OTTAWA, Ont. - Already plagued by allegations of overpowering policing and violence, the Toronto G8 and G20 summits have had their legacy further clouded in controversy following the auditor general's latest report.
The bottom line of auditor general Sheila Fraser's report on the summits is that the Harper government spent money irresponsibly and hid spending from Parliament, which it denies.
Topping the scathing report is criticism from Fraser on the nearly $50-million spent on dubious projects in Cabinet Minister Tony Clement's riding of Huntsville. Fraser said the Conservatives kept Parliament in the dark about the money, which was stored in a legacy fund intended to help with congestion at the border.
More surprisingly, the report alleges Clement and fellow minister John Baird were allowed to spend the money on projects of their choice without any documentation or consultation with department officials.
Meanwhile, three Conservative ministers denied the spending was secret, saying all the projects were posted on a website for all to see.
On the lack of any paperwork, Clement said the mayors in his riding chose the jobs and projects that got funding.
"They came back with 32 projects, I forwarded them on to the minister, I said look, this is what my mayors came up with. You get the final say, but of course, I support my mayors," Clement said.
Speaking about the money taken from the legacy border fund, Baird claims it was public servants who had the idea to take the money, but could not describe why Parliament was not involved, calling it a "speedy process."
On top of the legacy fund being hidden, the report finds most departments had little time to plan and made assumptions, leading to over-estimations of many of their costs.
Out of the $1.1-billion budgeted for the summits, only $646-million was actually spent.
Examining the allocation of the overall spending, a significant 76 per cent of the money, or $510-million, went to security alone.
The report said all the unspent money from the summits went back to government coffers, but did not conclude whether the spending was justified.
Following the report, there will be a review of practices to try and make these decisions more open and transparent in the future.