Canada’s first National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA) report found profound failures in the way the existing system delivers essential infrastructure, but the chair and vice-chair of the council that authored the report say it’s not essential to finger-point in critiquing past decisions or policies.
Canadian Infrastructure Council (CIC) chair Jennifer Angel and vice-chair Peter Weltman said in an interview laying blame is less productive than addressing the structural disincentives, data gaps and capacity limits that keep the system underperforming.
They suggest Canada needs to develop an evidence-driven framework for building infrastructure that improves co-ordination and supports smarter, more resilient infrastructure decisions going forward.
The year-old council released Nov. 27.
The report found more than $126 billion of infrastructure is in “poor or very poor condition,” with 11 per cent of water and wastewater assets and more than 13 per cent of public transit assets in the same state.
“The way we’ve done things in the past, the structures that we built, the decisions that we’ve been made, the incentives that are in place have led us to where we are. We need to change that to meet the challenges of the future and to be able to provide affordable, comfortable, high-quality places for folks to live,” said Weltman.
Angel said the report does not criticize particular decisions but instead recognizes the system is set up to build what is acceptable to voters, which might include lack of densification in the housing context.
Say the hard things
“It’s an arm’s-length council that’s going to actually say the hard things,” she said of the CIC, “including things like demand management. I also think the purpose of this work is to create a long view on infrastructure. It’s to create a coherent national picture which is strategic…which extends beyond political cycles.”
The council was directed by the government to focus on the infrastructure required to build more housing in its first report. Further reports with a different focus will follow.
Key findings were that infrastructure must be tailored to regional realities; that building new infrastructure faces significant constraints, such as workforce shortages, supply chain disruptions, uncertain investment and regulatory burdens; and that opportunities exist to meet future needs with existing assets.
The report issued three recommendations: make the most of existing built and natural infrastructure before building new; strengthen co-ordination across all partners; and build for the future with resilience and data at the forefront.
Angel said without consistent, reliable data, municipalities cannot plan multi-year maintenance or make evidence-based decisions. She also stressed the need for cultural change around demand management and for treating infrastructure as a means to broader outcomes rather than as isolated projects.
Meeting the moment
“Our population has grown quickly and our climate has changed rapidly and is continuing to change,” said Angel. “So the way we have approached infrastructure in the past is no longer meeting the moment. Using data and evidence, we hope to influence different approaches to infrastructure, unlocking innovation to meet those population and climate realities that are different than they were even five years ago.”
Association of Consulting Engineering Companies – Canada CEOJohn Gamble, a long-time advocate for an independent national infrastructure assessment process, called the report “really positive” and a “very sound and worthwhile exercise by the federal government.
“I think it’s a clear validation of many of our concerns: aging assets, fragmented governance, stop-gap funding, regulatory bottlenecks, the need for life cycle assessment,” he said.
Gamble said the first report is “foundational,” praised the focus on the need for independent, evidence-based policy, but said, “The job is not done.”
“Would I like to see more assets? Would I like to see it broader? Absolutely, but you need to start somewhere, and I completely understand why the government would start with housing-enabling infrastructure,” he said.
Weltman offered an example of how data and evidence could reorient policy. In B.C.’s Lower Mainland, he said, when a bridge went out, the decision-makers decided to rebuild the bridge the same way, because that was the cheapest and fastest way to get it back up and running.
“That’s where we think we can come in and start to provide some insight and knowledge around those sorts of things, and maybe provide some guidance to others and governments can maybe reorient policy to incentivize smart, strategic management of infrastructure,” Weltman said.
Representatives of the ACEC and the Canadian Construction Association (CCA) were among over 300 stakeholders who met with members of the 12-person council or responded to a call for engagement the first four months of this year, or responded to a government request for input in 2021, when the NIA was first announced.
A statement from the CCA said the association welcomes the report, which “provides a clear national vision.”
Association president Rodrigue Gilbert said the assessment reinforces a long-standing CCA message that Canada cannot build more homes without the enabling infrastructure required to support them.
Angel defended the narrow focus of the report, suggesting housing-enabling infrastructure is closely linked to broader works such as trade-enabling projects.
“It’s so interdependent,” she said. “You can’t have a port in Churchill if you don’t have the housing-enabling infrastructure to go with it, right?”
“I think the insights and also some of the conclusions we drew and recommendations we formed really apply across infrastructure classes.”
Housing is a fundamental, urgent problem to solve in Canada and stands on its own, Angel said.
“The conclusions we drew, chief among them, the scale of infrastructure we need to build is enormous,” she said.
Recent Comments
comments for this post are closed