When the federal Liberals set up the infrastructure program, they did it with a great deal of intelligence and sensitivity to local initiatives, understanding that local initiatives really needed to drive the agenda when it came to federal infrastructure programs.
I think it was Paul Martin, in an interview I did with him when I was at the CBC, who said that our job is not to pick where to build a bridge, but to facilitate those economies that can afford to build a bridge, and help them build a second one if necessary.
We need to use the federal infrastructure money as a form of economic development, but local economies know where that infrastructure is needed, and they know best. From that principle, the infrastructure program has made a significant difference to large, small, and medium-sized communities across this country. It was a very smart move.
What this piece of legislation seeks to do is to eliminate local authority from the discussion, to put local investments in the hands of a federally appointed body that has no electoral accountability to anybody, and then to say that it will compete with duly elected officials on the ground for scarce infrastructure dollars. That's unacceptable.
I would hope that the Liberals, who had the intelligence to use local government to drive the infrastructure program sensitively, creatively, and to great benefit of economies right across this country, would have the equal wisdom to respect those principles in this new piece of legislation. Instead, what you end up with is more largesse.