Happily, Infrastructure Canada has been moving in the right direction on both of these fronts. More specifically the federal department has been pressing for assurances that user fees will be applied in certain cases and has been paying greater attention to local needs in allocating funding. But, while we don't believe the current system is broken - and, in fact, is preferable to setting up a new vehicle such as one to share the gasoline tax - we do recommend some improvements to the process, beginning with establishing an advisory board.
Although the government should still call the ultimate shots for the sake of accountability, the independent board could provide advice to the government on what type of infrastructure should be financed and how. In particular, it would play a lead role in setting standards, but also set the principles on what infrastructure should be cost-covered (i.e., water sewage, etc) and what might require general tax-financed funding. And, in order to ensure local priorities are heard the board should have a strong local and provincial government representation. Furthermore, the private sector should also have a seat at the table, so that the governments can better capitalize on opportunities for P3s.
The federal government could model the infrastructure advisory board after its very own National Round Table on the Economy and Environment (NRTEE). The NRTEE, which was formed a few years ago to study and make recommendations on sustainable development, has an impressive list of public and business sector leaders on its membership roster. Chief among its stated goals was to "advise decision makers and opinion leaders on the best way to integrate environmental and economic considerations into decision making."30 The NRTEE's work to date has been widely praised.