My view on that question is that we have to do away with the impression that this is some kind of obstacle course where the game ends at a certain point. In fact, the progress of, or preparation for, projects must not mean that projects stay on the drawing board because the deadline will come on a particular date in 2011. It would be tragic if we were unable, as a society or a country, to adopt a rule or to agree at the outset that the size of the infrastructures that need fixing goes beyond some deadline foolishly set by some program or other. We risk creating a situation in which municipalities will be reluctant to propose projects, thinking they will have to cover a fairly large part of the project if the deadline isn't met.
We have already made this request to the proper authorities and we will have to make it again as long as that assurance is not received. The government has absolutely got to authorize extension of the deadlines so projects started under these programs can take their course, with all the time needed for them to be completed.
It would be dangerous to be completing projects in a rush, with the risk of flawed and slap-dash infrastructure because we had to meet a foolish, ill-advised deadline.