Bureaucrats objected to gov't ad campaign: sources

[Mr.Canada]

It is to me, because it's using government resources (translated: our money) for political advertising. It's wrong. If the Tories, the Liberals or Jesus Christ himself want to put out political ads, then let them bloody well pay for them.

I'd also like to see a ban on any member of Cabinet's face appearing on signs. It's unseemly and reminds me too much of how some regimes create Dear Leader posters and paintings.

The Tories are leading this government and are free to put out whatever advertising they wish. Withoutthe Tories guiding us it would be hard to imagine where'd we be right now wit ha coalition led by Ignatieff. This man cannot even make up his mind...on the news today they are calling him Mr. Harvard now btw...lol.

[ToadBrother]

The Tories are leading this government and are free to put out whatever advertising they wish.

I disagree. They shouldn't be using public dollars for partisan political ads. Like I said, the Opposition parties are as much responsible for these programs as the Tories.

Withoutthe Tories guiding us it would be hard to imagine where'd we be right now wit ha coalition led by Ignatieff.

In precisely the same place. Stimulus spending would have happened no matter what. A big chunk of that spending to auto companies was pretty much decided south of the border.

This man cannot even make up his mind...on the news today they are calling him Mr. Harvard now btw...lol.

Are you in some sort non sequitur competition? The color of tea in China is about as relevant to this thread as what some guy on the news is calling Iggy today.

[Mr.Canada]

I disagree. They shouldn't be using public dollars for partisan political ads. Like I said, the Opposition parties are as much responsible for these programs as the Tories.

Are you in some sort non sequitur competition? The color of tea in China is about as relevant to this thread as what some guy on the news is calling Iggy today.

Since they are in as much control of the spending as the Tories perhaps Ignatieff should stop talking about the deficit then.

I don't think it's absurd or comical at all what the news is calling Ignatieff. It speaks to the amount of respect they have for the man...limited to say the least. I would think that was important.

Edited October 9, 2009 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

This is little stuff. Yes, I didn't like it when the Libs did it, but it wasn't exactly a big, consequential issue for me. And no, I don't like it when the Tories do it, but it isn't a big, consequential issue now either.

Seems to me that it adds up over time to the point that you are supporting a party that does exactly what you didn't like about the other party. Obviously that has been an issue for you since you've said it changed your vote in the past.

[Shakeyhands]

This is little stuff. Yes, I didn't like it when the Libs did it, but it wasn't exactly a big, consequential issue for me.

When did the Liberals do it?

[Argus]

Seems to me that it adds up over time to the point that you are supporting a party that does exactly what you didn't like about the other party. Obviously that has been an issue for you since you've said it changed your vote in the past.

I think the odds against my finding a party whose every policy and behavioural parttern I will admire are vanishingly rare.

The Conservatives appear to sometimes use advertising in a political way, but then so did the Liberals.

But at least the Tories aren't using advertising money in a kickback scheme, so I think we're a ways from saying they're doing "exactly" what the Liberals did.

[Argus]

When did the Liberals do it?

1963 to 1984 and 1993 to 2006.

[Shakeyhands]

1963 to 1984 and 1993 to 2006.

I quite honestly cannot think of a single instance. Seriously, please tell me of one instance?

[Shakeyhands]

It would seem like Mr Page agrees with the rest of us who are capable of real thought....

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article...imulus-spending

In a report released late Friday, Kevin Page's parliamentary budget office says quarterly report cards issued by the Canadian government fall far short of the transparency and detail provided in the United States.

Hence, it's difficult to track where the $12 billion in stimulus funding has gone and whether it's had any effect on economic growth or job creation.

The government claims its stimulus funding, announced in last January's budget, will increase economic growth by 1.9 per cent and create 220,000 jobs.

But Page's office says that is impossible to prove, given the skimpy details the government has provided and the inherent uncertainty involved in trying to assess what the economy would have been like had there been no stimulus measures.

"This means that at the current time it remains unclear as to whether the domestic fiscal stimulus enacted thus far has been a major causal factor in the recent stabilization of some indicators of economic activity in Canada," the report concludes.

[noahbody]

I expect we'll see a lot more of this in the months to come.

More vindictive journalism by Bruce Cheadle? This guy is off the deep end.

Quotes from article:

A partisan government advertising campaign

Someone should point out to him that news is supposed to be unbiased.

The Privy Council Office, the non-partisan bureaucratic arm of the Prime Minister's Office, has never been comfortable administering the website for the Economic Action Plan -- and informed Harper of its misgivings at the time of last January's federal budget.

He was informed in January about what 'misgivings'? The extra work? The idea of a site promoting what the government was doing to combat the recession? I assume Bruce wants me to assume they were objecting to all those pictures of Harper. The problem there is that they didn't exist at that time.

The January comment does clarify that this wasn't part of an election campaign. Good one Bruce.

For the record, a PCO spokeswoman said there has never been any disagreement.

