Piece by piece

March 31, 2013 | Last updated on October 1, 2024
3 min read
Angela Stelmakowich, Editor
Angela Stelmakowich, Editor

All the king’s horses and all the king’s men…

It may not be as dire as an egg taking a tumble off a wall, but the current state of Canada’s municipal infrastructure is unlikely to end up happily ever after without a big injection of resources and a whole lot of collaboration.

Come the next onslaught of far too much rain over far too short a period, overwhelming existing systems and producing inevitable sewer back-ups, it becomes clear why insurers have made it their business (literally) to encourage improvements to infrastructure.

That oft-repeated call was answered (some say) with Ottawa’s pledge in the 2013 budget to provide $53.5 billion in investments, including approximately $47 billion in new funding, for provincial, territorial and municipal infrastructure across Canada over the next decade. Among other things, $32 billion-plus is headed to municipalities for projects such as roads, public transit and recreational facilities, and other community infrastructure; and an additional $6 billion will go to provinces, territories and municipalities under current programs in 2014-2015 and beyond.

“As owners of more infrastructure than any other level of government, Ontario municipalities need long-term, sustainable funding to invest in local priority projects,” Russ Powers, president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, said at the time.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) has a different take, arguing that money under the Building Canada Fund was reduced in 2014-2015 and is back-end loaded, with 75% of expenditures to be spent in or after 2020. All other funding for infrastructure in the budget is a re-announcement of pre-existing programs, it added.

“There’s never been a better time to take bold action on infrastructure – interest rates are at historic lows, the need for infrastructure investment has never been greater, and the jobs created would be a significant boost to the economy,” said CCPA senior economist David Macdonald.

“As severe weather becomes more common in Canada, updated storm and wastewater infrastructure is essential for municipalities,” noted Chris White, vice president of federal affairs for the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC).

IBC estimates the Canadian insurance industry paid $1.7 billion in claims in recent years from water damage.

Aviva Canada reported in April that its data shows approximately 40% of all home insurance claims are the result of water damage. The data also indicates the average cost of water damage claims rose from $7,192 in 2002 to more than $15,500 a decade later.

Canadians taking part in a recent Royal Bank of Canada survey demonstrated that they are aware of – but not necessarily prepared for – possible water damage.

The online survey of 2,282 Canadians, conducted by GlobeScan, revealed that 90% of respondents believed an extreme weather-related disaster is possible in their communities, but few are prepared for the consequences excess water from such events can have on their homes.

Just 23% of individuals responded they have mitigated risk through landscaping with grading, and only 7% have replaced paved surfaces with water-permeable materials.

“All the impermeable surfaces in cities create the ideal condition for excess water to overwhelm our already strained municipal stormwater systems,” said Bob Sandford, chair of Canadian Partnership Initiative of the UN Water for Life Decade.

The hope is that certain tools will provide some relief. For example, the Municipal Risk Assessment Tool combines insurance claims data, detailed information about municipal infrastructure and climate modelling to predict where vulnerabilities exist in systems that could lead to millions of dollars in sewer back-up damage to homes and businesses.

The ability to identify areas of greatest concern will go a long way toward ensuring both dollars and resources can be appropriately targeted so that everyone is dealing with the before, not the after.

If that is the approach taken, there may be no need to put things together again – and no chance of the bits and pieces floating away.