2011 Canadian Election Thread

[FlamesAddiction]

I have nothing against tax payers paying security details on him even if this is outside of government business. The PM shouldn't be a prisoner unable to take holidays. If I worked somewhere and needed my employers to provide security outside of work, I wouldn't expect to have to pay for it out of pocket.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Meh if any other party was in power their easer probably be going to the cup finals aswell,you would just have a different group of people crying about the expenses.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If this is being paid 100% out-of-pocket from Harper's personal finances, then I withdraw my objection. If even a cent of taxpayer money is being used to pay for travel and security expenses so he can attend the Stanley Cup finals, then I have a huge problem with this flagrant waste of public funds and abuse of his office.

You're kidding about the security expenses right? You do realize that the PM will have security EVERYWHERE he goes. If he goes to a movie, there will be security. Hell, if he goes to the movie store to rent a movie, there will be security. If he goes to his daughter's play at high school, there will be security. If he goes to a grocery store to pick up some lemons, there will be security. Perhaps your point is that he should never leave 24 Sussex or the Parliagment buildings, ever, during his entire time as PM?

Originally Posted by MarchHare

When he was Leader of the Opposition in 2005, Harper criticized the Liberals for flying on Challenger jets for non-government purposes:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...et-harper.html

Sorry, did those same Liberals pay for the costs out of their own pockets? If not, this is relevant how?

[Slava]

Here is the link from earlier. It doesn't thrill me, but at least he's making an effort. I don't buy the lame excuse about not going to Vancouver (something ridiculous about time zones and not being able to focus on the economy) but it's really not a big deal in the grand scheme. http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/stan...per-game4.html

Maybe now someone will get onto things that matter....like where in the world $4b in "efficiencies" or "modernization" is going to come from. Maybe a good starting point is to drop that kind of jargon (seeing that the campaigns over) and just explain it to the public?

[jammies]

As a matter of prestige I don't want the Prime Minister worrying about whether or not it's appropriate for him to attend important cultural and sporting events on the gov't dime. As long as he's not being wafted there on a diamond-encrusted palanquin carried by hand-picked virgin Amazon guardbabes, it shouldn't be an issue. Are we one of the world's top economic powers or some third-rate joke?

[Ozy_Flame]

I wonder what the sentiment would be if Jack Layton or Bob Rae pulled the same move?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I wonder what the sentiment would be if Jack Layton or Bob Rae pulled the same move?

Ya, I'm amongst the first to criticize Harper but this is really a non-issue. If he went to game five in Vancouver, took s daughter and the government paid the full tab I would actually be fine with it. It's basically his job to appear at these things. If he wants to drop his own money to go to Boston then so be it...I wouldn't think we should pay the full cost to travel there and all of that (mainly because we know game 5 is in the country in two days), but that's his prerogative.

[MarchHare]

Complaint withdrawn. If the Canucks keep losing, Harper can go to as many games as he likes.

[The Goon]

That damn page and her friends!

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm curious to know what you thought of Nenshi's invitation to speak in Toronto on urban planning which caused such controversy. That was a taxpayer-saving move and he got slammed for it. Harper can spend taxpayer money to go enjoy a hockey game and that's A-Ok?

Wasn't the issue with Nenshi's trip was paid for by a company that does business with the city? I don't think it's particularly comparable.

This whole thing is small potatoes though compared to the rest of Harper's spending problems. (15% increase in total government spending in his first three years, and that was before the recession!)

[transplant99]

Even if he just paid for the tickets to the game himself...and of course the flight, I have no problem with the "security" tab applied being paid for by taxpayers.

I mean, arent they already being paid? So they have to do it in another city...but im not sure how that increases the price of the guys already on the payroll. Also security would also fall to the Boston authorities in part as well....just part of hosting big events.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Love it. Would completely support Layton doing the same too...

"NDP Leader Jack Layton said he would be watching the game on TV"

http://www.thespec.com/sports/articl...me-4-in-boston

I doubt it.. He'd be at the bar looking for the closest camera to force himself in front of...

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I wonder what the sentiment would be if Jack Layton or Bob Rae pulled the same move?

Honestly, It wouldn't bother me. I'm a hockey fan and I see the sport as Canada's game. It wouldn't bother me if the government paid for everything but, the tickets.

I would expect the opposition to complain but, that's because that is what the opposition does.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I mean, arent they already being paid? So they have to do it in another city...but im not sure how that increases the price of the guys already on the payroll.

That's the thing. I would think that most of the security and staff costs are fixed whether Harper is in Ottawa, Calgary, Boston, or Kabul.

Presumably, if you're hired to work on the PM's plane or security detail, you're likely on-call 24/7 anywhere in the world.

The only real additional costs would be the operating and fuel costs for the plane to fly from Ottawa to Boston and back -- which is a much shorter trip than Ottawa to Vancouver.

