Evaluation of the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component
PDF Version (Size: 667.65 KB) (669 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
- List of Tables and Figures
- List of Terms and Abbreviations
- Executive Summary
- Program Profile
- About the Evaluation
- Detailed Findings
- Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes
- Performance—Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy
- Recommendations and Management Action Plan
- Cited References
- Annex A: Case Study Overview and Results
List of Tables and Figures
- Table 1 (Cleaner Environment) : Total number of projects and federal contributions (in millions of dollars) by eligible category and by final outcome as at March 31, 2014
- Table 1 (Economic Growth) : Total number of projects and federal contributions (in millions of dollars) by eligible category and by final outcome as at March 31, 2014
- Table 1 (Stronger and Safer Communities) : Total number of projects and federal contributions (in millions of dollars) by eligible category and by final outcome as at March 31, 2014
- Table 1 (Total Number): Total number of projects funded and federal contribution (in millions of dollars) by eligible caregory
- Table 2 : National allocations and actual contribution expenditures from 2008-2009 to 2013-2014 and notional allocations and planned expenditures from 2014-2015 to 2016-2017
- Table 3: BCF–CC federal operating resources by year as at March 31, 2014
- Table 4: Distribution of interviewees by stakeholder group
- Table 5: List of case studies conducted
- Table 6: BCF distribution of federal contributions and approved projects
- Table 7:BCF–CC objective alignment with Federal Government priorities
- Table 8: BCF–CC approved projects distributed by community size as at March 31, 2014
- Table 9: BCF–CC approved projects and importance rating by BCF-CC investment categories
- Table 10: Eligible project categories alignment to final outcomes
- Table 11: Total number of projects and federal contribution by final outcome
- Table 12: Reported benefits by case study project
- Table 13 : BCF-CC average cost-based efficiency ratio from 2009-2010 to 2013-2014
- Figure 1: BCF-CC Logic Model Outcomes
List of Terms and Abbreviations
Announced in Budget 2007, the Building Canada Fund – Communities Component (BCF–CC) is a $1.1 billion funding program designed to address the unique infrastructure needs of small communities with populations of less than 100,000. Funding is allocated across jurisdictions on a per capita basis, per Census 2006, in support of infrastructure projects in 17 eligible categories. Projects are expected to contribute to the program's objective of a stronger economy, cleaner environment, and safer and stronger communities. Projects are cost-shared where the federal share of up to one third is matched with contributions by the recipient's province and municipality. The BCF–CC is delivered by Federal Delivery Partners (FDPs) with the direct involvement of provinces.
Evaluation Objective and Scope
The objective of the evaluation is to report on the relevance and performance of the program with a particular focus on the outcomes achieved since 2007 and the impact on small communities. The evaluation of BCF–CC was conducted in accordance with the Directive on the Evaluation Function. The evaluation was carried out between September 2014 and January 2015.
The evaluation covers all projects undertaken and all federal contributions disbursed for the period between November 2007 and March 2014. The evaluation methodology involved a document and literature review, internal administrative and financial data analysis, 40 key informant interviews with a range of program stakeholders, a web-based survey of 331 ultimate recipients, and case studies for six selected projects.
Key Findings and Conclusions
Targeted infrastructure funding programs for small communities remain relevant.
Evaluation findings indicate that the objectives of the BCF–CC are aligned with departmental and federal priorities. The federal role within the BCF–CC is legitimate and INFC is the appropriate federal department to be responsible for the program.
Targeted funding for small community infrastructure projects is important given that the state of infrastructure is deteriorating while communities are facing new infrastructure pressures to meet regulations and standards. The evaluation demonstrated that municipalities have limited financial capacity to deal with their infrastructure needs and that there is a continued demand for federal financial support.
Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes
The BCF–CC program is making progress toward the achievement of its expected outcomes. The BCF–CC was found to be beneficial for small communities to the extent that they have been able to access the program. As of March 31, 2014, approximately 22 percent (822) of eligible small communities have accessed the program to date. With just over 55 percent of projects completed, the evaluation found that the cost-sharing targets for the program have been met in that the provinces and municipalities each contributed one-third to the BCF–CC projects and, without this, municipalities indicated that they would not have been able to undertake infrastructure projects.
Initial benefits reported from completed BCF–CC projects suggest that the program is well suited to contribute to its three final outcomes of Canada's cleaner environment, economic growth, and safer and stronger communities.
While INFC requires recipients to report on project outcomes at the time of project completion or at substantial completion, this information was not available. Although work is underway at this time, INFC does not have methods in place to measure for the contribution to final outcomes or the long-term benefits from infrastructure that is in place and operational.
Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency & Economy
The five-year average federal administrative cost to deliver one dollar in BCF–CC funding was found to be four cents. INFC and program delivery partners took actions over the last five years to improve the efficiency of the program's administration. Good practices were highlighted by the jurisdictions and as the program winds down, jurisdictions have reduced the level of staff resources administering the program.
However, evidence suggests that the program may have been over-governed at times. It was also found that the various good practices undertaken in individual jurisdictions may not be known by others and there is an opportunity for jurisdictions to share and benefit from good practices that improve efficiency and economy.
The below recommendations are based on the key evaluation findings and conclusions, with due consideration to the fact that the New Building Canada Fund-Small Communities Fund (NBCF–SCF ) is now in place and many agreements have already been signed with the provinces and territories. The recommendations are therefore limited to those that can be implemented for the monitoring and close out of the BCF–CC program or within the structure of the new program and its agreements.
- INFC senior management should refine the Performance Measurement Strategy (PMS) for the NBCF–PTIC–SCF, including appropriate performance measures for all elements of the logic model, drawing on findings from the BCF–CC evaluation. The PMS should incorporate data available from provinces and territories and balance key principles of reliability and affordability.
- INFC senior management should identify and implement opportunities for sharing best practices, improvements and other aspects of delivery to help provinces and territories better serve small communities through new programming such as the NBCF–SCF.
Budget 2007 introduced a new $33 billion Building Canada Plan (BCP), that provided a new comprehensive, and long-term approach to infrastructure funding. The BCP is a suite of initiatives that includes two key funding elements: program funding and base funding initiatives for municipalities, provinces and territories.
Base funding is delivered by Infrastructure Canada (INFC) and includes the Gas Tax Fund (GTF) which provides funding for communities and the Provincial-Territorial Base (PT Base) Funding which provides infrastructure base funding to provinces and territories. Program funding is comprised of three main programs: the Gateways and Border Crossing Fund (Transport Canada), the Public Private Partnership Fund (P3 Canada) and the Building Canada Fund (BCF) (INFC).
The BCF has $8.8 billion in allocation and consists of two components: 1) the Major Infrastructure Component (MIC) that focuses on larger projects; and 2) the Communities Component (BCF) that focuses on projects in smaller communities. While the MIC focus is on larger projects, the BCF–CC addresses the unique infrastructure needs of communities with populations of less than 100,000 (as determined by the Statistics Canada's Final 2006 Census). In the territories, BCF allocations are administered under the Provincial-Territorial Base Fund (PT Base). Therefore, BCF–CC applies only to the provinces.
