Category: Politics/Conservatives

Tom Flanagan, the University of Calgary political science professor, was an early and influential force in Stephen Harper's political career. Flanagan was one of the key organizers behind Harper's first-ever leadership race, to win the Canadian Alliance against Stockwell Day. He would eventually go on to be the national campaign manager for the Conservative Party's first election in 2004. He's been “outside the tent”, as they say, for a couple of years now, partly because he's been occasionally critical of Harper as prime minister.

On Monday, on CBC's Power and Politics show, Flanagan had some remarkably frank things to say about Harper's decision to prorogue. You can watch the whole segment at CBC's site. Here are some excerpts:

FLANAGAN: … the government's talking points really don't have much credibility. Everybody knows that Parliament was prorogued in order to shut down the Afghan inquiry, and the trouble is that the government doesn't want to explain why that was necessary. Personally I think it was a highly defensible action, but instead of having an adult defence of it, the government comes up with these childish talking points. So then you try and backfill with other stuff that doesn't make much sense either. So it's a self-created problem.

Host Evan Solomon: You said there's good reasons he could have justified the prorogation of Parliament. What are those reasons? You called it he could have had an adult conversation. What is that conversation?

FLANAGAN: Well, the conduct of foreign policy and military affairs constitutionally belongs to the executive. That's why the Governor General is, for example, commander-in-chief of the armed forces. You can't fight a war by direction from backbench MPs of the opposition. The opposition parties are trying to make political capital out of something that happened several years ago.

It's not surprising that the Bloc (Quebecois) would do it because they don't believe in Canada. So they don't mind trying to damage the Canadian Forces. And the NDP doesn't believe in force, so I guess it's not surprising that they would. But it's the Liberals that created the mission in Afghanistan. It's the Liberals that created the transfer agreement under which these alleged atrocities happened. So I think it's shameful for the Liberals to be trying to politicize it as they have, and I think that if the Prime Minister would explain this and go on the counterattack against the liberals, I think it would work. But he's — as he sometimes does — he likes simple talking points about [the] Olympics or whatever the talking point of the day is and it skirts — just avoids the real issue. I'd rather see the debate joined on the real issue but looks like it's not going to happen at least for a while.

This afternoon, National Post's John Ivison and I interviewed Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his Langevin Block office on Parliament Hill. The first story out of that interview is online – PM cools election speculation; says budget will address deficit – and we'll have a second up later this evening and in tomorrow's newspapers focusing on his comments on the future for Canada's mission in Afghanistan. A full transcript of the interview should also be online later tonight.

In the meantime, here's our chit-chat about the Senate appointments. There are five vacancies right now in the Senate and Harper is expected to fill those shortly. When he does that, the Conservatives will have a plurality of Senate seats — 51 to the Liberals 49 — but with six Senators representing other parties or sitting as independents that often vote with the Liberals, Harper won't have a majority.

We asked him if he he will appoint more than five Senators, as he is allowed to do under the Constitution, in order to get that majority and eliminate any obstacles to Senate reform and other legislation in the Red Chamber. Here's that part of the exchange:

IVISON: Prime Minister, it seems there is not going to much for us to write about, unless there are Senate appointments in our near future. Are they coming, will there be more than five and will that have a big impact on your Senate reform plans?

HARPER: As you know, the government intends to fill the new vacancies in the Senate. I don’t think we’ve been secret about that, especially after the Liberals used their numbers in the Senate to block three important pieces of government legislation that were widely supported by the public – cracking down on grow-ops, dealing with the problem of auto-theft and also some consumer product safety legislation, which, I will say as an aside, you wrote a very good column on, so you do think once in a while! But this is important legislation and we quite frankly find it appalling that it was blocked. So we will be naming the five vacancies in the not too distant future. That will help – it will make us the largest party in the Senate but it doesn’t solve all of our problems because we still don’t have a majority. But it will make passage of these bills easier.

It will also give me some senators who will support the government’s Senate reform agenda, which is one of the many things stalled. If there’s any legislation that gets the most difficult ride of all in the Senate it’s Senate reform legislation. I’m optimistic that as we appoint more reform-minded senators, we’ll start to unblock the Senate.

AKIN: Just a quick note on John’s question, you’re going to appoint five and not more? You could appoint more.

