Evaluation of the Green Infrastructure Fund
- Major Findings

Major Findings

The following sections present the major findings related to the evaluation of the GIF.

4.1 Relevance

The evaluation assessed whether the program addresses a continued need for green infrastructure funding and is aligned with federal and departmental priorities, roles and responsibilities.

CONTINUED NEED

Finding 1: There is a continued need for INFC to offer green infrastructure funding. The GIF partially addressed this need through the focus on wastewater, green energy and solid waste categories.

In the context of the GIF, INFC defined green infrastructure through four eligible project categories: wastewater, solid waste management, green energy, and carbon transmission and storage. The continued need was assessed with respect to these areas, and the general need for green infrastructure (outside of the four categories) was not established. The program was designed to support Provincial and Municipal green infrastructure needs by funding projects in these categories.

It was found that there is a demand for funding in the wastewater, solid waste and green energy categories, as these categories received a high number of applications and resulted in 20 accepted projects. However, there were no projects funded in the Carbon Transmission and Storage category. This category was unique to the GIF but there were only three applications submitted under this category, none of which were funded, suggesting that there is not a large demand for it. Table 3 shows the number of applications submitted, the number of rejected and approved applications by category, and the associated funding allocation.

Table 3: GIF project categories and related funding by category

Project Category	Number of applications submitted	Number of applications rejected	Number of applications / Projects approved	Related funding allocation of approved projects (in millions of dollars)
Wastewater	34	24	10	$295.3
Solid waste Management	36	29	7	$178.9
Green energy	83	80	3	$251.0
Carbon Transmission and Storage	3	3	0	$0
Other (non-eligible categories)	42	42	0	$0
Total:	198	178	20	$725.2

Source: INFC SIMSI and PIMS databases.

Wastewater

The implementation of Environment and Climate Change Canada's Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations (WSER) is linked to increased demand for wastewater funding. The WSER requirements were established under the Fisheries Act in 2012 and updated in 2015, and include mandatory minimum effluent quality standards that can be achieved through secondary wastewater treatment^Footnote6. Moreover, the 2016 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card, co-sponsored by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, shows a continued need for wastewater infrastructure, as the majority of wastewater assets are considered to be in fair, poor or very poor condition.^Footnote7 Program documents also indicated that high demand for wastewater funding was recognized in the context of program implementation. A limit of 25% of GIF funding for wastewater projects was initially set, to encourage projects in other categories; however this was increased to 35% in 2010.

Solid Waste Management

The seven projects with committed funding under the GIF’s solid waste management category represented 86% of INFC allocated funding for this category under all INFC programs, suggesting that the GIF filled a gap in terms of available solid waste infrastructure funding. The seven announced projects in this category were all biomethanation projects (including composting facilities in some cases) for the treatment of organic waste, which is a priority for the province of Quebec. The province of Quebec has specific regulatory requirements related to the management of residual materials, and funds such projects via its Programme de traitement des matières organiques par biométhanisation et compostage. If this area is prioritized by other Provinces in the future, there might be an increased need to fund solid waste projects.

Green Energy

More applications were received in the green energy category than any other category. Of the 83 applications received, only three projects were approved, all of which were very large in scale and accounted for approximately 35% of allocated funding under the GIF. Moreover, these three projects represent 88% of the overall INFC allocated funding for Green energy projects. Similar to the Solid waste category, this suggests that the GIF may have filled a gap in INFC funding.

ALIGNMENT WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Finding 2: The GIF is aligned with government and departmental priorities, roles and responsibilities and does not duplicate programs offered by other Government of Canada organizations, with the exception of the P3 Canada fund, delivered by PPP Canada.

The GIF was announced as an economic stimulus initiative under the EAP in 2009. In addition, in 2015 the GoC continued to recognize that environmental integrity is important for a strong and resilient economy, and sustainable, healthy and inclusive communities. Green infrastructure was listed as one of three pillars of the government's commitment to new infrastructure investment.^Footnote8 This demonstrates that the program is aligned with past and current Government of Canada priorities.

