Alexandre Boulerice

[Science and Technology, November 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is strange to see that most of the time, science comes from this side of the House. I would like to point out to the President of the Treasury Board that the facts are simple, they are clear and, thanks to the NDP, they are now known.

The maximum spending authorized for the Perimeter Institute was $50 million over five years. But in 2009-10 alone, according to government documents, we can see that spending was $127 million, which is 10 times higher than the authorized annual spending, and the institute did not even receive the money.

The government is talking about a technical error. Are $117 million technical errors common at the Treasury Board? Where did the money go?

[Treasury Board, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleague to visit his optometrist.

After overspending the 2009 budget, did they learn their lesson? Obviously not. Once again this year, although the institute should have received $10 million, it was granted $44 million, but the institute never received this money. Strangely enough, this reminds me of another story involving the President of the Treasury Board that has to do with a fund and millions of dollars that were diverted, or something like that. One of our primary responsibilities as parliamentarians is to monitor and approve government spending.

How can we do our job if they are always playing with the numbers?

[Treasury Board, October 31st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are concerned about the flawed accounting practices that seem to be the norm at the Treasury Board. In 2007-08, Parliament approved $50 million over five years for the Perimeter Institute, which is an excellent institute, by the way, but according to information from the Receiver General of Canada, the institute received $127 million, which is 1,200 times the annual maximum approved by Parliament.

Could the President of the Treasury Board rise and explain what happened? Where is the money?

[G8 Summit, October 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we are among friends. We can tell it like it is. Wasting $50 million of taxpayers' money, using government coffers for personal political spending—it all smacks of a great political, financial and ethical scandal.

The Conservatives are saying that they want to implement the Auditor General's recommendations. If one of these recommendations were to have Parliament get to the bottom of this, would the government agree to submit to a full royal commission on the G8 scandal?

[G8 Summit, October 26th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the hon. member for Parry Sound—Muskoka managed a $50 million slush fund from his constituency office. We know that despite the presence of a number of senior officials, no documents were handed over to the Auditor General, and, surprise, now we find out that he did not act alone. Other ministers joined the party when they were invited to submit infrastructure projects.

Does the government continue to believe that no new facts have surfaced and that the ministers involved in the G8 scandal did nothing wrong?

[G8 Summit, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the spokespeople may change, but the broken record sounds the same.

We know that the minister was involved in 32 projects, that he implemented a parallel process that was hidden from the Auditor General and administered from his constituency office, and that he did not submit a single document to the Auditor General even though senior federal officials were at the meetings. After being promised transparency and openness, Canadians are disappointed and for good reason.

When we will have a complete parliamentary investigation to shed some light on all the abuses of ethical and financial trust involved in the G8 funding?

[G8 Summit, October 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Muskoka minister said:

If I was the decision maker, if I had set up a parallel process...and created a situation where the auditor-general did not know...I'd be resigning right now and turning myself into the local police office.

However, the minister managed applications from his constituency office. He evaded the AG and evaded access to information laws.

Will he stand now and take responsibility, or is he too busy looking for the address of the Huntsville police department?

[G8 Summit, October 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board has quite the sense of humour. Today, he talked about open government. He was very open with the G8 funds—he turned on the taps for the projects of his friends, the mayor of Huntsville and the hotel manager. Unfortunately, as is often the case with the Conservative government, there is a double standard. It was not as open during the Auditor General's investigation.

He is clearly not forthcoming with the public when he refuses to explain himself. But now, with these announcements, will he finally post the documents he kept from us on the Open Government website, www.open.gc.ca?

[G8 Summit, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister told us that all 308 ridings received infrastructure funding. But, clearly, being friends with the minister makes it much easier to get in on that slush fund. The mayor of Huntsville should know: 18,000 residents, $30 million.

Now that we know that the minister is able, or was able, to rise and speak, can he tell us if all ridings received a media centre that was never used by the media and a campus that is not being used by any students or are lucky enough to have a minister who never answers any questions?

[G8 Summit, October 19th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it took the President of the Treasury Board 131 days to stand up and respond to our questions. However, since he merely spouted a few silly comments, we were left less than satisfied, especially knowing that the Auditor General said that the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka was the one responsible, that he disobeyed the rules and that he concealed information during the investigation.

Is that why the President of the Treasury Board is seeking revenge and cutting the Auditor General's funding?