The BCF–CC is a successor program and similar in profile to the 2000 Infrastructure Canada Program and the 2004 Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. As outlined in the 2011 Performance Measurement Strategy, the BCF–CC was designed to significantly help smaller communities address their infrastructure pressures. The program funding envelope consists of $1.1 billion and is notionally allocated across jurisdictions on a per capita basis. Supported infrastructure projects are spread throughout 17 eligible categories that are expected to contribute to the program's objective of a stronger economy, cleaner environment, and safer and stronger communities.
As of March 31, 2014, the BCF–CC had funded 925 infrastructure projects in 14 of the 17 eligible categories and had just under $1 billion in federal contributions approved. At that time, 519 projects were completed which represents approximately 56 percent of approved projects.
|Cleaner Environment||# of Projects||Federal Contribution in millions of dollars|
|Solid Waste Management||16||$10.4|
|Brownfield Remediation & Redevelopment||2||$8.3|
|Economic Growth||# of Projects||Federal Contribution in millions of dollars|
|Regional and Local Airport||7||$4.9|
|Short Sea Shipping||1||$11.6|
|National Highway System||0||$0|
|Stronger and Safer Communities||# of Projects||Federal Contributions in millions of dollars|
|# of Projects||Federal Contribution in millions of dollars|
|Stronger and Safer Communities||404||$463.6|
In addition, the program funded 10 collaborative projects (8 of which are completed) for just under $349 thousand dollars. These projects are not infrastructure projects as such in that they are projects related to asset management approaches, capacity building and so on.
Program Responsibility and Delivery
The governance of the program is fully detailed in the agreement negotiated with each province. In general, INFC is accountable to the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs for the efficient and effective delivery of the BCF–CC. INFC is responsible for the program design and for negotiating agreements with the partners. The BCF–CC is delivered by Federal Delivery Partners (FDPsFootnote 1) with the direct involvement of provinces. Separate federal-provincial contribution agreements (CAs) govern the program, each of which is managed by an Oversight Committee that includes both federal and provincial senior officials. To support program operations and Oversight Committees, each jurisdiction, except Quebec, has a federal-provincial Joint Secretariat staffed by FDPs and provincial officials. These are organized based on each individual jurisdiction's needs while adhering to common roles and responsibilities.
All projects funded through the BCF–CC are cost-shared, with the maximum federal contribution to any single project being 50 percent. Municipal projects are cost-shared on a one-third basis—the maximum federal share is limited to one-third, with a matching contribution from both the province and municipality. For projects where the asset is owned by a private sector entity, the maximum federal contribution is 25 percent. Within the program's stacking provisions, municipalities may use funding received through the Gas Tax Fund to increase the federal share to 50 percent of total eligible project costs.
Projects are selected through a competitive application-based process and are evaluated on the extent to which they meet minimum federal eligibility criteria. All applications are submitted on-line, except in Quebec where only prioritized projects were entered on-line. The Joint Secretariat in each province provides the first level of due diligence, including engineering, environmental, and legal review of the application. Each jurisdiction (province) determines their priorities and develops their project assessment process to reflect its own unique circumstances and priorities.
Once eligible projects are identified, Oversight Committees perform a final review and make a recommendation to the appropriate Minister, either INFC or an FDP, who approves as per his or her delegated authority. Once approved, the province negotiates a Provincial - Ultimate Recipient CA. From there, ongoing monitoring activities are undertaken by the Oversight Committees and Joint Secretariats. Ultimate recipients submit claims to the provinces, which are submitted to the FDPs for re-imbursement of the federal share. The FDPs are responsible to ensure that the processes, procedures, departmental systems and controls are in place to support due diligence of making payments of the federal share to the provinces.
The notional allocations of contribution funding as well as the actual and planned federal contribution expenditures for the program are found in Table 2.
|Fiscal Year||National Allocations per Contribution AgreementsFootnote 2
(In millions of dollars)
|Annual Contribution Expenditures
(In millions of dollars)
|Percentage spent, as per the notional allocations|
|2008-2009 – Actuals||$14.8||$0.8|
|2009-2010 – Actuals||$117.5||$99.2|
|2010-2011 – Actuals||$234.5||$223.2|
|2011-2012 – Actuals||$248.5||$210.7|
|2012-2013 – Actuals||$258.6||$167.7|
|2013-2014 – Actuals||$150.0||$114.3|
|As of March 31, 2014||$1,024.0||$815.9||80%|
|2014-2015 – Planned||$30.0||$94.5|
|2015-2016 – Planned||$30.0||$133.9|
|2016-2017 – Planned||$0||$39.5|
Source : Federal-Provincial Contribution Agreements; INFC Financial Data. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
The actual federal delivery expenditure to date is found in Table 3.
|Fiscal Year||Total INFC operatingFootnote 3 (Including Employee Benefits and Pension)
(in thousands of dollars)
|BCF–CC Operating Resources
provided to FDPs
(in thousands of dollars)
Source: INFC Financial Data
About the Evaluation
Objective and Scope
The objective of the evaluation is to report on the relevance and performance of the program with a focus on the outcomes achieved since 2007 and the impact on small communities.
The evaluation covers all projects undertaken and all federal contributions disbursed from November 2007 to March 2014. The scope of the evaluation does not include the top-up portion of BCF–CC as it was previously evaluated under the evaluation of the EAP in 2012-2013.The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Directive on the Evaluation Function and was carried out between September 2014 and January 2015.
Both qualitative and quantitative information were to provide multiple lines of evidence to support the conclusions and recommendations. The following lines of evidence were used:
- Document and Literature Review
INFC consulted a broad range of documents including federal, departmental government documents and program specific documents as well as literature on infrastructure. The focus of the review was to assess whether the program was aligned with INFC and Government of Canada's strategic priorities and supported federal roles and responsibilities. In addition, the review informed the assessment of the continued relevance and program theory.
- Internal Financial and Administrative Data Analysis
An analysis of the internal data base system (SIMSI) was conducted to report on the program's outputs, outcomes and federal contributions.
- Key Informant Interviews
A total of 40 key informant interviews were conducted with representatives from key stakeholder groups including a portion of rejected applicants. The distribution of interviews resulting from the sampling is as follows:
- Web-based Survey of Ultimate Recipients
A web-based survey was undertaken. Ultimate recipients who had received funding for several projects were identified; this yielded 855 unique contacts for 935 funded BCF–CC projects. Due to incorrect contact information, a total of 575 recipients received an invitation to participate in the survey. Therefore, no sampling was involved; rather the survey involved a census of all ultimate recipients with accurate email contact information. In total, 331 municipalities participated in the survey, which represent a 58 percent response rate.