To meet the priorities of the Government, INFC enters into transfer payment agreements with recipients, including Provinces and Territories.^Footnote9 This allows INFC to support projects that would otherwise be under the purview of the Municipalities, Provinces and Territories.^Footnote10 The GIF programinvolved the Provinces and Territories in funding decisions by ensuring that they supported the selected projects. In addition, as per the GIF contribution agreements, an Agreement Management Committee (AMC) was formed to administer the agreement and monitor the project. AMC membership includes representation from both the Federal and the recipient. As such, INFC is respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction^Footnote11 while carrying out their roles and responsibilities.

A review of federal government programs was conducted to establish whether there was duplication between the GIF and other funding programs available. PPP Canada, a federal crown corporation that funds public-private partnerships, has funded projects that were eligible for the GIF: wastewater, green energy, and solid waste projects are eligible for the P3 Canada Fund, as long as they are delivered as public-private partnerships. The organization's first round of funding was in late 2009, before many GIF projects were selected.

Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN)'s Clean Energy Fund (CEF) was found to be comparable but did not overlap with the GIF. While the objective of the CEF is to focus on green technologies, it largely supported carbon capture and storage projects, which were eligible but not funded by the GIF, under the category Carbon Storage and Transmission. Of note, the intent of adding this category under GIF was to complement funding available through the CEF.

4.2 Performance - Design and Delivery

The evaluation considered the extent to which current aspects of the program design were appropriate and the extent to which the current delivery model supports the achievement of the program's objectives.

Finding 3: The way in which the GIF was delivered resulted in the receipt of a high proportion of ineligible project applications.

Almost 90% (178 out of 198) of project applications for the GIF were rejected. Compared to four other INFC programs (see table 4), the application acceptance rate for the GIF was the lowest. The GIF had an application acceptance rate of 10.1%, while the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component (BCF-CC), the next lowest, had an acceptance rate of 48.8%. It is important to note, however, that the other programs allocated a share of funding to each province and territory from which projects were funded. The GIF is one of two INFC programs without such Provincial / Territorial funding allocations. It was designed to fund projects solely based on proponent applications.

Table 4: Applications accepted, rejected and acceptance rate of a selection of INFC programs

Program (year of announcements)	Total applications (applications accepted + not going forward)	Number of applications "accepted"	Number of applications rejected (various reasons - approximate)	Acceptance rate (%)	Funding Mechanism
MRIF (2004-2011)	3,044	1,925	1,119	63.2%	Allocation-based funding to each P/T
BCF-MIC (2007-2015)	185	177	8	95.7%
BCF-CC (2008-2015)	1,957	955	1,002	48.8%
ISF (2009-2011)	4,982	4,029	953	80.9%
GIF (2009-2015)	198	20	178	10.1%	Merit-based funding
NBCF-NIC (2015-)	NBCF-NIC project assessment is ongoing and as a result it is too early to compare the project acceptance rate with that of the GIF.				Merit-based funding

Source: Data on accepted and under review applications from Program Integration’s Project List (Infrastructure Canada. Program Integration. Project List. Data from 2016/04/04). Data on rejected applications from Integrated Data Warehouse and Enterprise Data Warehouse (Infrastructure Canada databases).

Of the 178 applications rejected, 11 met the eligibility requirements for funding but were not selected; the other 167 were deemed ineligible. The three main reasons for an application being rejected were: "Insufficient public benefits", "Not an eligible category", and "Not regional/national in scale" (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1: Reasons for which GIF applications were rejected

Source: Infrastructure Canada. GIF Applications List. Data collected 2014.
See text description of figure 1

The high rate of rejection can be linked to the fact that many eligibility criteria were not communicated to applicants in advance. Definitions of public benefits (linked to 30.3% of rejections) and national/regional scale (linked to 21.8% of rejections) were not provided to applicants. In addition, only names of categories were provided and seven proposals were rejected for not meeting sub-categories, which were not provided to applicants. Applicants were also not notified that demonstration projects would not be considered, which is the reason for 5.3% of rejections. Among projects rejected for "Other" reasons in Figure 1 are four projects rejected for not having provincial or territorial support, which is also a requirement that was not shared with potential applicants.

