Think about the last time you saw a news report heralding a politician announcing the expansion of a highway or a community centre getting an upgrade.

Across political institutions, public spending on infrastructure is often shaped not just by economic need but by political strategy. Governments in power have historically rewarded loyal districts and secured electoral support rather than prioritizing the areas with the greatest real need for investment.

In Canada, this pattern follows global trends, whereby governments use their discretion to shape both spending and policy to appeal to specific voter groups to hold onto power.

In a single-member district system such as ours, the pejorative term for this is “pork-barrelling.”

Otherwise referred to as “distributive politics,” there has been limited study on it in Canada, due partly to the difficulty of accessing comprehensive data. Since infrastructure programs are administered by multiple government agencies at different levels, data is often fragmented, inconsistently recorded, or not centralized, making large-scale analysis more challenging.

Public interest ignored

Infrastructure Canada released a comprehensive dataset of government-funded projects between 2002 and 2018, covering all provinces. Working based on findings from a paper by Olivier Jacques and Benjamin Ferland, Distributive Politics in Canada: The Case of Infrastructure Spending in Rural and Suburban Districts, we delve into nearly 8,000 projects listed in the Infrastructure Canada dataset and 215 non-urban federal electoral districts.

The issue of political discretion in allocating infrastructure projects and benefiting government-held core districts disproportionately ignores the broader public interest. After all, allocating resources based on electoral factors over genuine need can be viewed as a form of political bribery: votes are effectively exchanged for funding.

Counterintuitive distribution practices

This practice deepens divisions and undermines the principles of fairness and equality in existing public resource distribution concerns.

If governments truly cared about serving all Canadians, they would also prioritize swing districts rather than focusing solely on their loyal voter base. After all, a government’s responsibility is to represent and serve all citizens, not just those who support them.

But even looking at the issue from a purely electoral standpoint, it has been found that voters generally reward governments for additional spending in their districts. Therefore, it seems counterintuitive that governments don’t all spend money and build infrastructure in all districts.

There is also little evidence that cabinet ministers or senior MPs are able to attract more funding to their constituencies compared with backbenchers and opposition members. For example, during the rollout of the New Building Canada Fund in 2015, the riding of Edmonton Strathcona, represented by an opposition NDP MP, received no project funding, despite calls for infrastructure investment. Meanwhile, adjacent Conservative-held ridings such as Edmonton–Leduc secured millions in federal infrastructure dollars, including funding for road upgrades and municipal facilities. This shows how project approval appeared to correlate with party affiliation rather than demonstrated local need.

It also points to overall inefficiency in how funding is used to address real needs of constituents.

Serving citizens first

There are ways to improve.

First, introduce a strategy ensuring that MPs, particularly those in cabinet positions, are better incentivized to address the specific needs of their districts while avoiding favouritism. For example, cabinet ministers could be required to publish annual constituency reports outlining unmet infrastructure needs and the steps they’ve taken to address them. Tying a portion of their performance evaluations or discretionary funding access to how effectively they respond to these local priorities would create accountability without promoting favouritism.

Additionally, greater transparency in the allocation process is necessary to ensure fair access to infrastructure funding.

Government MPs and their staff are much better connected to available programs than opposition members and are more equipped to help municipalities in their districts navigate the bureaucratic processes. Government MPs can also develop personal relationships with senior politicians who can “tilt the decision-making process in favour of a project within their district.”

A stronger Canadian economy starts with a circular economy in cities and regions

Doug Ford’s multibillion-dollar highway is not about solving Toronto traffic jams

The tunnel vision of Doug Ford and François Legault

By increasing transparency and providing equal access to funding information about available infrastructure programs, opposition MPs will better advocate for their districts’ needs. They can also hold the current government accountable and ensure that funding decisions are made based on merit and need rather than political alignment.

In addition, one ongoing concern of municipalities is a lack of transparency from governments as to where money gets allocated. Policies that ensure a more equitable distribution of funds, regardless of political representation would help remedy this ongoing problem.

Such reforms would enhance public trust and foster better co-operation between government and opposition so they might work together to deliver the benefits of equitable infrastructure investment to all Canadians regardless of their riding’s representation.