Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to preface my comments by stating that I respect the fact that it was asked that we establish a vision. That's in fact what we're doing here with this entire strategy that we're embarking on as of today's meeting, to plan and prepare for investing in the future, which is the new norm, I think, with technology.
The way we're doing business now in our municipalities is the new norm. It's moving forward instead of being reactive. Maybe not Mississauga, but other older municipalities throughout the country have been very reactive in trying to catch up with infrastructure demands. We're trying to be proactive to in fact create plans, strategy, and vision, and to therefore move forward with that dialogue. We'll have questions, yes, but more dialogue. This is not going to be the last time we're going to see each other, by the way.
That said, we also want to recognize at the federal level that it's going to be up to the municipalities to create their community improvement and growth plans. Attached to that is going to be asset management, and then attached to that is going to be the financing of same, to satisfy those recommendations that you're otherwise planning for. Of course, that's the participation we are expected to then enter into with respect to being an enabler for those recommendations and satisfying those recommendations, especially in relation to financing.
I have to say that part of the overall strategy, therefore, is also the funding strategy. It's to ensure that in the future we put in place a sustainable funding program very similar to the gas tax. I'm hoping that a lot of that is going to be recognized as we dialogue, and hopefully we can participate in that at the federal level.
I have to say as well, Madam Chair, when we look at this, that I take the comments from Mr. Andrishak very seriously when it comes to community planning and land use planning, and from you folks as well, especially from the municipal side, when it comes to land use planning, transit, integrated transit, infrastructure investments, asset management and the budgeting of same, and communications, IT, and things of that nature.
That now leads me to my question for all three of you.
When you take into consideration all of the above-mentioned points, who actually takes on the prioritization? Who facilitates it? Who leads this process with respect to prioritization? When applications from one of the partners are being made, most times they're from either a hydro utility, a fibre network—which is usually part of a hydro utility—or a municipality. Who prioritizes the applications that would otherwise come to the federal government or the provincial governments and then takes into consideration the funding for the ultimate plan, the bigger picture? What we often see up here, as I'm sure you do, is that those applications compete against each other locally.
Who prioritizes, especially between municipalities and hydro, for the same municipality? Who prioritizes that, makes the application, and therefore moves forward with satisfying those recommendations under an overall community improvement growth plan?