For comparison, website information for INFC's New Building Canada Fund - National Infrastructure Component (NBCF-NIC) and the Green Municipal Fund (GMF) administered by the FCM were consulted. Table 5 shows that in both cases, significantly more information was available to potential applicants as compared to the GIF. While INFC made significant improvements in terms of information available to potential applicants in promoting the NBCF-NIC, the FCM put in place some good practices when promoting the GMF. The FCM published application and approval process deadlines, examples of projects funded under each category, and FAQs. For instance, assessment criteria, deadlines, application forms, detailed FAQs, examples by category, and other information can be expected to improve the quality and relevance of proposals; save potential recipients' and departmental resources spent on producing and assessing applications; and improve client satisfaction.

Table 5: Information available to potential applicants for the GIF, NBCF-NIC, and GMF

Green Infrastructure Fund (GIF)	Information on funding, re-allocations to other federal priorities, program objectives, eligible categories, funding allocation and generic info on cost-sharing. Very brief information on projects funded under the GIF are published (About the Project and the Expected Benefits for Canadians).
NBCF-NIC	A checklist for how to apply is published. A business case guide for project recipents is published. Information is published regarding how to apply, the assessment process, and requirements such as provincial support Service Standards are published.
GMF (FCM)	Eligibility (Eligible recipients, Eligible initiatives, Eligible costs). Application and approval processes and deadlines. Forms and resources for each type of initiative. Definition and examples for projects under each eligible initiative. Application form. FAQs for questions about GMF funding by themes. GMF Approved Projects Database (Project Type, Sector, Sub-Sector, Total Project Value, Grant, Loan, Fiscal Year Approved, Timeline, Status and Lead Applicant). Resources, Tools and Examples by eligible category. GMF News.

Source: Canada. Economic Action Plan. http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/en/initiative/green-infrastructure-fund; Canada. Infrastructure Canada. http://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/plan/nic-vin-prog-eng.html; Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Green Municipal Fund. http://www.fcm.ca/home/programs/green-municipal-fund.htm.
Note: As of 2016, additional information is available on approved projects for the GIF, NBCF-NIC, and many other INFC programs, including approval dates and construction start and end dates.

Finding 4: The GIF program was designed to assess and fund projects based on merit. However, as delivered, the assessment process focused on whether the project met eligibility criteria.

The program's intention was to allocate funding wholly based on merit in relation to program objectives, but the assessment of projects instead focused on the extent to which eligibility criteria were met, in accordance with the program's Terms and Conditions. Projects were not rated or ranked and compared. Instead, projects were assessed for basic eligibility; whether financial requirements were met; whether project benefits were identified; and whether risks were mitigated. Projects that met these basic criteria were referred to the Minister.

In contrast, in a review of other government department (OGD) processes, it was found that for the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Transportation Infrastructure Fund, Transport Canada (TC) separates eligibility and merit. As a first step, TC reviews all applications to determine if they met the eligibility assessment criteria. They then rate the extent to which the proposals meet merit assessment criteria, defined as: (1) value for money, (2) recipient experience and capacity, and (3) quality of the proposal. The GIF's assessment approach did not promote merit-based project selection, which may impact the achievement of program outcomes.

Finding 5: While there was overlap between the GIF project categories and those of six other INFC programs, there is no evidence to suggest that this negatively impacted the delivery of the GIF.

Table 6 shows that three of four categories of projects funded by the GIF were eligible in other programs at INFC at the time that applications were accepted: the green energy category, the solid waste management category and the wastewater category were eligible in up to six other INFC programs. INFC staff interviewed raised concerns that potential applicants might find the environment complex, as projects are often eligible for many programs. In some cases applications were received for other programs but were redirected to the GIF for funding: three of 11 funding recipients interviewed indicated that they were redirected to the GIF after originally applying for other INFC programs, which was confirmed by program documents. However, it cannot be concluded whether the overlap resulted in a negative impact on potential applicants or INFC staff. This issue could be explored in a future evaluation.

