Formative Evaluation of the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) and the Border Infrastructure Fund (BIF) - Final Evaluation Report

PDF Version (Size: 322.75 KB) (411 Kb)

Help on accessing alternative formats, such as PDF, PPT and ZIP files, can be obtained in the alternate format help section.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

This evaluation uses multiple lines of evidence to collect data and assess evaluation issues from a variety of perspectives. No single evaluation module addresses the same issues with the same amount of depth, or breadth. This report summarizes the findings and key messages through the execution of four evaluation methodologies and presents our conclusions and recommendations.

The Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund and Border Infrastructure Fund programs are well-run and are effective in identifying and implementing large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects consistent with the objectives of the programs and the priorities of the Federal Government, Provincial/Territorial Governments and Municipal Governments.

The methodologies that were used for this evaluation are:

  1. A review of documentation, files and other literature;
  2. A series of interviews with Program and Federal Officials, as well as other non-Federal Stakeholders and program proponents (recipients);
  3. A web-based questionnaire targeting proponents; and
  4. A set of case studies (a total of 21) completed for select projects.

The overall message about Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) and Border Infrastructure Fund (BIF) is that the programs are well-run and are effective in identifying and implementing large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects consistent with the objectives of the programs and the priorities of the Federal Government, Provincial/Territorial Governments and Municipal Governments (F/P/T/M).

Although the majority of the findings were positive in nature, and portrayed CSIF/BIF as well-designed and well-managed programs, there are a number of issues that if improved, would ensure even greater program efficiency, with respect to design, delivery and success.

Regarding design, it was found that CSIF/BIF enables proponents to identify and implement large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects consistent with the objectives of the programs and the priorities of F/P/T/M governments that would otherwise not be able to be completed.

The flexibility of the program means that many projects from a broad range of categories can be partially funded through contributions from this program. Many interviewees seem to favour the flexibility of contribution agreements as well. It is agreed that flexibility in the contribution agreements ensures that certain projects are funded at different percentages depending on the attributes of the project.

The contribution, under CSIF from the Government of Canada was set to a maximum of 50 per cent of total eligible costs (75% in the North). A broad range of partnerships have been formed to fulfill regional priorities.

As there are vast differences in the populations of Canada's provinces and territories, Infrastructure Canada (INFC) established a threshold formula appropriate for the specific province or territory for defining "large-scale" projects in that province or territory. This ensures that funded projects are large-scale and strategic within the context of the province or territory in which they are located.

In all cases the thresholds were respected. Sometimes a number of projects were bundled together to ensure the threshold was met, but this was well within the terms and conditions of the program. Although this bundling worked well, a more efficient manner of getting projects announced and approved might be by reducing the project threshold value.

There is concern, in some cases, about the time required after a project announcement by the Minister in order to prepare a submission to Treasury Board (TB) and secure approval for the project by TB. Additional time is required following TB approval for the negotiation and the signing of a contribution agreement. Generally, proponents start work after the announcement, and cash management is done until the signing of the contribution agreement. Occasionally, since the federal contribution is a fixed nominal amount, when costs have increased this has created pressures on the federal government to increase its fixed contribution. Sometimes, this has created difficult communications issues.

The contribution agreements for projects are not standardized. During the early stages of the program in 2003, there was a draft standard contribution agreement that was developed by INFC staff. Since the model contribution agreement was marked "draft" INFC officials, officials from potential Federal delivery partners, and recipients viewed this draft model agreement only as an example of an agreement, permitting the negotiation of provisions that were different from agreement to agreement.

Based on the review of contribution agreements and discussions with program stakeholders, there is not a final version of a standard template for contribution agreements. Different provisions with respect to holdbacks, performance measures, reporting requirements, audit reports, and costs that are eligible at the time of announcement lack clarity.

Regarding delivery, evidence indicates that there is solid cooperation between different levels of government and other stakeholders. In addition to the funding from the CSIF/BIF programs, project funding sources included Provincial or Municipal governments, private sector companies, not-for-profit organizations or donations from Canadians. Effective maintenance of the relationships between funding sources was evident in each of the cases examined (through a review of meeting minutes and interviews with proponents and others), which has played a role in the success of the projects.

The due diligence reports (business cases, cost-benefit analyses, environmental assessments, other Federal, Provincial and Municipal approvals, etc.) are completed in a timely manner. There was no indication that projects that have been announced did not have the proper documentation, or that announced projects have not completed the necessary environmental assessments required. There have been some complaints regarding the time required to complete environmental assessments in accordance with Federal Government legislation and regulations; however, the requirement to complete these environmental assessments is well-recognized and accepted.

It seems that relatively high turnover of staff who manage CSIF/BIF within INFC have made managing and monitoring of the program somewhat challenging recently. Recently, there has been little continuity with staff, and thus when new staff replace experienced staff a great deal of time is spent in becoming familiar with the project for which they are responsible.

Other difficulties associated with the relatively high turnover include: FDPs having to go beyond their responsibilities as laid out in the Memorandums of Understanding (MOU); uncertainty on the parts of proponents about who to see when there is a question or concern; and a lack of continuous INFC representation on some Agreement Management Committees (AMC).

Additionally, it has been found that the Shared Information Management System for Infrastructure (SIMSI) has the potential to be a useful tool in ensuring increased efficiency for the management of CSIF/BIF and other INFC programs. The issue is that SIMSI is not regularly updated, nor do individuals seem to know how to use it. This relates to the high turnover experienced by program staff in INFC, and the time pressures on new program staff to make progress with preparing a TB submission and contribution agreement for announced projects. It seems as individuals are replaced, the knowledge of SIMSI does not follow, and thus the System is not utilized. We are not aware of any management control systems in place to ensure that SIMSI is being utilized.

Regarding program success, there are a small number of projects that are fully completed, with a retrospective analysis report and final claims paid out. The result of this is that, from a qualitative standpoint, those projects that are completed have shown to have met immediate outcomes, such as those associated with reduced congestion at the site of the Peace Bridge project, or the clarity of the water in Halifax Harbour as a result of the Halifax Wastewater Cleanup project.

There likely will be a challenge for measuring ultimate outcomes down the road. It can take many years to have enough data show a change for those outcomes that specifically relate to reduced GHG emissions or other climate change objectives.

Additionally, with respect to the roles and responsibilities for long-term data collection for measuring outcomes, it was found that contribution agreements have not clearly laid out roles and responsibilities with respect to the measurement of longer term outcomes. There are no clauses that suggest any individual or group is responsible, following completion of the agreement, for reporting on the environmental outcomes that can take decades before data is available; therefore, if the situation was left unchanged, it is unlikely that there would be data to report on long-term environmental outcomes of CSIF/BIF projects.

Finally, with regard to cost-effectiveness, the case studies conducted as part of this report demonstrate that CSIF and BIF projects announced and underway are linked to the priorities of the F/P/T/M governments in terms of economic, social, and environmental benefits. Further to this, private sector contributions to several of these initiatives show that from a private sector perspective, investments in these projects is expected to produce valuable positive benefits. The private-public partnerships (P3s) considered during this study were found to be working well, and delivering valuable projects in a timely and cost-effective manner.

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Methodologies

This evaluation uses multiple lines of evidence to collect data and assess evaluation issues from a variety of perspectives. No single evaluation module addresses the same issues with the same amount of depth, or breadth. This report summarizes the findings and key messages through the execution of four evaluation methodologies and presents our conclusions and recommendations.

The methodologies that were used for this evaluation are:

  1. A review of documentation, files and other literature;
  2. A series of interviews with Program and Federal Officials, as well as other non-Federal Stakeholders and program proponents (recipients);
  3. A web-based questionnaire targeting proponents; and
  4. A set of case studies (a total of 21) completed for select projects.

Documentation review permits information to be collected on a wide range of evaluation issues. Key documentation, files, websites, and literature relevant to the CSIF/BIF program were reviewed. The type and amount of documents on file with respect to CSIF/BIF projects appears to be adequate given the amount of money expended. Information ascertained through the review of key documents provides some initial findings to be assessed and reviewed in the other evaluation modules.

Interviews were arranged and conducted in clusters. The groups of individuals interviewed were INFC Program Managers and Staff, Project Managers and other representatives of Federal Delivery Partners (FDPs), and a select number of proponents or other non-Federal stakeholders of the programs.

The interviewees at INFC (a total of 16) were comprised of Directors General and Program Managers representing each of the regions for CSIF programming, as well as a limited number of the Analysts in these groups as well. These individuals were able to provide a solid overview of CSIF and also enabled us to focus on a set of issues to further explore through other methodologies. One representative of Western Canada was interviewed as part of this process; whereas for other regions a minimum of two interviews were conducted. This was due to a lack of availability, or conflicting schedules during the summer months. The interviewees representing FDPs (a total of 38) were generally the ADM or VP of the FDP as well as other Director-level individuals responsible for the programs; sometimes a Director or Manager of Finance was also interviewed, or present for the interview. The non-Federal interviewees (a total of 17) were selected from a list provided through the SIMSI database, and from suggestions made by INFC and FDP officials. The selection was not random as individuals were selected based on available lists and suggestions from FDPs. In addition, interviews were conducted with individuals who answered open-ended questions in the survey module of this evaluation. This follow-up by telephone allowed these individuals to provide more in depth commentary and detailed information than was possible in the survey data collection format.

The administration of a survey permitted the gathering of opinions with respect to various projects funded under CSIF/BIF from the proponents and other non-federal stakeholders. This information provided insights into the issues that affect project managers, and provided an additional basis from which to pursue issues through the interview process with non-federal stakeholders.

The survey was fielded to 105 individuals from July 17, 2008 until October 1, 2008. This population represented proponents, project managers, and/or those individuals closely associated with the project manager and having knowledge regarding the project and its implementation. A total of 32 responses were received. However in a number of cases some anticipated survey participants were interviewed by phone instead. Interviews were carried out in lieu of the survey, primarily due to incorrect email addresses, or if the individual was subject to an interview during a case study. A similar set of questions was asked during those interviews.

Case studies allow for an in-depth review of specific investments made through CSIF/BIF. These case studies consisted of a thorough review of documents; a number of interviews with proponents, and/or project managers and others closely involved with the projects; and a site visit in 10 cases.

The projects chosen for case studies were strategically selected. The goal was to select a mix of cases with projects from across Canada and from the full range of areas of eligibility. Flexibility in selecting specific cases was necessary in order to meet the timeframes for this study, since most data collection and fieldwork was carried out in July, August and September. A good mix of projects was covered through the case studies process.

2.0 Key Messages

2.1 Overall

The general overall message about CSIF/BIF is that the programs are well-run and are effective in identifying and implementing large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects consistent with the objectives of the programs and the priorities of the F/P/T/M governments.

Although the majority of the findings were positive in nature, and portrayed CSIF/BIF as well-designed and well-managed programs, there are a number of issues that if improved, would ensure even greater program efficiency, with respect to design, delivery and success.

2.2 Design: Is the CSIF/BIF program well-designed?

The CSIF/BIF program was designed to be efficient and effective, according to the various lines of evidence utilized through the course of this evaluation. In total, there are five key findings as they relate to the design of these programs:

2.2.1 CSIF/BIF Strategically Focuses on Large-Scale Infrastructure

The program enables proponents to identify and implement large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects consistent with the objectives of the programs and the priorities of F/P/T/M governments that would otherwise not be able to be completed in a timely manner.