"At no point did PCO raise any objections to developing the site," Myriam Massabki said in an email.

Can't wait until his next article.

Edited October 10, 2009 by noahbody

[capricorn]

A government-wide partisan push by the Conservatives on civil servants amounts to a form of corruption, Liberals charged Friday.

---

Hall-Findlay has been leading the Liberal attack against a multimillion-dollar government advertising campaign that trumpets last January's budget in glowing TV, radio, newspaper and Internet ads.

But she says the new allegations by unhappy civil servants take the issue beyond "hyper-partisanship."

"We're now talking corruption in the government," said Hall-Findlay.

The Liberals say they'll be pursuing complaints with the parliamentary ethics commissioner and Elections Canada.

---

Critics have not challenged the government's right to advertise, but have argued the Economic Action Plan campaign - which dwarfs all other government ad campaigns - is heavily tilted toward convincing viewers of Conservative government competence rather than providing practical, impartial information to citizens.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...jQL3k5J7hjtKqlA

The ethics commish and Elections Canada has been asked to rule on whether the government is corrupt or engaged in heavy partisan tilting. This is what the Liberals hope will change the channel from their inept leader and their tanking in the polls. I mean, why stop there? Why not call for a full scale public enquiry? We could dub it Gomery II.

[jdobbin]

I think the odds against my finding a party whose every policy and behavioural parttern I will admire are vanishingly rare.

The Conservatives appear to sometimes use advertising in a political way, but then so did the Liberals.

The money spent on polls and advertising appears to be moving to numbers greater than what the Liberals have done. Harper even seemed embarrassed by the polling numbers since he made a big deal about it once but they keep doing it.

But at least the Tories aren't using advertising money in a kickback scheme, so I think we're a ways from saying they're doing "exactly" what the Liberals did.

We still have to see if the broke the Elections Canada act.

[jdobbin]

More vindictive journalism by Bruce Cheadle? This guy is off the deep end.

Do you have a hit list of journalists that you don't like?

Can I guess a few you light like? Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin.

Quotes from article:

Someone should point out to him that news is supposed to be unbiased.

So should the ad campaign.

He was informed in January about what 'misgivings'? The extra work? The idea of a site promoting what the government was doing to combat the recession? I assume Bruce wants me to assume they were objecting to all those pictures of Harper. The problem there is that they didn't exist at that time.

I imagine the text did that said "Harper's government".

[Mr.Canada]

The Canadian government is fully within their rights to promote government programs. To inform the public as to what and where the stimulus is being spent. To encourage growth and hiring of employees by informing employers as to what the government has to offer them. This is responsible government advertising in order to grow the economy and to let Canadians know what's happening with their tax dollars.

I don't remember that Liberals ever informing Canadians about how their tax dollars were spent. I also don't recall any advertising the Chretien/Martin Liberals did informing us that advertising in Quebec would be untendered, AD Scam was born.

So I'll take being informed over not being informed. The Tories are living uo their promise of a more open government.

[Shakeyhands]

The Canadian government is fully within their rights to promote government programs. To inform the public as to what and where the stimulus is being spent. To encourage growth and hiring of employees by informing employers as to what the government has to offer them. This is responsible government advertising in order to grow the economy and to let Canadians know what's happening with their tax dollars.

I don't remember that Liberals ever informing Canadians about how their tax dollars were spent. I also don't recall any advertising the Chretien/Martin Liberals did informing us that advertising in Quebec would be untendered, AD Scam was born.

So I'll take being informed over not being informed. The Tories are living uo their promise of a more open government.

What have you been informed about by the Harper gov't? Did you bother to look atthe link I just posted where they are once again slammed by their own appointee?

I'll give credit where credit is due, but everything you seem to believe is just not true.

[noahbody]

Do you have a hit list of journalists that you don't like?

This guy's articles read like a Garth Turner Blog. He's either got an axe to grind or someone's kidnapped his wife and he's being forced to write trashy articles. I'd put him on my list right under K. Horn from Mohawk Nation News. I'm also not a fan of reporters who try to create news (Graham Richardson and Robert Fife are two I'd call Investigative Journalist wannabe hacks) or put a partisan slant on it (Susan Bonner). I still will judge each of their stories on their own merit.

Can I guess a few you light like? Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin.

I never really watched Wallin's show, but as an anchor she was excellent. The interviewer I respect the most is Peter Mansbridge. I'm not a fan of Duffy.

So should the ad campaign.

