This interview is part of our GoGeomatics series on Canada’s infrastructure moment and its impact on the geospatial/geomatics sector.

Canada has announced one of the most ambitious infrastructure commitments in its history: 5% of GDP directed to nation-building, with 1.5% earmarked for civil preparedness, industrial capacity, and core infrastructure. But turning announcements into action will depend on whether procurement systems — long criticized as risk-averse and template-driven — can actually deliver.

This is a challenge that Peter Srajer knows firsthand. As Chief Scientist at ProStar Geocorp, Srajer has worked on geomatics, surveying, and engineering projects across both Canada and the United States. His career spans high-level consulting, public and private sector work, and hands-on technical innovation — giving him a unique vantage point on how procurement culture shapes outcomes on the ground.

In this candid conversation, Srajer shares why procurement remains the biggest barrier to Canada’s infrastructure ambitions, how risk aversion shuts out innovation, and why geomatics must overcome its “humble to a fault” reputation if it wants to be recognized as a nation-building force.

Canada has made a historic infrastructure commitment. What do you see as the biggest challenges with our procurement system?

Canada has the capability to initiate and start projects, but the issues lie in bureaucracy and inertia. Procurement tends to be very risk-averse and follows a “go with what worked before” trend.

Public procurement strongly favours incumbents. Big firms know how to game the system. Because they’re already embedded, they continue to receive the work. I have worked for some of these big firms and seen it from the inside. It’s disheartening, but that’s the nature of a risk-averse system.

I’ve been on both sides. The problem is not with the individual procurement officer — they’re just following rules. However, the system defaults to the largest players because they already know exactly what to include in RFPs and contracts. That makes it easy for risk-averse teams to return to them.

How does this culture affect innovation and smaller players?

Practices in Canada are conservative. Proposals are very templated and structured, which goes against the mindset of tech companies that want to try something new and interesting. That push tends to get dismissed because procurement officers want easy comparisons.

The result is that public projects default to large incumbents. It drives costs up and shuts out startups or smaller firms that could bring in new ideas. And let’s be clear, this is not unique to geomatics. I’ve observed the same phenomenon across the broader consulting world. It creates a culture where you “make it sound innovative,” but in reality, you’ve been doing the same thing for ten years. That’s not innovation, that’s comfort.

If you look at many procurement documents, you can almost draw a straight line to the same templates you’ve seen before. There may be a section asking for innovative thoughts, but it’s really just a panacea. In the end, the same respondents provide the same answers because they have worked before.

I’ve also seen open-ended proposals that ask: Here’s the problem; how would you solve it? That works better for technical or unknown-solution problems. It doesn’t fit rote projects with clear and concrete objectives, but it would allow innovation a fair chance.

In the U.S., mid-sized firms are now disrupting incumbents, forcing innovation as bigger firms lose bids. In Canada, the smaller market and lack of competition mean that firms can continue to operate in the same way.

There are programs that encourage pilot projects or the adoption of new technology, but they’re not part of the main procurement process. They act more as incubators. The lift to access these incubators is onerous and more suited to large corporations with the people to navigate the process. Startups rarely get through. That’s why I’ve largely shied away from public involvement. It’s become more onerous than it’s worth.

Infrastructure today is about data and digital delivery as much as it is about concrete. Are procurement frameworks reflecting that shift?

Nation-building today is more about innovation: can you do something better, faster, and safer? If you can prove a new idea and then apply it globally, that builds your nation and your economy. Most procurement frameworks aren’t interested in nation-building — they just want to get the project up and running.

Open standards have gradually gained ground, driven by economic considerations. Buying the latest subscription from an incumbent is increasingly questioned. Digital delivery has been the norm for some time, and it’s accelerating. As for Canadian content, I’m more of a meritocracy mindset: the best solution should win. To export our best and brightest, we also need to allow fair and principled access to our market.

Do you see fragmentation across federal, provincial, and municipal procurement as a barrier?

Fragmentation is a polite way of putting it. They are siloed. Sharing only happens when funding requirements are split. Each level has its own processes and priorities. That’s understandable, but a challenge to navigate.

A more unified approach would be beneficial, but it quickly becomes a matter of politics.

If you could give one piece of advice to Ottawa on procurement reform, what would it be?

Think outside the tried and true. Sticking with the mindset of “no one got fired for selecting IBM” means we’d still be using typewriters. Yes, they work and rarely fail, but are they innovative?

Beyond procurement, how do you see innovation and technology shaping this infrastructure moment?

Geospatial intelligence seems to be the new buzzword of today, but in practice, it’s no different from how projects have always been carried out. We gather the best and most comprehensive information available and make decisions based on that. Now we have digital twins, ML modelling, and sensors that give us more up-to-date and accurate information — but in the end, it’s still a judgment call for the professional to put their stamp on something and stand by that decision. The tools are just that, tools, and not a replacement for intelligence, artificial or organic.