Table 6: Green infrastructure categories in other INFC programs (2009-2012)

INFC Program	Green Infrastructure Fund eligible categories				Other possible "green" categories of INFC programs
	Carbon storage & transmission	Green energy generation & transmission	Solid waste management	Waste water	Brownfield remediation	Drinking water	Disaster mitigation
BCF - CC	No	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓
BCF - LUCC	No	No	Yes✓	Yes✓	No	Yes✓	No
BCF - MIC	No	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓
GIF	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	No	No	No
GTF	No	No	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓
ISF	No	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓
PT-Base	No	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓	Yes✓

Source: Program documents and data from SIMSI and PIMS databases.

Finding 6: The program’s Performance Measurement Strategy will likely provide evidence on environmental impacts of projects but indicators of economic impact are problematic.

The PM Strategy clearly identifies expected results for the GIF, including specific indicators for each of the four eligible categories. A total of 18 indicators were established to measure the extent to which the GIF contributed to improved environment quality and a sustainable economy (see Annex F for the complete list of indicators). The program's indicators of environmental impact are likely to provide evidence of the impact of projects. However, the program's three economic indicators are problematic as they propose to measure outcomes that cannot be attributed to GIF projects. They are as follows:

• GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth, nationally and by province and in key sectors (utilities, etc)
• Productivity by key industrial sectors
• Growth in employment in key industrial sectors

4.3 Performance - Progress toward the Achievement of Outcomes

The evaluation examined the extent to which the GIF made progress towards achieving its intended outcomes as of December, 2015. The findings in this section are organized by outcome as identified in the GIF Logic Model (Annex A).

EXTENT TO WHICH THE GIF HAS RESULTED IN INCREASED FUNDING FOR GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS IN CANADA

Finding 7: While it is difficult to determine with certainty if the GIF increased the funding for green infrastructure projects in Canada, the program has contributed to an increase in green infrastructure funding by the Department.

To determine whether the GIF led to an increase in funding allocated for green infrastructure projects in Canada, a pre-post comparison was conducted by analyzing INFC's funding for green infrastructure projects and GIF funding from 2002-2008 (pre-GIF) and 2009-2015 (post-GIF launch).

Before the launch of the GIF, funding in green categories (solid waste, wastewater and green energy) at INFC represented 14% of all INFC funding. Since its launch in 2009, the GIF contributed 6% of INFC's green infrastructure project funding, while funding for green projects from other programs remained at 14%. As a result, following the implementation of the GIF, total INFC green project funding increased to 20% of all INFC funding (see Figure 2 below).

Figure 2: Funding allocations at INFC before and after the launch of the GIF (2002-2008 and 2009-2015)

Source: Infrastructure Canada. Data from PIMS Database.
See text description of figure 2

Finding 8: The GIF particularly helped increase the funding for the green energy and solid waste categories.

There is some overlap between the green infrastructure categories offered through the GIF and other INFC programs, which suggests that the projects funded by the GIF may have been eligible for funding through other INFC programs. However, it was found that since its launch in 2009, the GIF was responsible for the majority of allocated funding for the green energy and solid waste categories at INFC, indicating that without the GIF, these large projects may not have been funded (see Figure 3 ).

Funding from the GIF for green energy projects represents 88% of the department's funding in this category, making it the biggest investment ever made by INFC in green energy. For the solid waste category, the investment made under the GIF represents 86% of the Department's funding for this category. Of all green categories, wastewater received the most funding from INFC programs and the most funding under the GIF. However, overall the GIF funding for wastewater projects accounted for 14% of total INFC funding for this category from 2009 to 2015.

Figure 3: Percentage of funding for Green Infrastructure Categories, GIF & other INFC Programs, from 2009-2015

Source: Infrastructure Canada. Data from PIMS. Excludes GTF and PT-Base Fund.
See text description of figure 3

Finding 9: The GIF leveraged more funding from partners than other INFC programs.

The GIF resulted in a higher percentage of total funding leveraged by partners than for the similar green categories under other INFC programs. When looking at the green energy, wastewater and solid waste categories in all INFC programs (except GTF and PT Base), the GIF resulted in a higher percentage of total funding leveraged by partners (76%), amounting to over $2.3 billion in forecasted funding from partners (see table 7). The large proportion of leveraged funding suggests that the GIF contributed to increased green infrastructure funding by partners (including provincial, municipal, federal and other share partners). The GIF likely leveraged more funding than other programs because it mainly funded municipal infrastructure, which often receives equal contributions from the municipality and the province.