HARPER: I have no plans to appoint..as you know the Constitution will allow an extra four or eight. That’s been used once. It would be an extraordinary act, so I would hope we would never get pushed to do that.

Yesterday afternoon, CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge interviewed Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A transcript prepared by the PMO was distributed to some Parliamentary Press Gallery members. Here's an excerpt in which Harper talks about the full body scanners to be installed at Canadian airports, news that made the front page of just about every newspapers in the country.

Peter Mansbridge:  Let me start with what was announced today, the new security measures at airports, because it seems to me that the question becomes what does this say about nine years after the war on terror began that increased security at airports is needed to prevent another threat. What does that say about the times we live in right now?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Well, I’m not sure when you sit back it really says anything that surprising, Peter. I don’t think any of us thought these threats would go away, and the threats seem to be mutating somewhat, and authorities, obviously beginning with authorities in the United States and whatever happens there, as you know, and security has tremendous effects on our air travel, that we have to keep adapting. It’s my hope that as we adapt, we find smart and, you know, relatively efficient ways to adapt, but that’s what we’re going to have to keep doing. Obviously the incident around Christmas, you know, brought in a whole new series of dimensions that governments are going to have to adjust to.

Mansbridge: It’s interesting, that Christmas threat, because the Americans have basically admitted that was their problem. That was their issue, their mistake, and this person getting through their screening process, and yet it’s affecting everyone. We’re basically having to change our rules because of a mistake they made.

Harper: Well, I guess what I would say is we face common threats. I wouldn’t want to say that what happened there could not happen here, and obviously if they’re going to undertake steps to address that kind of threat in the future, we’re going to look at those threats and examine whether we should take similar measures. We don’t have to take identical measures, but we certainly have to undertake measures that would prevent any similar kind of threat in Canada, and you know, I mean the first priority – I know these cause tremendous inconveniences for everybody, but the first priority ultimately has to be the safety and security of the Canadian air traveller and of our airport facilities, and we know that unfortunately these things are at risk in this day and age.

Mansbridge: The scanner issue is one that was studied for 18 months. The Privacy Commissioner ruled on it. But there are other things that have been happening over these past couple of weeks since the Christmas issue, and I’m wondering how you figure on that balance between, you know, security and the rights of an individual. We’ve seen, you know, a list of countries being made, questions being raised about racial profiling. Does any of this worry you, that…?

Harper:: Well, these are all things that factor into our considerations. We have privacy laws in Canada. We have court decisions. As you know, our courts have tended to be less deferential to governments on security matters than courts in the United States. This is something the government has to factor into any security measures it undertakes, and obviously there are issues of treating people fairly, of treating people equally, of balancing privacy concerns with the ultimate goal that we must protect and we must make sure the travelling public is safe.

Mansbridge: Did you think any of those are being crossed right now?

Harper: Well, we haven’t done, in fairness, Peter, we haven’t done a thorough examination of exactly what measures the US has undertaken and how we’re going to apply them to Canada. We’re going to look at those one at a time, and we may arrive at some different judgements or we may not, but all of those things will be factored into our decision-making.

Mansbridge: When you see a list of countries, some of which we, you know, have normal relations with, does that bother you?

Harper: Well, I go back. I don’t think it’s about diplomatic relations. You know, we have the same thing with the visa problem. It’s not about diplomatic relations. These are often about other considerations. It ultimately in this case has to be about the possibility of a security threat and dealing with that. But as I say, we’re going to take a look at these measures very carefully, and we may arrive at different conclusions. The one concern I do have about all of this is I…and I’ve expressed this to American leaders. I see what I call the gun registry approach to a lot of security issues, which is let’s just put everybody on a list, register everything, and we know from our own experience with our gun registry that this is not necessarily the smartest and most effective way to actually identify real threats. And so it’s my hope as we look at these things, which you know, invariably will cause some changes in mass procedure, that we make sure that we respond in ways that are intelligent, ways that effectively identify threats before they happen as opposed to simply massive bureaucratic sets of rules or procedures, which I think in and of themselves are of limited value.

Mansbridge: Have you suggested that to President Obama?

Harper: I can’t remember. I know I certainly had that conversation with President Bush. I can’t recall whether I’ve had it with President Obama, but I’ve had it with a series of American officials.

