Required reading for anyone following this story.

The Conservatives’ report, presented as a dissenting opinion to the Commons the morning Parliament was dissolved last month, quotes Sheila Fraser giving high marks to the Harper government for prudent spending on the summits.

The report quoted the auditor general as saying: “We found that the processes and controls around that were very good, and that the monies were spent as they were intended to be spent.”

But in a scathing letter addressed to members of a Commons committee on Friday, which was received by the clerk and members on Monday, Fraser said the quote had nothing to do with the summits.

Instead, she said, the Conservatives inserted an 2010 comment she made during a CBC News interview on security spending by a previous Liberal government after the Sept. 11 attacks a decade ago.

That’s how they roll. Anyone still believe Baird’s claim that the final AG report clears the Cons? A claim that cannot legally be checked until the new Parliament is in session?

The plot thickens, and the sleaze deepens.

[via Aaron Wherry]

UPDATE: And Kady updates us on those leaked AG draft reports.

Here’s the Con one. Little of comfort there:

2.19 - We are concerned by the lack of documentation around the process for selecting projects for funding . Supporting documentation is important, in our view, to show that the selection process was transparent and provided a mechanism for accountability. When the Treasury Board approved Infrastructure Canada’s submission for the G8 infrastructure program, it stated that the Treasury Board Policy on Transfer Payments be respected . Under this policy there should be selection criteria because any expenditure of public funds should demonstrate transparency, accountability, and value for money.

And:

2.22 - In our view, the manner in which the G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund was presented did not make clear to Parliament the full nature of the request. By including the request under the item “Funding for the Border Infrastructure Fund relating to investments in infrastructure to reduce border congestion” government did not clearly or transparently identify the nature of the request for funding, that is, G8 infrastructure project spending.