Table 7: Funding Leveraged from Partners for GIF versus Other INFC Programs (based on eligible costs)

Programs (green categories only)	Total federal funding allocated ($ Millions)	Total federal funding allocated in %	Total funding allocated from partners ($ Millions)	Total funding allocated from partners in %
Green Infrastructure Fund	725.2	24%	2,308.2	76%
Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component - Small Communities Fund	159.9	28%	421.4	72%
Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component - National and Regional Projects	112.6	29%	279.1	71%
Building Canada Fund - Large Urban Centres Component	44.8	30%	102.7	70%
Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund	335.1	30%	767.5	70%
Infrastructure Canada Program	510.9	30%	1,209.5	70%
Building Canada Fund - Communities Component Top Up	63.4	33%	131.5	67%
Building Canada Fund - Communities Component	364.1	34%	721.8	66%
Building Canada Fund - Major Infrastructure Component	372.3	34%	728.3	66%
Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund	361.8	40%	551.0	60%
Infrastructure Stimulus Fund	713.2	49%	735.4	51%

Source: Infrastructure Canada. Data from PIMS Database.

EXTENT TO WHICH THE GIF HAS RESULTED IN AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE IN CANADA

Finding 10: The GIF will eventually increase the amount of green infrastructure in Canada, but significant delays impacted the project completion rate. As of December 2015, six years after the GIF was launched, few projects were constructed.

Table 8 provides a summary of the progress of the GIF projects as of December 2015, compared to other INFC projects in the same categories, to which the department contributed comparable amounts of money. It shows that signing contribution agreements, starting construction, and completing construction has been slow for the GIF compared to other INFC programs. Projects in the solid waste category, which are all biomethanation plant projects in Quebec (that also include composting facilities in some cases), experienced particular delays. Green energy projects, which consisted of three transmission lines and one power generating station, experienced fewer delays. As of December 2015, only 25% of GIF projects were constructed, six years after the program was launched.

Some factors that explain delays in projects have been identified:

• Some projects were selected despite not having secured sites or permits to construct, which are particularly contentious for wastewater treatment and waste management facilities;
• Some projects were still in the preliminary/conceptual design stage when they were selected;
• Some projects that were selected had not completed environmental assessments and aboriginal consultations; and
• New technologies (to Canada) were used for solid waste management projects in Quebec.

Table 8: Projects funded by INFC since 2009 in the categories eligible for the GIF - projects with program contributions of $4M to $130M

	Program	Projects since 2009	Contribution agreements signed		Construction started		Construction Completed
Wastewater, green energy, and solid waste projects with INFC contributions of $4M to $130M	Green Infrastructure Fund	20	14	70%	12	60%	5	25%
	Other INFC Programs (see note 1)	40	33	83%	28	70%	17	43%

Source: Infrastructure Canada. Data from PIMS Database.
Note 1: Excludes ISF projects, which are not comparable to the GIF because they had to be completed rapidly. Also excludes GTF and PT Base because they are direct transfer funds and not comparable to the GIF.

EXTENT TO WHICH THE GIF HAS CONTRIBUTED TO IMPROVED QUALITY OF ENVIRONMENT AND A SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY OVER THE LONG-TERM

Finding 11: The environmental benefits of the two completed projects, based on preliminary project data, are limited compared to INFC’s contribution and the total eligible cost of the projects.

As of December 31, 2015, final reports with project benefits were available for two of twenty GIF projects. Both projects were transmission lines in the green energy category and one included the construction of a hydro power generating station. The final reports for both projects contain a statement of benefits that states the distance and voltage of electricity transmitted, hydro electricity generated, and an estimate of the reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions attributable to the project.

In the two final reports, the recipients estimated that their projects would reduce GHG emissions by 16,387 tons annually based on a reduced reliance on diesel generators (see Table 9 ). Based on Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC)'s estimate of the social cost of carbon, it is estimated that from 2015 to 2030, the direct environmental benefits of both projects will add up to $13 million.

