“The government has increased its spending on the promotion of the January, 2009, Economic Action Plan by $5-million – on top of the initial allotment of $34-million – for a 15-per-cent increase.”

It’s problematic that the amount being spent on these ads is so massive. Surely there are a multitude of ways to spread this information that would not cost an outrageous $40 million of taxpayer money, which could otherwise be spent on the actual action.

Conservative spokespeople justify the ad spending as a form of educating the public on what is available to help, which seems like a good idea in principle. Interesting that much of the actual help provided, for example assistance to the unemployed, is available against the Conservative’s wishes. They were largely forced into that one by the NDP.

The tone of the ads tends toward optimistic and uplifting, suggesting lots of government help is available and things will be better. Again, this seems good in principle, but the frequent intentional public linkage of Conservatives with these ads, ties that strong, action-bound feeling in the ads with one party in particular–the Conservatives. It’s not too hard to find images in the press featuring Conservatives against the backdrop of the EAP imagery. And that’s no accident. Stephen Harper’s iron-fisted control of information and imagery is notorious (there are often press reports of not being allowed the normal freedoms in the photos it takes of him, and pre-made shots are provided instead).

The photograph in this CBC article³ (9 November 2009) on the subject of the American company contracted to produce the EAP signs. I don’t know who took that picture or under what conditions. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it–just the PM seeming to give a talk about the EAP. But when these images pop up frequently and are positioned so that that’s what is maintained in the public eye, something starts to feel wrong–like we, the public, are being propagandized for one party’s message.

A Canadian Press² article (10 October 2009) had an in-depth article on the subject, mentioning:

“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. . . . While the story is being denied by both PCO and PMO, the extraordinary claim originates from several sources within the famously discreet Privy Council Office.”

Notice the screenshot on that page laden with Conservative imagery and photos. Rather than being a useful non-partisan service about what the government is engaged in, it appears to be serving as ads that help guide public sentiment toward the Tories.

Rick Mercer pokes fun at the controversy in this clip

Notice the images in the background–they cycle through various Conservative publicity pics involving the EAP. Mercer’s bit manages to call attention to all three controversies. The Tory tie-in, the amount being spent on the ads, and the not-to-be-missed irony, that the EAP signs themselves weren’t even produced in Canada (tax payer money paid to a foreign company rather than helping a Canadian one, all for the sake of promoting the idea that the EAP is here to help).

The CBC reported¹ (14 October 2009) about Conservative logos appearing on federal (not party) stimulus cheques being presented at funding announcements. One striking example (images at the CBC link) was a large cheque handed out by Conservative MP Gerald Keddy in Nova Scotia. In other words, Canadian taxpayer money is used to produce publicity linking a federal program to the Conservative party (though the Conservative party cannot and should not claim 100% responsibility for the program). The other parties have called on the ethics commissioner to investigate.

That type of publicity stunt just continued as The Star² shed light (9 November 2009) on Conservatives making themselves very visible at public events to announce funding, while they kept their colleagues from the other parties in the dark. Again, it’s a federal program. The article says

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his government have been using taxpayer-funding announcements to boost the fortunes of unelected Conservative candidates, critics charge…

In Edmonton-Strathcona, the only Alberta riding the Conservatives do not hold, local Tory candidate Ryan Hastman has participated in at least five government announcements over the past few months, while the local NDP MP, Linda Duncan, says she has been excluded from all of them. Hastman boasts of his participation in pictures on his Facebook page. Duncan… says it becomes doubly irritating when a Conservative candidate claims credit for funds she helped to get for the community, as the duly elected MP.”

Finally, The Star³ reported (12 November 2009) about the greater than $3 million dollars Conservatives spent, in one month, of taxpayer money advertising the notion that the stimulus spending was creating jobs. One has to wonder how useful this advertising is in a deep recession, when the $3 M could be put to far more effective use, say boosting unemployment payments to the thousands or workers that lost their jobs, or else assisting fledgling industries. According to the article, Liberal MP, Martha Hall Findlay said

“…she could understand if the money was spent educating Canadians about H1N1 flu, ‘but patting yourself on the back and making big pronouncements is not part of what taxpayers’ money should be spent on.’”

The advertising gets further criticized as promoting the Conservative brand without informing citizens of how the plan supposedly might have created any jobs.

The Ottawa Citizen¹ reported (21 October 2009) that

“A joint investigation by the Ottawa Citizen and Halifax Chronicle-Herald shows that 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. Blue ridings therefore received 23 per cent more $1-million-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 Tory 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 was divided evenly.”

They used information as published by the action plan Web site. This report is not the only one to notice. Two non-partisan software engineers, Jim DeLaHunt² and Kaitlin Duck Sherwood³ (26 October 2009) put together an analysis, map, and spreadsheet (openoffice format) that show the issue. According to their analysis

“We think the real story is that Quebec is getting disproportionately less of the funding and the projects: 47% fewer dollars, and 65% fewer projects, than their population would justify.”

It’s interesting that as a whole Quebec receives less but its Conservative ridings get significantly more than the others.