:
I call the meeting to order. I would like to welcome everyone here, including Mr. Scheer, who is not normally on this committee.
Welcome to meeting number 31 of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The committee is meeting in public today and is being televised.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g) the committee is meeting today to study report 9, “Investing in Canada Plan”, of the 2021 reports 6 to 9 of the Auditor General of Canada.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021; therefore, members may be attending in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application.
I believe everyone is attending remotely, so interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on mute to minimize any interference.
When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely.
Finally, should any technical challenges arise, please advise the chair and note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes as we want to ensure all members are able to participate fully.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses. Joining us today from the Office of the Auditor General are Karen Hogan, Auditor General of Canada; Nicholas Swales, principal; and Gabriel Lombardi, director.
From Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we have Romy Bowers, president and chief executive officer; Paul Mason, senior vice-president, client operations; Michel Tremblay, senior vice president, policy and innovation; and Caroline Sanfaçon, vice-president, housing solutions, multi-unit.
From the Department of Indigenous Services we have Christiane Fox, deputy minister; Joanne Wilkinson, senior assistant deputy minister, regional operations sector; and Claudia Ferland, director general, regional infrastructure delivery branch, regional operations sector.
From the Office of Infrastructure of Canada we have Kelly Gillis, deputy minister, infrastructure and communities; Gerard Peets, assistant deputy minister, policy and results; and Sean Keenan, director general, economic analysis and results and chief economist.
From the Privy Council Office we have Matthew Shea, assistant deputy minister, corporate services; and Michelle Lattimore, director of operations, results and delivery.
From the Treasury Board Secretariat we have Peter Wallace, secretary of the Treasury Board of Canada.
What a slate of witnesses we have with us today.
With that, I welcome you all, and we'll turn the floor over to Ms. Hogan for five minutes.
:
Madam Chair, thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our audit report on the investing in Canada plan.
Joining me are Nicholas Swales, the principal responsible for the audit, and Gabriel Lombardi, who led the audit team.
The investing in Canada plan is important because the government is investing $188 billion over 12 years to generate long-term economic growth, improve the resiliency of communities, support the transition to a green economy and improve social inclusion and socio-economic outcomes for Canadians.
Our audit examined whether Infrastructure Canada and key federal organizations could demonstrate that the plan was meeting its objectives and whether they were providing complete, reliable and timely reporting on the plan to Canadians.
Overall, we found that Infrastructure Canada was unable to present a full picture of the results achieved and progress made under the investing in Canada plan. The absence of clear and complete reporting on the plan makes it difficult for parliamentarians and Canadians to know whether progress is being made against the intended results.
Specifically, we found that the department's reporting on intended results excluded almost half the government's investment. The reporting did not capture the more than $92 billion of funding that was committed before the plan's creation in 2016. Although this issue was raised soon after the creation of the plan by one of its oversight committees and later in a 2019 internal review, we found that this reporting gap remained unresolved.
For the other half of the funding, Infrastructure Canada and its federal partners developed a reporting framework that includes expected results and indicators, but they did not report against the framework consistently and comprehensively. The clarity of the reporting was also affected by inconsistent information received from the partner organizations.
[Translation]
We were further disappointed to observe that the plan made no mention of the United Nations' sustainable development goals, even though the plan could play a significant role in achieving some of them. The government has recognized the importance of collaboration among federal organizations in this area.
We also found that funds weren't being spent as quickly as originally planned. Approximately 20% of the spending intended for the first three years was moved to later years. In addition, half of the total allocated spending is now planned for the last five years of the plan. No organization was tracking the impact of delayed spending on the plan as a whole. This means that the plan's objectives may not be met.
The issues affecting the investing in Canada plan aren't new. We've seen similar problems in several past audits in areas requiring cross-departmental or cross-government collaboration, such as the areas involving indigenous issues and climate change. This audit is yet another example of the need for the government to act on known issues, in this case the need for broad collaboration and clear reporting on results for this large initiative.
We made a comprehensive recommendation to Infrastructure Canada to improve monitoring, tracking and reporting on progress. The department agreed with it.
This concludes my opening remarks.