- Case Studies
Case studies were chosen to include a representation of projects across the regions. Completed projects were selected to provide the most detailed information on both processes and outcomes for the BCF–CC Program. There were six project case studies in total (see Table 5). The case studies involved interviews with the funding recipients, project stakeholders, and INFC project managers, as well as an in-depth review of the project files and data analysis.
|Stakeholder Groups||Number of Interviewees|
|INFC Management and Program Staff||11|
|Federal Delivery Partners Representatives||13|
|Provincial Government Representatives||11|
|Case studies||Federal Contribution|
|1. Water and Sewer Improvement Project Norman's Cove–Long Cove, NL||$366,372|
|2. Wastewater Infrastructure Updates in Town of Bashaw, AB||$594,266|
|3. New Westminster Pier Park and Greenway Development, BC||$8,300,914|
|4. Improvements to the Collingwood Regional Airport, ON||$432,940|
|5. Improvements to Pickering Village Museum, ON||$292,999|
|6. Renovations of Municipal Arena – Phase 2, Lac Etchemin, QC||$658,333|
Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.
There were some limitations with respect to the survey and the assessment of long-term program outcomes.
For the web-based survey, email contact information was not available for many recipients in the Province of Quebec. As such, while the majority of recipients in other provinces were invited to participate in the survey, a smaller sample was obtained from Quebec. This limitation was mitigated by the relatively high response rate in Quebec compared to other provinces.
With regards to assessing program contributions to the long-term outcomes of a cleaner environment, economic growth and stronger and safer communities, the BCF–CC requires recipients to report on project outcomes at the time of project completion or at substantial completion. However, at the time of the evaluation, this information was not available as it had not been provided by recipients. INFC does not have methods in place to account for the impacts beyond project completion – i.e. the long-term benefits on the environment, economy and communities. This limitation was partially mitigated by undertaking case studies using completed projects.
Overall, all reasonable efforts were used to ensure the evaluation methodology was robust. This included the use of multiple lines of evidence, reliable sample sizes, and coverage across regions and program elements.
The sections that follow below present the findings related to the relevance and performance of the BCF–CC program.
The relevance of a program targeted to small communities in Canada was recently confirmed through the development of the New Building Canada Fund-Small Communities Fund (NBCF–SCF); this section therefore only briefly reviews the continuing need for the program and the alignment with government priorities and federal roles and responsibilities.
The program's ability to be responsive to the needs of small communities is discussed in detail under Performance – Achievement of Outcomes, as an immediate outcome of the program is: Communities have access to and benefit from funding to support their infrastructure needs.
Continuing need for the program
Finding 1: Small communities in Canada are facing infrastructure pressures.
Literature review showed that communities are in need of new and enhanced infrastructure. A 2013 report by the Canadian West Foundation stated that much of Canada's current public infrastructure was put in place between the 1950s and 1970s and that the useful life of physical infrastructure extends up to four or five decades.
The 2012 Canadian Infrastructure Report Card indicates the replacement costs of municipal infrastructure assets for drinking water systems, wastewater and storm water networks and municipal roads is $171.1 billion nationally. The report cardindicated that, overall, about 30 percent of assets in these four categories are ranked between "fair" and "very poor." Rankings of fair and very poor were noted as follows: roads (52.6 percent); wastewater plants, pumping stations and storage tanks (40.3 percent); sewage pipes (30.1 percent); drinking water system pipes (15.4 percent); as well as water plants, reservoirs and pumping stations (14.4 percent). The report card stresses the importance of having an asset management system in place in order to establish practices that will increase the longevity of assets and optimize investments in maintenance and rehabilitation. In addition, the report identifies a critical need to support additional capacity (staff resources and time) at the municipal level.
Program uptake data confirms the need for support for the local road, water and wastewater infrastructure. As shown in Table 6, more than three-quarters of the program funding and project distribution has involved wastewater, water and local road projects.
|Project Category||Distribution of Funds||Distribution of Projects|
(in millions of dollars)
Source: INFC database as of March 31, 2014. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
As application intakes for BCF–CC funding occurred primarily at the early stages of the program, interviewees stressed there is pent up demand for funding to address on-going needs as well as emerging challenges. For example, compliance with Environment Canada's new Wastewater Systems Effluent Regulations, and health and safety concerns with respect to drinking water quality, have created a more urgent need to upgrade water and wastewater systems on a national basis. In one province, it was estimated there are currently over 100 municipalities with boil water restrictions in place. Significant expansion of water and sewer capacity was also noted as being critically important to support population growth in certain jurisdictions.
Finding 2: Small communities in Canada have limited financial capacity to deal with their infrastructure pressures.
Evidence from the literature and interviews suggests municipalities lack the financial capacity to deal with infrastructure pressures. For example, out of every tax dollar collected, municipal governments receive only 8 centsFootnote5. Interviewees echoed this and highlighted that this imbalance is significant since municipalities own approximately 95 percent of Canada's infrastructure. Interviewees believe that there is an ongoing need for a program targeted to small communities.
The evaluation also found that the funds needed by communities to address their infrastructure pressures exceed the funds allocated. For details, please see Finding 5 under the immediate outcome of Communities have access to and benefit from funding to support their infrastructure needs.
Alignment with government priorities and federal roles and responsibilities
Finding 3: The BCF–CC objectives align with and support both federal government priorities and departmental objectives as evidenced from the Federal budget and departmental documents.
As shown in table 7, investments in community infrastructure that support a cleaner environment, economic growth, and stronger and safer communities have been a government priority over the lifespan of the program.
|Year||Speech from the Throne||Federal Budget|
|2008||Not explicitly||Not explicitly|
As mentioned in the program profile, the 2007 Speech from the Throne announced the Building Canada Plan, including the BCF–CC, which supported infrastructure projects from roads to bridges to public transit. In 2008, priorities related to funding modern high-quality infrastructure vital to Canada's long-term prosperity were described. Since 2009, the Budget has supported Canada's Economic Action Plan Footnote 6 for economic growth and employment. In 2013, the Speech from the Throne announced Economic Action Plan (EAP) 2013, which launched the New Building Canada Plan. Part of the EAP 2013 includes an infrastructure renewal program which is expected to fund more than 14,000 infrastructure projects in various categories including those supported by the BCF–CC.
Up until 2013-14, the BCF–CC was directly aligned to the INFC Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) Strategic Outcome&nsbp;2: Funding for quality, cost-effective public infrastructure that meets the needs of Canadians in a competitive economy, a cleaner environment and liveable communities is provided. During 2013-14, INFC underwent a review of its PAA and determined that INFC will support a single strategic outcome of "Public infrastructure for a more prosperous Canada" that would be achieved by multiple programs; one of which is Program 1.5 "Infrastructure Investments in Smaller Communities." The objectives of the BCF–CC are aligned to this Program and are reflected in the 2014-15 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Finding 4: The federal role in providing infrastructure funding targeted to small communities is appropriate and important.
Given the identified federal priorities, interviewees noted that the federal government should be involved in a program of this nature. Interviewees indicated that access to both federal and provincial funding is essential, as important projects would not have proceeded without the cost-sharing arrangement. When asked, 99 percent of survey respondents (ultimate recipients) indicate that there is a continued need for a program like the BCF–CC.
Federally, INFC is the infrastructure lead department. It is a key funding partner, collaborating with all levels of government as well as the private sector and non-profit organizations. Within the BCF–CC, INFC is a funding agent. In this role, the department collaborates with and negotiates agreements with each of the funding partners. INFC's role in the BCF–CC is, therefore, consistent with the departmental mandate.
Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes
This section presents the detailed findings related to the effectiveness of the BCF–CC. The evaluation examined to what extent the BCF–CC has achieved its immediate, intermediate and final outcomes as of March 31, 2014.
The findings in this section are organized by program outcome as identified in the BCF–CC logic model in Figure 1.
Figure 1: BCF-CC Logic Model Outcomes
Communities have access to and benefit from funding to support their infrastructure needs.
The BCF–CC addresses the local needs of small Canadian communities by contributing funding to projects of national and local priority within 17 eligible infrastructure project categories. It is expected that communities will have access to and benefit from funding to support their infrastructure needs by the BCF–CC funding between 25 and 50 percent of the eligible costs of approved projects.
Finding 5: A limited number of small communities have accessed the BCF–CC to date in part due to the total amount of funding available and in part due to the limited financial capacity of the communities. The funds needed by communities to address their infrastructure pressures exceed the available funds.
As per INFC data, a total of 822 municipalities have been approved for BCF–CC funding as of March 31, 2014. As there are 3,739 eligible municipalities with a population size of less than 100,000 in Canada (excluding the territories) per Statistics Canada Census 2006. Approximately 22 percent of all eligible municipalities have been approved for program funding.
Some municipalities never applied for funding, while others applied but were rejected. Information on the number of applicants and rejected applicants was received from six of the ten provinces (all provinces except Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Manitoba). Information on applicants and rejected applicants varied across these jurisdictions as eligible applicants can include local and regional governments, provincial entities, and public or private sector bodies as defined in the program's terms and conditions. While the evaluation did not examine the application process or the justifications for the rejected applications as such, a review of the information suggests that the BCF–CC was oversubscribed. The data provided showed that the program had a high rate of applicant rejections; of the small communities and organizations that applied for BCF-Funding from these six provinces, more than half were rejected. Interviewees from most jurisdictions also indicated that the BCF–CC program was oversubscribed.
When asked why some municipalities may not have applied for funding under BCF–CC, most interviewees speculated that it was most likely because they lacked the financial capacity to come up with their one-third contribution to the project. In some situations, neighbouring municipalities pooled their resources to fund projects such as regional solid waste facilities and recycling depots.
Issues related to project timing may have been an impediment for some. Interviewees and case study participants noted that the application window may not have allowed small communities, with limited project management capacity, sufficient time to have timely and affordable access to project engineers to assist in the early stages with design and estimates for construction budgets and schedules.
Finding 6: Successful BCF–CC applicants include communities of various sizes. The majority of approved projects and federal contributions are found in small communities with a population fewer than 30,000.
When analyzing the distribution of approved projects and the associated federal contribution by community size (see Table 8 below), it was found that the majority of approved BCF–CC projects (89 percent) are to be undertaken in smaller communities, those with populations fewer than 30,000. Approximately 24 percent (223) of the 925 approved infrastructure projects are being undertaken in very small communities i.e. those with a population of fewer than 1,000.
|Community Size||Number of Projects||Percentage of Total Projects||Federal Contribution
(in millions of dollars)
|Percentage of Total Federal Contribution||Average Federal Contribution per Project
(in millions of dollars)
|Population from 1 to 1000||223||24%||$128.2||12.5%||$0.57|
|Population from 1001 to 29,999||603||65%||$747.0||72.9%||$1.24|
|Population from 30,000 to 100,000||99||11%||$150.1||14.6%||$1.52|
Sources of data: INFC database as of March 31, 2014
Similar to the distribution of projects noted above, the majority of the federal contributions committed (just over 85 percent) were to projects in communities with populations fewer than 30,000. The average federal contribution committed per infrastructure project was found to be approximately $1.1 million.
Finding 7: Successful applicants have benefitted from the BCF–CC funding, as per the broad range of categories available.
Interviewees, case studies and survey respondents indicated that the program provided an appropriate range of project categories to address the priority needs of small communities. As shown in the table below, 14 of the 17 eligible infrastructure categories (excluding collaborative projects) were used.
|Eligible Project Categories||Number of Projects Funded||Percentage of Projects Funded||Cumulative Percentage of Projects Funded|
|3. Local roads||226||24.4||80.5|
|5. Disaster mitigation||48||5.2||91.0|
|7. Solid waste management||16||1.7||96.1|
|9. Green energy||8||0.9||98.6|
|10. Regional and local airports||7||0.8||99.4|
|11. Brownfield remediation & redevelopment||2||0.2||99.6|
|12. Connectivity & broadband||2||0.2||99.8|
|13. Short sea shipping||1||0.1||99.9|
|15. Public transit||0||0.0||0.0|
|16. Core national highway system||0||0.0||0.0|
|17. Shortline rail||0||0.0||0.0|
Sources of data: INFC database as of March 31, 2014; 2. Ultimate recipient survey respondents
In addition, communities that have successfully accessed BCF–CC funding have greatly benefitted from the program. Almost half (47 percent) of the survey respondents would not have undertaken the funded project(s) without BCF–CC funding and another 16 percent of survey respondents would have delayed the project or had to delay other projects without having had access to the additional funding. The remainder of respondents indicated various negative impacts that would have materialized in the absence of BCF–CC funding. For example, some would have had to reduce the scope of the project, cancel other projects, or would have had to raise taxes or impose user rates or higher user rates.
Furthermore, survey respondents noted the positive effect of the projects on public perception, community spirit, inter-municipal or regional collaboration, and helping to meet regulatory requirements.
Resources leveraged from partners
Funding through the BCF–CC is expected to leverage investments in infrastructure by other partners as a result of the program's cost-sharing approach. To measure this, INFC considers funding leveraged from partners as a percentage of federal funding.
Finding 8: The cost-sharing targets for funds leveraged are expected to be met in that the provinces and the municipalities each contributed one-third of the funds to the completed projects.
Based on data pertaining to eligible project costs for projects completed to date, it was found that the federal share of total eligible costs is 33 percent with provinces contributing 34 percent and the municipalities 33 percent. Therefore, 200 percent of BCF–CC federal contribution is expected to be leveraged from partners.
Enhanced collaborative partnerships
Collaborative partnerships are expected to occur at two levels. First, at the program level, the delivery approach is expected to result in enhanced collaborative partnerships between INFC, the FDPs and the provinces. Second, at the project level, the program's cost-shared approach is expected to result in enhanced collaborative partnerships between INFC , the provinces, the municipalities and, in some cases, others participating in the funded projects such as the private sector.
Finding 9: Overall, collaboration was perceived as being positive and effective among stakeholders.
At the program level, interviewees indicated there is a great deal of collaboration between Federal Delivery Partners (FDPs) and their provincial counterparts. In general, representatives from the provinces and FDPs have developed good working relationships with INFC. There was frequent communications on program delivery issues at the working level between INFC, FDPs and provincial staff. Interviewees provided several examples of how collaborative efforts have led to success. For example, in Ontario, provincial and FedDev staff share the workload 50/50. Each organization takes a lead responsibility for half of the projects. This led to greater consistency in decision making and improved client service for the ultimate recipients. In Saskatchewan, through a virtual Joint Secretariat model, applications were reviewed jointly. The province was responsible for the administration of projects, environmental assessments were done jointly with INFC and WD, and all claims were reviewed by both the province and WD.
