Thank you for the question.
Clearly, the FCM and our members agree with the government's position that it needs to be not only shovel-ready but shovel-worthy. Smart investments are the underpinning of our submission to the government today. We think investments today will save money tomorrow, because infrastructure that is in need of repair costs much more, potentially $10 to $1, if we wait too long.
The delivery model has been a challenge for us for a number of years. We've made the submission to a previous government as well that an allocation-based model similar to the gas tax is the preferred model for local government and that application-based models, where it's a lottery and we don't have the surety that we will receive a steady stream of funding in order to properly plan for infrastructure, makes program efficiency impossible. Without the clarity of receiving that money, we cannot go through our three-, five-, ten-year infrastructure planning processes at the local government level. As an order of government it is important for us to have that surety, not only just to receive it from the federal government but also to lever the provincial and territorial governments as well, ensuring that we have a complete picture and a collaboration among all the orders of government and private sector in order to have those projects delivered in a timely fashion when they're needed, not based on a program that might become available at any point in time. It's a cattle call, essentially, for everyone rushing to try to attract that federal funding and in turn perhaps not having the best timing of that project being brought forward.