Party Lines

Our federal governments are showing increasing interest in infrastructure.

On a recent trip to New Orleans I came across an editorial cartoon called “The Bailout (Simplified).” It showed a levee built around Wall Street, while the rest of the United States was labeled “Lower Ninth Ward.” When Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, about 80 per cent of the city was flooded and there are still huge gaps in existing infrastructure as a result. Louisiana State University Hurricane Scientist Ivor Van Heerden says, “If we had the will and one month’s money from Iraq we could do all the levees and restore the coast.”

Lack of political will can be as important as the money. As stock markets swing wildly and the words recession and depression are tossed around, will Canada follow the U.S. example of propping up financial institutions or will it look to job creation and investments in infrastructure as a method of stability?

This direction was dependant upon the winner of the federal election on October 14-leading up to Election Day, each party talked about infrastructure funding. Some talked more specifically than others about funding for Canada’s urban centres.

It was also identified as an important issue by pollsters. Strategic Counsel found that there was significant support for a national infrastructure program in the “battleground ridings”-Ontario (77 per cent), British Columbia (68 per cent) and Quebec (84 per cent). By a lower margin, but still a majority, there was a feeling that “the concerns of large urban regions don’t get enough attention from the federal government.”

The Conservative Party didn’t make a lot of new policies or promises during this campaign, choosing to run on their record and a belief that they could win a majority given their actions over the past couple of years. They pointed to the Advantage Canada plan released by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty as part of the 2006 Economic and Fiscal Update. Under Infrastructure Advantage they stated, “We committed to building modern, world-class infrastructure through increased investment delivered in new, more efficient ways. Our Building Canada plan created an unprecedented infrastructure fund [including] a $33-billion infrastructure investment fund [and] a public-private partnerships office to maximize returns on our investments.” Additionally, they would provide cities (previously announced) some funding in infrastructure areas such as water systems, roads, public transit and recreational facilities.

The Liberal Party of Canada made a pledge of $70 billion over the next ten years as well as diverting unexpected budget surpluses into infrastructure renewal. In a statement, Stéphane Dion pointed to the infrastructure deficit-which has been pegged by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) at $123 billion. Dion stated, “Our $70-billion investment will support Liberal priorities, including building and upgrading strategic infrastructure, creating a National Transit Strategy, developing a Small Communities Fund, strengthening gateway, corridor, and border infrastructure, and renewing and expanding sports and recreational facilities.” The Liberals also pledged to index the gas transfer tax and to create an Infrastructure Bank to assist in project financing.

The plan from the New Democrats looked at both hard and soft infrastructure spending, in part through the dedication of one cent of the GST to municipalities. They said, “This increased infrastructure commitment, phased in over five years, will include increased investment and jobs in: expanded public transit, affordable housing, expanded child care, building retrofits and environmentally friendly renovations, immigrant settlement, roads, highways and border crossings, public libraries, community centres and sewer and water treatment facilities.” They also pledged a ten-year plan dedicating one per cent of the federal budget to housing.

The Green Party platform intended to “double existing funding to stimulate a massive re-investment in public transportation infrastructure in all Canadian towns and cities to make it convenient, safe, comfortable and affordable.” They also explored the allocation of one per cent of the GST to cities. But their emphasis was put on the building of “green cities.” The Greens also planned to create six Superfunds that would each receive $500 million annually. These funds included: Community Brownfield Remediation Fund, Water and Waste Treatment Facilities Fund, Sports, Cultural and Recreational Facilities Fund, Mass Transit Promotion Fund, Cycling and Pedestrian Promotion Fund and Community Housing Options Promotion Fund.

The Bloc Quebecois focused on a new funding formula for infrastructure renewal: the federal government covers 50 per cent of costs while cities would chip in 15 per cent and the provinces 35 per cent. They wanted the federal government to “combine the programs into a single, unconditional, recurring transfer fund.” Along with the Greens and the NDP, they also looked at renewable energy investments.

Advocacy organizations including a coalition of environmental groups led by Greenpeace and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) were also looking at each party’s promises to cities. The FCM platform focused on six areas for the government including “erasing the infrastructure deficit within 20 years, putting more buses on the road and improving commuter rail, delivering front-line support for local police, protecting roads, bridges and sewers from climate change and severe weather; and investing in strong, economically viable rural and northern communities.”

Both groups surveyed each party asking numerous questions about infrastructure. While the Conservatives didn’t respond to either set of questions, each of the other parties outlined lengthy responses that indicated support for infrastructure investment. In many ways their responses are now moot given the results of the election. The future of infrastructure will stay in the hands of the Harper government-and they may be distracted. The government Canadians have chosen will be facing an economic challenge that may usurp all other issues. Robert Drummond, a political science professor at York University, says, “My sense is that the bigger issue for infrastructure funding at this point will be whether the response to the economic problems is to put money into the economy by funding infrastructure projects or whether it will be by some either means put into the banks or in some sense tightening expenditures.”

Drummond says, “My fear is that this government, being a conservative tone, is unlikely to put money directly into big infrastructure projects as a means of dealing with our economy.”

This article appears in our November-December 2008 Issue