September 28, 2007

Canada’s infrastructure deficit continues to grow, experts say

Much ado, but little done, to solve problem

PETER KENTER

correspondent

Canada’s ailing infrastructure becomes a public issue only when a bridge falls down or someone is killed, says Marie Lemay, Chief Executive Officer of Engineers Canada and Chair of the National Round Table on Sustainable Infrastructure (NRTSI) Transition Team.

“We’ve been using the figure of a $60 billion infrastructure deficit for four years now and very little has been done,” she says. “Who knows how much money is now needed to maintain an asset valued at between $3 and $4 trillion dollars?

“Four years ago, we estimated that Canada’s infrastructure had already reached 80 per cent of its life expectancy. Where is it today?”

Part of the problem is defining an infrastructure deficit in the first place, she says. Does it cover uncompleted repair and maintenance on existing assets alone, or does it include capital funding for projects that aren’t on the drawing boards yet?

“Our accounting systems don’t even account for the full cost of building and maintaining infrastructure,” she says. “The capital budget and the operation and maintenance budget are entirely separate. The mindset in infrastructure projects is to design, build — and forget.”

Lemay has been pushing for federal funding of the NRTSI to allow it to play a pivotal role as a central clearing house for infrastructure information, expertise and best practices.

“How can you avoid duplication if you don’t know what anyone’s doing elsewhere,” she asks. “We don’t have enough money to do everything that needs to be done, so every dollar we invest into infrastructure has to be spent wisely.”

The lack of available funds means that infrastructure projects have to win favour with both politicians and the public, whose perceptions of priority determine where money is spent. The federal government’s $33 billion infrastructure plan fund announced in July, for example, must be allocated between provinces, territories and municipalities, each with a unique set of claims and priorities.

“I get people coming into my office every day, believing that their project is the most important project,” says Mike Wallace, Member of Parliament for Burlington.

“Stakeholders from Canadian municipalities are asking for money for rinks and community centres and I have to ask them what happened to sewers, water and roads.

“My message to them is that we need a clear definition of what we want for infrastructure so we can fashion policy.”

While the public might be temporarily tuned in to tragic reminders of crumbling infrastructure, such as the recent Laval and Minneapolis bridge collapses, its attention is short-lived, says Lemay.

“People are beginning to recognize the importance of bridge maintenance and improvement, for example, so that they won’t complain when a bridge is shut down, but they also forget quickly.”

Wallace agrees that infrastructure investment can be a tough sell.

Municipalities are responsible for the largest share of the country’s infrastructure, and have the least incentive to spend money on long-term projects that may pay off long after their originators have left office.

“The problem is that infrastructure just isn’t sexy,” he says.

“The media will pay a little bit of attention to roads, sewers and water supply, but only a handful of people are really talking about infrastructure.”

Print | Email | Comment