INFC's contribution to these projects was $201 million and their planned total eligible costs were $747.8 million. Therefore, for each dollar of environmental benefit resulting from the two projects, $57.50 was invested. While there is evidence to show that these projects contributed to a positive environmental impact, it is unknown whether this represents a good value per dollar investment.

Table 9: Greenhouse gas emission reductions for the two completed GIF projects - recipient input - based on ECCC's measure of the Canadian Social Cost of Carbon (updated 2016)

GHG Reductions	Project 1 (Yukon)	Project 2 (NTL)	Both projects combined
Projected annual GHG emission reductions (tons of CO2)	14,350	2,037	16,387
Projected 15-year monetary benefit of GHG emission reductions (2015-2030 - ECCC Canadian Social Cost of Carbon)	$11.38 million	$1.62 million	$13 million
INFC contribution	$71 million	$130 million	$201 million
Total eligible costs	$142 million	$605.8 million	$747.8 million

Note: The Northwest Transmission Line report also references mining and forestry users of the energy transmitted by the project, but does not reference carbon emission reductions for them.

The final reports did not include a statement of economic benefits. However, one report noted that “…transmission line facilitates regional development by giving access to hydro grid power along its route. Hydro grid power is less expensive and has a much smaller carbon footprint than local diesel generation…”. Given the limited data available, we cannot conclude whether the GIF program has contributed to the economy over the long-term.

4.4 Performance - Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy

To assess the economy of the GIF, this evaluation considers whether resources utilized were reasonable and aligned with the achievement of expected outcomes. Operational efficiency is assessed based on the extent to which inputs are being used and converted into outputs that support the achievement of intended outcomes.

Finding 12: Limited data suggests that resources used to administer the GIF and the BCF-MIC were roughly comparable, but that the construction of GIF projects got underway slowly.

Reporting on the efficiency of the GIF is limited due to the department's approach to reporting on the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) and administrative costs per program. For this analysis, data on the number of FTEs was used but administrative costs of programs were not considered.^Footnote12 A time-tracking system is not used in the POB or the P&C Branch to understand how many FTEs are allocated to programs. Managers in POB are instead asked to estimate annually the resources they allocate to each program, with periodic follow-ups. Although they have the opportunity to provide updates to estimates of resource usage, some POB managers do not update forecasts as frequently as expected. These numbers are then aggregated and applied to the P&C Branch. The accuracy of reporting depends on the perception of managers and the assumption that the time of P&C analysts is allocated to INFC's programs in the same way as analysts from POB. Analysis indicates that there are inconsistencies between FTE usage reported and the number of active and approved projects.

This limited data suggests that the overall efficiency of the GIF is similar to the BCF-MIC, which is administered similarly to the GIF. Columns D and E of Table 10 show that the number of FTEs employed by INFC in relation to the federal contribution and the number of ongoing projects of both programs are comparable.

Table 10: Comparison of ongoing projects and FTEs for the GIF and BCF-MIC

	GIF (2009-10 to 2014-15)					BCF-MIC (2007-08 to 2014-15) - see Note 1 below table
	FTEs	Number of Ongoing projects (see Note 2 below table)	Federal contribution expenditure ($ millions)	Ongoing projects per FTE	Federal contribution expenditure per FTE ($ millions)	FTEs	Number of Ongoing projects (see Note 2 below table)	Federal contribution expenditure ($ millions)	Ongoing projects per FTE	Federal contribution expenditure per FTE ($ millions)
	A	B	C	D = (B/A)	E = (C/A)	A	B	C	D = (B/A)	E = (C/A)
Year 1	6	11	5.2	1.8	0.9	-	7	-	-	-
Year 2	14	14	33.5	1.0	2.4	-	15	-	-	-
Year 3	12	14	29.8	1.2	2.5	21	31	49.0	1.5	2.3
Year 4	18	16	114.9	0.9	6.4	37	42	72.7	1.1	2.0
Year 5	14	18	84.6	1.3	6.0	32	45	58.6	1.4	1.8
Year 6	18	16	36.9	0.9	2.0	44	55	132.1	1.3	3.0
Year 7	-	-	-	-	-	34	54	107.7	1.6	3.2
Year 8	-	-	-	-	-	34	44	260.8	1.3	7.7
Year 9	-	-	-	-	-	-	34	-	-	-
Annual average	13.7	14.8	50.8	1.1	3.7	33.5	32.5	113.5	1.3	3.4

