It has come to the attention of the federal Liberals that ridings who are represented by Conservatives are receiving a disproportionate share of the monies spent under the aegis of the fiscal stimulus:
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.
There are two possible reactions to this story. One is resigned cynicisism. Another is amused cynicism. And who better than Stephen Leacock to express it?
You could tell from the way John Henry Bagshaw closed the door before he sat down that he was in a pretty serious frame of mind.
"Gentlemen," he said, "the election is a certainty. We're going to have a big fight on our hands and we've got to get ready for it."
"Is it going to be on the tariff?" asked Tompkins. "Yes, gentlemen, I'm afraid it is. The whole thing is going to turn on the tariff question. I wish it were otherwise. I think it madness, but they're bent on it, and we got to fight it on that line. Why they can't fight it merely on the question of graft," continued the old war horse, rising from his seat and walking up and down, "Heaven only knows. I warned them. I appealed to them. I said, fight the thing on graft and we can win easy. Take this constituency,–why not have fought the thing out on whether I spent too much money on the town wharf or the post-office? What better issues could a man want? Let them claim that I am crooked and let me claim that I'm not. Surely that was good enough without dragging in the tariff. But now, gentlemen, tell me about things in the constituency. Is there any talk yet of who is to run?"
Mallory Tompkins lighted up the second of his Prime Minister's cigars and then answered for the group: "Everybody says that Edward Drone is going to run." "Ah!" said the old war horse, and there was joy upon his face, "is he? At last! That's good, that's good–now what platform will he run on?"
"Independent." "Excellent," said Mr. Bagshaw. "Independent, that's fine. On a programme of what?"
"Just simple honesty and public morality."
"Come now," said the member, "that's splendid: that will help enormously. Honesty and public morality! The very thing! If Drone runs and makes a good showing, we win for a certainty. Tompkins, you must lose no time over this. Can't you manage to get some articles in the other papers hinting that at the last election we bribed all the voters in the county, and that we gave out enough contracts to simply pervert the whole constituency. Imply that we poured the public money into this county in bucketsful and that we are bound to do it again."
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
We must always keep in mind that Canada’s most well-known economist is mainly know for being a satirist…
Yep. There’s a lesson in that somewhere, but I’m not sure what it is.
The lesson is “To the victor go the spoils”.
I don’t see what the big issue is here, the Liberals had over a decade to get their constituents to the trough.
I live in a Liberal riding and my parents in the city next door live in a Conservative riding, I can’t see how they can limit the externalities at the border between our cities.
What irks me the most, is that the Feds still provide stimulus to a city like Toronto where there are no Conservative constituents, to me its a waste of money, it could be better spent in other areas.
licked:
It may surprise you to hear that 25% of Toronto’s popular vote went to the CPC, which is only slightly lower than their national average.
Wonderful! More Leacock! Just enough dead-pan but not too much.
Once upon a time I might have said that the old Reformers read Leacock, made their own interpretation, got really worked up and incensed, and then vowed to put an end to side-payment politics. Now I’m not so sure; maybe the old Reformers (predecessors to the current Conservative government) were simply posturing and telling their constituency what it what wanted to hear at that particular time?
A third possible reaction is to question the accuracy of the intial statement that Ontario has been allocated $1.1 billion and the allegation that certain ridings are underfunded, since the initial source of that number, former Liberal MP Omar Alghabra (and judging by his website, he’s a man who hopes to regain that position), couldn’t be bothered to actually provide a source for the numbers he throws around. Indeed, the fact (which he acknowledges) that $600 million worth of spending in Ontario has yet to be announced would raise questions about his conclusion. Moreover, the fact that the Gerard Kennedy’s report (which he cites, and which, I presume is the basis for his numbers) only includes data for 900 odd projects out of 1600 plus that have been announced raises serious questions about the accuracy of these numbers.
As an aside, I don’t know why Gerard Kennedy’s study hasn’t been ripped to shreds by both the media and the Tories (although innumeracy and statistical illiteracy comes to mind). He publishes a report which is based on a sample of 900 of 1600 plus projects, without explaning the basis for selecting that sample and it get’s gobbled up. It apparently never dawns on anyone that, gee, he might have an incentive to cherry pick what the projects he reports and which he doesn’t. Moreover, even if he’s not cherry-picking, you just don’t know if there’s a systematic problem with his selection. For instance, if you look at his dataset, it mysteriously excludes announced projects in places like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal (which account for, what, half of the Liberal caucus, and in the case of Toronto and Montreal account for exactly zero Tory MPs)). Pretty easy to conclude the Tories are cooking the books when you exclude all the projects in your strongest ridings. Mind you, it may just be that Kennedy’s selection process tends to exclude large urban municipaties (which would be stupid, but not dishonest), but since riding in those cities tend to be held by the Liberals, it skewers his conclusions.
Take the Toronto numbers. Gerard Kennedy knows full well what is being spend there because he’s criticized it as being inadequate. But for some reason, he excludes 500+ projects worth approximately $200 million from his dataset. Then he publishes a chart which lists ridings by the number of projects (which is a debatable metric to begin with, but anyhow) and points out that Tory-held ridings are all at the top. True, but if you include the Toronto ridings (which, on average have 25 projects per riding), the top ridings by number of Projects in Ontario would be Liberal red. Or he publishes a chart which lists Ontario ridings by spending and is appalled to learn that 6 of the top 10 ridings are held by the Tories, which would be a shocking statistic if the Tories didn’t hold roughly half the ridings in the Province (so that 6 out of 10 is more or less what you’d expect).