That said, I get frustrated with how large firms present themselves as innovative. They’ll point to drones or laser scanning as if they’re new. Let’s be honest — those tools have matured. I was doing that 15 years ago. Real innovation is taking those tools and doing something better with them. Getting the data is no longer the problem; the challenge is extracting value from it so decisions can actually be made.

Some argue that Canadian-developed technologies are undervalued compared to foreign options. Have you seen this dynamic? What’s at stake?

To be honest, no, I don’t see much difference in using Canadian versus other developed technologies. In most cases, to say something is “Canadian-developed” or not isn’t exactly true. Ideas come from many different sources, and we all stand on the shoulders of giants, to paraphrase.

That said, many Canadians take their ideas abroad. That’s not uncommon and is probably accelerating. In the long term, it’s a loss for Canada. But it’s not new. Many people are capable of building in the AI and geospatial realm in their garage, similar to the early computer and dot-com eras. Do we really care where the ideas come from?

From your perspective as a geomatics engineer, how prepared is the industry for this wave of infrastructure projects?

Most companies say they are prepared. But infrastructure projects are long-term, complex, and multidisciplinary; they don’t ramp up overnight. Large firms may be able to scale quickly, and they often have symbiotic relationships with consultants who can be brought in as needed.

But are companies ramping up now? No. These are just announcements until there is action and money.

Currently, I am heavily involved in the U.S. market because it is extremely busy. Canada does not have a large enough market to be a sole-source country, especially given its proximity to the U.S., which is 12–15 times its size economically.

On my side, I’m involved in several projects at the tech-building end of infrastructure, focusing on how to utilize new technology stacks to enable safer, faster, and more cost-effective projects. We’ve begun conversations with downstream construction companies about bringing this in if there’s a ramp up; but again, it depends on actual implementation and not just announcements.

Workforce shortages are another pressing challenge. Where do you see the biggest gaps in geomatics and engineering?

The challenge is getting people interested in STEM, not just engineering or geomatics. The biggest shortages are in specialized areas where proficiency takes years to achieve, and those individuals are now approaching retirement. The shortage of new engineers and surveyors is expected to continue growing, and it’s the younger generation that we’ll depend on. Engineering has always had a strong reputation and value to society, but perhaps we need a better PR department at the pre-university level to promote this.

In Canada, the shortage is more pronounced at the higher end — specifically, senior engineers, mid-level engineers, and project managers. It’s easier to bring in entry-level staff and train them, but once you get into specialized roles, the shortage is real.

Land surveying is especially tough. The licensing process has become too arduous and rigid, deterring people from pursuing it. The path to becoming a surveyor is a long and complex one. I’ve gone through it as an engineer, and even then, it was easier for me than for others. That’s a barrier for smart young people who might otherwise enter the field.

Land surveying also has an image problem. It’s often seen as staid, but I had some of the most interesting experiences early in my career — surveying in the high Arctic, or through the jungles of Panama. It can be adventurous and rewarding, but it’s a tough slog to get into because of how the profession presents itself.

Beyond skills and licensing, does geomatics also face a visibility or PR challenge?

We also have a perception problem. Everybody knows what a civil engineer does. Nobody knows what a geomatics engineer is. I often have to explain my work in terms of GPS or GNSS before people understand. That lack of visibility hurts student intake and contributes to program closures.

And yes, this is also a PR problem. As Bryn Fosburgh said in one of your recent interviews, we are humble to a fault. We don’t broadcast the value we bring. You don’t see engineers or surveyors on TV shows the way you see doctors. People understand how to pour concrete or build a wall, but they don’t see the surveyor on top of the structure with a GPS doing deformation analysis. What we do isn’t visible, and because we don’t toot our own horn, society doesn’t recognize it.

How does Canada’s workforce situation compare internationally?

Canadian engineers are being recruited aggressively by U.S. companies. That’s not great for Canada, but it’s always been that way. We are part of an integrated world, and if the options are there, people will take them.

I’ve also done some work in Australia. They are being forced to innovate because they have a severe shortage of people. Canada’s shortage is more pronounced at the senior level, while Australia struggles across the board because it lacks the same immigration inflows. In Canada, you can still bring in and train entry-level staff. In Australia, isolation has exacerbated shortages significantly.

Finally, are shifting geopolitical conditions influencing how you think about supply chains, sovereignty, and dependencies?

Has the supply chain been a problem? Yes, but it’s been resolving over the past couple of years. Pushing for sovereign supply and structure isn’t realistic. Canada lacks the capacity to supply everything internally, and attempting to do so would be cost-prohibitive.

Infrastructure is about large-scale and big procurement. It can’t depend on a single supply line. Prioritizing local suppliers makes sense; it’s easier to build relationships but that should happen by default, not by rigid rules.