Mr. Speaker, it is because of stubbornness, pure and simple. Most likely, when the bill was introduced, they felt there was no real need to consult the stakeholders.
Personally, I hope they are still open to negotiation even though, as I explained earlier, this matter falls exclusively within federal jurisdiction. We have the utmost respect for this exclusive jurisdiction. However, the federal government has withdrawn from this responsibility, at least in the vast majority of cases. Except for 7 of the 24 structures, the government has handed the facilities or their management over to independent entities, such as provincial or municipal governments, or to private owners.
We are giving them the opportunity to consult other partners—the provincial and federal governments—before making decisions about fee structures, improvements, changes, permits and so on.
I think my colleague is right. I hope that we will manage to see eye to eye between now and when this bill passes. I know that my colleague and his team are working very hard to convince the government as the debate winds down.
I think that those who take over management of these facilities from the federal government deserve some consideration if the government has to make major decisions about something over which it has relinquished jurisdiction. The government is not taking ownership today. The owners are still the provinces, municipalities or private entities. The government has not said that it owns and will pay for all facilities. It has merely said that this matter is within its jurisdiction and that it wants to be involved in all decisions made concerning these bridges.
It would be wise for the government to agree to listen to the partners who own the facilities, including municipalities and the provinces.