Public Accounts Committee on June 16th, 2022

[Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister, Department of Indigenous Services]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Kwe kwe. Ullukkut. Tansi. Hello.

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.

I will be providing an update to the committee on how Indigenous Services Canada, or ISC, has contributed to the action plan to address the Auditor General of Canada’s recommendations in Report 9—Investing in Canada Plan.

Since 2016, ISC has committed over $6.6 billion in targeted infrastructure funding until 2027‑28 under the investing in Canada plan, or IICP. As of December 31, 2021, ISC had invested $3.92 billion to this end. These investments represent 59% of the ISC commitment under the IICP and 5,271 projects.

Infrastructure investments under the plan help address first nations' needs. Funding delivered by ISC under the investing in Canada plan represents only a portion of ISC's overall targeted infrastructure funding of over $17 billion since 2016.

Projects and investments under the investing in Canada plan are part of this larger picture, which has invested towards 7,000 projects, of which over 4,400 are complete. This includes housing; health-related infrastructure; foundational infrastructure, such as like roads and bridges; broadband connectivity; cultural and recreational facilities on reserves; and of course, as we talked about earlier this week, water and waste-water infrastructure. Improvements are being made in communities across the country.

I'll quickly go over the three main actions identified in the management action plan that was submitted by Infrastructure Canada and how we have contributed to those actions. We agree with the findings and recommendations of the Auditor General that steps needed to be taken to improve the monitoring, the tracking and the reporting.

The first action relates to reviewing measures for progress on the plan's outcomes and objectives. We're working with other departments to support that horizontal initiative that links our priorities and our results frameworks while still meeting the priorities and objectives of the investing in Canada plan. Overall, investments in infrastructure will help bridge the infrastructure gap that exists between first nations and the rest of Canada and, hopefully, have a positive impact on all members of the community.

The second action concerns legacy programs. To offer a bit of background and context in terms of ISC, the funding under the IICP includes approximately $14.6 billion over 12 years in legacy funding. This funding for programs is not really specific to specific projects. It's very much used as an A-base for infrastructure. The funds are distributed to communities so that they can do minor capital, O and M, and salary stuff. Therefore, we felt that, at the community level, paying things like utility bills and other types of initiatives was very complex to report on.

We've committed to providing program-level reporting on legacy programs, but the department doesn't really want to increase the reporting burden on first nations unnecessarily.

The third and final action identified in the management action plan concerns improving public reporting so that is consistent, comprehensive and easy to understand.

ISC currently reports project-level data on all investments. We have updated our project map to increase the transparency of our approach.

We also made sure that reporting requirements, methodology and program delivery reflect the evolving relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations. We are really committed and fully invested in this work.

I will be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We'll now begin with our first round of questions.

I will turn now to Mr. Scheer, who's joining us virtually.

Mr. Scheer, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for their opening comments and for being available to the committee.

I want to ask Ms. Gillis a question about the recommendation in the Auditor General's report that better monitoring and tracking would be implemented for project delays. At the time the report from the Auditor General was presented, it was highlighted that there were significant delays across the program delivery and that there was no tracking of the effects of those delays.

I want to know if the department counts how long it takes for a project to be approved from the time it hits the minister's desk. Does the department capture that data? When the clock starts ticking, once the municipal and provincial levels have approved a project and submitted it to the government, does the department track how long it takes for a decision to be made on those applications?

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

I will speak to Infrastructure Canada's delivery of programs and project service standards.

As mentioned previously, within the overall investing in Canada plan, there are 21 departments and 90 different programs. Infrastructure Canada is responsible for executing and delivering on a subset. Therefore, I'll talk about our service standards.

In one of the main programs, the investing in Canada infrastructure program, a $33-billion program that has integrated bilateral agreements with each province and territory, we do track, from the time we receive the information, each stage of where it is at, whether it's being reviewed for completeness, whether it's been returned to the province for further information, whether it is going through a due diligence or whether it is being reviewed for a recommendation. That information is available on our website. You can see, by project, what is with us at every stage until a decision is made, so yes, we do track it.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

How long has the department been providing that kind of tracking service? Is that since the Auditor General's report or does that predate the Auditor General's report?

