Like the FCM, our position would be that governments plural are not doing what we need to do to ensure our critical public infrastructure supports Canada's economic growth, prosperity, etc., because custodianship of critical public infrastructure in Canada is primarily at the municipal level now. Municipalities are the front-line gatekeepers, if you will; provincial governments have an extremely important role, and the federal government has a role.
From our perspective the 10-year program was a step in the right direction, as was the seven-year building Canada plan, because for the first time in Canada we had a multi-year plan that provided some permanency, some reliability. That's so important in planning, both for municipal and provincial governments, but also for our industry that has to build this. We have taken positive steps, and when I say “we” I say all levels of government have taken positive steps to address our infrastructure deficits. There's more to do. There's more work we have to do, and we have to find a way because there is no option. It's not either/or; we must address our critical public infrastructure needs, no question.
When it comes to the dollars, what's spent, etc., what's the right number, what's the appropriate share, if you will, of responsibility among governments, the one thing I can say is that it's a co-shared responsibility. All levels of government have a role to play in dealing with this issue.