Just following up on that, I would need to have somebody show me where the contradictions are in the letter, because there aren't any that I see. I would wait to see that.
To follow through, vote 35 does not approve expenditures. The frustration is clear. That's why we didn't support it. They are not allocated to projects. They're allocated to programs.
It's a mechanism.... We listen to that every day while they hold discussion around the $3 billion. It was bridge funding that goes to programs.
When I read the letters, clearly one was sent to Mr. Murphy back on June 4 from Mr. Toews. The quarterly report was tabled in March. The second report will be tabled this month, which is June. I'm wondering why....
Clearly it's a little bit like the one on public works. We seem to be intervening prior to the end of something, thinking that we're going to try to find something without knowing if there's anything there, but that we'd better go fishing for it anyway.
I'm new on the committee this term, but every time that I'm here, we're talking about reports or somebody has actually done an analysis, perhaps the Auditor General. That seems to be what our main focus has been. It would seem to me that's where we're off the rails. That's why we couldn't support the motion in the first place. There will be quarterly reports that come through the supplementaries, and then they'll come to public accounts.
To my mind, vote 35 doesn't spend the dollars, it allocates them. I'll leave it at that.