Tags: Stephen harper, united states, security, body scanners, airports

On Oct. 27, I attended a meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The country's Comissioner of Lobbying Karen Shepherd was the main witness at that meeting. Shepherd is the first to hold that job. She was appointed in June to oversee new rules for lobbyists, rules that were one of the key promises of the Conservatives when they campaigned in 2006.

One of the interesting tidbits to come up at that meeting was the issue of exemptions. As you may know, the new law prohibits any public office holder — a broad group of folks that includes anyone from cabinet ministers to deputy ministers to the political staffer who carries the minister's briefcase — from being a registered lobbyist for five years after leaving their public office. You can get around that prohibition by applying to the Commissioner of Lobbying for an exemption. Ten people have asked Shepherd for exemptions and two were granted. Two others withdrew their names. Politicians at the committee asked for the names of the others who did not get exemptions. Shepherd said she would not say and advised MPs to use Access to Information laws to get those names.

The next day, I filed an Access to Information request to get those names and on Dec. 31, I received the official notification from that, no, I will not be able to receive those names and so, unless those individuals want to step forward and identify themselves, we will never know which Conservatives wanted an exemption to lobby their old friends.

The Commissioner's office, incidentally, is required by law to respond to my request within 30 days of my request and did not do so – a violation of federal law for which there is no sanction, one of several failings of our access to information laws. In fact, the Commissioner's office did not reply until I telephoned them to inquire about the status of my ATI request.

In any event, here are excerpts from that committee meeting of Oct. 27 on the exemption issue, followed by my ATI request and, following that, the response from Shepherd's office to my information request.

First the excerpts on exemptions, beginning with a question from Liberal MP Michelle Simson:

Michelle Simson (Scarborough Southwest, Lib.): … I want to zero in on the tail end of your opening remarks where you touched on the fact that the Lobbying Act introduced the five-year prohibition period for former designated public office-holders. You have the authority to grant the exemptions. Could you expand on the internal review process you implemented and the specific criteria you have in place to either approve or decline an exemption request?

Karen Shepherd: In terms of the process, we have a description on our website of the type of information we would like to see. When an application comes in for review, we will look at their past employment, résumés, whether they happen to know any information on their future employer, and so on. Interviews will be conducted with witnesses, and maybe past employers, or the applicants themselves if there's a new employer. Once all of that is done and analyzed, the report is given to me for consideration.   

Part of the process we introduced was to give the applicant 30 days to comment on my intent. In other words, if I'm going to be granting the exemption or not, they get 30 days to respond. If I grant the exemption, or an exemption with some conditions, they are given a letter with an exemption number that they then have to use for registration. If the exemption is granted, the act indicates that I must, without undue delay, post my reasons for that exemption on the website.

To answer your second question on criteria, the act provides some criteria, for example, if the person has been in an acting position for a short period of time–maybe student employment, administrative duties only–whether the employer would gain an unfair advantage. In the case of transition team members, there are a few others that are added.

The position I have taken is that Parliament put the five-year prohibition in the act for a reason, which was to stop the revolving door. To me, the rule is that the five-year prohibition holds, and it is only with exceptional circumstances that I will grant an exemption.

Simson: Your report stated that you received seven applications in 2008 and 2009. Two were granted, and you have to post that information to the website. Is there any access for the public for the other five that maybe were declined, or is that kept private?

Shepherd: I have actually received ten applications to date. Two applications dealt with individuals who had left prior to the act coming into force, so even though they were comprehensive applications, there was no authority for me to grant an exemption. Two individuals withdrew. I denied three applications. And there is one current application.

With respect to those who are subject to the five-year prohibition, if they are not granted an exemption that is posted on my website, then they are subject to the five years.

Simson: Is the information on the ones you decline publicly accessible?

Shepherd: The department is subject to the Access to Information Act and Privacy Act.

Simson: So the public could access that information.

Shepherd: They could put in a request and we would go through the process of analyzing it. Because they are public office-holders, I would assume that some of the information would be permissible to give out. However, according to the Privacy Act, if the information is of a personal nature or there is confidentiality from a third party, I couldn't give it.