Projects would either not have been undertaken for many years, or may not have been undertaken at all, in every case that was studied through case studies, and for each project where an individual was interviewed. In many cases these projects were on various municipal and provincial planning documents for a number of years and it was the CSIF/BIF funding that ultimately enabled the projects to be undertaken when they were.

2.2.2 Good Program Flexibility

The flexibility of the programs means that many projects from a broad range of categories can be partially funded through these programs. Additionally, many interviewees seem to favour the flexibility of the contribution agreements as well. It is agreed that flexibility in the contribution agreements ensures that certain projects are funded at different percentages depending on the attributes of the project.

Another key aspect of these programs' flexibility is that they permit construction to start at the time of project announcement, but prior to formal approval by TB. Since costs become eligible at the time of announcement it enables proponents to begin work immediately rather than waiting for a formal approval (sometimes this takes as long as three years) and, following TB approval, signing of a contribution agreement. In doing so, proponents can get work started, and therefore, completed sooner. Claims can then be submitted after TB approval and the signing of a formal contribution agreement.

2.2.3 Good Investment Criteria Eligibility Categories

The contribution, under CSIF from the Government of Canada was set to a maximum of 50 per cent of total eligible costs (75% in the North). A broad range of partnerships have been formed to fulfill regional priorities.

As there are vast differences in the populations of Canada's provinces and territories, INFC established a threshold formula for defining "large-scale" projects. This ensures that funded projects are large-scale and strategic within the context of the province or territory in which they are located.

  • In Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nunavut, Yukon and the Northwest Territories where populations are under 750,000, total eligible project costs must be at least $10 million.
  • In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Saskaewan and Manitoba where populations range between 750,000 and 1.5 million, the threshold is at least $25 million.
  • In Québec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia where populations are over 1.5 million, the threshold is at least $75 million of total costs.
  • In all cases the thresholds were respected. Sometimes a number of smaller projects were bundled together to ensure the threshold was met, but this was well within the terms and conditions of the program. Although this bundling worked well, a more efficient manner of getting projects announced and approved might be by reducing the project threshold value.

2.2.4 Considerable Time Between Project Announcement and TB Approval

There is concern about the time required after a project announcement by the Minister in order to prepare a submission to TB and secure approval for the project by TB. Additional time is required following TB approval for the negotiation and the signing of a contribution agreement. A number of additional legitimate factors may require additional time such as changes to the parties negotiating following an election, or the complexity of some of these agreements. Generally, proponents start work after the announcement, and cash management is done until the signing of the contribution agreement. Occasionally, since the federal contribution is a fixed nominal amount, when costs have increased this has created pressures on the federal government to increase its fixed contribution. Sometimes this has created difficult communications issues.

In some cases three years pass between announcement and contribution agreement signing. Table 1 provides a sample of projects with the dates of announcement and dates of the final contribution agreement. The average length of time between announcement and a signed contribution agreement for these selected projects is 16.5 months, and the median is 15 months. A bolded number indicates a period of time of at least one year between announcement and a signed contribution agreement.

Table 1: Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund/Border Infrastructure Fund Projects: Date of Announcement and Contribution Agreement
Project Date of Announcement Date of Contribution Agreement Months Between Announcement and Contribution Agreement
Kicking Horse Canyon March 5, 2003 March 6, 2006 36
Toronto Transit Commission >March 30, 2004 >February 2007 >35
Broadband Services for communities of Nunavut >August 9, 2002 >April 28, 2005 >33
Improvements to Highway 39 approaching the North Portal >March 5, 2003 >April 12, 2005 >25
Northwest Stoney Trail Ring Road in Calgary >May 9, 2003 >May 5, 2005 >24
Waterfront development in the communities of Whitehorse and Carcross >January 13, 2005 >December 11, 2006 >23
Improvements to Three Highway Corridors in Northwest Territories August 9, 2002 March 18, 2004 19
Kingston Ravensview Water Pollution Control Plant Project July 11, 2003 January 13, 2005 18
Improvements of Alaska Highway and rehabilitation of seven bridges along the route October 3, 2003 March 8, 2005 17
Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre December 4, 2002 March 25, 2004 16
Lower Mainland Border Crossings March 5, 2003 May 26, 2004 15
Improvements to Five Highway Corridors in Northwest Territories October 4, 2003 January 18, 2005 15
Social Housing in Nunavut October 8, 2003 January 20, 2005 15
Multi-Purpose Facility at Regina Exhibition Park October 3, 2003 December 17, 2004 15
Expansion of existing water distribution and sewage collection systems in the Town of Stratford, PEI February 21, 2003 March 23, 2004 13
Phase 1 of the extension of Autoroute 30 south of Montreal March 6, 2003 March 31, 2004 13
Phase 2 of the St. John's Harbour Clean-Up February 21, 2003 March 25, 2004 13
Improvement to the GO Transit Rail and Bus Transit System in the GTA March 26, 2003 May 4, 2004 13
York Transit March 26, 2003 March 9, 2004 11
Twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway, Route 1 and the TCH Yellowhead, Route 16, in Saskaewan March 5, 2003 Feb 10, 2004 11
Opera House in Downtown Toronto August 9, 2002 June 17, 2003 10
Kenaston Underpass May 11, 2004 March 17, 2005 10
Twinning of Trans Canada Highway August 9, 2002 April 26, 2003 9
Expansion of Manitoba Red River Floodway April 3, 2003 November 28, 2003 8
Broadband services between Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Gaspésie September 3, 2004 April 2005 7
Regina's Wascana Lake Enhancement Project October 3, 2003 March 31, 2004 6

2.2.5 Lack of a Final Model Contribution Agreement

The contribution agreements for projects do not have a standard model from which to initiate negotiation, based on the review of contribution agreements and discussions with program stakeholders. Based on interviews conducted, it is reasonable to consider that in some projects, negotiations may have required additional time to be carried out since there was no model agreement to use as a starting point for the negotiations. During the early stages of the program in 2003, there was a draft standard contribution agreement that was developed by INFC legal services and program staff. Over time, the draft model agreement was modified. According to one interviewee, for part of the period covered during this evaluation, but not all of the period, an individual was named as the internal expert for matters concerning the draft model agreement; however, according to this interviewee, that individual was not always consulted when alternative clauses were considered or negotiated (that is alternative clauses or provisions compared with the draft model agreement) and that individual did not have approval authority with regard to the negotiations of specific agreements for specific projects. The draft agreement was modified from time to time, but remained a "draft." Since the model contribution agreement was marked "draft," INFC officials, officials from potential Federal delivery partners, and recipients viewed this draft model agreement only as an example of an agreement, permitting the negotiation of provisions that were different from agreement to agreement. According to an interviewee, in some cases examined, INFC's draft model agreement may have been used as an internal INFC reference document rather than one which was provided to the recipient or tabled during the negotiation of the agreement.

Different provisions with respect to holdbacks, performance measures, reporting requirements, audit reports, and costs that are eligible at the time of announcement lack clarity, as a result. Each project has unique features and may be subject to unique terms and conditions since each project does require a separate Treasury Board Submission that is tailored to the specifics of that project. Although there may have been good reasons for these differences from one contribution agreement to another, there was no documentation regarding the rationales for these differences provided to the evaluation team.

Specific key aspects can vary across contribution agreements (since each project is subject to its own TB approval) with respect to the following:

  • Some contribution agreements require a holdback of funds (usually 10%) until project closure reports are received, but other contribution agreements do not stipulate such a holdback. It is a normal procedure for INFC to holdback a payment if annual reports are not submitted on time; however, sometimes the proponent has started work after the announcement, but prior to the signed contribution agreement. This may indicate that the proponent started work early to avoid escalating construction costs, and has expended money that cannot be claimed until the reporting requirements are met. The proponents must then bear that cost of interest.
  • The timeline for annual report expectations varies considerably (sometimes by as many as 60 days).

2.3 Delivery: Is the CSIF/BIF program managed and delivered effectively?

The implementation and management of CSIF/BIF has generally been done well; however, like with the design of these programs, there are a number of issues that can ensure a smoother administration of these programs. In total there are three findings as they relate to program delivery:

2.3.1 Good Collaboration/Cooperation Across Governments

Partnerships with other levels of government are essential for these projects to be selected and implemented. Other levels of government, and in some cases, other project partners all make significant contributions to permit implementation of projects and participate on project governance committees to oversee implementation.

Evidence indicates that there is solid cooperation between different levels of government and other stakeholders. In addition to the funding from the CSIF/BIF programs, project funding sources included Provincial or Municipal governments, private sector companies, or donations from Canadians. Effective maintenance of the relationships between funding sources was evident in each of the cases examined (through a review of meeting minutes and interviews with proponents and others), which has played a role in the success of the projects.

Generally, individuals have indicated that program administrators with the FDPs as well as in the Provinces, Municipalities and within INFC have been as helpful as possible in addressing their concerns about these programs and their specific projects.

2.3.2 Due Diligence is Completed in a Timely Manner

The due diligence reports (business cases, cost-benefit analyses, environmental assessments, other F/P/T/M approvals, etc.) are completed in a timely manner. There has not been any indication that projects that have been announced did not have the proper documentation, or that announced projects have not completed the necessary environmental assessments as required.

There have been some complaints regarding the time required to complete environmental assessments in accordance with Federal Government legislation and regulations; however, the requirement to complete these environmental assessments is well-recognized and accepted.

Additionally, when contribution agreements are in place proponents are submitting annual reports and financial audit reports per their respective agreements, and FDPs are processing claims in a timely manner, or withholding payments when necessary. Any issues that arise are generally discussed and resolved at meetings of the AMCs.

2.3.3 Weak Knowledge Transfer Within Infrastructure Canada

Good 'knowledge management' practices have a high expected value due to the staff turnover that has been experienced recently and which may continue in the future. INFC, like many public and private sector organizations, is competing for knowledgeable professional staff in a very competitive environment. The professional approach that has been taken to administering these contribution programs produces staff that are very knowledgeable about federal transfer payment programs and contribution programs. These staff members are gaining valuable experience in working smoothly with other levels of government and private sector participants. INFC employees with these skills can be expected to be highly sought by other public and private sector organizations with similar needs.

It seems that high turnover of staff who manage CSIF/BIF within INFC has made managing and monitoring of the program somewhat challenging recently. There was little continuity with staff, and thus when new staff replaced experienced INFC staff a great deal of time was spent in becoming familiar with the project for which they are responsible. Also, it does not appear that contemporary collaboration, or knowledge transfer tools are being used to manage projects.

Other difficulties associated with the relatively high turnover include:

  • FDPs having to go beyond their responsibilities as laid out in the MOUs;
  • uncertainty on the parts of proponents about who to see when there is a question or concern; and,
  • a lack of continuous INFC representation on some AMCs

Knowledge management practices which would remedy some of these issues were discussed by interviewees and included:

  • using a team approach for larger projects, expected to take several years to implement, in order to provide a back up person knowledgeable about that project;
  • having a model contribution agreement which could serve as a starting point or a reference point for all new agreements, and therefore reduce uncertainty as to what is expected to be included in an agreement;
  • having model clauses for holdbacks, audits, annual and final reporting;
  • having a model or guideline for the look and content of annual reports and the final project closure report; and,
  • model performance measurement requirements and expectations.

