Thank you, Chair. I'll try my best not to do that.
I'd like to thank our guests for being here today.
As I've heard testimony today, my sense is this is a one-sided dialogue. On the one side I hear questions that are only intended I think to try to find ways to embarrass the government. I find that disappointing, because, quite frankly, I think this is about full disclosure, when we've heard testimony from people on the ground who would know, and we've heard several.
We've heard that the G-20 was the right location, for any number of reasons; that we hosted four international summits--unprecedented--that came in under budget; that the security we had was appropriate for the purpose. We can talk about security in past summits internationally where there have been tragic consequences; that did not happen here. We've heard previous testimony--Mr. Chowdhury, I recall some of your testimony--that said many items, from dishes to fences, had been recycled for future use. Some items we bought for the summit were bought used and recycled again.
“Recycled” seems to be the operative word, because it seems that every question we've heard today is recycled. We've heard all these questions put to previous witnesses, and frankly, I think their testimony has been thoughtful and straightforward.
No disrespect to our current guests, but I would tell you the testimony I heard prior to this was incredibly transparent, and you can take that back to your officials. My sense is they were honest and sincere and clear.
It's interesting, I've now found a new definition of austerity. My friend from the NDP shared it with us today when he suggested what we might want to consider--I think he said there was an air base that had 400 heated houses that we perhaps could have used, and I think of the 5,000 officials and the 3,700 media. I think the new definition of austerity is 22 to a room. I think that's a new approach. A little cozy, though, Pat, and I'm not sure I'd encourage that.
A lot has been made of the legacy fund. I was looking at past summits that we've been involved with, and I didn't hear my friends from the Liberal Party complain. I just saw Geoff Regan here a moment ago, and in Halifax, where he's from, in the 1995 G-7 summit they provided upgraded sidewalks and street improvements and landscape improvement, I didn't hear any objection there about those kinds of improvements. Then in Vancouver, in 1997, under a Liberal government, when they widened Highway 1 and they had a connector bridge to the Vancouver airport and a new forestry research centre at UBC, I didn't hear them complain. The 1999 summit, de la Francophonie, in Moncton, when, again, the Liberals were in power.... You know what? They put in $4.5 million to prepare the airport for the Summit of the Americas. In Kananaskis, 2002, Liberals in power again, they had a $5 million federal gift to contribute to the construction of a wildlife bridge.
We weren't complaining about those things, and it seems because the circumstances have turned...that's where I get frustrated, because I think there has to be integrity in the questions that are asked.
Mr. Cannon, can I put this question to you, please? It strikes me that what we're losing in all of this are the outcomes. The outcomes of what this was intended to do were to put an international focus on an issue that's of critical importance. From what I have seen, we've been able to deliver some $7.3 billion in new money to save the lives of over one million moms and their babies in the poorest places in the world, and if we don't make the point that this is the point, then what is this about? Why do we have these kinds of summits?
Minister Cannon, would you comment on that, please?