However, in some jurisdictions, the working relationship between INFC and some FDPs was perceived to have been a bit strained under the BCF–CC program. As outlined in Finding 13, INFC acknowledged that, as it increased its oversight role to address inconsistencies in program delivery, changes to administrative processes may have overly complicated the program's governance and hurt relations with some FDPs.
At the project level, interviewees indicated that collaborative partnerships between INFC, the provinces and municipalities were enhanced to a certain degree. However, INFC and the FDPs do not generally have a direct working relationship with municipalities or other eligible recipients. In most jurisdictions, provincial partners communicate directly with municipalities and ensure the project funding agreements are followed. One jurisdiction explained that the FDP works directly with municipalities because of the way the workload of the Joint Secretariat has been organized. Either a federal or provincial staff person acts as the lead analyst for all projects. This was described as an effective and collaborative approach. Given the extent to which INFC and the FDPs have a direct relationship with recipients varies by jurisdiction it is difficult discuss, overall, whether the program has enhanced collaboration between all three levels of government.
Projects in support of a cleaner environment, economic growth, and safer and stronger communities are completed.
The intermediate outcomes for the BCF–CC program pertain to the completion of projects in support of a cleaner environment, economic growth, and safer and stronger communities. As identified in the Program Profile, project categories were aligned to each of the final outcomes based on the outcome to which the projects are likely to primarily contribute. They are as follows:
|Primary Final Outcome||Eligible Project CategoriesFootnote 7|
|A Cleaner Environment||Wastewater|
|Solid waste management|
|Brownfield remediation & redevelopment|
|Safer and Stronger Communities||Water|
|Economic Growth||Regional and local airports|
|Connectivity & broadband|
|Short Sea Shipping|
Finding 10: With 2 years remaining in the program, approximately 95 percent of the BCF–CC program funding allocation has been committed to 925 infrastructure projects and more than half (56 percent) of the approved projects are completed.
As per the following table, at the time of the evaluation, a significant and somewhat proportionate amount of projects were funded to support each of the three final outcomes. The BCF–CC federal contribution commitment was just under $1,026 million for 925 projects since 2007. This accounts for 95 percent of the total program allocation of just over $1,025 million. Of the 925 approved infrastructure projects, 519 were completed as of March 31, 2014.
|Final Outcomes||Federal Contribution
(in millions of dollars)
|Number of Projects||Completed||Percentage Completed|
|Safer & Stronger Communities||$463.6||404||196||49%|
Source of data: INFC database, as of March 31, 2014. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Note: This table includes Collaborative Projects which are not infrastructure projects and are not aligned to final outcomes.
Canada's Economic Action Plan (EAP), launched in Budget 2009, provided an additional "Top-Up" of $500 million in stimulus funding to the BCF–CC. A condition to accessing the "Top-Up" funding was that jurisdictions had to have fully committed existing BCF–CC funding. In January 2010, all BCF–CC funding had been committed across the jurisdictions. For reasons such as projects being cancelled by proponents or being completed at a lower than anticipated cost, some of the BCF–CC funding have since been de-committed and available for new projects.
In analyzing the full data set as of March 31, 2014, it was observed that jurisdictions for the most part have committed all of their allocation for approved projects; provincial percentages of contribution allocations committed range between 92 percent and 99 percent. Program interviewees indicated that it is expected that the entire allocation will be expended to BCF–CC projects by the program's end in March 2017 or re-allocated as appropriate to other infrastructure investments.
Contribution to Canada's cleaner environment, economic growth, and safer and stronger communities.
By having a range of different eligible project categories, it is expected that the projects will ultimately produce results or benefits that contribute in the long-term towards a cleaner environment, economic growth, and safer and stronger communities.
Finding 11: The BCF–CC investment categories are well suited to contribute to the program's final outcomes of a cleaner environment, economic growth, and safer and stronger communities. The benefits from BCF–CC funded projects reported by small communities indicated that projects are contributing to more than one final outcome.
Project benefits from some of the completed projects were reported through the survey and case studies. It was observed that the funded projects are resulting in benefits that align with the final outcomes of the program.
Specifically, the survey showed that:
- 73 percent of respondents indicated that one or more of the BCF–CC projects undertaken by their community was expected to result in a cleaner environment and 51 percent of these respondents reported a cleaner environment benefit had occurred;
- 77 percent of respondents indicated that one or more of the BCF–CC projects undertaken by their community was expected to result in economic growth and 60 percent of these respondents reported that an economic benefit had occurred; and
- 62 percent of respondents indicated that one or more of the BCF–CC projects undertaken by their community was expected to result in safer and stronger communities and 29 percent of these respondents reported that a safer and stronger communities' benefit had occurred
With just over 55 percent of the projects completed to date, the evaluation undertook case studies to review the nature of the projects results as reported by the ultimate recipients and their alignment to the final outcomes. The case studies further demonstrated that projects are contributing to the outcome of which they are aligned and, in four of the six case studies, projects are contributing to more than one final outcome.
As shown in Table 12 below, case studies 1 and 2, which focused on water and wastewater projects, demonstrated benefits to small communities resulting from these types of infrastructure projects contribute to safer and stronger communities. Case studies 3 and 4 demonstrate how sport and culture projects result in benefits to small communities that contribute to both economic growth, and safer and stronger communities. Case study 5 pertaining to Local and Regional Airports showed contributions to economic growth, and safer and stronger communities. Lastly, the Brownfield Remediation and Redevelopment project showed that projects in small communities can contribute to all three final outcomes.
|Case Study Project||Project Typet||Brief description of infrastructure need||Reported Benefits by Final Outcome|
|Cleaner environment||Economic Growth||Safer and stronger communities|
|1. Water and Sewer Improvement Project Norman's Cove-Long Cove, NL||Water & Wastewater||Water quality was compromised as the breakages in the water mains allowed for contaminates to enter the water stream. The sewer disposal field was very close to homes and made for a very unhealthy environment for residents. Results included 60 households connected to the water and wastewater system and enhanced quality of drinking water.||X|
|2. Wastewater Infrastructure Updates Bashaw, AB||Wastewater & Local Roads||The condition of sewage holding tanks at 38 residential properties in the northwest sector of town was posing serious health and safety concerns. Upgrades resulted in increased number of households connected to the sanitary sewer system and improved reliability and performance of the wastewater collection system.||X||X|
|3. Renovations of Municipal Arena Phase 2 Lac Etchemin, QC||Sport||The municipal arena was more than 30 years old and needed major renovations relating to safety and accessibility. Renovations resulted in increased safety of, accessibility to and usage of the facility and increased benefits to the business community.||X||X|
|4. Improvements to Pickering Village Museum Pickering, ON||Culture||Heritage buildings required immediate restoration, One facility required an addition to sustain restoration work and the overall site required specific updates to make it more accessible to individuals with special needs. The project resulted in increased accessibility and use of the facilities and the attainment of compliance with provincial standards related to community museums.||X||X|
|5. Improvements to the Collingwood Regional Airport Collingwood, ON||Local & Regional Airports||The asphalt on the existing airway was exhibiting significant distress including major transverse and longitudinal cracking as well as localized areas of alligator cracking, rutting and settlement posing major safety risks. The project improved safety of the airstrip, increased usage of airport and increased revenues related to the airport and flight training school.||X||X|
|6. New Westminster Pier Park and Greenway Development, New Westminster, BC||Brownfield Remediation & Redevelopment||The City's Master Plan for Parks and Recreation identified a gap with respect to the adequacy of parkland to support the growing population. Results from the project include reduction in environmental risks due to contaminants, protection of fish habitat, increased parkland for public use, increased tourism and more.||X||X||X|
For further detail on each of the six case studies and their outcomes, please see Annex A.