Also, a standard transition step is to allow for doubling up on a file when a new person is assigned to a file to shadow someone who is departing; this would be another knowledge management practice that may be beneficial for these programs.

Some of these key practices (model file, model agreement, standard clauses, model annual report, and model project closure report) were noted during the interviews with INFC officials as projects underway at Infrastructure Canada for use in the new Building Canada Fund Program. Work on a model file for the Building Canada Fund was the subject of a training session in December 2007. The "BCF Model File Checklist" was approved at Infrastructure's ADM Steering Committee for BCF. BCF is a similar program to CSIF and many aspects of the BCF Model File Checklist could apply to the CSIF program as well. In addition, it was brought to the attention of the CPM Evaluators that a "draft" model contribution agreement template was prepared for the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund and the Border Infrastructure Fund projects. CPM was provided draft templates dated 12 November 2008, April 2007, August 2006; and draft templates for CSIF dated February 9, 2004, and for ICP dated 24 July 2003. These draft templates confirm that the preparation of a model agreement template has been under development for some time and has existed as a "draft" since 2004 within the CSIF program.

Additionally, it has been found that SIMSI has the potential to be a useful tool in ensuring increased efficiency for the management of CSIF/BIF and other INFC programs. The issue is that SIMSI is not regularly updated, nor do individuals seem to know how to use it. This relates to the high turnover experienced by program staff in INFC and the pressure on new staff for the preparation of TB submissions and for the negotiation and putting in place of a contribution agreement for projects that have been announced. It seems as individuals are replaced, the knowledge of SIMSI does not follow, and thus the System is not utilized. We are not aware of any management control systems in place to ensure that SIMSI is being utilized.

2.4 Success / Progress: Does the CSIF/BIF program achieve the intended outputs and early outcomes?

The CSIF/BIF programs, from a qualitative standpoint, have been successful in addressing large-scale, strategic infrastructure priorities across Canada. From a quantitative standpoint the collection of data is still in very early stages as most projects are not yet completed. With regard to success and progress, there are two key points.

2.4.1 Immediate Outcomes Have Been Achieved (in a limited number of cases)

There are a small number of projects that are fully completed, with a retrospective analysis report and final claims paid out. The result of this is that, from a qualitative standpoint, those projects that are completed have shown to have met immediate outcomes, such as those associated with reduced congestion at the site of the Peace Bridge project, or the clarity of the water in Halifax Harbour as a result of the Halifax Wastewater Cleanup project.

Although these immediate outcomes are visible, the projects have not been completed for long enough to be able to document (quantitatively) that those outcomes have been met. This would include numbers such as those related to traffic accidents at the Peace Bridge, and the numbers related to water quality, or marine life in Halifax Harbour.

2.4.2 The Measurement of Long-term Outcomes May Be Challenging

Qualitatively it can be shown that all of the projects funded under CSIF/BIF are filling a need that was a priority to the proponent and/or F/P/T/M government. These projects are expected to have a direct impact on quality of life and sustained economic growth in their respective communities. That explained, there likely will be a challenge for measuring ultimate outcomes down the road. It can take many years to have enough data show a change for those outcomes that specifically relate to reduced GHG emissions or other climate change objectives.

Additionally, with respect to the roles and responsibilities of long-term data collection for measuring outcomes, it was found that contribution agreements have not clearly laid out roles and responsibilities with respect to the measurement of longer term outcomes. There are no clauses that suggest any individual or group is responsible for reporting on the environmental outcomes that can take decades before data is available; therefore, if the situation was left unchanged, it is unlikely that there would be specific data to report on long-term environmental outcomes of CSIF/BIF projects.

Finally, there are issues with respect to linking improved environmental efficiency, quality of life, or sustainable economic growth to the completion of CSIF/BIF projects. The projects funded under CSIF/BIF are good projects that will likely deliver positive results for Canadians; however, there are a number of confounding factors that also play a role in improvements to environmental quality, quality of life or economic growth. As a result, while the CSIF/BIF projects could be very successful, it would still be possible to find that measurements of overall GHG emissions were not reduced, or for an overall measure of water quality to find that wastewater does not necessarily become safe in areas where projects are located. CSIF/BIF cannot be declared successful on these overall measurements alone. This set of projects is only a small part of a large set of factors that contribute to, for example, environmental change, quality of life, or sustainable economic growth.

2.5 Cost-Effectiveness: Is the CSIF/BIF program cost-effective?

There are numerous ways to determine the cost-effectiveness of a project. Cost-effectiveness can be recognized through the market's identification of a profitable future value stream, program/project internal controls, or a comparison of costs to benefits (taking into account an appropriate discount rate).

The case studies conducted as part of this report demonstrate that CSIF and BIF projects announced and underway are linked to the priorities of the Federal, Provincial, and Municipal governments in terms of economic, social, and environmental benefits. Further to this, private sector contributions to several of these initiatives show that both the private and public sectors have identified similar potential overall benefits.

Most of the projects considered have been on the drawing board for some time, as they generally address a longstanding need, concern, or opportunity. In cases where the Provincial, Municipal, or private sector did not individually or collectively possess the funding to initiate the project, in making these infrastructure funds available the Federal government has in fact become the catalyst for implementation. The outcome is that the project's home community and region has gained access to project benefits sooner. In line with this observation, our interviews have verified that each project is very significant for the communities in which they are located, and taken together, for Canada.

The private-public partnerships (P3s) considered during this study were found to be working well, and delivering valuable projects in a timely and cost-effective manner.

2.5.1 Internal Program Controls

Due to the size and significance of these projects, a separate Treasury Board submission is required for each and every project within these programs.

Some interviewees have commented that the requirement for a separate Treasury Board submission for these projects has added rigour not only for the selection of the projects, but for the detailed planning which takes place and facilitates the eventual implementation of these projects.

In addition to Treasury Board review, since projects are funded through a mix of Federal, Provincial, Municipal, and in some cases other not-for-profit or for-profit partners, additional scrutiny is placed on the requirement that all projects provide an expected future stream of value at reasonable cost from the perspective of each funding partner.

The combination of the Treasury Board approval process and shared funding from multiple partners adds additional weight to the anticipated cost-effectiveness of each and every project included in CSIF and BIF projects.

2.5.2 The CPM Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Our cost-effectiveness analysis first required the strategic selection of projects with a goal of evaluating projects from a range of provinces, which would assess each type of infrastructure investment.

Once this selection process was complete we then assessed each project that was selected in terms of costs and future stream of benefits (immediate and intermediate). Where applicable, the final component to our cost-effectiveness analysis included a comparison of selected projects to similar international comparables.

The sections below briefly describe each of the selected projects, source of project funds, future value stream, and where applicable, an international comparison.

Highways and railways

Project name: Alaska Highway Upgrading
Province: Yukon

Project Description for Highways and railways

This project addresses transportation needs that help improve the safety of local residents and tourists. It is directed towards the reconstruction of the section of the Yukon's Alaska Highway between Champagne and Haines Junction, as well as towards bridge improvements on the section between Watson Lake and Whitehorse.

Source of Funding for Highways and railways
Source $M
Government of Canada 15.00
Yukon Territory 16.26
Total costs 31.26
Future Stream of Benefits for Highways and railways

The Alaska Highway is crucial to the Yukon's economic and social structure. And is the most important transportation link between the Yukon and Southern Canada. Specifically,

  • More than 80% of the 315,000 tonnes of goods and supplies destined for the Yukon each year are transported on the Alaska Highway;
  • An additional 80,000 tonnes of freight destined for Alaska each year also use the route;
  • A Visitor Exit Survey conducted recently by the Department of Tourism indicated that about 70% of tourists visiting the Yukon use the Alaska Highway; and
  • More than 85% of the Yukon's population lives in communities along the Alaska Highway.

From an economic standpoint this project is expected to reduce travel time as it lessens disruption to traffic flow, increasing commercial and tourist accessibility to this area. Program benefits also include reduced equipment wear and tear due to the substantial improvements in road quality.

From a social context, an analysis of traffic collisions on the Alaska Highway between 1998 and 2002 indicate that 47 of the 61 incidents reported were strongly related to the width of the highway. A significant reduction in these types of accidents is expected as a direct result of the reconstruction work as the width of the highway will be increased from the current 8.5 metres to 13.0 metres.

Those that use the improved highway would also feel the environmental impact of reduced congestion (following an adjustment period) and reduced fuel consumption. The Alaska Highway Upgrading business case estimated that the reconstruction work would result in fuel savings of over 49 million litres over the next 20 years and reduce carbon monoxide emissions by 37,000 kilograms over the same period.

The net present value (NPV) analysis defined in the project's business case develops the NPV using the following components:

  • User benefits;
  • Construction cost;
  • Salvage Value; and
  • Maintenance increase.

The table below highlights the project's overall NPV analysis using a discount rate of 5% and 10%:

Net present value 5% 10%
Discounted User Benefits $55,223,890 $36,072,482
Discounted Construction Cost (28,096,000) (26,818,909)
Discounted Salvage Value 6,460,000 2,547,797
Discounted Change in Mtce & Rehab 698,993 477,517
Net Present Value 34,286,883 12,278,887
Gross Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.638 1.516
Netted Benefit-Cost Ratio 2.220 1.458
Fuel Consumption Savings (litres) 48,200,000 48,200,000
CO Emission Reduction (kgs) 32,000 32,000

Using a discount rate of 5% and 10%, the NPV analysis above demonstrated a large NPV and substantiates this project as a cost-effective venture.

Summary for Highways and railways

As described above, this project upgrades the crucial transportation linkage between the Yukon and Southern Canada. In the economic context, the Alaska Highway currently provides a route for goods, supplies and freight and 70% of tourists.

The future stream of benefits associated with this project includes an increase to commercial and tourist accessibility to this area. Program benefits also include reduced equipment wear and tear due to the improvements in road quality. Substantial safety and environmental benefits were also described above.

At a total cost of $31.26M, $15.00M of this total sourced federally, this project also demonstrates a positive net present value at both a five and ten percent discount rate, illustrating the cost-effective nature of this project.

Local Transportation

Project name: Edmonton Ring Road
Province: Alberta

Project Description for Local Transportation

The Edmonton Ring Road project contributes to the southeast quadrant of a larger ring road project around the City of Edmonton. The construction includes 4-laning the new road from Highway 216 to the north-south Highway 2 corridor.

Source of Funding for Local Transportation
Source $M
Government of Canada 75.00
Province of Alberta 252.00
Total costs 327.00
Future Stream of Benefits for Local Transportation

From an economic standpoint, following an adjustment period, this project is expected to reduce user travel time and generate fuel cost savings as it decreases disruption to traffic flow. The future ring road is also expected to alleviate traffic congestion on other city arterial roads in the southeast quadrant of Edmonton, such as Whitemud Drive, 34th Avenue, 23rd Avenue, and Calgary Trail (Highway 2).

Project benefits also include reduced equipment wear and tear due to the substantial improvements in road quality. This project will also increase accessibility to local, commercial and tourism markets.

Socially, this project would lead to the safer and faster movement of traffic and a reduction of traffic accidents. Specifically, a number of locations on Whitemud Drive and 23rd Avenue have exhibited high collision rates. As a result of the relief in traffic congestion and driver frustration, it is suggested that safety will be improved.

