Jump to content

Quebec a loser in stimulus sweepstakes: CP analysis


Recommended Posts

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091101/national/stimulus

In order to figure out how that money is being distributed countrywide, The Canadian Press developed a computer program to work with the government's only public national picture of all the stimulus programs: the interactive map at www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/map.asp that displays Ottawa's individual budget announcements.

By taking the data that supports that map, the analysis was able to count, locate and evaluate 4,833 projects that have been announced coast-to-coast. Far fewer than 10 per cent of those projects are in Quebec, Canada's second most populous province.

Of the 4,833 projects published on the government's centrepiece map as of Oct. 25, less than 300 are in Quebec. Ontario claims more than 2,500, while Alberta and British Columbia both have more than 300 each.

This figures in with some other independent analysis of the spending.

Quebec may not get their project money before the deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The headline is grossly misleading - irresponsible actually. Quebec always wants to do things a little differently.....sometimes it works, sometimes not. As the article says:

The lethargy is not because Ottawa is being stingy with its money. The federal programs are designed to make sure each province gets its fair share. Under the $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, for example, Quebec has been allotted almost $1 billion in federal funding.

The allotment created some excitement in the province last spring. Ottawa agreed to let Quebec set up its own water pipeline renewal program with the money in a novel program designed to get the money to municipalities quickly. It's a flexibility not seen in arrangements in other provinces, where Ottawa has had more of a say in how the money should be spent.

But only 30 per cent of that water pipeline program, known as PRECO, has been allocated to specific projects even though the program was set up last March.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The headline is grossly misleading - irresponsible actually. Quebec always wants to do things a little differently.....sometimes it works, sometimes not. As the article says:

It is why the deadline was an issue. Also as the article says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The headline is grossly misleading

The lethargy is not because Ottawa is being stingy with its money. The federal programs are designed to make sure each province gets its fair share. Under the $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, for example, Quebec has been allotted almost $1 billion in federal funding.

It's just one of Dobbin's half-truth, negative ad-style hit pieces. You don't actually think he'd be completely honest do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just one of Dobbin's half-truth, negative ad-style hit pieces. You don't actually think he'd be completely honest do you?

It looks like you are the dishonest one here. That headline was word for word what the CP story had. Try to get a grip on your personalizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, dishonest as always.

Note that the OP does not cite the dollar amounts of the programs in Quebec, which are in line with the percentage of population, or that the Quebec government has stated they are content with the administration.

No surprises here.

The Quebec government has asked for an extension and point fingers at the federal government. And where did you see the dollar amount was at the percentage of the population? Even the government website doesn't indicate that. Dishonest indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Quebec government has asked for an extension and point fingers at the federal government. And where did you see the dollar amount was at the percentage of the population? Even the government website doesn't indicate that. Dishonest indeed.

Perhaps Dobbin, you could have taken his comments in the spirit that they were intended. Quebec has roughly 25% of the population and they are getting 25% of the funding. Stated or not, it's a rough percentage of the population and your article says "fair share". I see nothing dishonest about that.

The lethargy is not because Ottawa is being stingy with its money. The federal programs are designed to make sure each province gets its fair share. Under the $4-billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund, for example, Quebec has been allotted almost $1 billion in federal funding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps Dobbin, you could have taken his comments in the spirit that they were intended. Quebec has roughly 25% of the population and they are getting 25% of the funding. Stated or not, it's a rough percentage of the population and your article says "fair share". I see nothing dishonest about that.

However, there is a deadline which the Budget Officer and the government of Quebec says could affect the "fair share" that we keep hearing about. At the moment, according to the government's own website Quebec falls below their percentage and the deadline is getting closer. As some of the people in the article has said, no ones knows what the progress is given the deadline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Quebec government has asked for an extension and point fingers at the federal government

from your own link:

As for the provincial government, officials say they're content with the progress to date.

oh, and there is no indication that the provincial govt asked for an extension in your link, it was two other groups:

Both the Union of Quebec Municipalities and the Federation of Quebec Municipalities want Ottawa to give cities more than the stated two years to spend all the federal stimulus money.

More of the same half truth, or more appropriately: half lies.

