There's been confusion today, to say the least, about whether yesterday's announcement of $1.9 billion in funding for housing and homelessness should be considered a "campaign spending" announcement by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives say the funding was in the 2008 budget, but not allocated until a cabinet meeting just before the election was called.

And although they've been critical of other parties' billion-dollar spending announcements in these uncertain fiscal times, they deny that this is a billion-dollar bit of campaign candy of their own. Or at least they seemed to be denying this, at first.

Normally this kind of funding allocation would be announced on a Government of Canada press release, with the Human Resources minister's office listed as the contact.

But yesterday, the funding announcement happened in Environment Minister John Baird's riding. And the release was on his campaign letterhead — complete with a Conservative party logo.

So was this really a routine government spending announcement, merely designating a specific way for previously-announced budget funds to be spent?

Today Stephen Harper was asked whether this announcement was a case of the government trying to buy Canadians' votes, just like they accuse the other parties of doing.

Harper said it was "completely different":

"This was money budgeted in budget 2008 and in the fiscal framework. And the reason we approved that decision to extend those programs, as I say those current programs being extended, the finance being extended for those five years, all within existing budgets and the reason we did that before the election was to make sure that it could be communicated to stakeholders for planning purposes that those programs would remain in place because they're coming up for expiration and we felt it was necessary get that decision done before the election.

"And I point out, this is very important, this is not a spending promise. This is a cabinet decision. The decision has been taken. The funds are is there, whether this government is re-elected or not, that decision's going ahead."

Spoke with Baird

When Baird visited our newsroom this afternoon, we asked him why, if this was a budget allocation and not a campaign spending promise, it appeared on campaign letterhead?

Here's his reply: "It's something that we're announcing, that this government is committed to, as a candidate, that's why it was on our political letterhead, not on government ones."

Then, when we asked whether they should be making a "government" announcement in the middle of an election campaign, he said this:

"It's a commitment from the Conservative party. To follow-through and ensure that these groups continue to get the support that they need to do the important work that they do, that's why it was on the political letterhead, because we're in an election campaign and we're not using government resources to support political efforts."

Later, he reiterated: "This is a campaign commitment."

Continued questioning resulted in Baird accusing me of trying to get into a "political debate."

Several things here:

Why couldn't Monte Solberg's department have made its own announcement in the usual fashion — perhaps before the campaign started, if, in fact, this decision was made before the campaign, as they say?

Why was a Human Resources department announcement made on the environment minister's letterhead, in the environment minister's riding? (Where, it must be noted, he is facing a former Liberal defence minister as an opponent in a riding held by the Liberals, provincially, and could perhaps benefit from a good news announcement helping local non-profit organizations)

Why are billions of dollars of government spending decided and announced before an election by the incumbent government good governance, while alternate proposals for similar amounts of funding proposed by Opposition parties during an election campaign are deemed "mind-boggling" or reckless spending?

Today Brock Carlton, the CEO of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities told us at Politics that he didn't think this money was in budget 2008, and they go through the budget pretty closely, given their obvious interests. They also didn't know this new allocation was coming until they heard about Baird's press release from one of their members.

Nevertheless, since this money is badly needed, they are thrilled. And if I were a homeless person tonight, I suppose I'd conclude by saying that's what really counts.

—Janyce McGregor