…

Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Good morning, Ms. Shepherd. I'm surprised to see in your report that you report a reduction in corporate lobbyists and even staff lobbyists. It's been my experience that you can't swing a cat on Parliament Hill without hitting a lobbyist. It feels like an infestation sometimes, especially in the members' gym, where a lot of the highest paid lobbyists in the land are in fact former cabinet ministers who skulk around the members' gym and look for secret meetings, etc.

I'm very surprised to see you see that. I don't see it as a bad thing–a reduction in lobbyists–as you might be able to tell. I liken it to driving the money-lenders from the temple even, if you ask me.

I'm very surprised, though, to see you say that the ink is not even dry on the new act and you're already granting exemptions. Who have you granted exemptions to, to date?

Shepherd: Mr. Chair, would the member like me to address the first point, in terms of the reduction of the number of lobbyists or…?

Martin: I'd rather not. We don't really have time for that. (Ed note: At committee meetings, NDP MPs, generally get only 7 minutes in the first 90 minutes or so for their questions and answers. So Martin here knows he only has 7 minutes to get Shepherd to answer his questions.)

The Chair: Take him off the list.

Martin: I just want to know who you have granted exemptions to, specifically the names of the people you've granted exemptions to.

Shepherd: They're on the website: one is Mr. Mark Brosens, who was in the minister's office, and Monsieur Guy Bujold, who had been the former president of the Space Agency.

Martin: I'm not even going to ask you for the rationale, as I don't think any reasonable rationale would exist. Why you would, after all the work we went to, to put a Lobbyists Registration Act, a toughened registration act, in place…. And on the Federal Accountability Act, as I say, the ink is hardly dry.

I think we should remind ourselves as a committee how important this act is. The difference between lobbying and influence peddling is about five years in prison. And it's a fine, fine line. Lobbying in an incorrect way, lobbying in the way that we were trying to address under the Federal Accountability Act, bastardizes democracy, undermines democracy in a very substantial way. So you have one of the most important jobs on Parliament Hill.

I don't mean to be critical, but we didn't put in place a robust Lobbyists Registration Act so it could be ignored within months of it being finally implemented. We had frustrations with the former act. I turned in Don Cherry for lobbying on the Hill, I believe, illegally, and we are very frustrated that even after a lengthy investigation, they found nothing wrong with Don Cherry bringing his jar of COLD-fX into the Prime Minister's Office and the very next day having COLD-fX deregulated under the Canada Health Act as a medication.

There have been glaring problems with lobbying.

Well, I suppose my question would be this. Does it not concern you that somebody like these two individuals can peddle the information they used to have privileged access to, to advantage a private sector corporation or organization?

Shepherd: Mr. Member, to answer the question, what I said to the other member, I meant it. In terms of granting exemptions it's very much that. There will be exceptional circumstances.

I very much respect what Parliament passed in terms of wanting to avoid the revolving door and to ensure that those who were in certain positions could not use their contacts or other benefits for lobbying purposes for five years. So when in reviewing those requests that I did grant—and I still denied more than I've actually granted—the review and analysis done by the team that presented me with the report was extremely thorough to ensure that the individuals in question could not use the contacts that they use for benefit.

The Chair (Paul Szabo, LPC): I may also add that it's not the commissioner who decided whether she would make exemptions. The act empowered the commissioner to do that. The committee that came forward with the act must have thought there would be some circumstances under which it would be appropriate.

Martin: We should have slammed that loophole shut while we had the chance.

The Chair: That's true, and maybe we can still do it. We could do it with another private member's bill.

…

Martin: I guess this committee is particularly sensitive to the issue. We're the oversight committee for it. But we've also just gone through this exercise with Karlheinz Schreiber. The lobbying in the old days, with sacks of dough, exceeds it. Nobody ever said back then that what Karlheinz Schreiber was doing was illegal lobbying. That was just the culture of Ottawa at the time. People with vested interests sought the favour of people in power who had the ability to do what they wanted. I don't know if that's really changed today, except that we have no evidence of sacks of money changing hands in secret meetings in hotel rooms. But everything else is pretty much exactly the same, except for the five-year cooling-off period.

We're also faced with a problem. A lot of people bolted when the getting was good and got in just under the wire. We know that in the Conservative ranks a memo went out. It said that if you want to lobby, you'd better get out now, because the law is going to change pretty soon. There was an exodus, a rush, of people who established themselves before the rules. Is there any satisfaction available to the Canadian taxpayer regarding that flurry of new lobbyists who set up shop just before you and the act had the ability to deal with them? They got away with it.

