I had some thoughts similar to yours, Linda, and obviously had a chance to ask Vance or to at least propose a few ideas.
What I take out of this proposal is a focus on the economy and economic growth. When you talk about corridors and hubs and trade, that's basically what it's all about.
We have the Emerson report that's set out a framework, or at least things we should be thinking about. At the same time, it's concurrent with the forthcoming phase two of the infrastructure rollout.
It occurs to me that with one layered on top of the other, we can have a bit of a focused look at maybe some best practices. Or it can inform some decisions either at a municipal, provincial, or federal level as to how best to apply that infrastructure program in a way that maximizes the benefits to the economy. And it's not just the economy we have today but the economy we expect to have as we develop innovation and green and all those aspects that'll reboot our economy, because the old manufacturing jobs may never come back.
There's a good opportunity here, but going to a comment you made very early on in our process, Linda, there has to be some focus. If it's too broad, we'll spin our wheels and not get anywhere.
This is where, in Vance's proposal, I saw a focus specifically on the economic benefits of an infrastructure/transportation strategy whereby, to use Vance's words, we're not wasting money; we're applying the money where we're going to generate the optimum value.