By Nick Leggett, Chief Executive, Infrastructure New Zealand
In May, Infrastructure New Zealand led a delegation of industry leaders to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal to study how Canada plans, funds, and delivers infrastructure. It was our 10th international study tour and the second to Canada, and it comes at a pivotal moment for Aotearoa New Zealand.
With a $210-billion infrastructure deficit and a system too‑often paralysed by short-term politics, we went looking for practical lessons. What we discovered was something far more profound. Canada has built a culture of delivery – a mindset that prioritises consistent, purposeful progress over delay and ideology. That is the shift that New Zealand urgently needs.
Canada doesn’t claim to have got everything right. Like us, it is a country facing rising costs, increasing political polarisation and procurement failures; but, fundamentally, Canada is in a stronger position when it comes to infrastructure due to a very different mindset. Infrastructure there is seen as a nation-building enterprise. The focus is on the outcomes that projects can ultimately deliver to improve cities, communities and the economy.
This change in perspective is powerful.
Every six months, somewhere in Canada, a new hospital or healthcare facility opens. The Centre for Addiction and Mental Health that we visited in Toronto even had a spare floor, built to provide for anticipated future need. That level of foresight is the result of a different way of thinking, and is a sustainable pipeline that gives infrastructure providers the confidence to invest in their capability and capacity. It’s the product of a system that values delivery and momentum over a desire for perfection.
New Zealand, by contrast, tends to frame infrastructure development as a drain on the balance sheet and a disruption to our lives. This narrative is self-defeating and is one of the reasons why infrastructure has become so political. If we want to unlock ambition here, we need to start celebrating the benefits of infrastructure – be they economic, social or environmental.
Another stark difference between the two countries is the existence of a national ‘vision’ in Canada. Canada’s infrastructure pipeline is designed to contribute to this vision by helping to increase productivity, provide housing, build community resilience and enable social inclusion. Canadians start with the function they want, and the form follows.
In Montreal, we visited the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) light rail network, conceived around the same time as Auckland Light Rail. The REM is now carrying passengers, yet Auckland’s light rail remains little more than a political debate point. The difference is clear: Montreal’s project was anchored in a shared vision, backed by private capital through land-value capture and a fixed charge per passenger, and delivered with urgency.
If there is one lesson for New Zealand, it is that an infrastructure pipeline itself is not a strategy – it is merely just a list of projects. What binds it all together is a long-term, bipartisan vision for infrastructure that provides certainty to both the market and the public. Without it, we will keep lurching from announcement to cancellation and back again, undermining the ability of our communities to adapt to the future.
Procurement culture is another area where Canada provides some very valuable lessons. Having delivered more than 300 public-private partnerships (PPP), many of which are in the social infrastructure space, the Canadians do not get hung up on whether a PPP, alliance, or progressive design–build model is chosen. Ideology doesn’t come into it. What matters is choosing the model that best fits the project.
Unfortunately, New Zealand has swung between embracing alternative procurement mechanisms such as PPPs and rejecting them, driven more by politics than by evidence. This has cost us, and we need to get over it because, ultimately, the model we use to deliver infrastructure is not really all that important. What counts is getting it built.
Canada is far from perfect. Not every project succeeds; some fail and some underperform. But rather than dwell on failure, Canada adapts. Lessons are learnt and systems are modified. Contrast that with New Zealand, where our fear of failure breeds paralysis. We review and review again, layering on complexity, and adding cost and delay. A deferred project is treated as safer than one that progresses.
One of the most inspiring parts of our visit was seeing how Canada is empowering its First Nations communities to participate in infrastructure. Through institutions like the First Nations Infrastructure Institute, Indigenous groups are not only consulted, but included as equity partners, funders and decision-makers. New Zealand has a similar opportunity. By unlocking greater Māori participation in infrastructure development, we can deliver more inclusive outcomes and tap into long-term investment partnerships between the Crown and iwi.
Canada reminds us that infrastructure is more than steel, concrete and costs. It is about the benefit it brings to communities through economic opportunities, the provision of essential services and social interconnectedness. By cultivating a culture of delivery, underpinned by a national vision, Canada has built consistency and confidence in its infrastructure system.
The question for New Zealand is simple: Do we continue to see infrastructure as a cost to be minimised, or do we embrace it as the nation-building force it can be? Perhaps it’s time to think a bit more like the Canadians and start delivering.
Finally, I want to acknowledge our Canadian hosts, who generously shared their successes and failures with us so openly. My thanks, also, to our delegates, who invested their time and expertise, and all the delegation’s sponsors, whose support ensures that we can bring these lessons home.