Source: Infrastructure Canada. Data from Finance and Contracting and SIMSI and PIMS databases.
Note 1: All BCF-MIC projects administered mainly by TC are excluded from this analysis. TC had primary responsibility for transportation projects, which represent 80% of funding and more than half of all projects funded by the BCF-MIC.
Note 2: The “Ongoing projects” column represents workload by including projects announced and excluding projects constructed to date.
Note 3: FTEs were not available for the BCF-MIC in years 1, 2 (2007/08 and 2008/09), and 9.

Another comparison with projects funded by the BCF-MIC suggests that construction for GIF projects was slow to begin: construction for comparable projects^Footnote13 funded by the GIF took 62.6% longer to start than for those funded by the MIC (see Table 11). This supports the view, raised during interviews and confirmed by a review of program documents, that project readiness was not an assessment criterion in the project selection process. This is particularly addressed in Section 4.2 – Design and Delivery – Finding 4 and factors for delays discussed in Section 4.3 – Finding 10.

Table 11: Time elapsed between Approval in Principle and start of construction

	Number of wastewater projects for which construction has started	Average eligible costs (in $ millions)	Days between Approval in Principle and start of construction
GIF	7	46.0	748
BCF - MIC	9	58.1	460

Source: Infrastructure Canada. SIMSI and PIMS databases.

Footnotes

Footnote 6

Secondary wastewater treatment, also known as secondary level wastewater treatment, is described by Environment Canada as a combination of physical and biological treatment processes that removes over 95 percent of the total mass of conventional pollutants including oxygen-consuming matter, solid materials and nutrients.

Return to Footnote 6

Footnote 7

Canadian Infrastructure Report Card: Informing the Future. 2016

Return to Footnote 7

Footnote 8

The mandate letter of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities indicates this commitment: “Develop a 10-year plan to deliver significant new funding to provinces, territories and municipalities. […]The plan should focus on: […] green infrastructure, including investments in local water and wastewater facilities, clean energy, climate resilient infrastructure like flood mitigation systems, and infrastructure to protect against changing weather.” Source: Canada. Prime Minister’s Office. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities Mandate Letter - See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-infrastructure-and-communities-mandate-letter#sthash.wiqazu42.dpuf

Return to Footnote 8

Footnote 9

The Minister is authorized to enter into transfer agreements by Order in Council 2004-325.

Return to Footnote 9

Footnote 10

For example, regarding the solid waste category, “the municipal solid waste (MSW) collection, diversion (recycling, composting and anaerobic digestion) and disposal operations are the responsibility of municipal governments, while the provinces and territories are responsible for approvals, licensing and monitoring of operations. For its part, the Government of Canada is engaged in MSW management issues related to sustainable development, toxic substances, international movement, federal lands and operations, air emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, and through federal funding programs.” (source: Environnent Canada, https://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&n=EF0FC6A9-1

Return to Footnote 10

Footnote 11

The Directive on Transfer Payments indicates that departments should respect the jurisdiction and responsibility of Provinces or Territories.

Return to Footnote 11

Footnote 12

The annual administrative cost is not directly correlated to FTEs, as it includes contracts, travel, other O&M costs, and in some years, application development costs. The calculation of administrative costs is limited by the low accuracy of reporting on the number of FTEs working on a given program and by annual changes in methodology, as the department continues to refine the way it is calculating administrative costs. Due to inconsistency in methodology, the annual administrative cost was not considered for this evaluation.

Return to Footnote 12

Footnote 13

For this analysis, only wastewater projects were selected, as the BCF-MIC did not fund solid waste projects and only funded one green energy project.

Return to Footnote 13