Here is the wording of the request I filed the next day under the Access to Information Act:

Please provide: The names of the public office holders who have applied for exemptions under the Lobbying Act since its coming into force on July 2, 2008 and who were denied an exemption. Please provide the names of these individuals and public office or offices held.

And here is the response to my request, e-mailed to me by Pierre Ricard-Desjardins, the Access to Information co-ordinator in Shepherd's office, after I had telephoned on Dec. 18 to inquire about the status of my request.

Good day Mr. Akin,

This relates to your Access to Information request dated October 28, 2009, which was received by our Office on December 21, 2009, concerning:

“The names of the public office holders who have applied for exemptions under the Lobbying Act since its coming into force on July 2, 2008 and who were denied an exemption. Please provide the names of these individuals and public office or offices held.”

As I mentionned to you over the phone on December 18, 2009, the above request is considered a request for the disclosure of “personal information” pursuant to Section 3 – Definitions, of the Privacy Act (the Act).

In particular, the Act states that “personal information” means information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing,

   (f) correspondence sent to a government institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to such correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,

Therefore, the application of an individual for an exemption to the 5-year ban on lobbying to the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying (OCL) (a government institution), by a public office holder would fall under subsection (f) of the definition of personal information.

Under Section 10.11, paragraph (4) of the Lobbying Act, it states that if such an exemption is granted, the Commissioner shall without delay cause every exemption and the Commissioner's reasons for it to be made available to the public. Thus, the Commissioner is immediately obligated to publish this information on the OCL's Web site and the Lobbying Act authorizes the disclosure of this particular personal information.

However, under the Lobbying Act, the Commissioner is not allowed or obligated to disclose any personal information other than in paragraph 4 referred to above and is in fact prohibited from doing so under Section 8.(1) Disclosure of personal information of the Privacy Act, which states the following: “Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section.”

Paragraph (m), which would permit disclosure without consent of the third parties, states the following:

For any purpose where, in the opinion of the institution,

   (i) the public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs any invasion of privacy that could result from the disclosure, or

   (ii) disclosure would clearly benefit the individual to whom the information relates.

In our opinion, neither of these criteria would apply with regard to this particular personal information.

Thus, we must consult with the individuals themselves, and seek their permission to divulge their personal information as you have requested above. Should you wish to proceed with your request, our Office will then to ask the relevant third parties, in writing, if they are willing to allow the disclosure of their personal information.

Please notify our Office as soon as possible should you wish to proceed with your request. Also, please keep in mind that our Office will only be able to release the information you seek with the express written consent of each of the third parties involved. In this context, our response may be delayed somewhat, but is likely to be provided within the allowable 30 day extension period.

I look forward to your answer.

Season's greetings.

Pierre Ricard-Desjardins,

ATIP Coordinator

The federal Conservatives headed into the Christmas break as the preferred ballot choice of nearly two of every five voters, pollster Nik Nanos says.

Despite potentially explosive allegations that surfaced as the parliamentary season ended that Afghan insurgents captured by Canadian Forces in 2006 were handed over Afghan authorities where they faced certain torture — a war crime if, in fact, Canadians knew the detaineess were likely to be tortured — the Conservatives remain the top choice among decided voters although both the Liberals and the NDP are edging higher as well.

Nanos surveyed 1,003 Canadians by telephone between Dec. 10 and 13 and asked:

For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences?

Here is the breakdown for the first choices: (The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between November 7th and November 10th, 2009.)

National Decided Voters Only (n=745)
Conservative 39.5% (-0.3)
Liberal 30.2% (+0.2)
NDP 18.7% (+2.1)
BQ 7.7% (-1.2)
Green 4.0% (NC)
Undecided 25.7% (+8.2) of all voters surveyed

Nanos also surveyed the opinions of Canadians on who they think the most competent political leader is; the most trustworthy; and leader with the best vision. You can read the exact results here [PDF] but the bottom line is Canadians rank Harper highest on all those categories (by a long shot) while the opinion Canadians have of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff continues to decline sharply — and NDP Leader Jack Layton improves a bit.

