Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I'm going to try to do is get to the next step on some of the things we can actually do at this level of government. Also, I have to agree with Mr. Rayes' comments with respect to the inventory. I do recognize that, at least in the province of Ontario, there is the Public Sector Accounting Board, which strongly encourages, almost enforces, municipalities to put their assets in order. It recognizes what those assets are per municipality and then attaches asset management plans to them to ensure that the municipalities recognize the investments that have to be made in those assets, such as water and waste water, and water and waste-water pipes, especially those that are lead-based. I'll say et cetera, because there are a lot of other materials attached to that besides just the pipes, as Mr. Hardie alluded to.
I'll preface my comments also by saying that municipalities recognize that the gas tax funding is in place and that today they can use that gas tax funding for pretty well anything. That goes to Mr. Hardie's question about lead pipes. Municipalities can, in fact, put programs in place to deal with laterals from the property line to the homes. Whether it's through a loan repayment program or a straight-out grant, they have that ability. Whether they do it or not is up to them.
The second part of it is the building Canada fund. It's the same thing. They can make an application for those for infrastructure. They can, in fact, put programs in place, whether it's a loan program or an outright grant to individual households. The reality, however, especially in cities the size of Hamilton, is that it's just not financially doable because the cost can be quite high.
With that, there are residual benefits we recognize that can actually accrue, over time, operational savings to start programs like that at the municipal level, such as lower development charges. The private sector can then take the money and put in those programs. It's obviously lowering property taxes and water and waste-water repair rates. There are residual benefits attached to funding that comes from the federal level besides the obvious.
Last, with regard to sustainable budgeting, when it comes to community improvement and growth plan budgeting, it allows councils on a yearly basis to simply move forward with it. They don't have to debate it. It was already debated years prior through their asset management strategies.
The question I have is strictly with earmarking, although it's up to municipalities and FCM. We can't forget about our partners at FCM because a lot of programs funnel through them. It's sort of moving forward with, as Mr. Rayes stated, data, making an inventory—such as in Ontario through the PSAB program—of lead pipes, etc., and attached to it, asset management costs.
Do you think there's an opportunity for the federal government to recognize what the costs are and, therefore, what programs should be sustainable? Is there an opportunity for it to work with the provinces and municipalities to actually have a database in place to encourage that discipline at the municipal level, to drive the dollars to and from the federal level, as well as to recognize how many dollars are actually needed to fund those varied programs, especially with what I am sure are some concerns from Health Canada?
