On false alibis

The Cons' main response for the past week when anybody points out the disproportionate share of stimulus money being put into government or swing ridings has been to refer to George Smitherman's comments blurring the lines between different infrastructure programs. So let's take a moment to ask one question which seems to have gone unaddressed so far: what reason might Smitherman have to take the Harper Cons' side?

For the answer, let's take a look at the overriding infrastructure agreements between the federal and provincial governments. Oddly enough, a separate stimulus agreement between Canada and Ontario which was supposed to have been signed this August doesn't seem to be readily available - but the federal government's own infrastructure site features the Infrastructure Framework Agreement signed in 2008, and it would be a shock if the newer agreement is radically different. So let's take a brief look at what the Cons required Ontario to agree to before providing funding to the province.

When it comes to actually reporting on spending, the Infrastructure Framework Agreement contains only an agreement to deal with the issue later. But needless to say, the Cons weren't about to leave publicity to chance as they did with accountability. And as a result, the agreement includes a detailed "Communications Protocol".

Under that protocol, the federal and provincial governments agree to "undertake joint communications activities and collaborate on products" when it comes to infrastructure spending. Each party's communications are required to meet jointly-developed "branding standards, protocols, graphic guidelines, and templates", and include an equal allocation of "words, logos, symbols and other types of identification".

From that starting point, one might rightly suggest that the protocol seems to be aimed solely at working together on project announcements or the like. But the protocol goes on to set far broader requirements, some of which apply solely to recipients rather than to the federal government:

3.3 Project Promotion

a. Recipients are responsible for the promotion of their project and its activities and objectives within their community or jurisdiction. The recipient will provide, as appropriate, project communications such as: a project web site, print, audiovisual and other communications about the project as it proceeds. The recipient will inform Canada and Ontario of any such promotional communication before it takes place. The recipient will also ensure appropriate mention of the partnership nature of the funds and the contribution of all parties in annual reports, speeches or other opportunities, as appropriate.
...
e. The recipient will provide, whenever possible, professional quality audio-visual material about the project to Canada and/or Ontario (where Ontario is not the recipient) to support wider communications about funding under the BCF or the Base Funding Agreement and ReNew Ontario and its successor plans.

...

4.4 News Releases

The Parties shall issue joint news releases after funding decisions are made, or upon project milestones. In all such news releases, the Parties shall receive equal prominence. The Parties shall mutually agree on the use of quotes from the designated representatives of Canada, Ontario or the recipient in the news releases.

4.5 News Conferences, Public Announcements, Official Events or Ceremonies

a. Canada and Ontario agree to hold news conferences at the request of either Party. The requestor shall provide at least 15 working days notice of such a news conference, which will take place at a mutually agreed date and location. The Ministers, or a designated representative of either Party, will be entitled (sic) participate in such news conferences.

So what can we take from the above provisions? Read generously enough, one could interpret 3.3.e as establishing a direct commitment on the part of the province to provide the federal government with positive press about the stimulus program. And the province's obligations surrounding "annual reports, speeches or other opportunities, as appropriate" would seem to be very easily interpreted to include some obligation to deliver a Con-friendly message even in less formal forums - such as, for example, in response to media questioning.

Of course, there's room for dispute about the scope of those words. But I'd have serious doubts that a province which is already running a glaring deficit would want to risk having its federal funding withheld by a government eager to take revenge for any unfriendly public commentary - particularly when it comes to programs where both levels of government have agree to "joint" responsibilities. Which means that there's ample reason for Ontario to deliver statements which they figure will keep money flowing, rather than potentially provoking a fight.

And as an added bonus, Ontario's signature on the Infrastructure Framework Agreement belongs to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. So to the extent Smitherman has his own political future in mind, there's similar reason for him not to want to make himself a target for the Cons as having breached the agreement.

All of which is to say that Smitherman's statement should be taken more as a signal that the Cons have ensured that the provinces are under their thumb than as an indication that the stimulus program is actually being run fairly. And if the best the Cons can point to in their defence is to say that one of their "recipients" doesn't dare to mention any concerns, then that should be taken as evidence of just how problematic the Cons' actions have been.