We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
:
Good morning. Thank you for inviting me here today to talk about the Auditor General's report on the investing in Canada plan.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that the land I am joining you from is the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
[Translation]
I'm pleased to be here with my colleagues from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Indigenous Services Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office.
We want to thank the Auditor General and her staff for their examination of the plan. We accept the Auditor General's recommendations.
[English]
Introduced in budgets 2016 and 2017, the investing in Canada plan was created to provide a comprehensive reporting of cross-government effort to deliver infrastructure to communities across Canada.
Infrastructure Canada has a dual role in the plan. The first of these is to deliver infrastructure funding. Infrastructure Canada is one of 21 departments and agencies responsible for administering the programming included in the plan. In our second role, Infrastructure Canada acts as the central hub for reporting on plan-wide data, while each of the 21 departments and agencies that report into the plan is accountable for the management of its programs.
This information gives Canadians a global perspective on how the plan is moving forward. For example, our website provides a full accounting of the $188 billion in funding delivered under the plan: how this funding has been allocated to programs, how much has been approved for specific projects and how much has been paid out to recipients. As a result of this horizontal reporting of the plan’s progress, I am able to say that federal departments and agencies have approved over $81 billion in funding under the plan—43% of the total, 40% of the way through the plan—associated with 67,000 projects, of which 91% have started.
[Translation]
Infrastructure Canada's horizontal results reporting role is set out in the requirements of the Treasury Board. However, we've created additional tools to enrich how we report to Canadians.
These tools include our online geo-map, which makes it possible to identify projects in specific regions and communities.
[English]
Also, in response to requests for information from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we've provided additional project-level information in a way that is as comprehensive and comparable as the source data allows.
It is important to note, however, that not all programs report the same kind of information in the same way. This is because programs have been set up with different requirements, reflecting their diverse policy goals. Some, like the gas tax fund, provide funding as an upfront grant. While funding under such programs is fully accounted for and their performance is audited, very little project-level information is requested of applicants, by design. Others, like the investing in Canada infrastructure program, are application based, permitting federal departments and agencies to collect detailed project-level information.
It is also true that programs operate through long-standing funding mechanisms, which predated the plan—what we call “legacy” programs. The reporting requirements of these programs were preserved when the plan was put in place. Changing them would have caused significant delays, introduced uncertainty for infrastructure investments and been counter to binding agreements. However, as these programs reflect considerable ongoing investments in infrastructure, they were included in the plan as is. Where possible, we have integrated the available data of these programs into the horizontal reporting under the plan.
[Translation]
I would like to underscore that this entire horizontal reporting framework sits on top of existing departmental requirements and accountabilities for individual programs.
Each of the 21 departments and agencies is individually responsible for their respective programs, including the program design, spending, oversight and reporting.
[English]
This is information available through each department's own reporting framework, which can be reviewed through such tools as departmental result reports, main estimates, public accounts and proactive disclosures on the open government portal. We have developed a number of tools to report to Canadians and have continued to evolve our reporting, but we know there's room for improvement.
In developing our management action plan, Infrastructure Canada is taking careful consideration of the Auditor General's finding and is working with our delivery partners to ensure that Canadians and parliamentarians have meaningful information about the infrastructure that is being built under the plan.
The Auditor General also noted that 20% of the funds for the first three years of the plan were re-profiled to later years. Five years into a 12-year plan, over 40% of the funds have been committed and, as of January 2021, $48 billion has flowed to recipients.
It is important to note that, for most infrastructure programs, federal spending is made as a reimbursement after the fact. This means that programs are rolled out, projects are started, construction begins and economic activity is spurred along, and federal dollars then are paid out. It is also critical to understand that infrastructure funding does not lapse but rather is re-profiled and carried forward to future years under the plan, so that it is available as infrastructure projects are built.
We appreciate the opportunity the Auditor General's work provides us to improve how we report on the investing in Canada plan.
[Translation]
I would be happy to answer your questions.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge that I'm joining you today from my home in Toronto, the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples.
[Translation]
I'm pleased to have the chance to speak to you today on behalf of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
I want to acknowledge the Auditor General's report and show my appreciation for her very important work. We concur with the findings and recommendation and with Infrastructure Canada's response to the report.
