ging for services but also due to an inability to increase municipal incomes and offset falling provincial and federal transfers. This has led to a growing interest in alternative mechanisms for infrastructure financing. Some public-private partnerships of various kinds have been implemented, often attracting considerable opposition (CUPE, 2005). It now appears necessary to address the challenges related to ageing and inadequate water infrastructure. The federal government is aware of the problem and there have been moves to increase funding, for instance through the establishment of the Infrastructure Canada Program, the Green Municipal Investment Fund, the Green Municipal Enabling Fund and the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. The 2003 federal budget allocated CAD 3 billion for investment in infrastructure generally on top of the previous investment of CAD 5 billion announced in 2001. However, according to the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, this fails to adequately address the burgeoning infrastructure deficit; increased levels of expenditure are required for the modernisation of water and wastewater treatment infrastructure. Based on the figures presented above, investments of anything between CAD 34 billion and CAD 90 billion could be required over 20 years just to meet the infrastructure deficit. These figures do not include current levels of investment nor operational and maintenance costs. Taking the CAD 10 billion per year figure, this would imply required investments of approximately 0.6% of GDP - an indicative figure given the caveats that various reports have noted. However, it is important to note that in 2002, with the creation of Infrastructure Canada, the government of Canada formally confirmed that public infrastructure renewal had become a priority of the federal government. The new federal department was established to provide a focal point for the government of Canada on infrastructure policies, programmes and research. Since its inception it has been working with other province