In terms of the environmental context, it is estimated that over a 25-year period, total fuel consumption savings of about 260 million litres and total carbon dioxide emission reductions of close to 615,000 tonnes would be achieved from the southeast ring road project, resulting from travel time savings.

The cost-benefit analysis prepared by Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation in April 2005 utilizes project costs inclusive of agency capital costs and maintenance and rehabilitation costs. While user benefits were calculated from travel time savings and fuel cost savings resulting from reduced congestion and improved traffic flow patterns on the major arterial roads. An estimate salvage value of $218 million is included in the benefit-cost analysis.

Due to the lack of truck-related input data, the estimated user benefits do not account for truck-related benefits. In addition, the benefits do not include potential collision reduction savings resulting from traffic relief on the surrounding arterial roadways. The benefit values are therefore deemed to be conservative and underestimated.

The internal rate of return of this project was calculated as 7.1%, the table below highlights the project's overall 30 year NPV analysis using a discount rate of 5%:

Net present value 5%
NPV ($million) 67,154,667

The positive net present value and benefit-cost ratio demonstrates the economic viability and efficiency of the Edmonton Ring Road project. As stated above, given truck related benefits and benefits from traffic relief of surrounding areas are not included this is deemed as a conservative estimate and the project is likely more cost-effective than indicated in the analysis above.

Summary for Local Transportation

From an economic standpoint, following an adjustment period, this project will reduce user travel time and generate fuel cost savings as it decreases disruption to traffic flow. The future ring road is also expected to alleviate traffic congestion on other city arterial roads in the southeast quadrant of Edmonton.

The future stream of benefits associated with this project also includes reduced equipment wear and tear due to the substantial improvements in road quality. This project will also increase accessibility to local, commercial and tourism markets. Substantial safety and environmental benefits were also described above, including an estimated total fuel consumption savings of about 260 million litres and total carbon dioxide emission reductions of close to 615,000 tonnes over a 25-year period.

At a total cost of $210.00M, $75.00M of this total sourced federally, this project demonstrates a substantial and positive NPV at a discount rate of five percent and an internal rate of return of 7.1%, illustrating the cost-effective nature of this project.

Due to the lack of truck-related input data, the estimated user benefits do not account for truck-related benefits, including potential collision reduction savings resulting from traffic relief on the surrounding arterial roadways. The benefit values are therefore deemed to be conservative and this project would in fact be more cost-effective than illustrated by the NPV analysis above.

Tourism or Urban Development

Project name: Canadian Opera Company
Province: Ontario

Project Description for Tourism or Urban Development

The Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts is the first building of its kind in Canada; a theatre built specifically for opera and ballet performances with the finest level of acoustics. The contemporary expression of traditional horseshoe shaped auditorium provides unparalleled intimacy between the audience and the stage with every seat computer-tested for the best possible sightlines. The entire hall of the Opera House is acoustically isolated.

Source of Funding for Tourism or Urban Development
Source $M
Government of Canada 25.00
Canadian Opera House Corporation 110.00
Total costs 135.00
Future Stream of Benefits for Tourism or Urban Development

To-date this project has increased the economic activity of the entire area through both its construction (about 875 person-years of employment were provided during construction of the project) and tourism. As a cultural hub this project has also enhanced Toronto's urban development.

As discussed in the case study component of this report, as a result of this federal contribution, Canada has in place a world-class facility, used by the Canadian Opera Company (COC) and the National Ballet 250 days per year, and other users on a rental fee basis for the rest of the year. The facility is not used during an 8-week period during the summer when it closes for maintenance and renovation purposes. The facility is virtually sold out for all performances and is a success in every respect. In its first season (summer 2006 to summer 2007), the company played to 99% of audience capacity, and was used 365 days, with no down time.

Socially, this project has increased the Toronto's cultural capacity as this facility was specifically built for opera in Canada. In addition, during the period from September to June, there is a free lunch time "outreach series" of performances provided which is very well attended and is making opera known to large numbers.

Very popular tours are given twice each week in summer and every Saturday from September to June. 5000 people attended an open house in May, 2008. Many school groups come to the dress rehearsals and visit to learn about opera and ballet.

The project is providing a benefit to Canadians from coast to coast, given the Canadian Opera Company's national role of providing advanced training for young Canadian opera artists and capacity of the new facility to broadcast and simulcast live performances transmitted electronically across the country.

International Comparison for Tourism or Urban Development

On review of the economic and social assessments of opera facilities internationally, all suggest direct and indirect cultural and economic benefits. Specifically, the Grand Opera House (GOH) in Northern Ireland (NI) has an indirect impact on the wider NI economy as a result of 1:

  • Indirect employment created within the economy by GOH suppliers and hospitality providers within the vicinity of the theatre;
  • An estimated £2m induced spending by artists and patrons visiting the theatre. This is made up of:
    • Estimated spending of £4.56 per patron on a visit to the theatre, which, based on 282,804 patrons in 2002/03, equates to an approximate spending of £1.29 million.
    • This level of spending suggests a beneficial impact on businesses within the vicinity of the GOH, as evidenced by comments received by local business and GOH sponsor and partner organisations;
    • An estimated spending of at least £450K per annum on accommodation as a result of artists visiting NI to perform within the theatre;
    • Attracting 1,559 visiting artists to NI, who spend on average 8 nights each within NI incurring expenditure within the wider economy estimated at £169 per head within NI during a visit (this equates to a spending of £263,471);
  • Providing a key element of Belfast's cultural infrastructure, thus contributing to the overall attraction of Belfast as a city to visit.

[1] Economic and Social Impact of the Grand Opera House. International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies. Accessed September 2008.

Summary for Tourism or Urban Development

At a total cost of $135.00M, $25.00M of this total sourced federally and $110.00M sourced from the Canadian Opera House Corporation, this project and the resulting future stream of benefits would not have occurred without the nominal initial contribution of Federal funds.

As described above, to-date this world-class opera house has increased the economic activity of the entire area through both its construction (about 875 person-years of employment were provided during construction of the project) and tourism. As a cultural hub this project has also increased the effectiveness of urban development.

In terms of activity in the site, the facility is virtually sold out for all performances and is a success in every respect. In its first season (summer 2006 to summer 2007), the company played to 99% of audience capacity, and was used 365 days, with no down time.

The estimated future stream of benefits associated with this project is in-line with international comparisons which highlight both the direct and indirect impact on the wider economy and substantial urban development and cultural contribution.

Water or Sewage

Project name: Halifax Harbour Clean-Up
Province: Nova Scotia

Project Description for Water or Sewage

This project helps improve the sewage collection system through a new sewage treatment plant, as a result of this project Halifax residents can benefit from improved wastewater treatment and quality of water. The project also results in the elimination of methane gas discharged into the atmosphere.

Source of Funding for Water or Sewage
Source $M
Government of Canada 60.00
Phase 1 30.00
Phase 2 30.00
Province of Nova Scotia 32.00
Commitment 30.00
In land donation 2.00
Halifax Regional Municipality 273.00
Total costs 365.00
Future Stream of Benefits for Water or Sewage

In the economic context this project has the potential to increase economic activity though tourism in the immediate future. Although intermediate in nature also worth noting is the substantial impact of increased commercial fishing.

From a social and environmental standpoint, recent tests showed that the quality of the water in Halifax Harbour is suitable for swimming, and one of the beaches was officially opened for swimming in early July for the first time in many, many years. This is a much different scenario than that which existed before the existence of the treatment plant in Halifax. The water of the harbour was very murky and carried a quite foul odour. Today parts of the bottom of the harbour can be viewed from above, and there is no longer even a trace of foul odour, according to the interviewees. The Consultant who visited the site confirmed both the clear and odour-free water of the Harbour. Testing of the water takes place at the treatment plant in Halifax on a daily basis, as the plant has a certified water testing laboratory.

Prior to the existence of the Halifax treatment plan, municipal waste was brought to a lagoon where it would naturally decompose. The natural decomposition of the waste would result in methane gas being released into the air and atmosphere. A new method for eliminating the bio-solids produced through the new treatment process was implemented and the lagoon was phased out and closed.

The new method takes the virtually moisture-free solid waste removed from the treated water to a facility where a number of processes take place. First, cement dust and lime are added to the waste. It is then heated to a very high temperature until it is broken up into an ash-like material that can then be used as fertilizer. This new process eliminates the gases from the natural decomposition process from exiting into the atmosphere, thus reducing greenhouse gas emission.

International Comparison for Water or Sewage

In 1989, the Hong Kong's Sewage Strategy Study recommended the Strategic Sewage Disposal Scheme (now renamed as HATS) to collect and convey all wastewater from the urban areas surrounding Victoria Harbour through a deep tunnel conveyance system to one or two centralized sewage treatment works for treatment, before final disposal to the waters south of Hong Kong.2

This strategy was informed by the notion that sustainable development in Hong Kong should balance social, economic, environmental, and resource needs, both for present and future generations, simultaneously achieving a vibrant economy, social progress and a high quality environment, locally, nationally and internationally, through the efforts of the community and the Government.

The project included:

  • An overall sewage collection and treatment scheme for areas on both sides of Victoria Harbour; and
  • Construction of this world-class sewage treatment infrastructure is being carried out in several stages.
    • Stage I focuses on the collection and conveyance of sewage from Kowloon and the northeastern part of Hong Kong Island to Stonecutters Island for centralized treatment.
    • While the further stages aim at collecting and treating sewage from the northern and southwestern parts of Hong Kong Island, as well as providing a higher level of treatment for all the sewage in order to meet the environmental standards.

Specifically, Stage 1 of HATS involved the construction of a 23.6 km-long system of tunnels deep underground, each day carrying 1.4 million tonnes of sewage from Kowloon and the northeastern part of Hong Kong Island to a chemically enhanced primary sewage treatment plant at Stonecutters Island.

Completion of Stage 1 was a major achievement and rising pollution levels from sewage entering Victoria Harbour have been reduced. In fact, water quality in the Harbour substantially improved when Stage 1 was fully commissioned at the end of 2001.

The next stage of HATS includes a two-phase, HK$20 billion, programme which will provide additional facilities to convey all sewage from the Harbour area to Stonecutters Island for chemical treatment and disinfection, and subsequent biological treatment.

Summary for Water or Sewage

At a total cost of $365.00M, $60.00M of this total sourced federally, $32.00M sourced by the province of Nova Scotia, and $273.00M sourced by the Halifax Regional Municipality, this project demonstrates a commitment to and leadership in sustainable development, balancing social, economic, environmental and resource needs, both for present and future generations.

As described above, in an economic context, this project has the potential to increase economic activity though tourism in the immediate future. Although intermediate in nature also worth noting is the economic impact of increased commercial fishing.

In the social context, successes of the treatment plant in Halifax is demonstrated through the quality of the water in Halifax Harbour is suitable for swimming, and one of the beaches officially opened for swimming in early July for the first time.

From an environmental standpoint, prior to the existence of the Halifax treatment plan, municipal waste was brought to a lagoon where it would naturally decompose. The natural decomposition of the waste would result in methane gas being released into the air and atmosphere. A new method for eliminating the bio-solids produced through the new treatment process was implemented and the lagoon was phased out and closed.