Along with Infrastructure Canada, we're committed to providing meaningful reporting to Canadians on the investing in Canada plan and to finding ways to improve our reporting.
[English]
Under the investing in Canada plan, we are responsible for $32.8 billion of government investment in various programs over 12 years. Through these programs, CMHC has committed funding to almost 22,000 projects in communities from coast to coast to coast. Those benefiting from these projects include individuals and families living in some of the most vulnerable situations.
Because of these projects, more seniors have suitable homes where they can safely age in place; more low-income families have affordable community housing; more women and children fleeing violence have safe shelter and more on-reserve communities get access to much-needed renovation and upgrades to their homes.
CMHC has taken great strides in recent years to transform itself to become a much more agile company. We've also become much more client-focused and responsive. Over the past year, we've made many adjustments to our national housing co-investment fund, reducing the length of the application process by over 50%. As a result, we've seen much stronger uptake on this program, which means a much greater pace of construction of affordable housing.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
We continue to be accountable to our ultimate client—Canadians. In addition to ICP reporting, each quarter we report on the progress of our national housing strategy initiatives, many of which are included in the plan and on our website at www.placetocallhome.ca.
Housing projects under the national housing strategy give more families a stable home where they can work, study and stay safe through these challenging times, and plan for a better future.
Many of our legacy programs are delivered through funding agreements that have been in place for many decades, and we report on them in accordance with historic agreements. Our newer national housing strategy programs have more stringent reporting requirements. We will use this opportunity to better coordinate reporting while also ensuring the privacy and safety of some of the most vulnerable people we serve.
We have always worked at CMHC to optimize public funding. We've been able to draw on our close partnerships with the private and non-profit sectors to get the most out of federal investments. We will continue to make public funding count and deliver the best possible results for Canadians.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee on this matter, Madam Chair, and I'm very happy to take any questions at this time.
:
Kwe kwe.
Ulaakut.
Tansi. Hello.
Today I'm speaking to you from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg people.
I would like to begin by confirming that through the programs and investments administered through the investing in Canada plan, Indigenous Services Canada is working very closely with indigenous partners and our colleagues here today to achieve better outcomes.
Since budget 2016, Indigenous Services Canada has received more than $4.29 billion in targeted funding under the plan. As of December 31, 2020, $3.43 billion has been invested to support vital community infrastructure projects on reserve.
[Translation]
Through budget 2021, the federal government is proposing a historic new investment of over $18 billion over the next five years to improve the quality of life and create new opportunities for people living in indigenous communities.
These investments will continue to help indigenous communities deal with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The investments will also support continued action on infrastructure.
In addition to the report's findings, the Auditor General also brings to light the dynamic nature of funding relationships between the Government of Canada and first nations partners, demonstrating a need for cross-government collaboration.
[English]
To increase the financial impact and address the infrastructure needs of first nations communities, Indigenous Services Canada uses a portfolio approach for the allocation and reporting of targeted infrastructure investments.
This means that projects may be supported by multiple funding sources, not all of which fall under the investing in Canada umbrella.
To ensure transparency and results, a robust reporting process has been implemented, allowing both Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to provide regular updates on their overall portfolio of infrastructure projects in first nations communities.
This includes an infrastructure investment interactive map that has been available on our site since June 2018, and which is updated on a quarterly basis. Given the department's focus on water, we also provide information by community as we work hard to eliminate long-term drinking-water advisories.
[Translation]
We're committed to helping first nations achieve their vision of self-determination, and to respecting their autonomy by seeking opportunities to reduce reporting requirements. To this end, the funding requirements, methodology and delivery of the program must reflect the evolving relationship between the federal government and first nations.
While we understand that reporting requirements will be different for every program, a flexible approach is needed for legacy funds, which include programs established prior to budget 2016 and which amount to approximately $14 billion over 12 years.
[English]
First nations communities experience different realities than do cities and municipalities across Canada. Indigenous Services Canada does not support increasing reporting requirements for infrastructure legacy funds, as these funds are distributed to first nations for the management of their communities as a whole, not just for infrastructure projects.
