Every now and then a word or phrase creeps into the bureaucratic lexicon that means everything and nothing at the same time. The latest catchall, infrastructure, is not only ill defined but is a bottomless pit for tax dollars. Mention the word and most people earnestly nod their head that yes infrastructure is needed; essential even. Yet, try and come up with a concrete definition of infrastructure is a near impossibility.

In 2002, the federal government created the Office of Infrastructure Canada to act as a "focal point for infrastructure issues." The newly created office assumed control of a number of ad hoc infrastructure programs and quickly added to the list. As a result, the budget for the Office of Infrastructure Canada has skyrocketed. In one year alone the budget ballooned 87.2% from $424 million in 2004 to $793 million in 2005. And, not surprisingly its operating expenses (bureaucracy) also increased to $23 million for 2005.

Despite the mass infusion of tax dollars, Infrastructure Canada has yet to come up with a definition of "infrastructure." A report posted to their website lists several different types of infrastructure, such as: railways, highways, airports, transit systems, water supply, street lighting, cellular and satellite telecommunications, internet, email, parks, golf courses, green spaces, bike paths, museums, theatres, recreation facilities, schools, libraries, laboratories, research facilities, health clinics, hospitals as well as a healthy citizenry and workforce. By this account, what isn't infrastructure

Alarm bells should be sounding for taxpayers. A government office with a meteoric rise in expenditures, a lofty idea and no concrete program goal is a recipe for a taxpayer catastrophe.

There are plenty of examples of poorly defined programs that end up squandering tax dollars, including the 1994 Canada Infrastructure Works Program. Before the Office of Infrastructure was created in 2002, the federal government managed several different infrastructure programs. One such program, the $2 billion Canada-Infrastructure Works Program was harshly criticized by the auditor general for failing to provide a clear definition of the term, infrastructure, and for inadequate financial and audit controls. The program was eventually scrapped but several other programs popped up to take its place.

In 2003, the government set aside an additional $2 billion for another infrastructure program, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF). In 2004, the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund (MRIF) was created as was the Border Infrastructure Fund. The three infrastructure programs are estimated to total $5.6 billion and fund projects like a centre for the Toronto Film Festival with a $25 million price tag.

Infrastructure Canada has just announced another new program the Peer Reviewed Research Studies Program. Together with its "Multi-disciplinary Research, Knowledge and Outreach" initiative, the Peer Reviewed Program will provide $5,000 to $250,000 for academic research related to field of infrastructure. Perhaps, the first project should be to come up with a definition of infrastructure.

The much touted, "New Deal for Cities and Communities," also falls under the ambit of the office of Infrastructure Canada.. The deals are gas-tax sharing arrangements between the federal government, the provinces, and municipalities. The federal government has agreed to give municipalities up to 5 cents of the federal gas tax over the next five years, for a total of $5 billion for "environmentally sustainable municipal infrastructure."

Again, it is not entirely clear what specific projects this money will be used for or how they will be approved, measured or even audited. The deals announced so far are only agreements in principle and a management committee is still trying to iron out the details. But if program goals are not clearly defined, then measurement and consequently auditing will be impossible.

Hopefully, the "new deals" will break Infrastructure Canada's tendency to be vague and provide some concrete results for taxpayers.

As currently constructed, however, most of the federal Infrastructure programs are destined to become a vortex of wasted and squandered tax dollars, the likes of which would make the sponsorship program and gun registry look fiscally responsible.