Certainly, Mr. Chair.
It is very difficult to understand that if members opposite really have the conviction that there is a program out there worth celebrating, that it actually can be substantiated as opposed to advertising bought for it or expensive money spent on announcements and signage—everybody is required to put up signs even if their project isn't under way, and so on—if that's the real intent of the government, for what possible reason could they be afraid? Except the constructive suggestion of Mr. Laframboise....
Perhaps that is another way, but today,
I think it's very important for government members to express themselves as to whether or not they have that conviction. This doesn't in any way threaten a government that really believes that what it's doing is creating jobs; it doesn't have any impact on whether the government itself will actually function. But it does say that for all these long months, the government, through your participation here, is afraid to actually review its own actions.
I would say to people who would say that the government has nothing to do with it that your own Treasury Board guidelines require you to be involved. Your own instructions—and in fact contractual arrangements with the municipalities and provinces—require it to report.
I would say to the members opposite who marvel at the fact that the Department of Infrastructure would make inquiries that they have made inquiries. I would say that if Mr. Jean, who didn't respond to that point, is not aware of this, then it's unfortunate that they don't brief the parliamentary secretary. They have made hundreds of phone calls.
They have a database. That database, under the act of Parliament, is supposed to be shared with the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and yet on September 16, they said no. So this is a chance not to politicize but rather to depoliticize.
I don't know why Mr. Jean disagrees so vehemently with Mr. Flaherty. Mr. Flaherty said clearly to the Canadian public that 120 days after the budget, the project should begin. That was May 26, and at that date—we have information from another department that tells us about the money spent—almost zero money was spent on stimulus, almost zero.
We are happy to be corrected by a government prepared to be forthright, honest, and transparent. But what we say here is that Mr. Flaherty's commitment to target is also important at this committee. The conditions were set by Parliament in a variety of ways—we are that branch that votes the money and sets conditions—and we accepted Mr. Flaherty at his word. He said those two things: he said it would start within 120 days, and he said it would target families and communities based on needs.
I would say to you that all of the available information on the website.... We have all of the information from the website, and it's significantly incomplete. But what is complete is that there are provinces such as British Columbia, for example, in which three to four times as much money is being given to the Conservative ridings. It's absolutely clear: it's published; we put it on the website.
If Mr. Jean or anyone opposite actually has the confidence, then publish the data. The data isn't there. You'll find in days coming—in fact, tonight on various media, and so on—that people have been looking in good faith. My opinion is only the opinion of one member of Parliament, and I don't expect it to be followed. But I do expect a committee of Parliament not to back away from its responsibilities in this regard. It's an easy and simple way. All the time we spent today on your refuting what I'm about could have been done much more authoritatively and much more effectively—and much more building the confidence of the public in this particular program—by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
It's passing strange that this is the approach the government seems to want to take. I certainly will take up Mr. Laframboise's invitation or suggestion that at another time, if this motion doesn't succeed today, we bring it forward, because I believe this is the essence of government: being accountable, making people see what's going on, shedding some daylight on what's going on.
Washing your hands, folks, isn't going to work. If you think you can wash your hands of the infrastructure programs, I think you're going to find yourselves mistaken. That's my guess.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