[Translation]
As we move forward on the path towards self-determination and fulfill the vision of the department—which is to support and empower indigenous peoples to independently deliver services to their communities—we must note that first nations communities are responsible for carrying out infrastructure projects in their communities.
Through the investing in Canada plan, we've been able to support the health and well-being of indigenous communities by providing clean drinking water, reliable energy solutions and affordable housing units. However, we acknowledge that work remains to be done.
[English]
These investments are helping to meet the infrastructure needs of first nations communities and will lay the foundation for a long-term investment strategy in first nation community infrastructure to build healthy, safe and prosperous communities.
We will continue to engage and work with Infrastructure Canada to develop a consistent manner to provide comprehensive reporting on the investing in Canada plan.
Thank you. Meegwetch. Qujannamiik. Marsi. Merci.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the Auditor General's work. This is my first time on this committee, but we've been studying the various infrastructure programs at the transport committee, so I appreciate my colleagues' allowing me to sub in today.
There's a lot to unpack, with such a large department administering a large amount of money, as you point out, over many different funding envelopes. I suppose that's one of the reasons we flagged the challenge of getting accurate information back on the department's spending, based on the fact that it is spread out over so many projects.
I have a couple of questions for the Auditor General, just to get some clarity on them.
In your report, you indicated that there was quite a significant delay in terms of the program spending, and that not all the money that was allocated was being spent every year. We just heard from the deputy minister—I believe she said this but she can clarify if I've misquoted her—that they have spent 43% of the funds 40% of the way through the plan.
Is there a contradiction there? Is the plan behind? Have they taken that lapsed money and put it onto later years? Are we currently behind, or am I misreading something?
It's so important, because when a government says to Canadians that this is how it is going to address economic decline and kick-start the economy, especially moving out of the impacts of the pandemic, in order to be able to trust the government, we have to be able to see if the money is actually doing what it is intended to do.
I'll go back to your point about committing money. Yes, it's easy to commit money. It's more challenging to spend money, but it's even more challenging to spend money properly. That's why these reporting mechanisms are so important.
If I have time left, Madam Chair, maybe I could ask the deputy minister....
Again, I've tried to take notes as you've spoken, so if I misquote you, please clarify. I believe you said that some of the programs don't require reporting by design. When we're talking about tracking the effectiveness of taxpayers' money, can you explain which types of programs you would specifically design not to have some kind of a reporting or tracking mechanism?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses who are appearing before the committee today to discuss this very important issue. Horizontal programs are often about coordinating government policies and implementing these policies for very practical reasons.
In my opinion, we don't talk enough about the issue of gender-based analysis plus, or GBA+. I want to raise an issue that I'm concerned about. How will we reach people from culturally diverse communities, who are part of the groups included in GBA+?
My first question is for the Auditor General of Canada.
Ms. Hogan, thank you again for being here today.
When your team conducted the audits, did you carry out a GBA+ for certain aspects of this audit? If so, can you share your office's findings?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge all the witnesses here today.
My first question is for Ms. Hogan.
Good morning, Ms. Hogan, and welcome back.
You were asked for a report following the passage of a motion on January 29, 2020. I appreciate the insight gained from your expertise and your office's expertise. To be honest, I think that if you weren't here to keep an eye on things, I would be even more concerned than I am now. I'm amazed at the inertia that can be found in the federal government. I would even say that the findings in your report are quite troubling. I want to repeat the adage that “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
I can see that departments, crown corporations and a variety of organizations are slow to provide the information that you need to complete the audit mandate given to you by Parliament.
What can you tell the committee about your issues in this area? Can you think of any examples to provide some context?
:
Actually, it's Mr. Green, Chair.
I know you guys had a lot of fun with my colleague, , from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, but I am back, from the unceded Algonquin territories here in Ottawa and, of course, proudly representing Hamilton Centre.
Some pretty revealing questions were posed, beginning in section 9, at paragraph 9.30, which talked about the legacy funding and how it was not “integrated into the plan” and how the horizontal reporting framework “required reporting only for Phase 1 and Phase 2 programs, while legacy programs continued to operate without explicitly aligning with the plan's objectives, expected results, or themes”. It also said, “The legacy programs, which represent almost half of the total $188-billion commitment, were therefore not included in the supplementary table on the horizontal initiative.”