Our search for international comparisons, demonstrated a similar project in Hong Kong's Victoria Harbour. In line with our cost-effectiveness analysis, Hong Kong had included economic, environmental, and social benefits to assess the validity and cost-effectiveness of the Victoria Harbour project. To-date sewage treatment milestones have improved the harbour and Hong Kong has planned to initiate phase 2 of this project over the next few years.

[2] 2001/2002 Annual Report. Drainage Services Department. Accessed September 2008.

Broadband (Telecommunications Connectivity)

Project name: Broadband Infrastructure – Îles de la Madeleine/Gaspésie
Province: Quebec

Project Description for Broadband (Telecommunications Connectivity)

Broadband is infrastructure for delivering innovative applications, and offering electronic services in the areas of health, learning and business within easy reach of all Canadians. Prior to the project, Telebec owned and operated an often unreliable microwave outpost on les Iles de la Madeleine that provided residents with modest, internet connectivity.

Source of Funding for Broadband (Telecommunications Connectivity)
Source $M
Government of Canada 6.90
Province of Quebec 6.90
Total costs 13.80
Future Stream of Benefits for Broadband (Telecommunications Connectivity)

Future benefits of this project stem from increased reliability of the broadband network and guaranteed long-term sustainability of links between the islands and the mainland, ensuring 100% restoration, with no interruption in service, via a loop configuration, in the event of a major break in one of the cables.

At the planning stage, many citizens and public and private-sector stakeholders announced their support for the project, as it has the potential to increase businesses' performance and contribute to the tourism industry's development. As a social benefit, this project also has the potential to increase access to health and educational services, in the intermediate timeframe enhancing social outcomes.

International Comparison for Broadband (Telecommunications Connectivity)

To-date India has achieved success in IT services and business process outsourcing. To achieve India's goal to become the "engineering and knowledge process outsourcing hub of the world," policy makers have identified that it is essential to make computers and the Internet more accessible.3

In May 2008 the Indian Ministry of Communication & Information Technology announced a $2 billion USD investment to set up 112,000 Community Service Centres in rural India to provide rural communities with broadband connectivity in 2008-09.

The State Minister for Communications & IT, Mr. Jyotiraditya Madhavrao Scindia stated that $1.5 billion USD investment for providing broadband access to rural India would be generated through the private sector. The remaining US$0.5 billion of investment would be contributed to the project from government sources, added the Minister. The Minister clarified that 112,000 community service centres would be set up in 2008-09 at various places in all parts of rural India under the extension of Knowledge Mission, initiatives which were taken by former Prime Minister, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi.

Specifically, ICT would provide rural India with effective tools and techniques for a variety of applications such as e-education, e-health, e-learning, e-governance, e-entertainment, as well as connectivity to commodity markets.

[3] Gunasekaran, Vinoth and Fotios C. Harmantzis. "Emerging wireless technologies for developing countries." Technology in Society 29 (2007) 23-42.

Summary for Broadband (Telecommunications Connectivity)

At a total cost of $13.80M, $6.90M of this total sourced federally, this Canadian broadband project demonstrates substantial economic and social benefits.

Guaranteed long-term sustainability of links between the islands and the mainland would generate an increase in businesses' performance and contribute to the tourism industry's development. As a social benefit this project also has the potential to increase access to health and educational services, in the intermediate timeframe enhancing social outcomes.

At a larger scale, India recently announced a $2 billion USD investment to set up 112,000 Community Service Centres in rural India. This private-public partnership also cites a similar future stream of benefits including both economic and social opportunities.

Border Infrastructure Fund

Project name: CAN-SIM
Province: N/A

Project Description for Border Infrastructure Fund

CAN-SIM is a modelling tool - a computer-based animated representation of traffic flow through a land border crossing that simulates the physical layout of the land border crossing, the functions of the border agencies and other infrastructure related activities, and generates information such as wait times. This analytical and forecasting tool helps provide the Government of Canada with better information on which to base investment and operational decisions. It uses technology and experience from the development of the U.S. Border Wizard tool.

Source of Funding for Border Infrastructure Fund
Source $M
Government of Canada 3.00
Total costs 3.00
Future Stream of Benefits for Border Infrastructure Fund

In Canada, safe and efficient borders are necessary for current and future economic growth. Long wait times at borders result in lost revenues to firms, due to increased shipping costs and spoiled goods. If economically impractical, multinationals will cease to locate plants on the Canadian side of the border when consumers are predominantly in the United States and in the longer term multinationals may re-locate plants where it is most efficient in terms of costs to operate. A tool to assess potential investments is of high value.

To-date CAN-SIM has been used extensively to assess and plan projects aimed at saving millions in terms of dollars and in terms of border wait times, aggravation and frustration.

Specifically, CAN-SIM has been used to assess projects for many ports in Southern Ontario. Having been able to model these ports has enabled strategic, and smart physical development of plazas.

Currently development of the Detroit River International Crossing (DRIC) between the City of Detroit and the City of Windsor is underway. CAN-SIM has been instrumental in the development of the physical plaza. The Software will continue to be used over the next couple years as the plaza continues to be developed.

Other benefits of CAN-SIM include its flexibility and its presentation. With regard to flexibility, almost any variable can be put into the equation that produces forecasts. For instance, there is a new requirement coming into effect that will require individuals entering Canada to provide a passport. This was entered into CAN-SIM for the modeling of the DRIC and the model showed that it would take an additional 17 seconds per automobile to cross the border. If this was not accounted for in the design of DRIC, then there would be perpetual gridlock. Since officials now understand this, they will make adjustments in the building of the DRIC to account for the added time.

The other key benefit is the presentation of CAN-SIM output. The models that are produced are visually appealing. After the modelling of DRIC with the new passport law was complete, the results were shown to the President of CBSA. It was very quick and easy to present the findings graphically to the President and it is also a much-appreciated feature.

Summary for Border Infrastructure Fund

At a total cost of $3.00M, sourced federally, to-date this project has been used extensively and the benefits of the resulting models have assisted with decisions regarding projects aimed at saving millions in terms of dollars and in terms of time savings at the borders. In Canada, safe and efficient borders are necessary for current and future economic growth and CAN-SIM is an excellent analytical tool for assessing potential investments to make this happen.

3.0 Conclusion

The general overall message about CSIF/BIF is that the programs are well-run and are effective in identifying and implementing large-scale, strategic infrastructure projects consistent with the objectives of the programs and the priorities of the F/P/T/M governments.

Evidence indicates that there is solid cooperation between different levels of government and other stakeholders. In addition to the funding from the CSIF/BIF programs, project funding sources included Provincial or Municipal governments, private sector companies, not-for-profit organizations or donations from Canadians. Effective maintenance of the relationships between funding sources was evident in each of the cases examined, which has played a role in the success of the projects. The private-public partnerships (P3s) considered during this study were found to be working well, and delivering valuable projects in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Regarding program success, there are a small number of projects that are fully completed, with a retrospective analysis report and final claims paid out. The result of this is that, from a qualitative standpoint, those projects that are completed have shown to have met immediate outcomes. There likely will be a challenge for measuring ultimate outcomes down the road. For those outcomes that specifically relate to quality of life, economic growth, or reduced GHG emissions or other climate change objectives, it can take many years following the completion of a project to have enough data to measure change.

4.0 Recommendations

4.1 Overall

4.1.1 Continue a program of large scale, strategic infrastructure projects, selected by the Minister without application, within the suite of INFC programs

The CSIF and BIF programs should be continued as programs focused on large-scale, strategic projects, selected by the Minister in consultation with the other levels of government and program proponents. These programs are a key part of the set of INFC programs aimed at addressing infrastructure priorities across Canada.

4.2 Design

4.2.1 Continue to allow eligible expenditures at the time of project announcement (rather than after a contribution agreement is signed)

A key feature of CSIF/BIF is the ability for proponents to begin work at the time that the project is announced by the Minister, although no claims for eligible expenses can be made until a formal contribution agreement has been signed.

Continuing to allow eligible expenditures at the time of the project announcement is beneficial to proponents. This process should continue, especially given the length of time it usually takes to secure TB approval and to negotiate a contribution agreement. Since costs of infrastructure projects have increased with the passage of time, getting an earlier start means that projects can be completed more quickly and cost increases for labour or materials over a longer period of time can be avoided.

4.2.2 Consider reducing project value thresholds

The reduction of project thresholds would enable infrastructure projects which are strategic and very high value, and which are not covered by another infrastructure program, to be undertaken, even if the total project cost does not meet the current thresholds. In some instances, important projects in a region were "bundled" together in order to meet the CSIF/BIF thresholds. Although this is completely appropriate, it is an additional administrative step which can create unnecessary delays for some projects in the "bundle" (which would be ready to start but which can be held up while others in the "bundle" are prepared).

4.2.3 Keep the INFC Policy and Priorities Directorate involved for 90 days following announcement of a project

In order to facilitate knowledge transfer regarding new CSIF projects from the Policy and Priorities Directorate to the Program Operations Branch, it is recommended that the Policy and Priorities Directorate stay involved in the project for a period of 90 days following the Ministerial announcement. This would provide enough time for both Infrastructure groups to work together to facilitate communication and knowledge transfer for the next phase of preparing a TB submission for the project.

4.2.4 Prepare a 'model contribution agreement' and make it available at the time of announcements

To increase the speed with which contribution agreements are prepared and negotiated, it is recommended that a model contribution agreement be developed for each type of project and be made available at the time of Ministerial announcement of projects. The model can be modified, but having a basic starting point for each type of project would provide all parties involved with an understanding of what a model agreement and clauses would ordinarily contain. This would permit more focussed discussions on areas where there is agreement or areas where the parties would like to explore a change from the normal provisions or clauses. This would also reduce potential confusion with new Infrastructure staff or new staff from a Federal Delivery Partner, as they would become familiar with the standard clauses and know when to see additional advice on the departures from the standard clauses. Having a legal review and advice on the standard agreement would permit the time of legal advisors to focus on the exceptions from the standard agreement, and could permit some time savings from having to have a careful legal review each time due to the uniqueness of every contribution agreement.

4.2.5 Form a Pre-Agreement Committee immediately following the announcement of each project (rather than waiting for a signed contribution agreement)

Agreement Management Committees are currently formed at the time when a contribution agreement is signed. There are advantages to having FDPs involved following an announcement as early as possible, since it is the FDP that will be administering the agreement, and dealing with claims and reporting from the proponent. To facilitate communications during the period that the Treasury Board submission and the contribution agreement are prepared, it is recommended that a Pre-Agreement Committee be formed at the time of the announcement. This would then enable proponents, who can start work on a project (as expenditures become eligible starting at the time of announcement) to have easy access to both the Infrastructure officials and the officials of the FDP for any questions or concerns as they relate to their specific projects. The FDP currently receives support for its work on approval of the TB submission. The FDP would therefore have to cash manage the cost of participation in the Pre-Agreement Committee until the TB Submission has been approved. Ultimately, the Pre-Agreement Committee would evolve to become the Project Management Committee for a project, once a TB Submission is approved and contribution agreement is signed, and would then have authority to sign off on expenditures and other financial issues.

4.3 Delivery

4.3.1 Develop a 'model file' containing all basic documents to guide efficiency and knowledge transfer

In order to improve knowledge transfer, a model file should be developed. A model file would contain all the basic documents necessary for project governance and execution. Such a model file would allow a new Infrastructure officer to quickly get up to speed on what has taken place and what is planned for this project. Details of what should minimally be included in the model file are found in Appendix F.

