Bacon butties in poutine country

Via Vijay Sappani this CanWest article detailing the amount of development money being handed out. This will come as a total shocker, but Conservative-held ridings in Quebec, coincidentally, receive more than ridings held by other parties. A lot more.

The Harper government has been channelling a disproportionate amount of economic development money in Quebec into Conservative-held ridings, a Canwest News Service analysis has found.

Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions has a mandate to promote "long-term economic development" in Quebec by issuing grants and loans to businesses, non-profit organizations and communities. According to the agency's governing legislation, it is supposed to give special attention to regions where "slow economic growth is prevalent or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate."

[...]

On average, each Conservative seat received $10.8 million in economic development money. That is more than one and a half times the average of $6.6 million that Bloc Quebecois ridings have received, and more than three times the $3.2-million average for Liberal ridings.

This is hardly "new". It seems to me all governments do this. They did the same thing in the UK. Living in Nova Scotia it was particularly noticeable. So, why is this such an issue?

The Harper government rode to power roughly two years ago in the wake of the sponsorship scandal, which revealed that a program designed to promote federalism in Quebec funnelled cash to advertising and communications firms connected with the Liberal party. In their campaign platform, Harper's Conservatives vowed to end "old-style politics" and "replace a culture of entitlement and corruption with a culture of accountability."

That's the issue. Harper said he wouldn't do it.

Harper can smell an election

And, jeebus, I can taste it.

Note the sudden flurry of Conservative cabinet ministers descending on, well, election hot spots to... shovel goodies off the back of the truck.

I wish I could say that this is a Conservative modus operandi, but it isn't. It's the M.O. of all politicians about to go into an election.

First we have the man who would have made your iPod useless and his sidekick, "Torture is what people of colour do" making an announcement in Quebec.

Electoral purpose: Yes, your native sons are being killed in a far off, distant land, but look at the money we're going to throw your way. Isn't it all better now? Vote for me. We have created new jobs... with your money.

Next, we have this little announcement. Prentice and MacKay this time... in MacKay's riding.

Atlantic Canadian aerospace companies will receive hundreds of millions of dollars in defence contracts as the result of a move to replace the military's Hercules transport aircraft, two federal cabinet ministers are expected to announce Tuesday.

Electoral purpose: Yes, we have insulted you for being what you are, but look at all the money we're going to throw your way. Isn't it all better now? Vote for me. We have created jobs... with your money.

Then, we have watersport champion and drug-deal awareness aficionado Stockwell Day horning in on the Bellingham shopping crowds' time. That's right. No passports for you lotus-eaters. Just get a new driver's licence. You can zip through the Peace Arch crossing as though there was never an office of Homeland Security on the other side. Despite the fact that driver's licensing is a provincial matter, good old Stockwell, the man who knows the value of a wet-suit, made it look like a federal matter.

British Columbians will soon be able to get a high-tech driver's licence that could be used as an alternative to a passport to cross into the United States by land and sea.

The licences, part of a pilot project involving the province, Washington state and the federal government, will initially involve 500 volunteers who agree to share personal information with Canadian and U.S. authorities.

"The new enhanced driver's licence will confirm both the holder's identity and Canadian citizenship, and can be used at land and water border crossings in place of a passport," Premier Gordon Campbell, with federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day looking on, said Monday.

Privacy? No, no. no. Not if you want to shop at Bellis Fair. Just give it up and things will be just ducky. Super-cop Stock will make it easy for you. Well... maybe.

"B.C. came forward early on with the suggestion of enhanced driver's licences," he said. "Because of their vision ... we're now able to announce that British Columbia will be the first to engage in this pilot project."

Yes... that would be B.C. That place which the federal finance minister chose to leave off the map of Canada during the last federal budget speech. Not a problem. This promotion of cross-border shopping is a good thing. Well... maybe.

Day emphasized, however, that while the enhanced licences are an alternative, Canadians are still urged to get a passport.

You know... because it's US law if you want to go to the US.

Get ready for more of this. When a government is desperate, they resort to desperate measures: Blowing the living daylights out of your tax dollars.

Flaherty's E85 vehicle inclusion smells slightly rotten

Steve has picked up the G&M article which points out that Flaherty favoured vehicles manufactured in the General Motors plant next to his riding by making last minute changes to the budget. The Finance Department, not the Transport Ministry, included two E85 flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs) manufactured at the Oshawa GM plant, even though the 85 percent ethanol fuel is not available in most of Canada and the fuel consumption ratings of both cars is far too high to qualify under the "feebate" program in Flaherty's budget.

Government officials privately confirmed that as recently as one week before last Monday's federal budget was finalized, the rebates for fuel-efficient cars did not include vehicles with engines capable of running on E85, a gasoline made up of 85 per cent ethanol.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Globe and Mail that the Finance Department, rather than departments with policy expertise in the area, added two E85 vehicles in the final days.

The two six-cylinder vehicles, the Chevrolet Impala and the Monte Carlo, are produced at the GM plant in Oshawa, a riding narrowly won by the Conservatives in the past two elections. The plant is minutes away from Mr. Flaherty's riding of Whitby-Oshawa, where the local economy is closely linked to the GM plant, with many residents employed at GM or in spin-off jobs tied to the plant.

That's pretty typical conservative politics, although I would say a little blatant. But there's more around this issue.

The budget said that vehicles running on E85 meet the standards required to qualify for $1,000 rebates because they emit 40 per cent less greenhouse gases than if they ran on regular fuel.

However, the federal government is not aware of a single gas station in Canada that sells E85 fuel to the public. As a result, Canadians who buy these cars will have to use regular gas, so there will be no improvements to global warming.

OK, there are two things wrong here. First off, the "feebate" program rewards or penalizes the buyer on the purchase of the vehicle; not its use. In the various jurisdictions around the world where that method of incentives and penalties have been applied, they have not worked. (It's called research and we all know how much attention the Conservatives pay to that, don't we O'Connor).

The figure that E85 FFVs emit 40 percent less greenhouse gases than the same vehicle burning regular fuel is patently false. The latest studies show the best case reduces GGH emissions by 25.5 percent. That's not insignificant, but it's a far cry from the 40 percent claim.

There's another problem. Gallon for gallon, litre for litre, mile for mile and KM for KM, E85 burns less efficiently than gasoline. Compared to an equivalent gasoline burning engine, an E85 FFV suffers a 25 percent reduction in volumetric fuel economy. That means the reduction in the gallon for gallon GGH output is reduced because a FFV uses more fuel to travel the same distance as a gasoline powered vehicle. The GGH emission reduction is actually around 13 percent for the same amount of time the engine is operated.

That's not to say that a shift to FFVs and E85 isn't a good move, but to include E85 burning vehicles in the budget's "feebate" program has nothing to do with significant GGH reduction. It's a typical Conservative environmental program, grabbed out of the air without proper consultation and research. The truth is, the two vehicles built near Flaherty's riding, (Chevolet Impala and Monte Carlo) when burning E85 have a combined city/highway fuel consumption rating of 12.3 litres per hundred kilometers. A Saturn Vue (bigger vehicle, smaller engine) has a rating of 8.2 litres per hundred KM. The gasoline burning Saturn Vue actually emits less volume of greenhouse gases per KM than the E85 burning Impala or Monte Carlo.

So, why were E85 vehicles included? It looks good on the surface, but a turn of the page and a working of the figures suggests they belong closer to the other end of the scale. Smoke and mirrors again.

I won't even start with the feedstock problems associated with E85. That's for another time.

Steve labeled it properly. It's Flaherty pork.