My question is, why would these legacy programs be included if they were essentially being conducted and reported completely separately? That's probably for one of the staffers, because I don't know that Ms. Hogan would have that answer.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
As Ms. Hogan mentioned, there are three different components to the plan.
In the legacy programs, which were the programs that were in existence before the plan was created, continued investment had not been made with those particular programs that ultimately were serving the overall objective of economic growth. If I give one great example from our programming, it's the gas tax program.
You can speak to any community across Canada: The gas tax program is a really important initiative. It is an upfront transfer payment, so it's not an application-based program whereby municipalities have to apply for their particular projects in advance. It's $2.2 billion that flows through provinces and territories to communities, to allow them to invest in things like connectivity—
:
What we have done is to incorporate them into various programs like our funding table. Our legacy programs are noted. In our geospatial map, where the data is available, we've included it. We have included it as an overall economic driver because it is an important investment in infrastructure.
On the exact modalities and the framework, as the Auditor General noted, the framework doesn't align perfectly, and we do not want to recreate or redo the gas tax program into a new framework, because that would undermine certainty and investments and undo necessarily binding agreements. We know that the program is coming up for renewal in 2024, so we have an opportunity to address some of the reporting requirements that we might want as a requirement for future reporting.
In the meantime, we are looking at the horizontal table right now, with the Auditor General's recommendation, to see how we can realign it to fit the horizontal reporting issues that have been addressed regarding legacy programs. We have already started to address reporting regarding legacy programs in our other reports that have been made public.
:
There are 93 programs and 21 departments. There are seven departments and 17 programs that are legacy. Each one of them had approved reporting frameworks, and each department and ministry is reporting on those programs and is accountable for the delivery of those programs with the frameworks that were in existence at that time.
Now, when we're looking at the broader reporting of the investing in Canada plan, which has a certain framework in place, they don't perfectly align. If I go back to the gas tax program, for example, in our programming—in our reporting right now—we divide out the program among green, public transit, trade and transportation, and social, rural and north. The gas tax program reports in all of those categories are available within that particular program and do not segregate between them, because it is a transfer payment to municipalities for them to have the flexibility to invest in the infrastructure they need.
We know it's audited. We know there is reporting after the fact. We just don't have the same data points to report the exact same way, so those are the—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question is for Ms. Bowers from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC.
Ms. Bowers, could you talk to us about the national housing strategy, which was announced in 2017. It's an ambitious federal government program, a nearly $40 billion plan to address housing needs, including social housing.
I saw that CMHC was managing various programs, including the rapid housing initiative. We are talking about a $1 billion program. Last fall, the program was aimed at projects in certain regions of Quebec. The federal government and the Government of Quebec reached an agreement, and the federal government granted $116 million to Quebec.
However, we don't know if, out of the $500 million to support projects from the provinces, there will be funds for other projects in Quebec. We've had no news about that.
Can you tell us more about this?
:
I would like to speak for a few moments about the national housing strategy.
The member is quite correct, in that it is a very significant investment by the Government of Canada in housing. With respect to the investing in Canada plan, there are aspects of the national housing program that are included in the program.
With respect to the national housing program, because we're not bound by some of the reporting requirements that were set in past agreements, we are able to provide a very high degree of granularity and good reporting to support the Auditor General's recommendations.
With respect to investments in the province of Quebec, we are able to provide granular reporting of our investments and funding by province.
I think the last part of Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas' question was with respect to the rapid housing strategy. Again, with respect to that particular program, there was a special agreement with the Province of Quebec to provide funding under that program, which was intended to support housing needs that were very linked to the COVID pandemic. The funds for that were forwarded to the province very quickly.
Within the report, paragraph 9.48 states:
We found that in the first 3 years of the plan, federal organizations consistently spent less than they had initially planned. This led to funding reallocations that increased expected spending levels for later years.... As a result, for Phase 1, Phase 2, and legacy programs, approximately $9 billion was moved to later years, representing 20% of initially planned spending.