It is noteworthy to mention that the drivers for the projects reviewed as part of the Case Studies were often community related. Some examples of factors included that health, accessibility-related and other types of standards needed to be met or that infrastructure had deteriorated to a point where health or safety concerns had arisen. Economic benefits were found to result from most of the case study projects; however they were often secondary to other benefits.
Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy
The evaluation obtained examples of measures taken to improve program administration and efficiency from the document review and interviews. Efficiency was also assessed by examining contribution expenditures and determining the cost to deliver one dollar of contribution funding.
Finding 12: Though the BCF–CC was partly designed from established processes and structures that were familiar to stakeholders, there is evidence that the program may have been over-governed at certain times.
On one hand, interviewees felt the BCF–CC delivery model had built upon the success of earlier cost-shared infrastructure programs. The roles and responsibilities of the Joint Secretariats and Oversight Committees as well as processes for assessing applications were well defined and in some cases already in place upon the implementation of the BCF–CC. These structures and processes were found to be familiar and effective from the perspective of interviewees.
Interviewees also indicated that monitoring activities were administered efficiently. Each jurisdiction provides INFC with annual reports and interviewees provided examples of efficient risk-based monitoring practices and audit activities.
On the other hand, potential over-governance of the program was highlighted in a 2012 BCF–CC INFC internal audit and by the evaluation interviewees.
The audit noted that in attempt to demonstrate strong stewardship, the program may have redundancy between INFC and the 19 oversight entities of the program as the Oversight Committee and the Joint Secretariat in each of the provinces are made up of program delivery partner organizations who are already involved in the administration of the BCF–CC.
Some interviewees observed that INFC increased its role when trying to achieve greater consistency in the administration of all federal infrastructure programs as well as national consistency in the delivery of BCF–CC. Interviewees did note that given the significant expenditures and tight timeframes associated with the stimulus funding and the Top-Up, it was necessary for INFC to provide closer oversight. Some interviewees, including those at INFC, however recognized that some of the changes to administrative processes may have overly complicated the program's governance. Decision-making was elevated to the national level for some project-related matters, thereby impacting the decision-making role of the Oversight Committees.
Finding 13: Good administrative and delivery practices are in use in some jurisdictions which may be of benefit to others.
Good administrative practices undertaken in the last 5 years were identified by interviewees in most jurisdictions. For example, in Alberta, the province took responsibility for signage production for project sites on behalf of recipients. This resulted in cost savings from a volume discount and provided a consistent look for all signs. In Ontario, the Joint Secretariat was organized so that a federal or provincial staff person acts as the lead analyst for all projects and directly works the municipalities. This was described as improving client service for the ultimate recipient as they knew exactly who to call on any matters related to their BCF–CC projects. Another jurisdiction noted that regular communication via teleconferences occurred between INFC analysts and Joint Secretariats on almost a weekly basis and that this had made relationships at the working level very effective.
Interviewees from multiple jurisdictions noted that as the program winds down, the level of staff resources has been reduced within Joint Secretariats. They also stressed that each level of government has its own operational contexts that affect decisions and how issues are addressed. Mutual understanding and respect of these differences leads to success and cost-effective solutions as issues arise. It was expressed by interviewees that good practices in place across jurisdictions are not always communicated and may be useful to other jurisdictions with similar contexts and challenges.
Finding 14: The 5-year average cost to deliver one dollar of BCF–CC contribution funding is four cents.
The 5-year averageFootnote 8 cost to deliver one dollar of BCF–CC contribution funding is $0.04. This ratio refers to the total program administration cost as a percentage of the contributions paid in a given year and was calculated with the data in Table 13 below, using Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada recommended cost-based efficiency formula:
|Fiscal Year||Total Expenditure
In thousands of dollars
A = B+C+D
|Federal Contribution Expenditure (Voted and Statutory)
In thousands of dollars
|Total INFC Operating (Including Employee Benefits and Pension)
In thousands of dollars
|BCF–CC Operating Resources provided to FDPs
In thousands of dollars
E = (A-B)/B
Source: INFC Financial Data
Note: At the time of the evaluation, INFC operating funding was linked at the program level; therefore the information used to calculate the efficiency indicator for BCF–CC includes the BCF Large Urban Centres in Quebec (LUCC) data of the BCF. Therefore, Federal Contribution Expenditures in this table do not match the BCF–CC-only contribution expenditures reported in Table 2 of the Program Profile.
Finding 15: Program expenditures lag behind allocations, which are specified in the contribution agreements, by approximately 20 percent.
As previously depicted in Table 2 in the Program Profile, from the onset of the program to March 31, 2014, total notional allocations as per the Federal-Provincial Contribution agreements were just under $1.024 billion and actual contribution expenditures were just over $815.9 million. This indicates that actual contribution expenditures are lagging behind what was notionally allocated to be expended by approximately 20 percent.
Program interviewees indicated that it is not uncommon for expenditures to lag allocations and commitments. A number of factors influence the lag including lower than anticipated project costs, projects cancelled by proponents, and project delays resulting from inclement weather, technical and other construction-related complexities that cause numerous construction delays. Spending might also lag the planned allocation as recipients are only reimbursed once claims are submitted, even though eligible expenditures may have already been incurred.
Program interviewees further noted that planned expenditures are continuously reviewed with respect to the total notional allocation of the program. The annual allocations set out in the contribution agreements were based on negotiations at the onset of the program. Funding allocation in the CAs was done to match the funding profile that was provided to INFC through the Budget announcement. Some program interviewees noted that this is not always a realistic profile.
Targeted infrastructure funding programs for small communities remains relevant. The objectives of the BCF–CC are aligned to the current departmental objectives and support federal priorities. The federal roles and responsibilities within the BCF–CC are appropriate and legitimate.
The BCF–CC was responsive to the needs of small communities who were successful in accessing the program. The broad range of eligible categories was in line with the priorities of small communities, even as these evolve. However, the infrastructure needs of small communities extend well beyond their fiscal capacity and communities are facing increasing pressures to upgrade infrastructure to meet new regulatory, environmental, and safety standards.
Performance – Achievement of Expected Outcomes
The program is making progress towards its intended outcomes. Communities benefit from funding to support their infrastructure needs. Small communities would not have been able to undertake infrastructure projects without the BCF–CC funding and cost-sharing approach. However, while communities who have access to BCF–CC greatly benefit from funding, approximately 22 percent of eligible small communities have accessed the program to date and the BCF–CC has been found to be oversubscribed.
