I would suggest that just doing an inventory of every centennial and memorial project in this country would be a very good place to start, because how many kids go to a centennial school or play hockey in a centennial rink or memorial arena or kick around a ball in a centennial park? Part of the infrastructure question about 2017 is just taking stock of the previous legacies, thinking about whether they can be rehabilitated or improved, and then thinking about the sort of infrastructure that's appropriate to 21st century Canada as well. Having the frank conversation about where we are is important.
Part of the reason that build-out happened is because the Royal Bank of Canada issued a newsletter in 1958 that pointed to the centennial as an opportunity to deal with—and I love this phrase—“the cultural deficits in this country”. They said we needed housing to replace slums and places for the performance of the arts and the elevation of our society. It was very strong language, where they challenged government to embark on this program. RBC's gift to the country was something you'll find in the library here, called A Conspectus of Canada: Centennial Year 1967. What do bankers do well? They count things. So they counted everything in the country, from the number of boxcars we had on the rails to the number of kids we had in schools.
The decisions that were made around centennial were evidence-based in that way. It was based on understanding where we were as a country, and responding to those needs.