Tags: politics, conservatives, liberals, NDP, Jack Layton, Stephen Harper, MIchael Ignatieff, polls

Monday was the first day of Christmas break for members of Parliament. Most were back in their ridings and, as usual when they're on a break week, it's tie for the federal government to start rolling out funding announcements so that local MPs can take credit for the spending. (The local MPs are always government MPs, no matter who is in power).

Here's the scorecard so far this week:

• On Monday, Dec. 14, I found 22 announcements in which one government department or another committed to spending $18.8 million. Of those, 18 announcements involves spending that will occur almost exclusively in a Conservative MP's riding. Those 18 announcements totalled $12.9 million.
• On Tuesday, Dec. 15, I found 6 announcements worth a total of $2.82 million. Of those, 5 are to be spent in Conservative ridings for a total of $$2.7 million.

Here's the announcements from Dec 14 (See note on table layout at the bottom) :

Lebel	CEDQR	Lebel	New hotel construction	Havre-Saint-Pierre	QC	$1,100,000	QC	BQ	Asselin
Lebel	CEDQR	Bernier	Grant to Mecanium Inc. for guidance services to business	Saint-Georges	QC	$97,200	QC	CPC	Bernier
Lebel	CEDQR	Bernier	New wastewater treatment	Beauceville	QC	$623,420	QC	CPC	Bernier
Lebel	CEDQR	Bernier	Wastewater treatment system	Saint-Jules	QC	$931,500	QC	CPC	Bernier
Lebel	CEDQR	Bernier	RINC: Arena upgrade	Beauceville	QC	$468,667	QC	CPC	Bernier
Lebel	CEDQR	Bernier	RINC: Water play area	Vallee Jonction	QC	$43,823	QC	CPC	Bernier
Lebel	CEDQR	Cannon	Loan to Auberge du Draveur to modernize	Maniwaki	QC	$212,500	QC	CPC	Cannon
Yelich	WD	Day	Okanagan School of the Arts training program	Oliver	BC	$400,000	BC	CPC	Day
Moore	PCH	Devolin	Lindsey Concert Foundation to fund concert series	Lindsay	ON	$22,000	ON	CPC	Devolin
Lebel	CEDQR	Gourde	Loan to Fromagerie Bergeron to buy new equipment	Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly	QC	$500,000	QC	CPC	Gourde
Lebel	CEDQR	Gourde	RINC: Improvements to municipal park and rec centre	Saint-Gilles	QC	$184,808	QC	CPC	Gourde
Lebel	CEDQR	Gourde	New multifunctional centre	Saint-Sylvestre	QC	$706,306	QC	CPC	Gourde
Aglukkaq	HC	Kerr	Training/recruiting francophone health care students	Ottawa	ON	$1,965,566	NS	CPC	Kerr
Finley	HRSDC	Shory	Homelessness Partnering Strategy	Calgary	AB	$240,000	AB	CPC	Shory
Finley	HRSDC	Warkentin	For 2010 NW Alberta Regional Skills Canada Competition	Peace River	AB	$25,370	AB	CPC	Warkentin
Yelich	WD	Warkentin	Replacing public works facility	High Level	AB	$2,543,040	AB	CPC	Warkentin
Yelich	WD	Jean	Dwarf Mistletoe Remediation Project	Boyle	AB	$3,500,000	AB	CPC	Jean
Yelich	WD	Jean	RINC: Renovations to local arean	Boyle	AB	$347,000	AB	CPC	Jean
Moore	PCH	Kent	Captus Press grant	Concord	ON	$96,949	ON	CPC	Kent
Ashfield	ACOA	MacKay	RINC: upgrades to sport courts, Wanderers Grounds Field House	Halifax	NS	$710,000	NS	M	M
Ritz	AAFC	Shipley	Pulse Canada to develop herbicide	Centralia	ON	$772,000	NATIONAL	M	M
Yelich	WD	Day	Osoyoos Indian Band & CSQ Environmental Tecnologies	Oliver	BC	$3,285,750	BC	NDP	Atamanenko

And here's the set from Dec. 15:

