Government Operations Committee on Nov. 18th, 2010

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I have a minute left at the end of my intervention, I will leave it to my colleague Mr. Vincent.

Let us be clear about this, ladies and gentlemen. This morning, we are showing our irritation, but it is not against you. We are irritated with the government decisions that were made at the expense of Quebeckers and Canadians who paid for a summit meeting. In fact, several summit meetings were held at the same time, including the Youth Summit.

Just now, Mr. Bryce Conrad told us that in fact, you were not necessarily involved in all the decisions. You had to put up with their consequences. You told us earlier that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Industry had made the decisions, and these decisions favoured one specific region in one province. And, as if by chance, the industry minister's riding is in this region, in this province.

Consequently, we simply want to express our disagreement with certain decisions and certain expenditures that were made.

I want to put a question to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. You certainly have the documents that you sent to us. Besides, these documents are very hard to understand. Let me tell you why. Perhaps you are very good at finding your way around them, but on several occasions, there is mention of a media officer. What is a media officer? This is mentioned under different titles. What exactly is this about?

[Sanjeev Chowdhury]

We hired a number of officers, for example, to serve as liaison with the media. We hired people in Toronto and Huntsville to act as liaison officers for the delegates. We used our officials as liaison officers for the heads of state, but we hired local people to act as liaison officers for the media.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Wouldn't it have been better to state that everything concerning advertising or dealings with the media cost such and such an amount? We are unable to figure out that $15,000 or $16,000—at $2,000 a shot—was spent on hiring media officers. We don't know exactly when or in what context. All that it says is Convention Centre. Then, for another item, it says media officer. Couldn't you have told us how much all the advertising cost, how much all the transportation cost? It's all mixed up.

[Sanjeev Chowdhury]

That is why, madam, we included a summary at the beginning for each summit. For example, as concerns expenses for media and communications, I have a total amount on two sheets here, one for fiscal 2009-2010 and another for fiscal 2010-2011, with the total amount spent on communications. That should give you an overview of the global amount spent on communications.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

You understand, ladies and gentlemen, that we are accountable to our respective populations and constituents. People want us to ask questions about the numbers. We try to ask questions, but we do not have your experience or expertise. It's difficult to figure it out. I find it very complicated.

Would there not have been a way to present the figures and information differently? I do find it quite complicated.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Bourgeois, you've left your colleague with less than a minute.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

All right. I simply wanted to tell you that your figures are incomprehensible.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

That is the question I asked you earlier. As my colleague says, I know you are not responsible for this. I know that someone told you to accept the $50 million and to spend it without going through the same procedure that all other provinces and municipalities go through. What we are trying to find out is who gave you this directive. It didn't come from you, someone told you to accept it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Very briefly.

[Taki Sarantakis]

It was a decision of the Government of Canada that was made in the context of the 2009 budget. It was entirely a government decision.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

If I understand you correctly, it was the government's decision to give precedence to one region and a number of municipalities, whereas the other regions and municipalities had to share the costs one third, one third, one third, period.

[Taki Sarantakis]

There are many—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Very briefly, Mr. Sarantakis.

[Taki Sarantakis]

A number of programs, in each of the budgets, are intended for different regions.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I am most interested in this notion of a legacy fund, because it's something new to me. I've been an MP for 13 years now, and I didn't know there was such a thing. You can do anything in a budget, I suppose, but to designate a budget line that says we're going to create this legacy fund sounds to me, with all due respect, more like a slush fund--we're going to spend $50 million extra in Tony's riding above and beyond what everybody else has access to.

To follow up on Mr. Vincent's question, were any one-third, one-third, one-third matching dollars associated with the legacy fund projects?

[Bryce Conrad]

The short answer to your question, Mr. Martin, is that these projects were not funded on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis. From a federal perspective, I believe the impetus for the decision to overfund these projects is that the Government of Canada made the decision to host the summit in Muskoka. So in that regard, why would we be penalizing the residents of Muskoka and their local councils by forcing them to ante-up some additional funds for projects?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's a pretty good answer. It's the best you could do under the circumstances. You were put in a tough job. You're trying to defend the indefensible, in my opinion. I don't envy you your job today.

What about Toronto? The restaurant owners and the guys who got their windows smashed, etc., want some help with those things, and I'm not sure they are going to get it. Was there a corresponding legacy fund for Toronto?

[Taki Sarantakis]

We don't manage the fiscal framework; that's the Minister of Finance. As Mr. Conrad noted, $50 million was set aside for the G-8.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So there was no specific budget line. I should know this, as we voted against the 2009 budget. But was there a budget line to create a legacy fund for the G-20?

[Taki Sarantakis]

There wasn't, to our knowledge.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is what we really find worrisome. It's hard not to think that the budget line was created to pave the streets with gold in Tony's riding. Yes, they were hosting the G-8, but it's almost impossible for you to make us believe that some of these things had anything to do with the G-8.

As the Liberals helpfully pointed out with their graphic illustration here, no G-8 participant would ever get anywhere near some of this spending. There's no need to beautify Muskoka; it's one of the most beautiful places in the country. But Kananaskis—you used other examples—there was like an $8 million—

[Bryce Conrad]

It was $5 million.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

About $5 million went to Kananaskis. It's a beautiful place too.

[Bryce Conrad]

As is Halifax.