4.3.2 Undertake an internal review of SIMSI to determine the root causes of why it is not meeting its potential as a vital electronic information database for these projects

It is recommended that an internal review be done to find the reasons why SIMSI is not being utilized as an electronic mechanism to organize and track performance for CSIF/BIF projects. SIMSI is a good tool that, if incorporated into the management of CSIF/BIF and utilized, can further enhance knowledge transfer and ease of project/program management.

4.4 Success

4.4.1 Consider assigning long-term outcomes measurement to an appropriate group within INFC

There are currently three potential groups within INFC where this responsibility could be assigned: Audit and Evaluation Division; Policy and Priorities Directorate; or Program Operations Branch. Additional capacity for this new responsibility would be required if this responsibility were to be assigned to one of these three groups. This work could also be advanced through arrangements with other federal departments (such as Environment Canada or Statistics Canada) or external organizations with expertise in measurement and time series data on indicators relevant to the Infrastructure programming; however, a focus for this responsibility within Infrastructure would be required for communicating with these other departments or organizations and assessing (and reporting), from an Infrastructure program perspective, the results of longer term performance measurement activities.

Appendix A: List of Documents, Files and Literature Reviewed

Contribution Agreements for:

BIF:

Knight Street (2006-2007/2008-2009) with the City of Vancouver

Knight Street (2003/2009-2010) with the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority

The British Columbia Lower Mainland Border Project (2004-2005/2008-2009) with the Province of British Columbia

Sarnia and Niagara Regions (2003-2004/2009-2010) with the Province of Ontario

Peace Bridge with the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority

VACIS (2006-2008) with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company

The Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving Strategy (2004-2005/2012-2013) with the Province of Ontario

The Saskaewan North Portal Border Project (2003-2004/2008-2009) with the Province of Saskaewan

CSIF:

The Northwest "Stoney Trail" Ring Road Project (2004-2005/2008-2009) with the Province of Alberta

The Southeast Anthony Henday Drive Project (2005-2006/2008-2009) with the Province of Alberta

Kicking Horse Canyon Project (2005-2006/2009-2010) with the Province of British Columbia

Canada's Contribution to the Construction of the Canada Line (2005-2006/2009-2010) with the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority and RAV (Richmond Airport Vancouver) Project Management Limited

Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre Expansion Project (2003-2004/2008-2009) with the Vancouver Convention Centre Expansion Project Limited

Kenaston Underpass (2004-2005/2007-2008) with the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba

The Expansion of the Manitoba Floodway (2003-2004/2008-2009) with the Manitoba Floodway Expansion Authority Inc.

Broadband for Rural New Brunswick Project (2003-2004/2006-2007) with the Province of New Brunswick

Municipal Bypass Projects (2006-2007/2007-2008) with the Province of New Brunswick, the Municipality of Moncton, the Municipality of Riverview, and the Municipality of Dieppe

The Completion of the Twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick (2003-2004/2008-2009) with the Province of New Brunswick

St. John's Harbour with Newfoundland

The Corridors for Canada Projects (2003-2004/2007-2008) with the Government of the Northwest Territories

The Corridors for Canada Projects (2003-2004/2009-2010) with the Government of the Northwest Territories

Halifax Harbour Solutions Project (2003-2004/2005-2006) with the Halifax Regional Municipality

Nunavut Broadband (2005-2006/2012-2013) with the Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation

Social Housing (2004-2005/2006-2007) with the Nunavut Housing Corporation

Water and Wastewater Projects (2006-2007/2008-2009) with the Government of Nunavut

GO Transit Rail Infrastructure Improvements (2003-2004/2011-2012) with the Province of Ontario and the Greater Toronto Transit Authority

Ravensview Water Pollution Control Plant Improvements (2004-2005/2009-2010) with the City of Kingston

The Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts with the Canadian Opera House Corporation

The Expansion of the Ottawa Congress Centre (2004-2005/2008-2009) with the Ottawa Congress Centre

Wastewater Treatment Improvements (2003-2004/2005-2006) with the Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay

Toronto Transit Commission Strategic Capital Projects (2006-2007/2011-2012) with the Province of Ontario

York Region Rapid Transit (2003-2004/2006-2007) with the Regional Municipality of York

Umbrella Governance Framework for Infrastructure Program Planning and Implementation with the Premier and the Minister of Community and Cultural Affairs for Prince Edward Island

Municipal Water and Sewer System (2003-2004/2007-2008) with the Minister of Community and Cultural Affairs for Prince Edward Island, and the Town of Stratford

Highway 30 (Phase 1) (2003-2004/2006-2007) with the Government of Quebec

The Installation of Fiber Optic Cables Between Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine (2004-2005/2006-2007) with the Government of Quebec

The Widening of Highway 73/175 between Québec and Saguenay into a Four-Lane Divided Highway with the Premier of Quebec

Regina Exhibition Park (2004-2005/2005-2006) with the Province of Saskaewan and the City of Regina

The Twinning of Highways 1 & 16 Project (2003-2004/2007-2008) with the Province of Saskaewan

Wascana Lake Enhancement (2003-2004/2004-2005) with the Province of Saskaewan

Alaska Highway Reconstruction (2004-2005/2007-2008) with the Government of Yukon

Yukon Community Waterfronts (2006-2007/2009-2010) with the Government of Yukon

Business Cases (containing Cost-Benefit Analyses) for:

BIF:

Peace Bridge Plaza Improvements Program Prospective Analysis

British Columbia Lower Mainland

Highway 1 – Westbound Truck Climbing Lane at Mt. Lehman Road

North Portal Program

Alaska Highway Upgrading in Yukon

Let's Get Windsor-Essex Moving Strategy Jan 06 & Feb 08

Windsor VACIS Secure Corridor

CSIF:

Edmonton Southeast Ring Road Anthony Henday Drive

AcceleRide Bus rapid Transit Initiative

Prospective Evaluation of New Brunswick CSIF Sustainable Urban Growth Bypass Projects

Canada/Nova Scotia Highway 104 Twinning New Glasgow to Sutherlands River

Route 2 (PEI)

Richmond- Airport-Vancouver Rapid Transit Project "Canada Line"

Toronto Transit Commission

GO Transit Inter-Regional BRT: Mississauga Segment

GO Transit Rain Infrastructure Improvement Program

York Rapid Transit Plan

Web pages for:

Funding and Investment Canada (Infrastructure Canada)

Investment Categories

BIF Project Descriptions

BIF Project Maps

BIF – News Releases – 2007

Border Infrastructure Fund

Backgrounder – Funding the Plan

Audit of the Management Control Framework of the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund and of the Border Infrastructure Fund – Final Audit Report

Funding and Investment Criteria

CSIF Project Descriptions

CSIF Project Links

CSIF Project Maps

Departmental Evaluation Services – Evaluation of the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program (Transport Canada)

Departmental Evaluation Services – Evaluation of the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program (Transport Canada)

Other Reports and Publications

Register of Research – Search Details – Title: "Policy Leveraging in Canada: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Initiatives"

Register of Research

Register of Research – Search Details – Title: "Policy Leveraging in the United States: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Initiatives"

Project Maps – CSIF Projects: Broadband

Project Maps – CSIF Projects: Water and Wastewater

Project Maps – CSIF Projects: Housing

Project Maps – CSIF Projects: Tourism and Urban Development

Project Maps – CSIF Projects: Transportation

Recipient Resource Centre for BIF

Recipient Resource Centre for CSIF

Selecting and Funding BIF Projects

Selecting and Funding CSIF Projects

Annual Reports for:

York Region Rapid Transit Corporation (06-07) – CSIF

Canada-Yukon CSIF Annual Report (07-08)

Canada-Ontario-GO Transit GO Transit Rail Infrastructure Improvements (06-07)

St. John's Harbour Clean-up (06-07)

British Columbia BIF Program (06-07)

Alaska Highway Upgrading (06-07)

Edmonton Southeast Anthony Henday Drive Project (06-07)

Autoroute 50 (Quebec) (November 2005)

Canada-New Brunswick-Moncton Annual Report 2006

Canada-Nova Scotia TCH104 (05-06)

Route 73 and 175 (Quebec) (2005)

Border Infrastructure Fund Peace Bridge Plaza Improvements Program Retrospective Analysis. Transport Canada. February 2008.

AMC Meeting Minutes for:

Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts Government Communications Meeting (28/10/2004)

Evergreen Agreement Steering Committee Meeting (03/10/2007)

Kingston Agreement Steering Committee Meeting (31/03/2005)

Soccer Stadium Agreement Oversight Committee Meeting (11/07/2006)

Thunder Bay Wastewater Treatment Project Agreement Oversight Committee Preliminary Meeting (05/05/2004)

Toronto International Film Festival Agreement Steering Committee Meeting (04/10/2007)

Toronto International Film Festival Group Agreement Steering Committee (29/02/2008)

Peace Bridge Authority BIF Management Committee Meeting (28/09/2004

Peace Bridge Authority BIF Management Committee Meeting (18/04/2006)

Sanitary Drainage of the Saint Charles River and the Renaturalization of the Riverbanks Management Committee Meeting (23/05/2008)

News Articles:

Adam, Mohammed. "Baird's rail ruling was political, documents show." The Ottawa Citizen 6 January 2007.

Adams, James. "Funding home for TIFF is tall order." Globe and Mail 24 August 2006.

Adams, James. "T.O. Film Festival: Tower gets a name." Globe and Mail 27 August 2007.

Battagello, Dave. "County Road 22 work OK'd." The Windsor Star 28 June 2008.

Cernetig, Miro. "Our transportation future looks a lot like Hong Kong." Vancouver Sun 15 January 2008.

Chiarelli, Nina. "Premier proposes Petitcodiac trust fund." Times & Transcript 20 March 2007.

Christie, James. "Facilities." Globe and Mail 29 September 2006.

"Enthusiasts open 'beautiful building.'" The Whitehorse Star 6 May 2008.

"Facts about the Freshwater Brook Replacement Sewer Project." The Chronicle-Herald 29 April 2008.

Falcon, Kevin. "Get on with it! That's the message we get on Gateway." Vancouver Sun 19 March 2007.

"Financial commitment to floodway met." Winnipeg Free Press 25 February 2008.

Fortier, Julie. "Hotspot in a cold spot." The Globe and Mail 22 July 2008.

Granatstein, Rob. "Your help is slim, Jim." The Toronto Sun 25 November 2007.

Grimard, Christine. "NWT goes broadband." Yellowknifer 9 February 2007.

Ivison, John. "Minister too slow to spend." National Post 4 October 2007.

Lee, Jeff. "Convention centre hit by rising costs." Vancouver Sun 13 November 2006.

Lett, Daniel. "Feds dangle $30 million for stadium New figure at least double." Winnipeg Free Press 26 January 2008.

Llewellyn, Stephen. "Marysville-bypass construction could begin next year – minister." The Daily Gleaner 4 November 2006.

Llewellyn, Stephen. "New highway good for safety and business – officials." The Daily Gleaner 4 November 2006.

MacKinnon, Bobbi-Jean. "Harbour Tea Party." New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal 17 March 2007.

MacKinnon, Bobbi-Jean. "Sewage crackdown coming." New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal 22 May 2007.

"Minister bearing gifts." The Guardian 11 October 2006.

