Transport Committee on Nov. 8th, 2018

[Yves Giroux]

I think there are probably two things the government wants to accomplish. It's saying that it wants to stimulate the economy and have long-term growth, but at the same time it also wants to help municipalities and provinces fund infrastructure programs. I'm not sure it's doing both very well, to be honest. We can do good projects and fund good projects. We can also relieve some of the pressure on provinces and municipalities, but trying to do both at the same time is a bit difficult.

Right now the government seems to be focused on its message that it's stimulating growth and providing good infrastructure for future growth. We're seeing that it's probably doing that, but it's also relieving some of the pressure on provinces and municipalities, and we see that from the lack of incrementality. In my opinion, the government should probably be honest in saying that it wants to relieve some of the pressure on municipalities and provinces, and not just be stimulating the economy.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Because it's doing both.

[Yves Giroux]

Yes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have Mr. Jeneroux for five minutes.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Do you have a breakdown of the status of projects? Which ones have shovels in the ground, which ones are complete, and which ones have construction yet to begin on?

[Diarra Sourang, Financial Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer]

Actually, Infrastructure Canada has put that information on its website. You have access to the projects that are ongoing and are being funded, and the status with regard to what funding has to be distributed to them.

[Matt Jeneroux]

It's all over the place on the website, as I'm sure you know.

You're nodding, Mr. Giroux.

Did you do something comprehensive with that? Do you have something you could submit to us that is better than that?

[Diarra Sourang]

At the moment, we don't, but it is something we could look into.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Wonderful. Thank you.

Do you know which provinces are holding up their commitments and why? I know we hear a lot from Alberta. They're holding up their commitments, or they haven't been spending a lot of the infrastructure money. I'm curious whether you have done an assessment as to why.

[Diarra Sourang]

Actually, since the investing in Canada plan started, spending delays are mostly attributable to four provinces: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Wonderful.

It's interesting the governments that are in place in those provinces.

Lastly, on the process around accessing the money, again, it's a bit of a complicated process. Perhaps you wouldn't mind, Mr. Giroux or Ms. Sourang, providing how provinces and municipalities go about getting this money, and what you've learned in the process of doing that report.

[Yves Giroux]

That may be better answered by Infrastructure Canada, as you'd probably get a more accurate answer from them because of the multiplicity of programs, each with its own terms and conditions. I know, generally speaking, how it works, but I'm sure if I give an answer, somebody will be back to say it's inaccurate because this or that program has different terms and conditions.

[Matt Jeneroux]

I certainly wouldn't say that, Mr. Giroux.

[Yves Giroux]

Thank you.

[Matt Jeneroux]

I do think it's important in the overall process of accessing the funds, because a lot of the delays are being looked at in the municipalities and provinces. However, you speak with a number of the mayors there and they say, “I just don't fit in to one of these areas. I don't know how to access these areas.” So I think, when speaking about the delays, it's part of that larger conversation as to where the municipalities and provinces fit and how they know about accessing that money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any response?

[Yves Giroux]

Somebody said it's all over the place, and when you look at the infrastructure programs, there are so many that one can easily get the impression that they're all over the place. There's a program for virtually everything. Looking at the database of projects being funded, there is a radio communication system for public transit or a bus system. Is that really an infrastructure program? There are lots of projects that get funded. Bus shelters, for example, for a public transit system are indeed infrastructure, but is that really what Canadians have in mind when they think about infrastructure spending? I'm not sure.

There are a lot of programs, and lots of projects qualify. It's very difficult to have one clear answer to that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We move on to Ms. Sansoucy for three minutes.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

In our study, we referred to sustainable infrastructure. In my riding, Les Carrières de Saint-Dominique, which is much more than just a quarry, has significant environmental concerns. It spends a lot on research and development and works mainly with researchers at the École de technologie supérieure.

The General Manager, Claude Dupuis, was telling me that researchers have developed new products to build more sustainable roads. For example, a road built at a cost of $5 million to last 10 years could be built for $6 million and last 20 years.

Having worked at the municipal level, I know that the lowest bidder is awarded the contract because of the criteria. Sustainable infrastructure projects that cost a little more are rejected because of the criteria.

With respect to the budget, do you think that it would be a good idea for the federal government to establish sustainability criteria? Sustainable infrastructure can cost more in the short term, but in the medium to long term, it is more affordable. I think it is a good idea, but I would like to know what you think.

[Yves Giroux]

It is not just a good idea, it is key. There should be a cost-benefit analysis for every project.

When we ask people about their objectives and performance measurement strategies, we do not get many answers. A great deal of weight is given to the financing criteria and funds disbursement, but there seem to be significant gaps when it comes to measuring the objectives to be attained.

Objectives must be established when choosing the projects to be financed, but there does not seem to be evidence or data collected to establish which objectives were attained, if there were any. If that were the case, there would be greater uptake of the most viable and best projects.

In your example, this would ensure funding for projects that, at first glance, are a little more expensive but are more cost effective.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

May I ask one last question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Be very quick.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I would like to know how we can help you do an even better job.

It was reported that 50% of the funds was spent by March, and 95% by August. However, in my opinion, 45% of the funds were not spent between March and August.

How can we ensure that you have the tools you need to help you give parliamentarians a true sense of the situation in real time?

[Yves Giroux]

We have a good relationship with the people at Infrastructure Canada. I believe that the department does everything it can to help us.

Some other departments are responsible for smaller projects, in keeping with their total budget, and for which there may be less interest. However, I believe that the people at Infrastructure Canada do a good job of providing the information they have available.

What needs to be improved is the establishment of clear objectives and performance measurement strategies. Do they have an idea of what they want to achieve by investing $500 million, $800 million or $3 million in a project? What is the final objective. Few people think about this or, at least, few people report it.

When a municipality or province wants to invest $500 million in a project, it certainly has an objective, but there is no clear accountability.

Sorry, Madam Chair.