Checking the math (II) -

Checking the math (II)


As to the NDP’s concern, the government’s position seems to be that the official opposition is completely wrong. From Gary Goodyear’s answers during QP this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is flat wrong again. It is quite unfortunate that whoever is helping the member did not do his or her math before the NDP members decided to go on with these tactics. The fact is that in 2007, 2008 and 2009 funds were drawn from government resources, just like we said in the budget, and then from subsequent public accounts. I would recommend that the member consult the public accounts…

Mr. Speaker, I would highly recommend the member give up his day job. The Public Accounts of Canada are certified by the Comptroller General and the Auditor General. The facts are very clear. The funds for the Perimeter Institute are consistent with the government’s commitments. The question here remains. Why has the NDP chosen to attack this world-class institution to score cheap political points, and then be flat wrong? That member should apologize to the Comptroller General of Canada for an insulting attack.


Checking the math (II)

  1. Based on the NDP track record thus far as Official Opposition, they’re probably wrong.

  2. If indeed the “Harper” government has spent the money wisely, effectively and in an accountable transparent manner, it will be a welcome change. Given past history, I can forgive someone for perhaps leaping to the opposite conclusion, however. 

  3. I’m just curious, Crit, whether you read Checking the Math (the original) before posting that comment.  Because if the NDP is drilling down through a government database until they come to a Perimeter Institute line item that says $127 million, it isn’t the NDP that’s wrong. 

  4. Where do Boulerice’s numbers come from?  The budget breakdown only lists $50 million (over five years) which is the same funding they received from 2007-present.

    • No no no.. you see… they only budgeted 50 million directly for the institute. All that other money is from other public accounts which nobody said would *not* be spent on the institute. See how that works?

      I mean come on, you didn’t think that because something was written down in a budget that was all the money they were going to give to it, right?

      • Which accounts?  I just want to see the documentation.  For all I know, this other money came in the form of NSERC grants to researchers or legitimate infrastructure funds.  But I don’t know, because Boulerice didn’t introduce a document and Goodyear is a blowhard buffoon.  Two wrongs and all that.