Environment committee  We do. As part of the model, we did have that information. As Mr. Giroux mentioned, we used Statistics Canada's input-output tables, as well as their surveys of household consumption. They allow us to see what households are consuming and see the implicit fuel embedded in each of those items that they're consuming, and then, in turn, to add on the additional carbon levy on top of that.

Environment committee  I think the short answer to your question is no. While our model does take into account the detailed information that's been collected by the government around large industrial emitters and intensive users, we didn't specifically look at things on a sector-by-sector basis. The motivation was primarily to look at things in a geographic basis and focus on the actual impact on households.

Finance committee  The total transfer is $40.4 billion.

Finance committee  It's $56.2 billion.

Finance committee  In terms of what the government actually originally tabled as part of budget 2016 versus our most recent report around the economic impacts, it's roughly about half, but that half is primarily attributable to the fact that there were delays in actually getting the program out the door, initial delays in negotiating the agreement with the provinces and the municipalities and then further delays in cutting the cheques to get the projects approved.

Finance committee  That's an accurate description. I think the key finding in our report is that you do see a bit of a boost, but the boost that the government said we were going to get out of it, in terms of the matching of one dollar of federal spending by three dollars from other levels of government is certainly not borne out by the data.

Finance committee  With respect to the specific elements that we looked at, it contained the entire envelope of federal spending, the roughly $180 billion. To your point, broadband is of course a part of that overall envelope. To the extent to which you mentioned that there are significant investments occurring, one of the key findings of our report, both in the case of the territories and of the provinces, is the fact that there is money being spent and new infrastructure being built.

Government Operations committee  That was for budget 2018. We did embark on a pilot project to actually run through the entire budget, all 155 measures, and identify those we thought would require a costing, or could be subject to a PBO costing. Of those, we identified 19. Of those 19, we were able to do 11 within a relatively short period of time.

Government Operations committee  I think up to this point, based on the data that the Government of Canada has published on the TBS website, we haven't seen a significant improvement just in terms of the dollars that have been approved. What we are looking forward to, of course, is the next supplementary estimates, where we can actually do a year-over-year comparison, a comparison looking back to budget 2016: In the fall of budget 2016, how many new items were actually approved at that point, and similarly with respect to budget 2017.

Transport committee  We do have aggregate totals, but in terms of being able to break that down across the categories of the funding sources.... Thinking of the $187 billion plan as part of the pre-2016 programs—

Transport committee  In terms of revisions to the forecast around infrastructure money, based upon the experience from 2002 up to today, one would anticipate that it's probably the easiest bet in town that there will be future lapses in infrastructure money. At the same time, based upon our own analysis of direct program expenses and the operating line, we do have the view that most of the compression with respect to operating expenses over the next five years will have to do with the valuation around changing interest rates, and the changing valuation around employee pension benefits and other related benefits.

Transport committee  Right. But keep in mind, of course, it is a forecast, and forecasts are inevitably wrong.

Transport committee  Again, as part of our testimony to the Senate national finance committee, and actually to this committee as well last year, we noted the need to match up the dollars with results. That's something the government did very cleanly and clearly as part of budget 2016, which is part of the motivation around actually tracking the economic stimulus impacts.

Transport committee  Again, for us, and looking at this report in particular, phase one was focused around short-term economic stimulus while phase two was focused on the longer term productivity impacts. As part of phase two, as more details are provided and agreements are signed with provincial governments, it's certainly something that we're going to be looking at.

Transport committee  In terms of the information requests?