At the program-level, cost-sharing targets have been met in that the provinces and municipalities each contributed one-third to the BCF–CC projects. Partnerships under the program were viewed positively.Approximately 95 percent of the program funding allocation has been committed to infrastructure projects that support the program's three final outcomes and more than half of the 925 projects are completed to date.
The economic-, environment- and community-related benefits reported from completed BCF–CC projects in the short-term suggest that the program is well suited to contribute to its three final outcomes of Canada's cleaner environment, economic growth, and safer and stronger communities.While INFC requires recipients to report on project outcomes at the time of project completion or at substantial completion, this information was not available. Although work is underway at this time, INFC does not have methods in place to measure for the contribution to final outcomes or the long-term benefits from infrastructure that is in place and operational.
Performance – Demonstration of Efficiency and Economy
Overall, program stakeholders were conscientious of the importance of efficiency with respect to program delivery. INFC staff and program delivery partners took actions over the last five years to improve the efficiency of the program's administration. Good practices were highlighted by the jurisdictions and as the program winds down, jurisdictions have reduced the level of staff resources within the Joint Secretariats. The average federal administrative cost to deliver one dollar of BCF–CC funding was found to be four cents.
Though the BCF–CC was partly designed from established and familiar processes and structures, evidence suggests that instances of over-governance may have existed. It was also found that the various good practices undertaken in individual jurisdictions may not be known by others and there is an opportunity for jurisdictions to share and benefit from good practices that improve efficiency and economy.
Recommendations and Management Action Plan
The recommendations are based on the key evaluation findings and conclusions, with due consideration to the fact that the New Building Canada Fund-Small Communities Fund (NBCF–SCF) is now in place and many agreements have already been signed with the provinces and territories. The recommendations are therefore limited to those that can be implemented for the monitoring and close out of the BCF–CC program or within the structure of the new program and its agreements.
|Recommendation||Management Response and Action Plan||Planned Completion Date||Office of Primary Interest|
|1. INFC senior management should refine the Performance Measurement Strategy (PMS) for the NBCF–PTIC–SCF, including appropriate performance measures for all elements of the logic model, drawing on findings from the BCF–CC evaluation. The PMS should incorporate data available from provinces and territories and balance key principles of reliability and affordability.||Management agrees with the recommendation. The PTIC–SCF Performance Measurement Strategy will be reviewed and refined as required to reflect the findings of the BCF–CC evaluation.||December 2015||ADM, Program Operations Branch|
|2. INFC senior management should identify and implement opportunities for sharing best practices, improvements and other aspects of delivery to help provinces and territories better serve small communities through new programming such as the NBCF–SCF.||Management agrees with the recommendation. INFC has maintained strong relationships and communication channels with the PTs as a result of existing collaboration on the delivery of a number of INFC program as well as the consultations undertaken prior to the development of the New BCP. As a result of a lessons learned exercise by Program Operations Branch (POB) a thorough review of best practises has been undertaken in preparation for the NBCF. The Branch will continue to engage with provincial and territorial counterparts as necessary on program delivery issues and policies to share best practices and improvements to better serve small communities. Notably, this will be done bilaterally through extensive use of Oversight Committees established under the NBCF–SCF in each province and territory and multilaterally through workshops as forums for exchange of information and best practises.||December 2015 but note that sharing of best practices will continue on an ongoing basis.||ADM, Program Operations Branch|
Canada West Foundation. At the Intersection: the Case for Sustained and Strategic Public Infrastructure Investment, Public Policy Brief. February, 2013.
Canadian Infrastructure Report Card Volume: 2012 Municipal Roads and Water Systems.. Funding for this project was provided by the Canadian Construction Association, Canadian Public Works Association, Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Stoney, Christopher., Hilton, Robert., Adams, Erika., and Phillips, Susan. Renewing Canada’s Infrastructure: Can the Gas Tax Agreement Reconcile National Priorities with Local Autonomy? (draft). March, 2008.
Canada. Department of Finance. The Road to Balance: Creating Jobs and Opportunities. Budget 2014. Ottawa, 2014.
Canada. Department of Finance. Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity - Economic Action Plan 2013. Budget 2013. Ottawa, 2013.
Canada. Department of Finance. Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity - Economic Action Plan 2012.Budget 2012. Ottawa, 2012.
Canada. Department of Finance. The Next Phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan: A Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth. Budget 2011. Ottawa, June 2011.
Canada. Department of Finance. The Next Phase of Canada’s Economic Action Plan: A Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth. Budget 2011. Ottawa, March 2011.
Canada. Department of Finance. Canada’s Economic Action Plan – Year 2: Leading the way on Jobs and Growth.Budget 2010, Ottawa, 2010.
Canada. Department of Finance. Canada’s Economic Action Plan. Budget 2009. Ottawa, 2009.
Canada. Department of Finance. Responsible Leadership for Uncertain Times. Budget 2008. Ottawa, 2008.
Canada. Department of Finance. . A Stronger, Safer and Better Canada. Budget 2007. Ottawa, 2007.
Canada. Governor General. Seizing Canada’s moment: prosperity and opportunity in an uncertain world: speech from the Throne, October 16, 2013.
Canada. Governor General. Here for all Canadians: stability, prosperity, security: speech from the Throne, June 3, 2011.
Canada. Governor General. A Stronger Canada. A Stronger Economy. Now and for the Future: speech from the Throne, March 3, 2010.
Canada. Governor General. Speech from the Throne to Open the Second Session of the 40th Parliament of Canada. January 26, 2009.
Canada. Governor General. Protecting Canada’s Future: speech from the Throne, November 19, 2008. .
Canada. Governor General. Strong Leadership. A Better Canada: speech from the Throne, October 16, 2007. .
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. 2008-2009 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. 2009-2010 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. 2010-2011 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. 2011-2012 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. 2012-2013 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. 2013-2014 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. 2014-2015 Report on Plans and Priorities.
Canada. Infrastructure Canada. Internal Audit of the Building Canada Fund - Communities Component. , February 2012.
Annex A: Case Study Overview and Results
Case Study 1: Water and Wastewater Infrastructure
Water and Sewer Improvement Project
Lieu: Norman's Cove – Long Cove, NL
Federal investment: $366,372
Project Completion: July 2010
At the time of the project, the town's new water supply was on stream; however, it was operating from a plastic water main in the project area. The old 2-inch plastic water main pipes were prone to breakage. As a consequence, water quality was compromised as things could get into the pipes and contaminate the water. The upper area of Norman's Cove primarily consists of bog and peat which are not good areas for septic tanks. Because of the nature of the ground in the area, the sewer disposal field for most of the families was very close to their homes and in some cases ran into ditches along the road in from of their homes. This made for a very unhealthy environment for residents.
The project provided water (water mains) and improvements to sewer services to approximately 60 families as well as the addition of fire hydrants.
Benefits reported related to a Safer and Stronger Communities are:
- Increased water quality
- Better fire service and increased safety for the residents
- Residents are benefiting from a reduction in the home insurance premiums
- Healthier environment, free from the nauseous odors from the surface wastewater
Case Study 2: Wastewater Infrastructure
Wastewater & Roads Infrastructure Upgrades Project
Lieu: Town of Bashaw, AB
Federal investment: $594,266
Project Completion: April 2011
Norman's Cove – Long Cove is located on the east coast of Newfoundland at Trinity Bay. From the 2006 Statistics Canada census, Norman's Cove – Long Cove had a population of 773 people with 309 households.
