I had the privilege of moderating this discussion with Heather Grey-Wolf of Infrastructure Ontario, Anca Drexler of the Building Ontario Fund, Sashen Guneratna of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and Michael Lindsay of Metrolinx at the 2026 Land & Development Conference. These are leaders who turn major infrastructure priorities into real projects on the ground.

The takeaway

Major infrastructure projects do not move simply because they are good ideas.

They move when public priorities, institutional mandates, funding pathways, and delivery plans align.

That was one of my biggest takeaways from the discussion.

The panel explored how major infrastructure institutions are responding to today’s economic environment, housing pressures, and growing expectations from governments and the market.

Each panelist brought a different mandate and perspective. What I appreciated most was how practical the conversation became.

The public sector is not short on infrastructure ambition.

The harder question is which projects are actually positioned to move.

That is where the mandates represented on the panel connect: Metrolinx is expanding regional transit, Infrastructure Ontario is helping procure and deliver complex public infrastructure, the Canada Infrastructure Bank is investing across national infrastructure priorities, and the Building Ontario Fund is deploying capital into priority infrastructure and housing-related investments.

Different institutions. Same direction.

Infrastructure is increasingly being used to advance housing supply, economic growth, competitiveness, and long-term resilience.

Why it matters

Governments are increasingly asking a different question:

Can this project help solve multiple challenges at once?

That changes how major projects are evaluated.

The strongest projects are no longer defined solely by the asset being built.

They are increasingly defined by the outcomes they help achieve.

For project sponsors, the implication is practical: before seeking government support, it is important to understand which public objectives the project advances, which institutions have a mandate to support those outcomes, and what risks could prevent decision-makers from saying yes.

What most people get wrong

Many proponents spend most of their time strengthening the project.

They spend far less time strengthening the conditions around the project.

Yet projects often succeed or fail based on stakeholder alignment, institutional priorities, delivery readiness, funding pathways, and timing – not simply the quality of the underlying idea.

A technically sound project can still stall if the funding pathway is unclear, institutional priorities are misaligned, stakeholder support is weak, or delivery risks remain unresolved.

Increasingly, the challenge is not identifying projects that deserve support.

The challenge is structuring projects in a way that allows multiple institutions to support them simultaneously.

The better question is no longer:

“Is this a good project?”

It is:

“Is this project positioned to move?”

What to do

For developers and project sponsors, government alignment should not be treated as a late-stage exercise.

Three things matter most:

1. Align the public purpose

Clearly articulate how the project supports broader objectives such as housing, mobility, productivity, resilience, economic growth, or community outcomes.

The public benefit should be clear, credible, and easy for others to understand.

2. Align the institutions

Understand which organizations, approvals, funding tools, and decision-makers influence the project.

Major projects rarely fit neatly within a single mandate. The stronger the project, the easier it should be to explain why multiple institutions have a reason to care about it.

3. Align the delivery pathway

Projects need a credible path to delivery, realistic sequencing, manageable risks, and a structure that aligns with market and government realities.

A strong vision is not enough if the pathway to execution is unclear.

The projects that move are often not the biggest or most ambitious.

They are the projects that make it easiest for institutions to say yes.

Bottom line

My biggest takeaway from this year’s Land & Development Conference was simple:

Projects do not move simply because they are needed.

They move when the conditions exist to make them move.

For project sponsors, the ability to align priorities, institutions, funding pathways, and delivery plans may become just as important as the project itself.

#InfrastructureCanada #HousingCanada #EconomicDevelopment #CanadianRealEstate #CommunityInfrastructure #DevelopmentCharges #InfrastructureFunding #LandDev