Thanks, Mr. Chair.
To my mind, most of what's been said here would lend itself well to the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaking before us. I think Mr. Laframboise has a good point, that the motion may not outline exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer would bring forward to discuss his knowledge and analysis of the government's infrastructure spending. So he's going to come before us to explain what he understands of his knowledge of that infrastructure spending. It would probably be a good thing to have that identified, as well as the analysis.
Over the past six months, I've made requests as well that we have the criteria for the infrastructure program early in front of this committee. That was stonewalled by the government, by the Conservative members. I feel we've neglected our work in this area right from day one with the infrastructure spending. We didn't bring these new programs in front of this committee for examination. We didn't understand what the criteria were for the distribution of funds and how those funds would impact the development of infrastructure in this country. We chose not to look at it at all.
This committee made a choice in April and May not to examine the infrastructure spending, and I can refer to the records on that. I think both Mr. Kennedy and I made representations at the time that it would be a useful thing to do. Now I think it would be useful and would clear the air. If the government is so proud of its record in infrastructure spending, I don't know why it wouldn't want to see the Parliamentary Budget Officer here, describing to all of us exactly how the expenditures have been taking place--an independent analysis that we can all trust so we can all put this to bed.
I see this as being a win-win situation for the infrastructure committee, and it could be a win for the government as well. I don't understand the reluctance of the government to see this kind of endeavour take place. Then we could get the actual numbers out there and understand the regional distribution and the kinds of arrangements that were set up between the provinces and the federal government to make these funds work for Canadians. I assume that is part of the work that is very important for us to do as the transport and infrastructure committee.
So I could support this motion. It could be fleshed out with the particular details through an amendment perhaps. But I don't see this as something we should be avoiding.