I think this is actually quite fundamental in the role of Parliament in holding the government to account, but also in effective implementation on the part of the government.
One of the things we focus on when we look at program expenditures is looking not just at the inputs—what is being spent, the broad allocations—but the outputs and the outcomes. It's something we learned in the parliamentary budget office. There was a tradition of often looking at things after the horses have left, closing the door after the horses have left the barn. The issue is whether the government can, for example with infrastructure, frame out performance in terms of economic outcomes, policy outcomes, GHG reductions, or congestion reductions. There are economic and other policy objectives that can be stated that are well within the current Treasury Board policy, but these need to be communicated to parliamentarians and the information provided so that you can ask questions to hold the government to account on how it executes on these programs.
I think this infrastructure initiative of the government can be quite effective in terms of addressing some of the sluggishness of the economy, but not all infrastructure is equal. It's very important that we look at not just how much money is getting out the door, but for what types of projects. Are they being implemented well, on time, on budget? Again, that's important for outputs, but then is there a return on investment? That ends up being really critical. If parliamentarians don't get that information on the results—financial, economic, and other—then it's very hard for you to hold the government to account without those details.