Thank you very much.
I want to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to bring municipal concerns to your attention. There are lots of them. I'll try to hit the biggest ones first.
I represent Stratford, a town of about 12,000 people. We've experienced incredible growth over the past 20 years or so. In the 2011 census we grew 23%. In 2016 we grew 13%. In the last census we grew 12.5%. We're projected to double in size in the next 10 to 15 years. There's a lot of activity in Stratford, with a need for new infrastructure.
We have been very successful, I guess, in obtaining some infrastructure funding, but we do have some issues with the infrastructure funding. One of the main issues is the way in which the process works. We get approved for the funding and then we go out and do the work. We keep the invoices and we send those in after the fact, when we get the work done.
I heard one of your witnesses earlier from the construction association talk about the difficulty in getting work done. It takes a long time, sometimes up to two years, and as you know, during that time frame inflation takes hold. We need to have credible estimates done before the funding is approved. It always results, especially as it has over the last couple of years, in the funding not being adequate to cover the actual costs. We're suggesting an indexation rate of about 3.5% or, failing that, some percentage, or even the rate of inflation, for the infrastructure funding to cover that time lag between the time the funding is approved, the work is done, the invoices are submitted and the bill is paid. We have to do bridge financing and borrow money as municipalities. It's very difficult.
It's not only our municipality. I'm the vice-chair of the finance committee of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and on the executive of the Federation of P.E.I. Municipalities, and it's a common problem with all municipalities. We really need to see that addressed, especially in these periods of high inflation.
During a period of growth like this, we have incredible needs for infrastructure. Some of the models that work really well use what we call the “gas tax” model, where the federal money is provided directly to the municipality. That works really well, because we're able to allocate it to our priorities. It works very well. The difficulty with things like the investing in Canada program is that it goes through a couple of filters. It goes through a provincial filter, and it goes through some other bureaucratic filters at the federal public servant level. That sometimes leads to their priorities not being our priorities, or to us not getting the funding we need in order to do the work that's really required.
If future funding programs could follow the gas tax model, as we call it, that would be great. It would be better for the federal government, because we like to work in partnership with the provincial government and the federal government. It would give an opportunity to actually put your money in and see your results. We don't mind tying any funding to results.
One of the issues with that approach, of course, is giving recognition to the federal government for providing that funding. We're prepared to do that. Maybe there could be some way of doing that so that residents know that this is funding that's being provided by the federal government. We'd be happy to do that. It just needs to be looked at really closely.
One of the other issues that we're dealing with, as was noted by my colleague, is the voyage to net zero. We've set a target. We've done a lot of activity with regard to environmental sustainability and climate resilience, but we really need to be able to get the funding we need in order to do the work that's required. Sometimes the program is delivered in such a way that the requirements are met but the funding is not provided. I'm not sure what the reason is.
For example, on one of our latest applications, the application was for some funding to support an environmental sustainability initiative. We're considering building a net-zero, multi-purpose recreational facility, and we followed the rules that were set in the application process. However, the funding was not approved on the basis of the fact that a study is needed to indicate exactly how it is to be done. We don't mind doing that. It's just not clear up front. There is a bit of bureaucratic confusion, I guess, not only in our municipality but in a lot of municipalities.
One of the biggest issues we're dealing with—and I know you are dealing with this as a whole, and we're dealing with it as a country—is the housing challenge, especially in the area of affordable housing. We've taken a couple of initiatives. We have gotten some federal funding for an initiative we call “Shape Stratford”, which is basically designing a template that could be used by all municipalities in Canada to look at how we can remove the barriers to changing rules around housing developments.
Part of the beauty and the attraction of what we're doing is the fact that we're trying to look at things through the eyes of residents who are now against housing initiatives and trying to address their concerns, because that's really at the crux of it.
I'm sorry. I'm—