It also lays out how, in the fourth year of the plan, “$3 billion of Phase 1 and Phase 2...was not spent as planned and would have to be reallocated to future years.”
It has been a critique of this plan that it is being used for big funding announcements, which are great for playing politics but don't mean anything if the money isn't actually being spent and the programs aren't completed. Aside from important projects being delayed, what risk does loading this funding pose?
Through you Madam Chair, to Ms. Gillis, is there a risk that this funding lapses or just doesn't get invested?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Now I'd like to turn to the Auditor General.
Ms. Hogan, I was very proud to see that one of the first motions adopted by the minority government in the House of Commons was to give you the mandate to analyze the Investing in Canada Plan.
I just want to reiterate that the purpose of the motion was to ask the Auditor General to determine whether the goals and promises of the plan had been fulfilled. We understand that because of the pandemic, there has been a bit of a delay in tabling your report, but we now have it.
I'm on the Infrastructure Canada website right now. Some of the goals you mentioned in your audit report include employment, resilience, inclusiveness and accessibility.
With respect to jobs and growth, we were told that the plan would create 100,000 good paying jobs each year.
I would remind you that when the government announced this plan, it was to justify exceptional expenses of $10 billion. This exceptional $10 billion deficit, during the government's first years in office, was to be eliminated in order to return to a balanced budget at the end of the first term.
However, we've seen what has happened. Spending has been much higher than that, and deficits ballooned dramatically throughout the years of that first term.
We could have agreed on investments to create jobs.
Has your analysis allowed you to determine whether the plan has created 100,000 good paying jobs each year?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the witnesses and the people in the background who have supported the information that we're getting this morning.
Madam Hogan, I'd like to start with you in terms of the sustainable development goals, which is one of my favourite topics, as you know. I looked at the 17 goals and I thought there are probably nine that apply. The four that certainly apply are goal 6, which is clean water and sanitation; goal 10, reduced inequalities; goal 11, sustainable cities and communities; and goal 13, climate action.
When you're doing your pre-audit planning and then your communication with departments of what you're going to be auditing.... I'm thinking of ISO audits. When the ISO auditors would come to my businesses, they would say they were going to audit in certain sections and they were going to be looking for certain types of things.
Is that something you work on or could be working on with the departments you're auditing, to say that you're going to look for these sustainable development goals or you're going to be looking at committed funds versus spent funds, for example? Do you have that type of meeting before the audits?
:
That's very good, and good for you for pointing that out.
It is new. Departments need to start getting into that mindset. Having that as part of your audit is going to help move things forward for departments in future audits.
I'd like to go to Ms. Bowers on CMHC and tracking projects. In my riding we have 12 projects we've been working on with our local CMHC representative. Six of them now have been approved. Last night, I heard that city council has now approved one of the supportive housing projects that we've been working on with CMHC.
As we get from commitment to.... First of all, to get to commitment, we have to get the local city council's involvement. We need to get the province to say that this is supportive housing and that they will support this part of the project. There are a lot of horizontals outside of government. To track the milestones, which is what I'm doing.... Now that I know city council approved this certain project last night in Guelph, I'll be on the phone to CMHC in the next few weeks to see how we're moving ahead with the financing part of that project.
How do we track the milestones? I can only imagine, with the number of projects you have, that has to be a huge challenge.
:
First of all, I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement of our staff on the ground. It's very important for our staff to work directly with the proponents. We recognize that creating affordable housing is challenging. It requires a lot of co-operation and partnerships with many levels of government, profits and non-profits. We recognize the complexity of that.
When we were tasked with delivery of the national housing strategy, we invested very significantly in our technology capabilities. We have amazing systems in place that help us track the milestones you mentioned.
As we first launched the national housing strategy, we were criticized that our processes were too long. Because we had data about the length of the processes, it really allowed us to identify where the pain points were and try to improve to serve Canadians better. It's been a great success story.
Having said that, there's always room for us to improve. I really welcome feedback or comments from any constituents or any Canadians about any of our services. It's only by hearing from them that we can continue to improve on a continuous basis.
Thank you very much.