[Kelly Gillis]

That predated the Auditor General's report.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

In terms of tracking the effects of delays, what's the progress been for the department to start to include measures to capture that impact?

[Kelly Gillis]

One of the key elements of what the Auditor General talked about is the flow of funds and the profiles.

On our website at this juncture, within the horizontal initiatives table that I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have different sections that are easier to find. There is a table specifically that talks about the flow of funds and the overall tracking of the cumulative reimbursements, as well as the expected reimbursements for this year.

Now we have a tool where we can track specifically how the funds are planned to be spent, as well as what is actually happening. You can see that particular table there now, which is very easy to find. It's right on our website.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thank you very much.

I have a question for the representative from CMHC.

I believe you mentioned in your opening comments that CMHC manages approximately $32 billion in funds. Am I correct in that number?

[Romy Bowers]

Yes, that is correct.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Does that funding to CMHC come from the consolidated revenue fund?

[Romy Bowers]

Yes, it does.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

In terms of allocating funding for housing projects from CMHC, what is the ratio between funding that's delivered from the consolidated revenue fund from the government versus funds that you collect from mortgage holders who are paying CMHC premiums?

[Romy Bowers]

In the context of the discussion that we're having today, everything refers to the government programs, not to our commercial operation.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thanks very much.

I have a quick question for Ms. Fox.

You mentioned that some of the legacy program funding was being used to pay for things like utility bills. That left me with the impression that a program that was designed to build infrastructure is being used to perhaps pay ongoing operating costs.

Is that the case with some of the legacy program funding?

[Christiane Fox]

Thank you very much for the question.

There is $17 billion in the department's infrastructure funding that goes directly to capital projects. The legacy funding, which is over 12 years, is at $14 billion. It's part of our A-base. It is used for minor capital, and it is also used for maintaining existing capital and other O and M requirements for our communities.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Were those original legacy programs designed to allow for funding for...?

When people think of infrastructure projects they think of infrastructure funding. I certainly didn't expect that funding intended to be used to upgrade facilities—to improve access to clean water or waste water—would be used to pay for things like utility bills or operating costs.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Pardon me, Ms. Fox, would you just move your microphone up a little bit? That looks better.

Thank you. Please proceed. You have 30 seconds remaining.

[Christiane Fox]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

When we look at infrastructure, it's important that the department factors in not just the builds themselves, because it's important the ongoing monitoring, whether it's water, housing, education or health, does have the appropriate levels of funding in order for those infrastructure capital investments to be maintained over time. They really are used to support community-level investments, and it is part of the funding profile to ensure both capital as well as O and M.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm afraid that's the time.

Mr. Scheer, you have time for a 10-second comment, but not a reply.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

In the interest of the committee's time, I'll cede my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Turning now to Mr. Dong, you have the floor for six minutes, please.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming today.

My questions will start with Deputy Minister Gillis.

Can you tell the committee approximately how much additional funding has been allocated to the investing in Canada plan since the last time you appeared at the committee? What is the total for the IICP?

[Kelly Gillis]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair.

There has been no additional money allocated to the plan. The plan has remained overall at $188 billion, and that is what we're tracking for the investing in Canada plan. There has been, in a number of departments, investments in infrastructure post the plan, post-budget 2017, that are not included as part of the investing in Canada plan that was originally created in budget 2016.

Examples of projects or programs that are new within Infrastructure Canada would be, for example, our zero-emission bus program, which is $2.75 billion, or our natural infrastructure program of $200 million. As my colleague Christiane Fox also mentioned, in Indigenous Services Canada there have been new investments in infrastructure overall, but that is not part of the investing in Canada plan.

[Han Dong, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Thank you. Can you tell us how this infrastructure initiative compares to other countries' infrastructure action plans, especially now, during the economic recovery, when a lot of people are paying attention to infrastructure projects?