Edited by fellowtraveller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, there is a deadline which the Budget Officer and the government of Quebec says could affect the "fair share" that we keep hearing about. At the moment, according to the government's own website Quebec falls below their percentage and the deadline is getting closer. As some of the people in the article has said, no ones knows what the progress is given the deadline.

What Quebec doesn't want to play by the same rules as the rest of Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, and there is no indication that the provincial govt asked for an extension in your link, it was two other groups:

You are correct. I should have said it is the municipal governments of Quebec and fingers have been pointing between all three on progress.

More of the same half truth, or more appropriately: half lies.

Think I has said the same about you when you indicate that they have received the amount that equals their percentage of the population. They haven't and the government website shows that.

It is why talk of the extension is happening now since it will be hard to meet that goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct. I should have said it is the municipal governments of Quebec and fingers have been pointing between all three on progress.

Think I has said the same about you when you indicate that they have received the amount that equals their percentage of the population. They haven't and the government website shows that.

It is why talk of the extension is happening now since it will be hard to meet that goal.

But they did have access to an equal amount, it will be there fault they couldn't get it together to take take advantage of it like the rest of canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they did have access to an equal amount, it will be there fault they couldn't get it together to take take advantage of it like the rest of canada.

Not if the deadline was artificial as the Budget Officer has shown. The Auditor General has talked about this before as well about the rush to spend before a deadline. If bad projects are chosen just to hit the deadline, it is useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not if the deadline was artificial as the Budget Officer has shown. The Auditor General has talked about this before as well about the rush to spend before a deadline. If bad projects are chosen just to hit the deadline, it is useless.

And if there is no deadline, there is no urgency....especially when the urgency is right upon us - a push and a shove to create jobs. The pressure must continue to be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if there is no deadline, there is no urgency....especially when the urgency is right upon us - a push and a shove to create jobs. The pressure must continue to be applied.

I think the Budget Officer has made a good case that the deadline was too short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Budget Officer has made a good case that the deadline was too short.

So you favor one province over another? We all had the deadline, but you seem to think quebec needs to be treated differently. Do you not think they should have to play by the same rules as the rest of Canada, or do think they should be held to a different standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you favor one province over another? We all had the deadline, but you seem to think quebec needs to be treated differently. Do you not think they should have to play by the same rules as the rest of Canada, or do think they should be held to a different standard.

The deadline encourages spending that may not be planned well.

As I said, the Auditor General among others says deadline spending is often fraught with poor choices when it comes to stimulus. For example, millions have been spending on bike paths in Winnipeg and very little planning appears to have happened before the announcement.

I'd prefer well thought out spending and if some provinces take a bit longer, the government should consider the planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evil Conservatives are at it again.... :ph34r: Poor Quebec with it's apparently happy provincial government...after all, their the unknowing victim in all this. How dare they be satisfied with their fair share. :D

The happy province is a power play over the municipalities. The money should have gone directly to the municipalities via the gas tax to be more effective. The article does detail that but don't let the joy of supporting this power politics over the municipalities that we see all too often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deadline encourages spending that may not be planned well.

As I said, the Auditor General among others says deadline spending is often fraught with poor choices when it comes to stimulus. For example, millions have been spending on bike paths in Winnipeg and very little planning appears to have happened before the announcement.

I'd prefer well thought out spending and if some provinces take a bit longer, the government should consider the planning.

The stimulus was ment to be spent during the recession to stimulate a stalled economony, the liberals new this when they passed the budget, you knew it when the budget was passed, this is just small petty people looking to pass their short commings off onto someone else.

If you and the liberal party of Canada had such a problem with it then you should never have passed the budget last january. You and your party passed it, all of this was in it, the ways and means motions were passed as well by the liberal party, when it comes to the stimulus you have nothing but hot air and spin. Now you have this idea that one province needs to have special treatment because their provincial and municpile governments could get it together and get it done doesn't mean the should have the rules changed just for them. If they had no infrastructure plans on the books then they probablyt didn't need it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The happy province is a power play over the municipalities. The money should have gone directly to the municipalities via the gas tax to be more effective. The article does detail that but don't let the joy of supporting this power politics over the municipalities that we see all too often.

How many years dod your party have to impliment that right 13 years.

Edited by Alta4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,695
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Linda Teskey
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Yakuda went up a rank
      Experienced
    • QuebecOverCanada went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • Jeary went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Gator earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Jeary earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...