Combating Terrorism Act  Here was an opportunity for Canada to host the world. It was at a time when the meetings were going to be on austerity, on the need to rein in spending, on the need to find a way to deal with an international debt crisis. It certainly would have been a great opportunity to show leadership, to hold the meetings in a place that was easy to secure and to make sure that the meeting costs were toned down and that the focus was on policy and substance.

G8 and G20 Summits  Even France is saying that the costs of this summit are getting out of control, and France knows something about extravagance. Its foreign minister is making jokes about the lake. How can the Prime Minister preach austerity and restraint to Canadians and his G20 colleagues when he has lost control of the cost of his own summit?

Business of Supply  These two summits taking place over the course of three days will cost $1.8 billion. We have good reason to wonder about this. When a government talks about austerity and the importance of saving money, then turns around and, without batting an eyelid, says that it has to spend $1 billion on a three-day event, that is bound to raise some questions, particularly since this is the same government that spent thousands of dollars on plants and lamps.

Business of Supply  They do not expect that $1.1 billion will be used for 72 hours of meetings to have discussions about austerity. They do not get it, and I agree with them, that if we are going to have discussions about fiscal restraint, we do not kick them off with the biggest and most expensive meetings ever held.

Public Safety  How can this government and these Conservatives justify spending 30 times more than London did just a year ago to talk about austerity?

Public Safety  Shame on them for using security to try to avoid accountability. These meetings are supposed to be about austerity, about fiscal restraint. Here is a good place to start. Do not spend more than a billion dollars on 72 hours of meetings. While the government slashes money from women's groups, international aid and others, it tosses more than a billion dollars in debt for three days of meetings because the Conservatives tried to stick them in a cabinet minister's riding.

Finance committee  Okay. You're making a good point here. I think Massimo was mentioning about an austerity program that was announced. This was done back in the fall, long before he presented our budget this round. You will have to remind me about the brackets: are they revenue instead of expense?

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2010  We look at the United Kingdom which just formed a coalition government, something which the Conservative Party condemned not too long ago. The first thing that coalition government is doing is it is looking at austerity programs simply because adjustments are needed. Obviously the tax revenue is not there to sustain the standard of living or programs. Bill S-3 addresses this to make us competitive so there is more revenue coming into the treasury.

Fisheries committee  I think this calls into question my privileges as a member of Parliament and as a member of this committee when the liaison committee decides, whether it's an austerity measure or whatever the case might be, to limit the capacity of the committee to travel as a whole to have our discussions. I'm greatly concerned about that. I'm greatly concerned about the fact that while we reduced the number of members of Parliament who might be able to travel, we don't seem to have any mechanisms to reduce the number of accompanying staff.

Fisheries committee  Chair, I don't want to betray any confidences from an in camera session, but it has been my general understanding in my 14 years here that when chartered aircraft are used for travel.... I think the liaison committee's recommendation was based on an austerity measure in trying to limit or reduce costs associated with committee travel. It's my understanding we are going to be travelling using a chartered aircraft.

Afghanistan committee  The companies were essentially deployed in the Panjwai area, between Zhari and Panjwai district centres. To say that the conditions in which the soldiers lived were austere is an understatement. Many of these young men and women had gone over a month with no showers, no running water for toilets, no laundry, and a constant diet of hard rations. To make matters worse, these outposts were subject to regular attack by insurgents.

Afghanistan committee  Our objective was to transform our tiny operation into a full-fledged embassy and PRT, with the necessary personnel, infrastructure, communication systems, financial controls, and security protections to operate effectively in an austere and dangerous environment. Our embassy and the PRT staff focused on diplomatic and development work designed to support our armed forces security operations. We reported on our meetings and program work with President Karzai and key cabinet ministers; officials in government ministries and agencies; the Kandahar provincial administration; assembly and development councils; the Afghan army, police, and judiciary, a large number of UN and international organizations; other embassies; human rights organizations; and NGOs.

Foreign Affairs committee  If you add it all up, if you have an average of 1,000 or 1,500 hours, we have half a million dollars spent in just a one-month or two-month period. In times of austerity, when everyone is speaking about wise use of taxpayers' money, for a human rights organization to do that is unthinkable.

Public Safety committee  In the systems I worked in, both male institutions and female institutions, yes, there's segregation there, and on occasion there is a reason to segregate people. I think that the type of environment you build does not need to look as austere as usually it does because it basically deprives peoples of just basic human needs. The other thing is the length of time. If you separate someone because of a disciplinary issue, because of violence, you don't need to keep them separate for great long periods of time.

Business of Supply  Why not start with the ones that should be easiest, that is, instead of expending literally hundreds of millions of dollars on outside consultants from PR firms, for television commercials for self-promotion, for 10 percenter ads in a time when austerity is demanded, why not cut these expenditures first? I say this because it is totally unacceptable to look in the eyes of the people we are going to demand cuts from and say they have to trim their spending yet accept this kind of wasteful spending.