No, he says that canonizations are infallible, but that post Vatican II canonizations do not qualify as such due to the significant changes imposed.
Nah, this is completely wrong. You merely have to look at the canonization formula used by the V2 papal claimants to "canonize". There's an explicit appeal to the inerrancy of the Church, and an appeal to the Holy Spirit to protect the canonization from error. If that isn't infallible, then it reduces infallibility to an absurdity. There's never been any requirement for the protection of infallibility that the Pope exert x, y, or z amount of due diligence in the investigation process, and the infallibility is not a product of the diligence of men but of the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church against error. This is a ridiculous position, and an act of desperation from the R&R camp to explain the canonization of Monitini et al. I've cited the formula, and if that isn't infallible, then there's absolutely no such thing as infallibility. Did anyone research how thoroughly Pius XII investigated the Assumption before he proclaimed it a dogma?