Stephen Harper’s decision to extend federal economic stimulus spending another seven months is a blatant pre-election bribe. That’s obvious but trivial. The more interesting question is why this spending has done such a poor job of kickstarting the Canadian economy.

The Prime Minster’s decision to announce his good news in Mississauga was not accidental. The 905 region around Toronto — the region that gave former Ontario premier Mike Harris his majority — promises to be a key battleground for an election expected in the spring.

Conservatives hold 14 of the 905’s 24 seats. To break Ottawa’s current parliamentary deadlock they need virtually all of them.

So that’s the politics of the equation. Ontario accounts for the lion’s share of the $7 billion that the federal government promised to spend through four infrastructure programs between January 2009 and March 2011. Yet some 166 Ontario projects won’t be finished by that March deadline.

To avoid the political embarrassment of campaigning against a backdrop of half-built schools and sewers, Harper had to extend the cutoff date. And so he did.

Ironically, Harper’s announcement came one day after a report from parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page that casts doubt on the usefulness of the very stimulus programs he is extending.

I say ironic because Page’s argument — at base — jibes more with the usual conservative take on government spending that does Harper’s.

Conservatives usually argue that government spending does little to create jobs and, indeed, by creating deficits that later must be covered by taxes, depresses economic activity.

Such conservatives usually have little time for fancy-pants economists with their equations and abstract models. They focus instead on the opinions of alleged hard-headed business types.

Which is what budget officer Page did. He surveyed those who received $4 billion in federal money from the largest of Ottawa’s four infrastructure programs and asked whether that money created jobs.

About 42 per cent of respondents said it had no effect on employment. More surprisingly, 21 per cent said the stimulus spending had destroyed jobs.

That’s left Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty in the curious position of citing fancy-pants economists to prove Page wrong.

Now, generally, I support the economists on this. Money is money is money. When business doesn’t invest, some other entity — like government — has to pick up the slack.

Figures from Statistics Canada show that this is what did happen during the bleak periods of this recession.

Still, unemployment remains persistently high. Even Friday’s announcement that the official jobless rate fell to 7.6 per cent must be seen in the context of a labour market where thousands have simply given up looking for work.

So perhaps the economists — and the government — should pay more attention to Page on this. Granted, those he interviewed may not have taken into account the spin-offs from stimulus spending (as, for instance, when a construction worker laying sewer-pipe buys a submarine sandwich).

Granted also that recipients of federal cash may not have considered the jobs that stimulus spending saved from being lost.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

But if one-fifth of those at the sharp end found that the government money they spent reduced employment in their communities, alarm bells should ring.

Perhaps it was the wrong kind of spending. Perhaps it wasn’t enough. Whatever the problem, something is clearly not right.

Thomas Walkom's column appears Wednesday and Saturday.

Read more about: