I certainly wouldn't want to do or say anything to get in the way of the amicableness or the feelings of goodwill between committee members, but we may share a difference in terms of the relative accountability that's been achieved by the minister in his time here. Most of the time he's been called forward on bills chosen by him and his ministry to appear on.
I think there is a change that I believe is probably shared by everybody on this committee. It is now past April 1; there is new money that's been authorized. There is a new circumstance that this committee has not seen before in terms of the sheer volume of infrastructure moneys that the government intends to put forward. There are new processes and new accountabilities that have been talked about in various motions, and so on. I believe this committee is the only place that is going to be able to come to terms with that. There is no implied disrespect to say that the minister's valuable time is required for more because of that circumstance, that it's not a cursory visiting of those issues, but that we have some time.
What I really am glad to hear from the parliamentary secretary is that we should not see that there's any artificial limitation on the minister's time, that he is prepared to be accountable, as the committee sees fit to put forward, and in fact even as individual members of this committee may feel fit to exercise. I will take that in the spirit in which it's intended. When the minister is better, it sounds like we will have a two-hour discussion. If there are things that are unresolved at that time, then perhaps we can look to further cooperation from the government. I appreciate the implication of that from what the parliamentary secretary is saying. That's certainly what we're seeking.