Canadian Competitiveness for Infrastructure Investment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper provides a broad overview of the infrastructure investment landscape in Canada and our reputation as a competitive destination for such investment. We compare the Canadian infrastructure investment environment and recent outcomes with those of a set of peer nations (G7 countries plus Australia). Canada has serious reputational issues relative to our peer group when it comes to attracting investment in infrastructure, and these issues correspond to declining rates of foreign direct investment inflows. Federal government spending on infrastructure is also declining, implying an overall lack of investment in infrastructure. This lack of investment is, in turn, manifesting as an increase in Canada’s infrastructure deficit and an overall decline in the reputation of the quality of existing infrastructure. Estimates of Canada’s infrastructure deficit range up to $600 billion, and the investment shortfalls contributing to this deficit are particularly apparent in transportation and trade infrastructure. Canada has fallen sharply to last place relative to the G7 and Australia in terms of infrastructure and logistics quality. The most prominent issues driving Canada’s declining reputation as a destination for investment include a sharp slide in the ease of doing business, which, in turn, is caused by perceived regulatory and bureaucratic delays (including the time required for construction permits). An inconsistency in federal infrastructure funding programs and policies (tied to federal election cycles) is similarly problematic. While most of Canada’s public infrastructure investment is made by provincial and municipal governments, their smaller and more variable shares of tax revenues do not ensure stable and sufficient levels of infrastructure investment in many regions. This pattern also serves to promote regional inequality, since regions suffering from poor infrastructure may not have the resources required to overcome local infrastructure deficits. Reliance on PPPs (public-private partnerships) to bolster infrastructure investment may well prove fruitless given the negative experiences Canada’s peers have had with PPPs and the already evident frustrations with Canada’s existing pursuits in this area. Falling tax rates have failed to attract foreign direct investment flows into Canada, suggesting that tax competitiveness is not a sufficient incentive to overcome the reputational issues associated with inconsistent federal investment policies and growing regulatory and bureaucratic delays. Addressing these issues will require a stable and long-term strategy (one not subject to Canada’s federal electoral cycles) and a serious look at the timeframes and delays for regulatory and bureaucratic processes. We suggest the federal government place a higher priority on infrastructure investments in critical areas such as trade and transportation infrastructure. These types of infrastructure play an outsized role in supporting national productivity and income. Further, attracting significant levels of private investment will likely benefit from a consistent and predictable trade and transportation infrastructure strategy. Canada requires an integrated and strategic national approach to infrastructure policy and investment. This approach must be based around a long-term focus and will require coordination among federal, provincial, municipal and First Nations governments and the private sector (including coordination with Canada’s large pension funds, which represent a significant untapped source of financial capital). Provincial governments have already expressed an interest and willingness to collaborate on a national infrastructure strategy based on the corridor concept, and the Senate Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce has similarly acknowledged the potential merits of applying the corridor concept. Given these endorsements and the evidence presented above, it is incumbent on the federal and other governments to act on formulating a stable, long-term and strategic national infrastructure strategy that pairs government investment and policies to attract private sector investment in all kinds of infrastructure, but most notably in transportation, warehousing and logistics infrastructure. As part of this, it is critical that Canada address its serious issue of regulatory and policy uncertainty, delays and burdens as these appear to be the most critical aspects of our declining reputation and the most pernicious impediments to achieving infrastructure investment goals and priorities.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,052 | 0,005 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».