Thank you for the question.
Certainly one of FCM's interests in working with the federal government in the design of the new programs is to take the best of what we learned in the economic action plan and apply those lessons to the new programs. This essentially means reducing approval times so they are as limited as possible while at the same time allowing for sufficient review, and simplifying application forms.
The best way to accomplish that is to focus the federal government's accountability mechanisms, which are built into the new plans, to ensure there is value for money in the outcomes produced by those investments. So rather than focusing on the inputs on what kind of concrete to use or what shape the bridge should be or procurement rules, the government should be ensuring and testing and auditing to ensure every dollar it invests in local infrastructure through municipalities is used as efficiently as possible.
The best way to do that is to look at outcomes not at inputs. That means identifying clear priorities for the programs, improving the predictability of the funds, making sure that approval processes at provincial, territorial, and federal levels are transparent, and then tracking everything as mentioned.
Certainly what's happening in the States is laudable, although I should mention I think the federal government has learned a tremendous amount over the last decade. Canada is still well ahead of the United States, but that doesn't mean we can rest on our laurels. We have to keep going because they are catching up. The more efficient and the more streamlined we can make our programs, the more attractive it will be for the private sector to bid on and participate in projects here.