41 replies to this topic

[August1991]

I have posted a link to the 2004 list. There is now a new 2005 pdf list available. I urge every Canadian (or at least all 26 who come to this forum) to peruse this list and think about what government is supposed to be.

[ETA (2011) Link to latest list: 2009-10 pdf list]

The list contains anyone who received a cheque for $100,000 or more from the Canadian government in 2004-05 - not for rendering a service - but simply as a transfer, a form of welfare.

The following statement presents the total amount spent in 2004-2005 for each transfer payment. A transfer payment is a grant, contribution or other payment made by the Government for which no goods or services are received.
--
This statement also provides, for each class of recipients, a detailed listing, where applicable, of the payments (i.e. cash payments and accrued charges) aggregating to $100,000 or over to a recipient (one individual or organization).

Some recipients are listed more than once (search on "Royal Bank"), presumably receiving different cheques under different programmes. (And, of course, we must trust bureaucrats working under political direction for the list's accuracy.)

If I were an editor, I would assign a researcher/reporter to this list for a week. There is a national headline hidden here somewhere that will attract advertising revenue greater than the reporter's weekly salary.

The list has divisions according to federal department and programme or recipient. HRDC is big, and Indian and Northern Affairs. So is CIDA. I suggest a flip through Science & Technology.

For fun, I have randomly found recipients and where possible, given links. The categories are mine. I know none of these people, firms or NGOs.

There is no scoop here. But I invite you to read my comments after.

Left

Ghost River Rediscovery $192,948
Horizons of Friendship $719,000
One Sky - The Canadian Institute of Sustainable Living $167,886
Rooftops Canada Toronto Ont $556,285
Candora Society of Edmonton Edmonton Alta $350,299
Gay & Lesbian Health Services of Saskatoon Sask $1,030,058
Genuine Progress Index Atlantic Glen Haven NS $186,090
Hunger in Moose Jaw $116,150
Palestine House Educational & Cultural Centre Mississauga Ont $307,599

Right

Apollo Microwaves Ltd Pointe-Claire Que $456,392
Quantiam Technologies Inc Edmonton Alta $851,000
BMO Investments Inc Toronto Ont $14,966,472
4746962 Manitoba Inc Selkirk Man $124,012
TIR Systems Ltd Burnaby Ont $2,291,762

Weird

Ministry of Science and Technology Beijing China $100,158
American Society for Engineering Education Washington $76,456
Green Global USA Washington DC USA $121,760
Provigo Distribution Inc Toronto Ont $103,000
Linda Lundstrom Inc East York Ont $116,901
Crossroads Christian Communications Burlington Ont $211,307
Pastew Place Detoxification Centre Ft McMurray Alta $379,000
Windreach Farm Ashburn Ont $104,130

Huh?

Janette Husak and Dwain Daniel Prince Albert Sask $317,775
The Right Honourable E Schreyer Winnipeg Man $115,340

----

When the Left says that we all must pay more in taxes to help poor people, it should think of this list. Giving money to government means giving money to these people and organizations - not poor people.

When the Right says that governments should not give money out, it should think of this list. Some on this list are good public investments and make Canada a more civilized and richer country.

Unfortunately, politicians and bureaucrats cannot pick winners. This is largely a list of graft, corruption, vote-buying, rent-seeking. It is a list that refers to the basest aspect of animals: mooching. Rather than cultivate your own food, you hang around and wait for the scraps of others.

The federal Liberal Party was involved in many of these cheques, and a Liberal MP, if smart, was involved in its delivery. I don't think a country that operates on such principles will long endure. I don't know. There is Louis XIV and Henry VIII, and then there is Elizabeth I.

Edited by August1991, 04 March 2011 - 07:03 PM.

[Canuck E Stan]

August,

Don't do this.

Haven't we had enough excitement on taxpayer money being excreted inappropriately this week?

But then again, what the hey,

42% of Ontario says it's ok........let's see when we touch a nerve.......Go for it.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Hugo ver 2.0, ...er, August1991,

This is largely a list of graft, corruption, vote-buying, rent-seeking. It is a list that refers to the basest aspect of animals: mooching.

I clicked on a couple of links, and in my opinion, they are reasonably legitimate, as far as the status quo of gov't grants go. The gov't publishes a book every year outlining what grants and subsidies are available and what guidelines are to be followed for application consideration. Most of them are for services that serve 'society needs' that generally can't be expected to operate on profit motive.
For example...Pastew Place is an AADAC detox facility, and assumably the grant was a capital expense outlay, for a building and/or renovations that would far exceed a non-profit's budget.
Windreach Farm Ashburn Ont $104,130 ...this is a farm designed for people with disabilities to experience 'farming life' (and enrich their own lives), again an unprofitable venture, by private enterprise's standards.

There are truly some ridiculous grants out there, to be sure, but if you are suggesting that the gov't abolish grants to non-profit organizations, (or perhaps you are suggesting the elimination of taxes because they go to non-profit organizations, which is what fomented the 'Hugo 2.0' joke) then I must stand against you.

