Obviously the building Canada fund is intended to be a three-way, cost-shared program, which means in our view three partners are involved. I think our members would say it's absolutely fair for each partner to ensure its own accountability is met through various restrictions or limits or strings or whatever you want to call them.
We certainly understand that there needs to be restrictions. The federal government has its own objectives it needs to ensure are met. We think the money will be best spent if we try to minimize and limit the restrictions that are placed on the funds by each order of government to those that will maximize the outcomes the investments will bring. In other words, trying to do too much using regulation is another word for adding red tape.
Let's focus on maximizing outcomes and then holding every order of government accountable for doing so. That means any time a process is added to an approval process, for instance for a new program, we need to make sure that's going to produce outcomes greater than the costs of carrying out or meeting those restrictions. Really, it comes down to a cost-benefit analysis.