Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chairman, I share the member's concern. As I indicated in my opening statement, I too am concerned, very concerned, that there is no documentation in the federal government to explain how those projects were selected. During the course of the audit, and Madam Loschiuk will help me here, we did approach the minister's office to request any documentation that was available in the minister's office or in the constituency office to explain how the projects were selected.

Public Accounts committee  Wendy, did we receive that application form?

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chairman, public servants were involved in supporting the minister in a number of meetings. Public servants indicated to us, and that was confirmed by the documentation, that they were not involved in the selection of the projects. I continue to believe that was the case. I stand behind that conclusion, that public servants were not involved in the actual project selection.

Public Accounts committee  The member is quite correct, Mr. Chairman, in indicating that this is not the same as the sponsorship program. In this particular case, as I indicated in response to earlier questions, it is clear that the government received the goods and services it paid for. It got what it paid for.

Public Accounts committee  I guess there are two parts to that question, Mr. Chairman. In terms of intent to mislead, did we see any evidence that anyone deliberately intended to mislead Parliament with respect to the request for the $50 million of funding? No. But as I indicated earlier, I think questions of expediency should not trump transparency in being correct in what you're going to use the money for when you request it from Parliament.

Public Accounts committee  As a result of documentation that subsequently was made public, Mr. Chairman, I have become aware of documentation that had its origins in municipal governments. We've reviewed that documentation and continue to stand behind the conclusion of our report, which is that public servants were not involved in the selection of the projects, although they attended some meetings that did not involve discussions as to which projects would be selected for funding.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chairman, I'd have to go back and check every single recommendation we ever issued. In recent history—and I would define that as my 30-some years in the office—I cannot think of an analogous example where information was presented in the estimates in one fashion when the intent was to use it for quite a different fashion.

Public Accounts committee  As a normal part of our practice, Mr. Chairman, with every report we issue we ask for the deputy minister's confirmation that the facts presented in the report are accurate. We received those confirmations from the deputy ministers working in the departments that were involved with the G-8 legacy fund.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chairman, in terms of explaining how the funding levels are determined, that's probably a question best posed to government. When we inquired how the amount of this fund was established at $50 million, relative to similar examples, we were not able to get a clear explanation from the departments.

Public Accounts committee  That is correct, Mr. Chairman. The evidence we saw indicates that this was done for reasons of expediency, but I would indicate that in a situation like this I'm not sure it's appropriate for expediency to trump the proper reporting of information to Parliament and transparency in that disclosure.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my opening statement, and as the report indicates, no documentation exists in the federal government to indicate how the 32 projects were selected from the 200-and-some that were submitted. Once those projects were selected and approved by the ministers, they were transferred to Infrastructure Canada and passed over to the public servants to administer.

Public Accounts committee  As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, once the projects were selected and handed over to Infrastructure Canada, Infrastructure Canada officials did a good job in administering those projects and ensuring that the government received what it paid for under those agreements. The issue of concern with respect to the 32 projects that we indicated in the report was how they got selected.

Public Accounts committee  Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much. Thank you for inviting us to appear before the committee today to discuss the two reports that we tabled in the House of Commons on June 9, 2011. Mr. Chairman, you indicated that this is the sixth meeting of the committee in this Parliament.