[Canuck E Stan]

There are truly some ridiculous grants out there, to be sure,

I'm sure most reasonable people like yourself, would only question these ridiculous grants,not all grants.

[err]

There are truly some ridiculous grants out there, to be sure,

I'm sure most reasonable people like yourself, would only question these ridiculous grants,not all grants.

This thread brings to mind Brian Mulroney's use of "the Wealty Banker's Wife".... Showing how rich people got family allowance cheques too, and that was just outrageous.... Rich people getting free taxpayers money... and using this justification, cut EVERYBODY's family allowance.... most notably, the people who needed it....

If you're on a trail to say all these programs should be cut because there are a some questionable ones, then you are going down a bad and dangerous path... Not all benefits can be measured in dollars....

[fellowtraveller]

My day has not been wasted. Apparently Linda Lundstrom is all about 'authentic women' so that $116K is money well spent.

Has Canada ever looked inward and asked the question: 'What is the role of government, all levels of governemnt?'
It is a big and critical question. When we avoid answering that question, you end up with a list like this. You end up with Canada seriously considering a breakup. Some days I wonder if it is both inevitable, and necessary.

[August1991]

I'll put this in here:

...between December 2003 and December 2005, 99 senior officials spent more than $100,000 each on travel and hospitality, including nine who topped $200,000, and one -- the ambassador to France -- who broke the $300,000 mark. But good luck finding that figure on a government website. Parliament's idea of "disclosure" is to post a mélange of unrelated, unaudited and in some cases incomplete figures that offer neither context nor comfort. No grand totals -- not by individual, not by department and certainly not government-wide. A citizen curious to know how much senior Immigration officials spend on travel and hospitality will need a few spare hours and a calculator.

Maclean's combed through the data, using a spreadsheet to tally, rank and average the expenditures of more than 1,700 senior ministers and civil servants, totalling $46 million. Buried in the online filings is an array of dubious purchases, from a $12,000 plane ticket to South Africa to scores of pricey airfares of a senior civil servant who commuted between Vancouver and Ottawa. There's a $7,600 bill for a cocktail party, and $12,166 to send a "special envoy" from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to a meeting on the remote Pacific shores of Easter Island. Departmental audits show similar patterns of excess and bungling among rank-and-file employees: Justice officials upbraided for paying out a $16,000 fee after the last-minute cancellation of a conference at a luxury hotel; Fisheries workers spending $81,000 more than they should have on plane tickets that could have been had for a fraction of the price. Missing receipts, unapproved claims, trips that look suspiciously like holidays -- they're all part of a billion-dollar travel and hospitality regime that, after more than a decade of attempts at reform, federal bean-counters admit they still don't fully grasp.

Macleans

In a federal budget of some $200 billion, $1 billion is like a candy bar added at the checkout counter while doing the weekly grocery shopping. For several reasons however, the $1 billion is likely an underestimate. Travel and hospitality claims are the tip of the iceberg, just like a candy bar is only an indication of other junkfood in the cart.

More seriously, these expenditures are a sign of a much more serious problem within government bureaucracies around the world. There is a fundamental disconnect between the money that comes in and the money that goes out. Government is the only institution that suffers from this basic disconnect. One of the terrible consequences is that not only does government spending grow, but it becomes less and less effective. Governments simply don't know where or how to spend money because the disconnect removes the accurate signals and incentives money normally provides. The ultimate failure of the Soviet Union is a classic example of this.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were elected to stem the tide and Thatcher at most slowed its growth for awhile. Our own Stephen Harper has a similar small ambition: he wants government spending to grow no faster than general economic growth.

I will add this table from this Fraser Institute report which shows that government purchases of goods & services, as a portion of GDP, has slowly and steadily increased in Canada since 1926. When transfer payments are included, the trend is even more pronounced.

Many posters on this forum extoll at length the wisdom of a balanced budget and how governments must live within their means. They are entirely missing the point.

We read articles like this Macleans piece, grumble about government waste and then go on with our daily lives. I am not expecting any kind of cataclysm but clearly, this can't go on forever.

[Argus]

Dear Hugo ver 2.0, ...er, August1991,

This is largely a list of graft, corruption, vote-buying, rent-seeking. It is a list that refers to the basest aspect of animals: mooching.

I clicked on a couple of links, and in my opinion, they are reasonably legitimate, as far as the status quo of gov't grants go.

The status quo of government grants is, I believe, what he is questioning. Why should all these people be getting my money? Some of them, perhaps, do good things with it, but why should the government be paying them to? If Aborigines want to help the young rediscover their roots why does the federal government have to pay them to do it? If some clothing designer wants to expand, if some people want to help foreigners with their housing, if gay and lesbians and ethnic groups and womens groups and others want to lobby government why shouldn't they do it on their own dime? Why must federal money go to the Canadian Coalition of Women in Engineering? If women engineers want to form a "coallition" shouldn't they pay for it? Why does the federal government need to give money to the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, or the Cross Cultural Learner Centre in London or the Arab Community Centre in Etobicoke, or the
Association de la presse francophone in Ottawa? What does all this crap have to do with governing the nation?

