It's a structuring project. I simply want us to understand a few things about the future of the infrastructure program.
When you appeared before this committee the first time, you justifiably highlighted a dual reality. The first is that of the infrastructures that already exist and that are becoming obsolete. The second is that of the new infrastructures that will eventually be put in place.
In your options, you talk about a dedicated infrastructure fund that could deal with one or the other. We have to deal with it because it's obsolete, it's very important. I'm not talking about the Champlain bridge, where there will be a new infrastructure. At that point…
there is so much money you can pay.
How do you see this, from a policy standpoint? I think it's important.
Can you tell me about the principle of flexibility within this program? There is a rural reality and an urban reality. On the urban side, I might, for example, want to dedicate money to a West Island train because I need another railway line. That's one thing. If, at the same time, I have a problem with a transnational roadway and cannot set aside money for it, I have a choice to make, I have a problem.
How do you see this?