The Canadian Heritage department was the biggest spender, paying $1.45-million to CTV for prime time space to broadcast one War of 1812 ad during the summer Olympic Games, with a further $1.2-million bill for the ad’s planning and production costs.
The Royal Canadian Mint also spent lavishly on anniversary ads, criticized in part because of their largely romantic presentation of the bloody and often bitter war between thousands of British regular troops, scattered regiments of Canadian militia and U.S. regular troops and militia who were eventually beaten back after they invaded Canada as part of a wider conflict involving the Napoleonic wars and European trade blockades.
The mint spent a total of $1.6-million on television ads alone, all centred around commercials for circulation of a $2 coin commemorating a British navy warship. The two-and-a-half-year war ended with no changes to most of the border between the U.S. and Canada, then a British-ruled colony, and widespread later portrayals in the U.S, that it had won the war.
The total bill for mostly television advertising and production costs in a sprinkling of departments came to $7,982,475.
The figures were contained in a government House of Commons response to a written request for information from Liberal MP Wayne Easter (Malpeque, P.E.I.), who slammed the costly advertising spree in light of the devastating effect recent reductions in employment insurance have had in the Atlantic region, dependant in large part on seasonal work.
“It’s a heck of a lot of money, when they’ve cut back on the employment insurance and we have people coming into our offices in tears,” Mr. Easter told The Hill Times.
He accused the government of using the 200th anniversary of the war for propaganda purposes, appealing as it does to a core of conservative voters in many parts of the country, and also aiming it at communities of new Canadians who were crucial in the majority that Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) and his Conservatives won in the 2011 federal election.
“The simple fact is this is probably one of the best, in the wrong way, the best propaganda machines that Canada has ever seen,” Mr. Easter said. “They propagandize consistently, whether it’s Canada’s action plan, or whether it’s 1812.”
Mr. Easter said the money was not used to advertise Canadian history but rather promote the Conservative government. “The problem with their advertising money is it’s not as much about Canada and its history, it’s about them,” Mr. Easter said. “It is just more of the Stephen Harper machine, where we’ve seen more money spent, taxpayers’ money, on propaganda, on advertising to promote themselves and try hand make themselves look good, to confuse people on the facts, to get their mind off the reality that they’ve cut employment insurance, that they’re laying off the public and cutting services.”
Among the smaller spenders were Parks Canada, which doled out $57,150, for what the documents described as “field units” in parts of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
The National Capital Commission spent a total of $3,385 to advertise a “call for artists” to select a sculptor to design and build a War of 1812 monument intended for Parliament Hill, the first war monument to be erected on the Parliamentary precinct.
Canada Post printed commemorative stamps for the war anniversary, but did not disclose the costs because the commercial value of its stamps has “always been confidential.” Via Rail reported $1,361 spent for “Bottle neck tag placed on 1812 wine bottles in LCBO [Liquor Control Board of Ontario] stores” and also noted it spent $2,368 for a website ad. A spokesperson for Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, B.C.) defended the spending.
“Canada’s victory in the War of 1812 was a pivotal point in the development of our country,” said communications director Jessica Fletcher. “We think it is important that Canadians are aware of history and the heroes who helped shape Canada. Our investment in the War of 1812 is from already existing funds and therefore comes at no new additional cost to taxpayers.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: TIM NAUMETZ
No comments:
Post a Comment