big cheque are also wrong. These are public investments.

stanton_brucemp You won’t see any such references on big cheques here in the future, including today at the CDC.

Stanton is among those cited by the Liberals for improper self-congratulation.

Speaking of props

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM - 33 Comments

Susan Delacourt considers the life of a government MP.

Every time I see one of those photos, I  feel sorry for the member of Parliament in the picture. When they’re in Ottawa, they’re given lines to recite, like children. When they’re back in their ridings, they have to pose like circus artists for the cameras. I’m continually amazed that anyone wants that job.

Time for Ignatieff to take a chance

By Andrew Coyne - Friday, October 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM - 83 Comments

It is true in politics, no less than in physics, that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Michael Ignatieff, as is well known, has seen his popularity nosedive in recent weeks, when it seemed he could not put a foot right. Very well: if he is smart, he can turn that to his advantage, using the very speed of his decline to propel his rebound. Reculer pour mieux sauter and all that.

There is a script for this. If listening to his advisers, playing it safe, taking no stands, guarding every word has brought him to this humiliating low, then the way is open for one of those Hollywood moments, where the candidate rips up the speech that has been prepared for him and speaks from the heart—when he sheds the ingratiating poses of “politics as usual” in favour of his authentic self. Of course, it helps if that is, in fact, what the candidate is up to. Continue…

Woodward & Bernstein & Alghabra

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 4:27 PM - 47 Comments

Former Liberal MPs are the new investigative reporters. Apparently.

Ontario was allocated about $1.1 billion in Infrastructure Stimulus Fund money, translating to about $90 for each Ontarian (according to the 2006 census). Mississauga was assigned $46 million (to be matched by the province of Ontario and the city of Mississauga). According to the 2006 census, it means that Mississauga only received $69 per person. The city of Mississauga received 23% less than the provincial average.

It gets worse.  Looking at some cities that are represented by Conservative MPs, the numbers are even more disturbing.  For example, Barrie received $129 per person, Niagara Falls received $200 per person, Cambridge received $170 per person, and Oakville received $279 per person.

Truth in announcements

By Andrew Potter - Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 2:43 PM - 24 Comments

UPDATE: Colby Cosh has an even better idea — just ban the stupid cheques in the first place.

Hard to see anything wrong with these suggestions, from an NDP press release:

Today, the New Democrats called on Stephen Harper to introduce guidelines for government stimulus announcements, including:

A ban on all partisan logos, slogans, signatures or wordmarks on government promotional material; the only logo to appear on any promotional cheque should be the logo of the Government of Canada; only the signature of the Receiver General of Canada, not government Ministers or MPs should be placed on promotional materials.

When announcements take place in a riding held by an opposition MP, the MP should be invited to the funding announcement in recognition of their work on behalf of their constituents. No Conservative Party candidates should be invited to announcements in opposition held ridings as is currently the case.

Stoffer said such changes would take the partisanship out of announcements, including the Harper government’s routine practice of inviting Conservative Party candidates to funding announcements in opposition ridings. Meanwhile the incumbent opposition MP is often left off the invitation list and finds out about the announcement from the local media.

Our cynicism runneth over

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM - 31 Comments

The experts react to the Chronicle-Herald’s analysis of stimulus spending in Tory ridings.

A pattern of heavy spending in Conservative ridings uncovered in a Chronicle Herald analysis of federal stimulus spending is just business as usual, part of a long bipartisan pattern of using tax dollars for political gain, say political observers…

“Old style politics is all about bringing home the bacon,” said Kevin Gaudet of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. ”All they’ve done is paint the pig a different colour.”

Nothing new here, said Charles Cirtwill, of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies. ”The Liberals did this for years and the Conservatives sat outside and pointed fingers and raged and pulled their hair,” he said. “And now the Liberals are doing the same thing. The only folks who are really consistent are the NDP, and that’s primarily because at the federal level they’ve never had a chance to pass out the dough.”