Thank you for the question, Mr. Badawey.
I'll start by saying that FCM's mandate is federal; we don't advocate to individual provincial governments. My colleagues at the Association of Municipalities Ontario, as you mentioned, are active on Bill 23 on that question. As you probably know, they've estimated that the impact of Bill 23, in terms of limiting the ability of municipalities to collect development charges, could cost as much as a billion dollars a year in municipal revenue for the 19 largest municipalities in Ontario. It's significant, and it's something our colleagues in Ontario are very concerned about and are looking closely at.
I think it speaks to a bigger issue around how we fund municipal governments in this country. Last week, Statistics Canada data came out that showed that municipalities collect less than nine cents on every tax dollar collected in the country, yet the responsibilities for municipalities are only increasing, and we own and manage more than 60% of public infrastructure in the country. It's part of a bigger discussion.
As it relates to transit, whether it's in an urban context or an intercommunity context, I think we need to look at partnership between orders of governments, including indigenous governments, as I mentioned in my opening, in how we fund a system that, in FCM's view, would be a mixture of public, private and non-profit carriers. We have that model in an urban context, and there are ways to expand it. Municipalities are expanding it. In an intercommunity context, there is a role for municipalities, but given just the nature of the routes, there's less direct municipal responsibility or involvement, though there are models in which municipalities are contributing on an operating-subsidy basis for services that pass through or serve their community.