:
I appreciated the previous questions coming from my friend from the Bloc, Maxims.
As some of you on committee know, I'm a former city councillor for Hamilton, and I recall the announcement—which is where some of my frustration comes from, quite frankly. I recall the announcement, particularly when it came to one-third/one-third/one-third funding. Big programs would be announced. That would raise the expectations of the residents, but then those would require willing partners in the province and the municipalities. As Mr. Blanchette-Joncas has so aptly described, municipalities, as you know, are able to raise revenues only through property taxes and building permits.
I'm going to take this moment just to—for the benefit of those watching and even for the members of this committee—ask Ms. Gillis to maybe explain the process. An announcement happens. What are the parameters around successful partnerships as they relate to municipalities in particular? As well, what would the typical timeline be from announcement to shovels in the ground, with the understanding that maybe some of these programs need to be, by requirement, shovel-ready?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses here today, and to my colleagues for their great questions.
Ms. Fox, in my previous role in provincial politics, I had the honour and the pleasure of working with treaties 6, 7 and 8 as the indigenous relations minister. I worked with many wonderful people in those communities.
Now, moving to federal politics, I find, Ms. Fox, you've been here many times and I find your presence here and your information very interesting. I want to focus on some comments you made today. You said:
To ensure transparency and results, a robust reporting process has been implemented, allowing both Indigenous Services Canada and Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to provide regular updates on their overall portfolio of infrastructure projects in first nations communities.
I know this is going along the same line as Mr. Longfield earlier, but he didn't have time to get an answer. I'm hoping to get some clarification on that. You talked about a robust reporting process that has been implemented, yet you went on to say that you are committed to supporting first nations in realizing their vision of self-determination, and to respecting their autonomy by seeking opportunities to reduce reporting requirements by first nations.
First you're saying you're going to have a robust reporting period, and then you're saying you're going to reduce reporting. Can you give me some clarification there, please?
:
Absolutely. I would say it in the following way.
What we're trying to achieve as a department is getting the right balance between a reporting structure that allows us to have that open and transparent approach, while understanding that there needs to be a balance, given the level of capacity. As you know, the federal government has multiple departments; it's a big machine. We have to think about the reporting requirements from our partners' perspective.
I'll give you the example of the legacy programs. Over time, we have programs that are very much under the investment in Canada plan, and then we have these legacy programs that date back to before that. Much of that money is actually A-base funding; therefore, communities can use it for utility bills and salaries. If we started asking them to report on the details of that, we would lose sight of the importance of getting the detail around the project itself. We try to limit the burden while still being open and transparent to Canadians by posting our information online.
For example, if we want to look at health infrastructure across indigenous communities, we can say that we have 210 health-related infrastructure projects, 200 that are complete and 10 that are ongoing. We can talk about the health facilities and where we stand, with 49 projects under way. It's to get to the level of detail that helps us identify the priorities, better understand the gaps that still exist, and then work towards that versus reporting on the very small details, which frankly is quite burdensome for communities and doesn't really fit the objective of that openness and transparency. That's the nuance we're really trying to achieve here.
The water website, the infrastructure websites and the map where you can zone in on communities are helpful for us, for Canadians and for communities.
The last point I would make to answer your question would be around how we as a federal system can look at community needs through their lens, and not necessarily that we have a myriad programs. How can we engage directly with communities and ask what they would prioritize and how they would see that?
When I have conversations with indigenous leaders, they'll tell me that first they built their health infrastructure, but then because there was a new health facility, they could actually attract economic development. A mine might set up because now there's a health facility, and with that might come additional connectivity.
We have to have that conversation through a community lens versus our programming lens.
Does that answer your question?
:
Thank you, Chair; and good morning, colleagues.
There have been many great questions. I'll try to ask a couple of follow-up ones.
First, to the Auditor General, obviously it's another great report that I enjoyed reading.
Paragraph 9.6 of the report talks about this horizontal initiative in infrastructure, with 21 federal organizations: 13 federal departments, two crown corporations and six regional development agencies. I think about the bureaucracy in all those organizations.
Can you explain to me the complexity of this audit versus the other audits you have performed? Can you very quickly explain to me that differential, please?
