Thank you so much.
Thank you, Chair, vice-chairs, and members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. It is an honour to be with you today.
I'll quickly comment on Bill C-44, in particular regarding Canada's critical infrastructure.
The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy—of which I am the director of performance, and my colleague, Randall Bartlett, is the chief economist—recently published a piece on assessing the risks and opportunities associated with a Canada infrastructure bank. The key premise underlying our piece is that a national infrastructure plan and strategy is required, supported by evidence. This should be the first priority.
Our work in this area enabled us to identify three key factors. These factors form the basis of the steps needed to develop a work plan and national strategy for critical infrastructure.
First, a thorough assessment of our current infrastructure stock needs to be performed. Specifically, is this stock delivering, or on track to delivering, the benefits expected from it at the time it was approved? A report by the U.K.'s National Audit Office highlighted the cost and challenges of delivering major projects in government, with a number of recurring issues affecting performance.
Of the 149 major projects in the U.K. as of June 2015, with a total life-cycle cost of 511 billion pounds, successful delivery of 34% was considered to be in doubt or unachievable unless action was taken. Infrastructure investments alone are not a guarantee of infrastructure outcomes.
The second step is to conduct a strategic analysis of future infrastructure needs in Canada.
This analysis would identify the economic, social, and environmental benefits expected of infrastructure investments. It would consider factors such as demographic trends, population growth, current and projected economic activity, trade corridors and future drivers of economic growth, the environment, and any significant regional variations and needs.
Finally, by understanding the condition of our current infrastructure stock and our future needs, we can identify our infrastructure gap relative to the future infrastructure needs. This is the evidence base, at a minimum, that we feel is needed to develop a national infrastructure plan and strategy.
Currently, estimates of the national infrastructure gap in Canada range from zero to $1 trillion. While estimates always come with some uncertainty, this is a wide range by any measure, and not one on which to build a national infrastructure strategy.
It's critical to understand where we are and where we're headed. Only then can we draw a roadmap to help us reach our destination.
In fairness, budget 2017 identifies an ambitious data initiative on Canadian infrastructure to provide the intelligence to better direct infrastructure investments. Further, the budget implementation act identifies the collection and dissemination of data to monitor and assess the state of infrastructure in Canada as one of the functions of a Canada infrastructure bank.
In our view, this data initiative identified in budget 2017—and the function it gives to a Canada infrastructure bank—is precisely what is required first and foremost in order to have an evidence-based national infrastructure plan and strategy. Details on this initiative are to be announced in the coming months, and we are very much looking forward to understanding the details and timelines expected of this initiative. Let us develop the plan first, and then put in place the right strategies and instruments, such as the infrastructure bank, that are tailored to best achieve that plan.
Unfortunately, these initiatives are in the wrong order. We put the cart before the horse.
Thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak to you today. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.