John Baird

[Government Accountability, June 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, there are so many mistakes in that preamble. The Auditor General has made some informed observations. We fully accept the advice of the Auditor General in the future.

Let us look at the five important points with respect to these initiatives: the money was spent on public infrastructure projects; every single penny was accounted for; every construction project was on time; costs came in under budget and, in fact, millions of dollars in this fund were not even spent; and all costs recorded were used for the purposes intended.

In fact, there are 32 individual contribution agreements to support each one of these public infrastructure projects.

[Supporting Vulnerable Seniors and Strengthening Canada's Economy Act, June 21st, 2011]

Did you ever campaign for Mike Harris?

[Syria, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, our government and I believe all Canadians strongly support the people of Syria in their peaceful efforts to realize democracy and human rights.

Syrians have endured terrible crimes at the hands of this regime. Canada has joined several of our allies in saying that the president of Syria has a choice: he can reform or he can go. The status quo is no longer acceptable.

While Canada does not have a Syrian ambassador posted in our country, I want to tell my friends opposite and on the government side of the House that the government has summoned the chargé d'affaires on three occasions since the protests began, on April 29, June 3 and as recently as June 15.

[Government Spending, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us just call this what it is. This is a defeated Liberal candidate in the last election who was pulling off a public relations stunt rather than focusing on the issues that really matter to Canadians.

Let me say this. The Auditor General, in releasing his report, said two things: one, that there was no evidence to suggest that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead and, two, he was not aware of any specific law that was broken. Obviously the Auditor General's report that was tabled in the House is substantially different from the one involved in the Liberal public relations stunt.

[Auditor General's Report, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us be frank, there is a public relations stunt going forward. The interim Auditor General has spoken very strongly to this issue. I have read two specific quotes when he released his report. He came forward with some legitimate concerns about grants and contributions. He came forward with some legitimate observations on how we can report to Parliament in a more open and transparent way. We fully accepted the good advice of the Auditor General.

[Auditor General's Report, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. The member opposite said overspending. In fact, this fund was under spent by more than $5 million.

The money was spent on each of the 32 infrastructure projects. Every single penny was accounted for. Every construction project was on time. Costs came in under budget and all costs recorded were used for the purposes intended. In terms of documentation, there is an individual contribution agreement for each of the 32 projects.

[Auditor General's Report, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comment made by the member opposite. I did not hear a question.

[Auditor General's Report, June 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, another day and another public relations stunt from the opposition.

Let us look at what the interim Auditor General said in his report. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Auditor General is an independent officer of Parliament, mandated to report to this House. The report says:

--no evidence to suggest that it was a deliberate attempt to mislead.

It also says:

I’m not aware of any specific law that was broken.

The Auditor General has made some fair observations about the process with which the estimates are presented to this House, and how grants and contributions programs could be administered. We fully accept that good counsel and will be following it in the future.

[Points of Order, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, I made reference to my friend as the member from Winnipeg North Centre. I should have said the member for Winnipeg Centre. I apologize to the House.

[G20 Summit, June 20th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member opposite's concern. Many small businesses were really affected due to the security issues surrounding the holding of the summit in Toronto.

The member opposite raised this question two weeks ago and then again last week. I asked him if there were any specific businesses that I could specifically look into on his behalf. I am very prepared to do that. I think he and my colleague, our friend from Parkdale—High Park, have raised a legitimate concern about the adequacy of the funding and whether the rules are too strict, and I am certainly prepared to review that.