"Old Fire Hall to stay alive with the arts." The Whitehorse Star 18 December 2007.

Press, Jordan. "A tangled federal funding trail." Kingston Whig-Standard 2 October 2007.

"Province plans more Highway 2 projects." The Guardian 14 March 2007.

"The impressive new buildings are only a beginning." The Toronto Star 20 June 2007.

"Why is the system being replaced?" The Chronicle-Herald 29 April 2008.

"Why not Victoria's centre?" Times Colonist 12 July 2007.

Infrastructure templates

BCF Projects Model File Checklist. Version October 2008.

Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund / Border Infrastructure Fund Agreement. Federal-Provincial / territorial Template. Version for Non-Transportation Projects. August 30, 2006.

Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund / Border Infrastructure Fund Agreement. Federal-Provincial / territorial Template. Version for Non-Transportation Projects. (working draft). August 30, 2006.

Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund / Border Infrastructure Fund Agreement. Federal-Provincial / territorial Template. DRAFT Version for Non-Transportation Projects. April, 2007.

Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund / Border Infrastructure Fund Agreement. Federal-Provincial / territorial Template. (Draft … under review by legal counsel). June, 2008.

Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. Federal-Provincial-Territorial template (working draft). February 9, 2004.

Infrastructure Canada Program. ICP 2000, ICP 2003 project template. 24.07.2003.

Appendix B: List of Interviewees

Infrastructure Canada Interviewees:

Ms. Shirley-Anne Scharf - Director General - Issues Management Directorate, Program Branch

Mr. Gerry Maffre - Director General - Communications Directorate, Policy and Communications Branch

Ms. Jocelyne St. Jean - Director General - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Ms. Carole Lafrèniere - Manager, Quebec, Nunavut and First Nations - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Ms. Anne Gabriel - Manager, Atlantic Programs, Intergovernmental Operations Directorate - Program Operations Branch

Ms. Rebecca Swedlove - Senior Program Analyst - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Mr. André Bergeron - Senior Analyst -Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Mr. André Bourdon - Director, Application Development and Information Management - Information Management/ Information Technologies Directorate, Corporate Services Branch

Mr. Richard Perron - Manager, Information Services - Information Management/ Information Technologies Directorate, Corporate Services Branch

Mr. Michael Rutherford - Senior Advisor - Policy and Priorities Directorate, Policy and Communications Branch*

Mr. John Hnatyshyn - Senior Advisor, Transportation Policy - Policy and Priorities Directorate, Policy and Communications Branch

Mr. Eric Boudreault - Program Analyst - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Ms. Naomi Hirshberg - Senior Program Analyst - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Ms. Judy Jibb - Manager, Ontario Programs - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Ms. Caroline Cantin - Analyst - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

Mr. Glen Hayes - Junior Analyst - Intergovernmental Operations Directorate, Program Operations Branch

*Mr. Taki Sarantakis, DG, Policy and Priorities Directorate, Policy and Communications Branch, INFC and Mr. John Forster, ADM, Policy and Communications Branch, INFC were asked for an interview, but they deferred to Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Hnatyshyn, citing that they were well-equipped to answer the Consultants' questions.

Federal Delivery Partners Interviewees:

Mr. Bryce Conrad - Director General, Surface Infrastructure Programs - Transport Canada, Surface Infrastructure Programs

Mr. Brian Schmeisser - Director, Business Programs and Strategic Infrastructure - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, DG, Community Economic Development

Ms. Marilyn Murphy - Manager, Infrastructure and CBSC - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, DG, Community Economic Development

Mr. Doug Maley - Assistant Deputy Minister - Western Economic Diversification Canada, Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister

Ms. Paula Isaak - Regional Director General - Indian and Northern Affairs, Yukon Region

Mr. Richard Comerford - Vice-President, Newfoundland and Labrador - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Vice-President, Newfoundland and Labrador

Ms. Trish Merrithew-Cercredi - Regional Director General - Indian and Northern Affairs, Executive Office Directorate

Ms. Linda Hann - Manager, Communications - Industry Canada, Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program

Ms. Kathy Black - Claims Officer - Industry Canada, Canada-Ontario Infrastructure Program

Mr. Michael Nadler - Regional Director General - Indian and Northern Affairs, Executive Services

Mr. Chad Aramburo - Senior Project Officer - Indian and Northern Affairs, Infrastructure

Ms. Polly Thorp - A/Capital Project Officer - Indian and Northern Affairs, Strategic Investments

Ms. Marilyn Kapitany - Assistant Deputy Minister - Western Economic Diversification Canada, Office of the Assistant Deputy Minister

Mr. Terry McGuire - Director, Highways Service Centre - Parks Canada, Western Asset Management Service Centre

Mr. Dave Boland - Program Manager - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Director, Community Development

Ms. Donna Mandelkau Krotec - Manager - Western Economic Diversification Canada, Infrastructure

Mr. Brian Davidson - Senior Analyst, Federal-Provincial - Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Federal, Provincial and Territorial Relations

Mr. Lloyd Branch - Director Community Development, New Brunswick - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, New Brunswick

Mr. Hugh Hicks - Program Manager - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Director, Community Development

Ms. Kerry Buckley - Project Manager, Surface Programs - Transport Canada, Highways and Borders

Ms. Deanne Belisle - Manager, Infrastructure Programs - Western Economic Diversification Canada, Partnership Agreements

Mr. Trevor Gloyn - General Manager - Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Business Centre, Priaries

Mr. David Hovey - Development Officer - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Director, Policy, Advocacy and Coordination

Mr. John Rankin - Account Manager - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Director, Community Development

Ms. Lise Picknell - Manager - Industry Canada, Community Investments

Mr. Sam Pecora - Program Officer - Industry Canada, Community Investments

Ms. Nicole Galvin - A/Chief, Energy and Advanced Vehicle Program - Transport Canada, Environmental Initiatives

Ms. Rachel Parkin - Senior Analyst, Transit Projects - Transport Canada, Transit Projects

Mr. Martin McKay - Project Manager, Surface Programs - Transport Canada, Transit Projects

Ms. Manon Baril - Senior Project Manager, Highway Programs, Eastern Region - Transport Canada, Highways and Borders

Ms. Deborah Windsor - Vice-President, Nova Scotia - Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Vice-President, Nova Scotia

Ms. Lucie Perreault - Director - Canada Economic Development, Infrastructure Directorate

Ms. Christine Audet - Advisor - Canada Economic Development, Infrastructure Directorate

Ms. Jordan Beveridge - Project Manager, Surface Programs - Transport Canada, Transit Projects

Mr. Daniel Lagacé - Manager - Canada Border Services Agency, Infrastructure Delivery and Coordination

Mr. Martin Lelievre - Director, Autoroute 30 and Quebec Projects - Transport Canada, Quebec and Highway 30

Mr. Jim Lothrop - Senior Director, Highways and Borders - Transport Canada

Infrastructure Canada Legal Services

Mr. Richard Ouellet, Senior Counsel

Pages XI to XV of this document contain names that are protected against disclosure under section 19(1) of the Access to Information Act. If you wish to obtain the complete versions of these pages, please contact Carole Laroque, Access to Information Act Coordinator, Infrastructure Canada, at (613)-946-4980.

Proponents and Non-federal Stakeholder Interviewees

[list of 20 persons and their organizations]

Appendix C: List of Individuals Invited to Participate in the On-line Survey

NOTE: A total of 10 emails were rejected as a result of incorrect email addresses. In most of these cases the individuals were phoned to conduct a brief interview that followed along the same line of questioning as that in the survey, but not the exact same set of questions. The table below summarizes who responded and whether it was via the survey, an interview, or both lines of evidence.

List of Individuals Invited to Participate in the On-line Survey

Project Name Participant Survey Interview
AB: Calgary Ring Road & Edmonton Ring Road *** NAMES OF PERSONS HAVE BEEN OMITTED FROM THIS COLUMN *** √  
BC: Kicking Horse Canyon √
√		  
BC: Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre Expansion √  
BC: Vancouver Rapid Transit "Canada Line" √ √
MB: Manitoba Red River Floodway Expansion   √
MB: Winnipeg Kenaston Underpass    
MB: Winnipeg Wastewater Treatment    
Naskapi Imuun Inc. Broadband (NSI)   √
NB: Greater Moncton Areas Bypass   √
NB: Twinning of Route 2 & Woodstock – Houlton Highway Improvements (Route 95) √  
NB: New Brunswick Broadband Project √  
NL: St John's Harbour Clean-Up √  
NL: Broadband Access to Rural & Remote Schools & Communities   √  
NS: Halifax Harbour Clean-Up   √  
NS: Twinning of Sections of TCH 101 & 104   √  
NU: Nunavut Housing Infrastructure   √  
NWT: Corridors for Canada   √  
ON: Brampton "Acceleride" Bus Rapid Transit BRT   √  
ON: Canadian Opera Company   √ √
ON: Evergreen at the Brickworks, Toronto      
ON: GO Transit: Network Improvements      
ON: Hamilton Harbour Clean-Up   √  
ON: Kingston Wastewater Treatment Plan Upgrades   √ √
ON: Mississauga Bus Rapid Transit BRT      
ON: Niagara Convention and Civic Centre   √  
ON: Ontario Wastewater Bundle (Brockville and Sarnia)   √
√		  
ON: Thunder Bay: Water and Wastewater Treatment Upgrades     √
ON: Toronto Transit Commission Strategic Capital Projects   √  
ON: York Region Rapid Transit     √
QC: Atwater and Des Baillets Water Projects, Montréal     √
QC: Broadband Infrastructure - Île de la Madeleine/Gaspésie     √
QC: Highway 30 - Completion - Phase 1 & Highway 73/175     √
QC:TCH 35/TCH 50/Route 185/Dorval Interchange      
QC: Mont-Tremblant Resorts   √ √
QC: Rivière Saint-Charles Wastewater Project, Québec City & Atwater and Des Baillets Water Projects, Montréal     √
QC: Rivière Saint-Charles Wastewater Project, Québec City     √
QC: Shortline Rail Projects     √
SK: Banff National Park: Trans Canada Highway Improvements & Regina: Urban Revitalization (Wascana Lake)   √  
SK: Regina: Urban Revitalization (multi-purpose community fac.) & Saskatoon: South Downtown Redevelopment   √  
SK: Saskatoon: South Downtown Redevelopment      
SK: Trans-Canada Highway TCH Improvements TCH 1 & 16   √  
YK: Alaska Highway Upgrading   √ √
YK: Dawson City/Carmacks Sewage Treatment Systems Bundle   √  
PEI: Charlottetown Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade & Provincial Sludge Management Strategy & Stratford Water and Wastewater Upgrade      
City of Toronto (Soccer Stadium)   √ √
Toronto International Film Festival Group   √  
Charlottetown Harbour Authority Inc. - Historic Charlottetown Waterfront Redevelopment   √
√		  
Town of Stratford - Municipal Water and Sewer System   √  
City of Summerside - Summerside Wellness Centre      
City of Summerside - Summerside Wellness Centre & Waste Storage & Wastewater Treatment Upgrade     √
City of Summerside - Waste Storage & Wastewater Treatment Upgrade      

Appendix D: Case Studies

Alaska Highway Upgrading (Yukon)
Broadband Infrastructure - Îles-de-la-Madeleine-Gaspésie (Québec)
Canadian Opera Company (Ontario)
Charlottetown Wastewater Treatment System Upgrade (PEI)
Edmonton Ring Road (Alberta)
Fort Erie Peace Bridge Approaches (Ontario)
Greater Moncton Area Bypass (New Brunswick)
Halifax Harbour Clean-up (Nova Scotia)
Manitoba Red River Floodway Expansion (Manitoba)
Mont-Tremblant Resorts (Québec)
Nunavut Housing Infrastructure (Nunavut)
Regina Urban Revitalization - Wascana Lake (Saskaewan)
Shortline Rail Projects (Québec)
St. John's Harbour Clean-up (Newfoundland and Labrador)
St. Charles River Clean-up (Québec)
Toronto Soccer Stadium (Ontario)
Transfer for Border Modelling Projects (Ontario)
Urban Revitalization (Wascana Lake) (Saskaewan)
Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre Expansion (British Columbia)
Vancouver Rapid Transit "Canada Line" (British Columbia)
York Region Transit-Network Improvements (Ontario)

Appendix E: CSIF/BIF Formative Evaluation Framework Matrix

Evaluation Questions With Answers Based On Documentation Review Only

Program Design: Is the CSIF/BIF program well designed?