Lebel	CEDQR	Paradis	Pomerleau Park multifunction centre	Ascot Corner	QC	$112,894	QC	BQ	Bonsant
Moore	PCH	Allen_Mi	Carleton-Victoria Arts Council	Perth-Andover	NB	$8,000	NB	CPC	Allen_Mi
Clement	FEDNOR	Clement	Community economic development	Huntsville	ON	$152,000	ON	CPC	Clement
Lebel	CEDQR	Genereux	Grelots, Bâtons et Cie du Fou du cochon to buy equipment	La Pocatiere	QC	$94,000	QC	CPC	Genereux
Lebel	CEDQR	Gourde	Upgrading water supply	Lotbiniere	QC	$1,645,572	QC	CPC	Gourde
Prentice	EC	Oda	Leaskdale Manse National Historic Site	Uxbridge	ON	$803,332	ON	CPC	Oda

I'd be most pleased to be advised of any funding announcements that I missed.
Table Layout:Column 1: The name of the minister that is signing off on the funding.Column 2: The departmental code responsible for the funding.Column 3: The name of the MP making the announcement. Sometimes the minister responsible is also the announcing MP.4: A brief description of the funding initiative5: The municipal “placeline” on the funding press release.6: The provincial “placeline” on the funding press release.7: The total amount of federal funds committed.8. The region or province of the country that will benefit from the funding. NATIONAL means the funding will benefit Canadians in more than three provinces.9. If the funding is going to spent almost entirely in one riding, then this code identifies the party that holds the riding. BQ, NDP, LPC, or CPC. An M denotes that the funding will benefit Multiple ridings.10. The name of the MP whose riding is benefitting from the funding. M here means that multiple MPs are benefitting.

This just in from the public affairs department at Simon Fraser University, part of their regular e-mail updates to reporters to let us know what members of the faculty are standing by to comment on whatever the issue of the day is. in today's update, SFU political scientist Patrick Smith agrees with charges made by operators of some airports in B.C.'s interior that the federal Conservatives appear to be playing a little pork barrel politics on Salts Spring Island, in the riding of Gary Lunn, the minister of state for sport. From the SFU newsletter:

Small and regional airports in B.C.’s Interior are charging the federal government with playing pork barrel politics in its imposition of a new air security rules during the Olympics. Ottawa is forcing regional airports to divert flights to better equipped, larger airports if they don’t meet beefed up security requirements. While regional airports are expected to pay for the upgrade themselves, a tiny airport on Salt Spring Island has had full security installed, courtesy of the federal government. SFU political scientist Patrick Smith agrees with charges that Ottawa is favoring a riding held by Gary Lunn, the minister of sport in the Conservative federal government. “Prime Minister Harper is acting a lot like his predecessor Jean Chretien. The Liberals were grand at taking care of business while doing the nation’s business. The Conservatives are showing the same old signs.”

Communications departments in an political leaders office put out a lot of text press releases. But over the last several months, the Prime Minister's Office has also been distributing still photographs, photographs taken by the prime minister's official photograph.

Now, as Harper begins his first trip to China, the PMO communications department has added something new: audio and video releases to go along with the photo releases. That's a PMO photo on the left of Harper's arrival in China.

You can now listen, for instance, to an MP3 of the four-question press conference Prime Minister Stephen Harper held in Beijing after making remarks about his government's fourth quarter update to Canadians. You can watch video of Harper and his wife Laureen boarding the plane for China and getting off the plane in China.

Of course, independent journalists collect this audio and video as well. There would be little difference to our audio files and the audio files from the prime minister's office. But there is often quite a significant difference when it comes to pictures and, perhaps in the future, video. Journalists are often restricted in terms of their access to the prime minister while PMO communications staff are allowed to go places we are not. Later today, for example, Harper will meet President Hu Jintao. Just one still photographer and one television news camera crew will be allowed into that meeting. I suspect that the PMO videographer will be there but other journalists who wish to collect video for their organization's Web sites may not be allowed in.

Is this a good or a bad thing? On its own, I don't think it's either. It will be a bad thing, however, if journalists are unable to make their own visual record of the prime minister's visit in order to accommodate the visual record-taking of the prime minister's staff. I suppose it's in the interest of all political leaders (or business leaders, for that matter) to distribute their own audio-visual materials but a democracy is best served — as the prime minister said himself in a speech in Markham a few weeks ago — when an independent press is able to collect and distribute its own visual record as well.