Well, of course, that isn’t true in real life. In real life, we have both a fiscal deficit and an infrastructure deficit (not to mention the more pressing ecological deficit), and none of them are subject to a plausible plan leading to elimination.

In Montreal, some of the water pipes that run under the city are so old that they are made of wood. Across Canada, water works are antiquated and designed for a climate we no longer haveas increased and more intense deluges lead to raw sewage bypassing treatment to enter rivers and seas, untreated. We have bridges that are shut down for repairs, in Saskatchewan and Quebec.

In six Western Canadian cities alone, (Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg), the Canada West Foundation puts the infrastructure deficit in 2003 at $543-million. That critical weakness in infrastructure is in roads and bridges, water-works, lack of efficient public transit, lighting, waste disposal and on and on.

The most recent figures I could find come from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) in its January 2013 report. According to the CCPA, the extent of gap between safe and modern infrastructure and our current situation is $145-billion worth of missing investment. To address the threat posed by crumbling infrastructure, CCPA says we need an additional $20-billion to $30-billion a year.

We know that kind of money is not going to come from the coffers of municipal governments. Of every dollar paid in taxes, only eight cents goes to municipal governments. Yet it is in municipalities that we experience our closest relationship with any level of government.

The current Conservative administration has done some good things in this area. The gas tax fund is now specifically tied to municipal infrastructure funding, but that is only approximately $3-billion per year. The overblown announcement, particularly in the leaks in advance of the 2013 budget, claimed that the Harper administration had committed a new high in commitment to infrastructure of $53-billion. Why not call it a $530-billion announcement? The big number comes from taking virtually status quo spending and multiplying it out by 10 years? Why not 100 years? It is no more helpful to municipalities. Worse, the spending, ($32.2-billion existing from gas tax fund and the implementation of the GST tax rebate, $14-billion in support of major infrastructure, including $4-billion for federal infrastructure spending, and $1.25-billion to renew the P3 Canada Fund) will not kick in with any funding increases until after the next election and the 2015 due date for getting to balanced budgets.

While the infrastructure deficit that exists today presents a $20-billion to 30-billion annual shortfall, the climate crisis will raise the stakes considerably. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has recommended that the federal government increase support for municipal infrastructure in response to the increased risk to assets due to the manmade destabilization of climate. Global warming is leading to increased severity and increased frequency of extreme weather events.

The U.S. General Accounting Office has determined that the threat to U.S. federal assets qualifies climate change as “high risk” to the health of U.S. government finances. Yet, here in Canada, we have no carbon reduction plan and no adaptation plan. Without both we are headed for new and unprecedented threats to our future, our economy and our infrastructure.

If anyone doubts that profound impacts of the changes brought on by global warming, review the costs of the brief burst of heavy rainfall that caused the collapse of Finch Avenue in Toronto in July 2009. This one event cost Toronto millions of dollars to repair. Warmer atmosphere contains more moisture than colder air and, as a result of global warming, Canada’s rainfall patterns have already changed. The impact is severe on infrastructure built for a different climate. This applies to roads, waterworks, and developments in floodplains.

Meanwhile, northern infrastructure is severely impacted by melting permafrost and buildings along tornado alleys requires significant adaptation investment. None of this is currently budgeted within announced funds.

Let’s agree it is time to take The High Road, make like a group of Angus McLintocks, and start funding our shared, common and public servicesroads, bridges, water-works, public transit, common spaces. It is time dedicate the resolve and funds necessary to eliminate the infrastructure deficit.

Originally published in the Hill Times.

The post U.S. says climate change high risk’ to federal assets, Canada has no infrastructure adaptation plan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Sometimes I think art imitates life. Many of us have enjoyed Terry Fallis’ book The Best Laid Plans and its sequel The High Road, which was premised on the collapse of a bridge and with a good policy background suggested quite a number of successive governments had transferred a fiscal deficit to an infrastructure deficit.

I raise that point because in the debate today there is a really big elephant in the room, which is that we have ignored our infrastructure in ways that have left it crippled and crumbling.

Generations in the past used to invest in the future and think in the long term. If we do not pass this resolution and put new funds in place for infrastructure and take it seriously, we are condemning future generations to a crumbling third world status for Canadian municipalities.

I wonder if my friend has any further comments on that theme.

Dennis Bevington: Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure of the country is like the clothes we wear. It is like the shoes on our feet. If we wear cheap shoes, they wear out quickly and we end up with foot problems later in life. If we do not dress properly and conserve energy, we might find ourselves getting sick more often.

Everything we do in our lives is important. We are facing challenges now that go beyond the borders of Canada and apply to the whole world. Therefore, we have a responsibility not only to Canada to fix our infrastructure and to do a good job, but we also need to set examples and join the rest of the world in working very hard come to grips with what the proper infrastructure is and how we can live our lives in a better fashion so we will leave something for our grandchildren to work with.

The post Opposition Motion – Federal Infrastructure Plan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

However, I am grateful and glad the current Conservative Privy Council made the gas tax money permanent. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recognizes that, but it also recognizes that the infrastructure deficit is in the tens of billions. The amount of money currently put to use for that purpose is wholly inadequate to protect lives, keep bridges up and deal with the increasing threat of climate events that will wash out our culverts, wash out our roadways and create new threats to our infrastructure, particularly our waterworks.

Would my colleague reconsider his opposition to this motion?

Joe Daniel: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is no. I will not change my mind on this resolution.

It would be interesting to find out why my colleague over the way actually has voted against the green proposals that have been out there and why she has not supported some of these infrastructures issues as well.

The post Opposition Motion – Federal Infrastructure Plan appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Does the hon. member have anything to say about the other points raised by the member opposite?

Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her astute comments and her question. Over the years, for several decades, the federal government has shirked many of its responsibilities, such as being an active partner on infrastructure issues. Over the years, the government has passed off these responsibilities and has not provided for any long-term strategic planning or predictable funding.

The motion addresses this issue and calls on the government to think seriously about reducing the infrastructure deficit in a meaningful way and in partnership with the provinces and communities.

The post Opposition Motion – Federal Infrastructure Plan appeared first on Elizabeth May.