It's like when Manning became the leader of the opposition and originally said he wouldn't move into Stornoway because it was an extravagant waste of money (and it should be turned into a bingo hall to help pay down the debt). Eventually, he did move in because it was explained that as the leader of the opposition, certain security measures needed to be taken to ensure his safety, and it would actually be easier and cheaper for him to move into Stornoway because those measures were already in place rather than having him live somewhere else that would need to be properly secured.

[Slava]

This should've been released during the election. The final draft doesn't use the word "misled" but I have a hard time in figuring out what else you would call it when MPs are approving funds for projects where the money goes elsewhere without their knowledge?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...al-report.html

[burn_this_city]

I dont care for the pork barrel spending, but so much for the $1.1 billion cost all the detractors were throwing around for the last year.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I dont care for the pork barrel spending, but so much for the $1.1 billion cost all the detractors were throwing around for the last year.

Maybe you didn't read far enough into the article to get to the part where the AG also said it was hard to know how much money was being spent because of the way the bills were put together?

Great, they didn't spend as much...but frankly no matter how you look at this its hard to find a silver lining. There was no process in how the projects were chosen, and a lot of money was just poured into Clements riding. Its basically indefensible.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

This should've been released during the election. The final draft doesn't use the word "misled" but I have a hard time in figuring out what else you would call it when MPs are approving funds for projects where the money goes elsewhere without their knowledge?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...al-report.html

Good:
- "Once all the cheques have been processed, the government is expected to have spent $664 million on security and other hosting costs, far less than the $1.1 billion that was approved by Parliament."

- "In many of the small towns near Huntsville, where the summit was held, money was used to improve roads, sidewalks, parks and streetscapes."

- "The audit found that after the projects were chosen, records were kept by Infrastructure Canada, the department responsible for administering the $50-million fund, and they did ensure that they met the terms and conditions of the G8 fund."

Bad:
- "The audit said the government decided in February 2009 that a fund worth $50 million would be created to help the area prepare for the G8 meeting of world leaders, improve it since it would be on display to foreign dignitaries and media, and to give the region a lasting legacy for hosting the meeting. These funds were created when Canada has hosted other G8 meetings in Quebec City and Kananaskis, Alta., but the latest one is about 10 times bigger than the funds for previous meetings."

WTF?
- "... some more than 100 kilometres away from the summit site...". Were these along the travel path of dignitaries? If so, I can understand the choices... if not? Horrible!

- "The government decided in February 2009 that the Border Infrastructure Fund would be used as the vehicle to deliver the G8 fund, and exempted the winning 32 projects from meeting the conditions for that fund. Those stipulations normally require the projects to be located at border sites, the audit said. The Muskoka region, north of Toronto, does not fall along any borders."

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe you didn't read far enough into the article to get to the part where the AG also said it was hard to know how much money was being spent because of the way the bills were put together?

You mean this part?

"The audit found that Parliament was given seven separate funding requests for 14 different federal organizations in four different packages of submissions. The way the information was presented made it hard for MPs to know the total estimated price tag for the summits, Wiersema said."

That explained why the estimate was $1.1B, not for the actual real costs...

[Slava]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Good:
- "Once all the cheques have been processed, the government is expected to have spent $664 million on security and other hosting costs, far less than the $1.1 billion that was approved by Parliament."

- "In many of the small towns near Huntsville, where the summit was held, money was used to improve roads, sidewalks, parks and streetscapes."

- "The audit found that after the projects were chosen, records were kept by Infrastructure Canada, the department responsible for administering the $50-million fund, and they did ensure that they met the terms and conditions of the G8 fund."

Bad:
- "The audit said the government decided in February 2009 that a fund worth $50 million would be created to help the area prepare for the G8 meeting of world leaders, improve it since it would be on display to foreign dignitaries and media, and to give the region a lasting legacy for hosting the meeting. These funds were created when Canada has hosted other G8 meetings in Quebec City and Kananaskis, Alta., but the latest one is about 10 times bigger than the funds for previous meetings."

WTF?
- "... some more than 100 kilometres away from the summit site...". Were these along the travel path of dignitaries? If so, I can understand the choices... if not? Horrible!

- "The government decided in February 2009 that the Border Infrastructure Fund would be used as the vehicle to deliver the G8 fund, and exempted the winning 32 projects from meeting the conditions for that fund. Those stipulations normally require the projects to be located at border sites, the audit said. The Muskoka region, north of Toronto, does not fall along any borders."

Those are some selective quotes though. The AG clearly says that there is no paper trail for the projects chosen and that the decisions were made by the ministers....not good in anyway when you're spending public funds.

The misdirection or really misleading of parliament is the worst though. $50m that was supposed to be going to reduce border congestion was used for the G8 spending. I have no idea how that can be justified, by any party supporter of any stripe. Its really just plain wrong.

This is a giant pork barrel project. It might not be as bad as the sponsorship scandal (in before that comment is made by someone else!), but that doesn't mean its alright.