Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a very polite reminder to members of the committee that this committee isn't just about transport. It's about transport, infrastructure and communities. I find it refreshing that we're looking to embark on a study for something other than transport and infrastructure. We're concentrating on communities.
That said, I recognize that the Conservative Party of Canada has an appetite to eliminate RDAs and with that the investments made in communities with respect to their corporate strategies. As partners in areas such as tourism, economy, social aspects and the environment, RDAs have made very specific investments throughout the years. One just made an investment in my riding for two wineries in the City of Port Colborne. They have been very well received.
Of course, it's to leverage a lot of the investments the communities are making. Without that opportunity to leverage, they simply wouldn't be able to do it. RDAs have become a much-needed partner for municipalities, communities and different organizations to get those works under way, and for looking at the strategies they have in place to accomplish that.
You know, when I look at the different funds that are available, not just from RDAs, Mr. Rogers' motion also looks at a whole-of-government approach. It's about getting dollars to these projects, not just through a regional development agency or FedDev but also through other avenues, such as the NTCF. There are many funds from many different departments at the federal level.
The Canada community-building fund is another one. That also offsets what would otherwise be placed on a property tax bill or a water bill. We are not only getting projects off the ground through RDAs but also eliminating the need to go to property tax payers and wastewater ratepayers. We get them off the ground through partnerships, once again, with the federal government.
Again, I want to remind members that this motion is very critical. It attaches itself to a third component of this committee's responsibility: communities, on top of infrastructure and transportation.
Another point I want to make is relevant to the study we're speaking about today. A lot of questions were asked about the how and the what with respect to rural airports. Mr. Davidson brought up some thoughts about remediation on properties and other costs attached to the study we're discussing today. A lot of that funding can come from that whole-of-government approach, whether through an RDA, FedDev or another department. It gives us an opportunity, once again, to get those projects off the ground.
The last thing I'll say, Mr. Chair, is this: RDAs and the investments they make lend themselves to the other two areas of this committee, which are transportation and infrastructure. When we look at projects, we see that they need capacity. It's no different from identifying an official plan in a community and a secondary plan that would attach itself to give that official plan the capacity it needs—whether it be water, waste water, roads, sidewalks, gutters or parks. The list goes on. It's any growth-related cost.
This study will attach itself to that as well. It will attach itself to the capacity needed for those projects. Some might in fact be transportation-related, like the study we're talking about right now. Some might be infrastructure-related—roads, water, sewers, parks or even other somewhat abstract costs, such as policing, community services and public health. The list goes on.
By the way—I'll repeat myself—this would otherwise be picked up by a property tax payer or a wastewater ratepayer through water bills.
I think this study is very relevant to the community aspect. Look at many of the issues, projects and so on and so forth that we've been discussing for the past nine years. Attach the community aspect to this. Give full respect to community strategic plans and being a partner in helping fund, through RDAs, those strategic plans, and therefore take the emphasis off the property tax payer and the water and wastewater ratepayer and get the projects done. They get the job done.
How many municipalities, Mr. Chairman, do you talk to that are under an infrastructure deficit right now, not only trying to maintain and manage the assets they've had and have, but also trying to move forward an agenda that moves the community well into the future, leverages existing and new economic development and creates a better lifestyle for its residents? That is this committee's mandate—transport, infrastructure and communities.
I congratulate the member for bringing this motion up. I congratulate you, Mr. Rogers, because not often does this committee actually delve into the community aspect of our responsibility and our mandate while at the same time attaching itself to the capacity needed with respect to transportation and infrastructure that adds to some of those strategies you're talking about through the RDAs.
Last, I'll say this: It's about leveraging. It's about leveraging the dollars that the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Infrastructure would otherwise be asked to provide, and leveraging that with the RDAs.
Excuse me, Mr. Muys, I heard that. That was not called for. It's not bullshit. This is what we're dealing with in this committee. Choose your words wisely, please.
I congratulate Mr. Rogers because this is about leveraging too. It's not asking one minister and it's not asking two ministers. It's asking three or four ministers to delve into their pockets to provide funding for a myriad of different projects. That's leveraging. That's partnership. That's being fiscally responsible, and it's also being a partner with the municipalities to help satisfy the corporate strategies they're putting forward on behalf of their residents.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.