For example...Pastew Place is an AADAC detox facility, and assumably the grant was a capital expense outlay, for a building and/or renovations that would far exceed a non-profit's budget.
Windreach Farm Ashburn Ont $104,130 ...this is a farm designed for people with disabilities to experience 'farming life' (and enrich their own lives), again an unprofitable venture, by private enterprise's standards.

But what do EITHER of them have to do with the federal government? Why am I required to pay to enrich people's lives? What the hell is Hippy Canada anyway? Though since it's in BC I can guess. But why are they getting my money? And if the Environmental Youth Alliance wants to get together, volunteer, and do good things, well that's nice, but why am I giving them hundreds of thousands of dolalrs? it's like anyone and everyone who wants to do something, wants to make changes, wants to lobby govenrment, wants to help people, has some sort of pet project expects to be able to hold out their hands so we can pay them to do it. Why is the Foreign Affairs giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to City of Toronto, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism? Why should the federal govenrment need to fund operas and symphonies and book publishers and ballet and museums and magazines?

[Wilber]

Many posters on this forum extoll at length the wisdom of a balanced budget and how governments must live within their means. They are entirely missing the point.

Unfortunately a governments means is the citizens means. A government only has to live within the citizens ability to pay.

[August1991]

Many posters on this forum extoll at length the wisdom of a balanced budget and how governments must live within their means. They are entirely missing the point.

Unfortunately a government's means is the citizens means. A government only has to live within the citizens ability to pay.

Wilber, I don't think you quite understand.

Stephen Harper has not only the power to take money from your bank account (he does), he can also use your credit cards (any time he wants). IOW, the spending limit of Stephen Harper has no limit because he has access to all Canadians credit or bank cards. It's a sum of money, far beyond anything the federal government has ever spent.

When you say that a government must live within citizens' ability to pay, what do you mean? Would you accept your husband's (or wife's) power to use your name to spend money?

When Stephen Harper says the government will do such A or such B, he is spending/borrowing in your name. Government spending is an obligation, like marriage, and whether the money is in the bank or not is not the question - it is an obligation.

Stephen Harper has access to Canadians' credit cards, and debit cards. The question is not which card he uses -whether governments borrow or use cash. It is not how governments pay. (After all, we'll pay.) The question is rather what governments buy in our name. Above in this thread, that's my point.

[geoffrey]

This thread brings to mind Brian Mulroney's use of "the Wealty Banker's Wife".... Showing how rich people got family allowance cheques too, and that was just outrageous.... Rich people getting free taxpayers money... and using this justification, cut EVERYBODY's family allowance.... most notably, the people who needed it....

Why have an expensive allowance program to begin with?

Let's just take less taxes then we wouldn't need all these damned refunds, transfers and credits.

And I don't know why you or others (unless your being sarcastic, I can't tell) think that rich people aren't entitled to the services that they pay for. Especially when they pay alot more for the same services as others do.

[Michael Hardner]

Geoffrey - in the 70s that concept was known as 'universality', I think. The left loved it because it made everyone a recipient of government funds, and nobody had to feel worse than anyone else. I think.

BMO Investments Inc Toronto Ont $14,966,472

*Cough*

Thanks, August, for posting this.

If these services are needed, then they should be integrated into existing government operations. Piecemeal payouts are fertile ground for corruption, and they cost more to administer. That said, I like the infrastructure fund but it should be administered by an all-party committee.

[daddyhominum]

Geoffrey - in the 70s that concept was known as 'universality', I think. The left loved it because it made everyone a recipient of government funds, and nobody had to feel worse than anyone else. I think.

My recollection is that the idea of universality was that everyone received the same from government and a progressive tax system taxed back benefits from those who did not require them.

Seems sensible to me.

[Charles Anthony]

It is not how governments pay. (After all, we'll pay.) The question is rather what governments buy in our name. Above in this thread, that's my point.

You are not being clear enough.

You state that "it can not go on forever" but you do not say why that is the case.
You also state that it is "what governments buy" regardless of the method of payment. That sounds like you are pointing out the economic distortions (such as crowding out) created by government spending -- which is a very different problem.

I believe in cutting government spending for both reasons. However, not many people can understand economic distortions whether it is due to spending or taxes or monetary policy (or even talking for that matter!).

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

'What is the role of government, all levels of governemnt?'

The role of all western governments is to redistribute the wealth. So not only do they take it from rich provinces to pay not so rich provinces, but they give it away to businesses to keep them not so poor.

Every politician - especially at election time - will promise tax breaks and helping "Canadians". All they are doing is giving you back your own money. But they are still giving big business hundreds of thousands more in comparision.

O:nen