  1. Is the program design appropriate for this clientele and purpose?

    The design is appropriate and presents advantages of flexibility and encouraging partnership.

  2. Is the program design appropriate for meeting the stated federal objectives?

    Program design is appropriate for meeting stated federal objectives. Framework for selection of projects is clear and allows adequate flexibility. Announcements are made with full knowledge that no payments can be made without TB approval and a signed contribution agreement and that TB approval requires rigorous analysis and documentation of how the project will meet the stated federal objectives.

  3. Is the program designed well to achieve the expected outcomes? Do project categories lead to the expected outcomes? Should less/more precise definitions of eligible categories be included in the terms and conditions and contribution agreements

    The program design is appropriate for achievement of expected outcomes. Project categories are broadly defined and permit appropriate flexibility for the selection of specific projects within the category.

  4. Is the program designed to allow appropriate measurement of outcomes and benefits? (including national reporting)

    Projects have clear intended outcomes and benefits. Once projects are complete, the project committees are ended and there are no commitments to measurement past the date of completion of the agreement. All projects can be expected to deliver immediate outcomes and results (such as jobs created during the construction of the project). Outcomes and benefits from projects, in most cases, will happen over a significant period of time after projects are complete.

  5. Are roles, responsibilities and accountability clearly articulated in the Contribution Agreements and are they well understood by all the parties involved?

    Documents reviewed indicate clear roles and responsibilities.

Program Management and Delivery: Is the CSIF/BIF program managed and delivered effectively?

  1. Are project selection and approval efficient and appropriate?

    Limited evaluation evidence was available regarding the selection of projects. Approval of projects is well documented. Due to the size and significance of these projects, individual TB submissions are prepared for each project before a contribution agreement is signed. Expenses become eligible upon announcement of the project. This is an attractive feature of the program as parties know that the project will proceed after the necessary detailed work is conducted. This feature of the program permits work to get underway while additional planning, regulatory approvals and engineering work is done.

  2. Is the infrastructure projects being managed effectively (e.g., monitored and reported)?(exclude TC, as it is already covered in the audit of CSIF/BIF)

    Based on the evaluation modules implemented for this study, projects appear to be well managed and the oversight functions of the Agreement Management Committees appear to be working well.

  3. Are agreement signatories complying with the agreement terms (e.g., environmental assessments, financial clauses, and communications protocols)?

    The evaluation evidence presented no evidence of non-compliance with agreement terms

  4. Is there both awareness and understanding of the program by all stakeholders?

    Based on the evaluation modules implemented for this study, understanding of the individual projects and the general goals of the programs appears to be good.

  5. Are federal / provincial / territorial / municipal relationships being effectively maintained?

    There is evidence from this study that these relationships are being effectively maintained and the Agreement Management Committees are an excellent feature of the programs.

  6. What changes could be made to improve the efficiency of delivering CSIF/BIF? (e.g., changes to the governance structure, business processes or channels of communication)

    The programs appear to be running efficiently. Governance structures appear to work well once the contribution agreements are in place. Flow of funds and reporting appear to be working well. There is evidence of adequate communication of individual projects at key milestones, on project websites and in annual reports.

Success / Progress: Does the CSIF/BIF program achieve the intended outputs and early outcomes?

  1. Is the CSIF/BIF program reaching and informing its intended audience?

    There appears to be very good communication of early outcomes from specific projects. This is done through public events, media announcements and websites for the various projects.

  2. To what extent has the CSIF&BIF programs progressed towards its intended immediate outcomes (see below) as identified in its logic model and funding agreement criteria?

    What were the barriers to success?

    Evaluation evidence indicates steady progress over time as projects are implemented.

    1. Did CSIF/BIF obtain collaborative support of other governmental departments? If not, why?

      The evaluation evidence indicates good collaboration and support of other government departments through participation on Agreement Management Committees

    2. How well did CSIF/BIF leverage resources from partners?

      Based on documentation reviewed and interviews conducted for this evaluation, CSIF / BIF projects all leveraged significant resources from project partners.

  3. To what extent have the CSIF & BIF programs progressed towards the achievement of the intermediate outcomes identified in its logic model?

    What were the barriers to success?

    For many of these projects intermediate outcomes are not measureable until several years post-completion.

    1. Have the funded infrastructure projects been started/completed according to the contribution agreement? If not, why?

      Yes, generally projects are completed per the contribution agreements, and in the event a change is required, all necessary steps are taken.

  4. To what extent have the CSIF & BIF programs made progress towards contributing to their stated overall ultimate outcomes?
    1. Have projects supported local / regional economies?

      For many of these projects most outcomes are not measureable until several years post-completion. There is evidence of local / regional economic benefits during the construction of these projects, including sourcing of construction materials and local employment.

    2. Have communities/funding recipients made provisions for maintenance of the infrastructure over its expected lifecycle?

      Yes, generally proponents have arranged plans for maintaining the new/upgraded infrastructure.

    3. Are Canadians aware of the federal government's contribution to infrastructure through these programs?

      Yes, signage exists at project sites, information is included in communications documentation and on websites, and, based on these indicators and the media articles reviewed for this study, the message is being made available widely to Canadians interested in this issue. No public survey research was undertaken or reviewed for this study regarding this issue.

    4. Is the federal role in infrastructure perceived as being legitimate?

      The evidence from this study indicates that the Infrastructure funding provided by the federal government for this set of projects is most welcome and is perceived as legitimate.

    5. CSIF II only

      Has the program contributed to reducing climate change (e.g., reducing energy consumption, GHG emissions and waste)?

      This is likely not measureable for many years post completion of these projects.

  5. CSIF only

    To what extent has the program contributed to its stated ultimate outcomes by infrastructure category (i.e., water and wastewater, trade corridors, connectivity, sustainable urban growth, Northern infrastructure, and social housing, etc.)? 4

    All projects reviewed have logical links to the achievement of ultimate outcomes. In most cases, achievement of ultimate outcomes is likely not measureable for many years following completion of the project. Northern infrastructure is beginning to achieve the stated ultimate outcomes, particularly in the case of social housing in Nunavut. In fact, buildings there have won awards and they were able to construct even more units than originally thought under the business case.

  6. BIF only

    Are federal efforts towards border issues harmonized? What role has INFC played in this?

    Border issues are being harmonized, but there are many issues that go beyond infrastructure and the reach of INFC, and include issues related to the CBSA, Transport Canada and the United States Government.

  7. BIF only

    To what extent have projects contributed to making the borders safer?

    Projects are making the border safer in terms of traffic safety as well as from potential acts of terrorism or large-scale violence. This is being done through the use of software and cameras as well as physical security measures such as fences and additional stations for security personnel.

  8. BIF only

    Have the BIF projects contributed to improve efficiency?

    Based on the evidence of this evaluation, BIF projects have contributed to improving the efficiency of border crossings for passengers and for freight moving by rail or truck.

    1. BIF only

      Have BIF projects contributed to increase use of fast-tracking programs?

      Yes, new lanes for FAST and NEXUS have been developed and are encouraging drivers to use these fast-tracking programs.

  9. BIF only

    Have communities and regions experienced sustainable, economic growth as a result of BIF projects?

    Based on the evaluation evidence, the BIF projects can logically be expected to facilitate better movement of goods across the border, thereby increasing trade and economic growth in communities with production of goods and services for export markets.

  10. Were there any unintended impacts of the CSIF/BIF program?

    None have been identified through the evaluation modules implemented for this study.

Cost-effectiveness: Is the CSIF/BIF program cost-effective?

  1. Have ways of determining the cost-effectiveness of the projects in the CSIF/BIF programs been identified? If not, why? Is it possible to identify a way to do it at the project/program level?

    Each announced project requires TB approval before a contribution agreement is signed and payments made. The TB approval process requires an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of each project and anticipated costs and benefits of each project. We reviewed a sample of analyses prepared mainly for roads, bridges, public transport and border crossings. All documentation of this nature that we examined was prepared in a professional manner and according to the standards and guidelines set by Treasury Board. Each project in these programs is quite specific and unique in its costs and future anticipated benefits. Measurement at the level of the program would be difficult and subject to significant validity threats in view of the large number of other confounding factors related to Canada's infrastructure projects. The requirement for contributions from funding sources other than the Federal government is an additional factor ensuring that the project meets the test of cost-effectiveness from multiple perspectives.

  2. Are there alternative, more cost-effective ways of achieving the stated outcomes?

    No alternative manner to achieve the stated outcomes that would be more cost-effective was identified during this evaluation.

  3. What changes could be made to improve the performance and likelihood of success for CSIF/BIF?

    Having a model contribution agreement would go a long way in satisfying the concerns of proponents who experienced considerable lengths of time between announcements and finalized contribution agreements.

[4] See the RMAF for Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund, Mar. 5, 2004, pp. 22-25.

Appendix F: Items to Include (but not to be limited by) in a Model File

  • The Announcement;
  • Background documentation for the period before the announcement such as correspondence and briefing notes, meeting minutes, due diligence reports including relevant reports about the project and its history, analyses done to assess the potential costs and benefits of the potential project, cost estimates prepared to support the decision on the size of the federal contribution, environmental assessments and other reports seeking necessary approvals for the potential project, presentation decks, speeches and media reports, and other similar background documentation;
  • Media reports, website publications, speech references, public meetings held following the announcement of the project;
  • List of key contacts and officials who worked on this project file from within Infrastructure Canada, within Treasury Board Secretariat, within the potential Federal Delivery Partner, within the Province, within the regional or municipal government(s), with other organizations or private sector firms which have been involved with the project;
  • Meeting minutes and agendas for the preparation of the TB Submission; briefing notes related to the preparation of the TB Submission; presentation decks used to explain the project and the elements of the TB Submission;
  • The draft(s) and final TB Submission;
  • The draft(s) and final Contribution Agreement;
  • Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Delivery Partner;
  • Financial Audit Reports;
  • Annual Reports;
  • Final Project Report;
  • Media articles, public events, communications activities related to the project; and
  • Other briefing notes, presentation decks or correspondence.

This model file would ensure that new staff could become familiar with projects more quickly than it currently occurs.

Date modified: