Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Further to this motion, I think we need to take a very, very serious look, under your tremendous leadership, Mr. Chair...and with all due respect, I think you're a pretty busy chair and it's pretty busy committee. Looking at our agenda, which is beside us here, we can see that we have a lot to cover that's pretty important and pretty timely, which is not to diminish the fact that parliamentarians deserve this type of information.
I would suggest that it would be much more timely to ask the justice committee to look at the information dealing with justice bills.
In dealing with the acquisition of the F-35s, I think there's something missing in this. If we're going to look at the cost of the acquisition of F-35s--and I would suggest that it should be in the defence committee--we should also look at the benefits across the country, the jobs created, and the tremendous amount of industrial impact this will have, with new plants going up across this country. That should be heard at the committee that deals with defence. So I would suggest that both of those pieces of this should go there.
Considering that the mover of this motion was actually a member of the government that approved this, I guess one would have to wonder if, in actuality, as a member sitting in that government, he actually asked this question of his government when they said, “Yes, let's do this and put $172 million of taxpayers' money out there to buy these planes”. I'm not saying that it was a bad idea, but let's not even ask what the amount is...? Obviously he hasn't, if he's now asking what that amount is.
On the timeline in trying to get these numbers, some members of the committee and I have talked about this. Our finance department is tasked now with putting together a very difficult budget. I would much rather see them dedicate good, solid time to that and provide an opportunity for the justice committee and the defence committee--those departments and those committees--to deal with this.
If we are looking for information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I would remind all of us that my colleague, Mr. Wallace, brought forward a very important motion that would have seen this committee become educated with respect to the fiscal impact on the federal treasury of several private members' bills, but unfortunately the opposition voted that down. I'm not sure what the difference is. If it's the opposition's idea, it's a good thing, but if it's the government's idea to actually critique what the cost is...? I would remind all honourable members that one of the main mandates of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to actually cost private members' bills. That's the advice and opportunity they have to receive that information on what their private member's bill may cost and what it might impact.
Finally, I would wrap up by saying that this is the type of request that can be put forward in a parliamentary return. I'm sure that all opposition members, all honourable members, are aware of what parliamentary returns are. They are questions asked of the minister, of the department, and members receive that information. I would suggest that what's in this motion could actually be evaluated in a parliamentary return, so I certainly will not be supporting this motion.
Thank you.