Perhaps to sum it up, Mr. Siemiatycki, the basis for the feds maintaining infrastructure they don't own is simply because the money's there: that's what I understand you to say.
In terms of what federal funds are available for, there are a number of things. We have a number of different revenue streams available. Some of them are application-based and grant-based. Some, like the gas tax fund, are direct transfers. We've created an incredible amount of flex. In fact, we've broadened the number of categories that are available to municipalities. That would include repairing and maintaining bridges and culverts. It would include replacing aged water systems and water mains, which a lot of municipalities are doing, particularly rural municipalities that I can speak to, even in Essex County. There's a lot of flexibility in there in order for municipalities to address some of the issues of aging infrastructure, and many of them are doing that. So I'm not sure what, when I hear....
The other thing is that when you're talking about “picking the right projects”—that's a comment I heard you say earlier relative to the choices of the federal government—I can say that the federal government is not the one out there picking the projects. They give the municipalities and the provinces the flexibilities to determine their capital spending priorities. In other words, this really isn't about ribbon-cutting. It's actually about municipalities making decisions about what kind of infrastructure.
Are you suggesting we should take the choice away from municipalities, tell them what their priorities ought to be, and be the ones selecting their projects?