SECTION 8:  CONCLUSIONS

  "…FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN INFRASTRUCTURE ARE SIGNIFICANT, BUT THIS FUNDING NEEDS TO BE PUT ON A LONG-TERM TRACK TO ALLOW FOR LONG-TERM PLANNING, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TIME SPANS INVOLVED IN PLANNING AND BUILDING MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS."

Federal Budget 2006, Restoring Fiscal Balance in Canada - Focusing on Priorities.

The results of the 2007 FCM-McGill survey point to a single, inescapable conclusion: that much of our municipal infrastructure is past its service life and near collapse.

More specifically, the survey results indicate the following:

•  The municipal infrastructure deficit is approximately $123 billion and growing.

•  The revised deficit includes sub-deficits for water and wastewater ($31 billion), transportation ($21.7 billion), transit ($22.8 billion), waste management ($7.7 billion), and cultural, social, community and recreation infrastructure ($40.2 billion).

•  A comparison of municipal surveys done in 1985, 1996 and 2007 clearly shows the tendency of the deficit to compound. Previous estimates of the deficit's growth (e.g., $2 billion per year) have been too conservative.

•  Municipalities require an estimated $115 billion in new infrastructure investments, which will compete with existing assets for investment and place pressure on municipal capital budgets.

These findings, combined with the evidence of deterioration Canadians see in their own communities, suggest that much of our aging municipal infrastructure is on the brink of failure.

The size of the infrastructure deficit has focused government and public attention on the need for action to find solutions. However, the lack of a clear understanding of its scope, or even agreement on a definition of infrastructure, makes finding solutions difficult.

Identifying and describing the problem to be solved- defining the size, scope and geographic and jurisdiction-al characteristics of the infrastructure deficit-should be the first step in developing a long-term policy framework for investments in municipal infrastructure. Understanding the problem and its scope in each region will help to identify investment priorities more accurately. This will provide the basis for a more rational intergovernmental strategy for infrastructure investment. It will also lay the foundation for a robust accountability framework.

Measuring the size, scope and nature of the state of public infrastructure will not be a new or unique endeavour. There are existing examples of comprehensive infrastructure asset inventories, which could be used as a model for a full inventory of key municipal infrastructure.