I would agree. If I was ethics commissioner I'd specifically inquire about the "we can't stop now" message. On the surface, this appears to be partisan and against advertising rules. As far as the website goes, if it said "Harper's government" this is wrong too. As for using pictures one website, I haven't seen any indication that this is a violation. It's not advertising, so I'm not sure of the rules. I personally don't have a problem with pictures of the PM on a government website. Neither do other countries. whitehouse.gov

I routinely criticize the government for wasteful advertising. Aside from the "we can't stop now" message though, this campaign does have some merit and shouldn't be characterized solely as an election campaign. Aside from promoting the reno credit, it's promoting action and attempting to restore confidence during the recession. People don't spend when they're scared. Though Harper was criticized for his comments on "cheering for a recession," his comments were dead on. I often wonder how many people were laid off and how much of our deficit increase was do to that campaign. Unfortunately, politicians are in a recession-proof business. They'll do just fine no matter the state of our economy.

[jdobbin]

This guy's articles read like a Garth Turner Blog. He's either got an axe to grind or someone's kidnapped his wife and he's being forced to write trashy articles. I'd put him on my list right under K. Horn from Mohawk Nation News. I'm also not a fan of reporters who try to create news (Graham Richardson and Robert Fife are two I'd call Investigative Journalist wannabe hacks) or put a partisan slant on it (Susan Bonner). I still will judge each of their stories on their own merit.

I don't really watch CTV News at all as I don't get the cable news and their late news is on when I watch local news. Couldn't tell you anything about most CTV reporters nowadays.

I don't find Canadian Press stories to ber particularly weighted. If the issue is sources who won't step forward, it is something that reporters should have at least verifed by another source and overseen by an editor.

For years people said Bob Woodward lied about his source. We now know that he didn't.

I never really watched Wallin's show, but as an anchor she was excellent. The interviewer I respect the most is Peter Mansbridge. I'm not a fan of Duffy.

I always found her to be really light.

Mansbridge is one of the most well informed but not very hard hitting.

I would agree. If I was ethics commissioner I'd specifically inquire about the "we can't stop now" message. On the surface, this appears to be partisan and against advertising rules. As far as the website goes, if it said "Harper's government" this is wrong too. As for using pictures one website, I haven't seen any indication that this is a violation. It's not advertising, so I'm not sure of the rules. I personally don't have a problem with pictures of the PM on a government website. Neither do other countries. whitehouse.gov

The White House site is different than say if Obama used federal money to have a separate website to promote his budget with things similar to what was used on the web ads for the Tories.

We need to ensure that ads don't sound like electioneering. "We can't stop now" is electioneering. "Harper's government" is electioneering.

I routinely criticize the government for wasteful advertising. Aside from the "we can't stop now" message though, this campaign does have some merit and shouldn't be characterized solely as an election campaign. Aside from promoting the reno credit, it's promoting action and attempting to restore confidence during the recession. People don't spend when they're scared. Though Harper was criticized for his comments on "cheering for a recession," his comments were dead on. I often wonder how many people were laid off and how much of our deficit increase was do to that campaign. Unfortunately, politicians are in a recession-proof business. They'll do just fine no matter the state of our economy.

Using "Harper's government" all over the website is electioneering. Harper used to be against this according to Gerry Nicholls.

Edited October 10, 2009 by jdobbin

[Smallc]

Susan Bonner doesn't even work in Ottawa anymore. She's been moved to Washington....and I certainly wouldn't call her partisan. I didn't think she was any good, but I wouldn't say that she was partisan.

[noahbody]

Susan Bonner doesn't even work in Ottawa anymore. She's been moved to Washington....and I certainly wouldn't call her partisan. I didn't think she was any good, but I wouldn't say that she was partisan.

Glad she moved. Maybe you weren't watching the same stories I saw, but she was definitely partisan. I got worried that my eyes would permanently stay rolled back, so I had to change the channel.

[Mr.Canada]

Mr. Page needs to be reprimanded and fired immediately. Perhaps he can run for the Liberal party. He needs to learn to listen to and respect his boss, the PM.

[Smallc]

His boss isn't the PM, it's the Parliamentary Librarian.

[waldo]

Mr. Page needs to be reprimanded and fired immediately. Perhaps he can run for the Liberal party. He needs to learn to listen to and respect his boss, the PM.

Conservative Harper is not Kevin Page's boss - you've already been schooled, now several times, to the organizational structure and independence of the PBO. Once more with feeling!

The 2006 amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act created the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) position, established the service mandates, provided for access to government data and defined the administrative authorities of the PBO.

The PBO position is defined as an officer of the Library of Parliament. The PBO reports to the Parliamentary Librarian who, in turn, reports to the Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons.

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.

The PBO is provided with a legislated right of access to data that are necessary for the performance of the PBO research and analysis mandates.

[jdobbin]

Mr. Page needs to be reprimanded and fired immediately. Perhaps he can run for the Liberal party. He needs to learn to listen to and respect his boss, the PM.

Whoever came up with the idea of a Parliamentary Budget Officer must be a blithering idiot.

[Shakeyhands]

His boss isn't the PM, it's the Parliamentary Librarian.

Some people can't be bothered letting facts get in their way.

[Shakeyhands]

Whoever came up with the idea of a Parliamentary Budget Officer must be a blithering idiot.

, of the worst kind.