As the Auditor General said and wrote, every dollar was spent based on the priorities indicated by the municipalities, and we accounted for every amount spent.
That's an important aspect of this report. There has been no misallocation of funds. There has been no misappropriation of funds.
Having said that, as I said, there's no mystery here. When the G-8 fund was announced, there were quite a few.... I have 16 municipalities. North Bay also had their airport that needed some funding to be ready for the G-8 as we knew it at the time.
As a result of this process, there were over 242 projects that were arrived at to potentially be funded. I went to my mayors, not only the six. I went to all 16 municipalities. Six mayors were represented on a committee where we would convey information to them and they would convey information to us, but I went to all the mayors and said there was no way the Government of Canada would fund 242 projects and told them to get that out of their heads right then. I asked them to give us the best projects they had that conformed to the terms and conditions of the G-8 legacy fund. Those were the ones that we could at least consider for the fund.
So there's no mystery. I know MPs always consult with their mayors about which projects fit the terms and conditions of various infrastructure projects. So they said they agreed that 242 was too much and they suggested 32 or 33, which they conveyed to me, that conform to the terms and conditions that were set out by the Government of Canada. I conveyed them to the department and to the minister of infrastructure, Minister Bairdat the time, and that's how that process went.
The Auditor General has said that she would like to have seen more paperwork at the front end of that, and you know what? Looking back on it, I understand her concern. The good news for taxpayers is that at the middle and back end of this process there were contribution agreements signed. There were terms and conditions that were met and verified, and not a penny was spent in a way that was not consistent with the contribution agreements and the terms and conditions.