This may have been asked earlier, but I had to take a personal call. Excuse me.
I completely agree with you, AG, when I look at these organizations and the reporting structure, and you say results and outcomes. At the end of the day, Canadians want results. There may be a bureaucracy in place, but we want results.
Here in the city of Vaughan—and I'm one of the three MPs who represent the residents of the city of Vaughan—we have a subway that comes up from Toronto into the city of Vaughan. It was planned, and along with that was a highway 407 extension out to Whitby. It was done and it was planned and we see it operating. Canadians want results.
In terms of the infrastructure side, one of the bullet points says about 40% of funds have been committed of the $180 billion, so $70-odd billion have been committed and $48 billion flowed to recipients. Obviously this is in connection to when something is committed and when something is built and then paid for. I want to understand that. My question on that front pivots, too, on the idea of operating dollars versus capital dollars. When we think of each of them....
I know, Ms. Fox, you commented on this in terms of the indigenous funding. Can each of you comment in terms of operating and capital?
In the infrastructure plans, when I think of infrastructure, I don't think of it as paying—as you mentioned, Ms. Fox—utility bills. I look at it as building, and then the asset is turned over to the entity, turned over to the municipal, the provincial, federal....
Can you comment on the infrastructure spending that's taking place? Is it operating or is it on capital?
I'd like to start on the infrastructure side, then move to the other two witnesses today, please.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
When we look at the programming within Infrastructure Canada, we are on the capital side. It is about proponents, so communities, provinces and territories building particular infrastructure assets. What is eligible from our programming is the capital.
That said, we have some programming in the investing in Canada plan that is funding research. When we talk about building codes and when we want to have the advancement from climate and the severity of the weather that we're facing for the future, we are also investing, and we have $45 million in the investing in Canada plan that funds research at the National Research Council.
There are different programs that are doing different things, but all with the advancement of the objectives of building the infrastructure we need in this country.
Quickly I can say that we have both pockets of money available at Indigenous Services Canada. For instance, in budget 2021 we have a new investment of $4.3 billion, plus $1.7 billion for O and M.
Similarly, on water investments, in the fall economic statement, we got an additional $1.5 billion strictly for O and M.
For our pockets, there's both, and I think the O and M aspect is key in order to ensure that the asset management plan is effective.
:
Absolutely. If you have asked a specific question during the committee meeting and weren't able to get the answer, or if you have some information that you would like to receive, we can definitely ask the department to provide that.
I know our clerk will make note of that and we will follow up with that.
Thank you, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.
Colleagues, before we adjourn, there are two questions or some information I need to give you.
In regard to my earlier question, while the audit was tabled on March 25, 2021, giving the department until September 25, 2021 regarding the management action plan, our committee has a motion that requires invited departments to provide an action plan 48 hours prior to their attendance at a meeting. Therefore, I would like to seek your guidance on how to proceed regarding the action plan from Infrastructure Canada.
Does the committee want to receive it sooner, or are you willing to allow the department more time, that is, until their September 25 deadline?
Mr. Blois.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon to the members today.
I just want to provide some context. If we don't have the action plan, and we've asked the chair to maybe.... We'll have to discuss this at a future meeting. Without the deadlines within the action plan, we would need further guidance from the committee on how to determine when we can expect certain deliverables in our recommendation.
It also is part of the norm to have something against which to measure the progress and hold them to account. The response in the audit does not provide any dates, and that's the last thing we, as a default, use. If we did not have that action plan, we would need further drafting instructions from the committee with regard to deadlines.
Thank you very much.
That's a friendly amendment to Mr. Lawrence's motion.
Are we in agreement, colleagues? I see nods and thumbs-up.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you very much. That motion will pass, and we will draft a communication to the department, letting them know that this motion has been passed.
Lastly, colleagues, for our meeting on Thursday, if you will recall, we had a conversation. There was a request to have us lengthen the meeting by an hour due to the briefing that we are going to receive, as well as the two reports that we wanted to get through. Our clerk has heard from our multimedia services that they are stretched to the limit and that it looks like we would only be able to lengthen it by half an hour, if that.
Angela, do you have an update for us on that?