The Town of Bashaw, Alberta, has a population of 868 and is located in Prairie Parkland Country. It is less than a one-hour drive to Red Deer. Primarily a farming community, the area around Bashaw is known for productive croplands and a diverse livestock industry.
The condition of sewage holding tanks at 38 residential properties in the northwest sector of town was posing serious health and safety concerns. The existing infrastructure needed to be upgraded to improve reliability and remove unsafe conditions.
The project addressed required infrastructure upgrades in three areas: replacement of existing sewage holding tanks with new gravity sewer to support future development, construction of an alternate discharge line from the core lift station, and paving of the Schultz subdivision roads adjacent to the proposed subdivision.
Benefits reported related to a Safer and Stronger Communities are:
- Elimination of identified health and safety concerns with sewage holding tanks
- Elimination of sewer distribution system redundancy and potential failures and capacity deficiencies
- Improved reliability and performance of the wastewater collection system
- Increased the actual number of households connected to sanitary sewer system (36 households)
- Increased the capacity of the sanitary sewer system to accommodate future growth
Case Study 3: Sports Infrastructure
Renovation to Municipal Arena Project
Lieu: Lac-Etchemin, QC
Federal investment: $658,333
Project Completion: October 2012
Lac-Etchemin is a municipality in and the seat of the Municipalité régionale de comté des Etchemins in Quebec, Canada. It is part of the Chaudière-Appalaches region in the southern region of Quebec and its population was 4,088 as of 2009.
At the time of the project, the municipal arena was more than 30 years old and needed major renovations. The project consisted of major renovations to the Lac-Etchemin municipal arena that included updates to the refrigeration system, relocation of the electrical system, renovated bleachers, new elevator, recreation room, improvements to lighting and pavement of the parking lot.
Benefits reported related to a Economic Growth and Safer and Stronger Communities are:
- Maintained number of users with a decreasing population
- Increased flexibility to host different types of events throughout the year
- Increased off-season usage. It is estimated that there are activities in the arena about 80 percent of the days throughout the year
- Increased benefits to businesses in the community:
- The arena restaurant has seen an increase in business
- During hockey tournaments, players and families from other municipalities rent hotel rooms in the Lac-Etchemin area, eat at its restaurants and make other purchases in the region
- Improved accessibility to people with reduced mobility and Lac-Etchemin's aging population
- Improved parking that is now accessible throughout the year
Case Study 4: Cultural Infrastructure
Improvements to Pickering Village Museum Project
Lieu: Pickering, ON
Federal investment: $295,000
Project Completion: June 2012
The Pickering Museum Village is situated on the banks of Duffin's Creek in the Hamlet of Greenwood. The Pickering Museum Village is owned and operated by the City of Pickering and consists of 16 heritage buildings that include hotel, general store, schoolhouse, blacksmith shop, woodworking shop, town hall, chapel, homes, barns and sheds that date between 1830 and 1910. At the time of the project, the Pickering Museum Village had two heritage buildings that required immediate restoration, one facility that required an addition to sustain restoration work by the Woodright's Guild volunteer group, and an overall site that required specific updates to make it more accessible to individuals with special needs.
The project consisted of a rehabilitation and improvements to the Pickering Museum Village that included the restoration of the Brougham Central Hotel, stabilization of the Log Barn and replacement of rotting logs, a workshop addition to the Gas & Steam Barn, foundation restorations for critical buildings, site improvements to provide accessible and safe access, drainage improvements and a side porch addition to Redman House.
Benefits reported related to a Economic Growth and Safer and Stronger Communities are:
- Compliance with the Ontario Ministry of Culture's Standards for Community Museums
- Improved accessibility for visitors that were previously experiencing barriers when accessing the museum
- Increased flexibility to host different types of events, specialized programs targeted to various school age groups and extended hours of operation
- 18 percent increase in program and admission revenues and a 29 percent increase in program admission and attendance from 2012 to 2013
- Supports the Province of Ontario's Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP), the Cultural Heritage Strategy within Pickering's Official Plan and the Provincial Place to Grow Act
Case Study 5: Local and Regional Airports
Collingwood Regional Airport Project
Lieu: Collingwood, ON
Federal investment: $441,000
Project Completion: 2012
The Collingwood Regional Airport is a public use general aviation airport, owned by the Town of Collingwood on land located within Clearview Township. The Town of Collingwood purchased the original airport development lands in 1966.
Over the years, the airport has steadily expanded to allow runway extensions, largely through the Town of Collingwood's purchase of additional land immediately south of the original property. The original airway was constructed in 1974. The asphalt was exhibiting significant distress including major transverse and longitudinal cracking as well as localized areas of alligator cracking, rutting and settlement.
The purpose of the project was to reconstruct the airside pavements at the Collingwood Regional Airport (runway, apron and taxiways). The upgrades to the Regional Airport were considered essential to preserving the safety of the airport infrastructure and to support current and future economic growth in the area.
Benefits reported related to a Economic Growth and Safer and Stronger Communities are:
- Increased usage of Airport
- Increase in revenues from fuel sales
- Increase of flight training traffic and the addition of another flight training school
- Maintained Collingwood as a key transportation hub and ensured a continued contribution by the airport to the economic viability of the Town of Collingwood
- Supports the Community Sustainability Plan for the Town of Collingwood
- Improved safety and sustainability of the airstrip that meet Transport Canada criteria
- Continued support for government operations
Case Study 6: Brownfield Remediation & Redevelopment
Pier Park & Greenway Development Project
Lieu: Westminster, BC
Federal investment: $8,300,915
Project Completion: March 2012
New Westminster is centrally located in Metro Vancouver, at the place where the Fraser River splits into its north and south arms. New Westminster has over two kilometers (km) of waterfront, and the river frontage has commercial, industrial and recreational significance. In 2008, the City's population was approximately 59,000 and by the end of the next decade, it is estimated that there will be between 74,000 and 80,000 people living in the community. The City's Master Plan for Parks and Recreation identified a gap with respect to the adequacy of parkland to support the growing population.
The project involved turning a derelict 3.2 hectares brownfield site into urban park space that will protect and enhance the natural environment, improve the health of local citizens, and stimulate the local economy. The project included remediation of the existing site followed by development of a city park and linear greenway. The municipality was recognized for remediation and design excellence.
Benefits reported related to a Cleaner Environment, Economic Growth and Safer and Stronger Communities are:
- Reduction of environmental and health risks posed by the contaminated waterfront site
- Protection of fish habitat
- Increased parkland within urban centre to address shortfalls identified in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
- Increased sustainability of municipal development
- Increased employment
- Increased tourism potential
- Increased access to community waterfront and multi-purpose facilities
- Supports municipal land use plans and urban densification within the City
- Enhanced ability of community to preserve, develop and promote their cultural heritage
- Footnote 1
Within the BCF–CC, Federal Delivery Partners include four Regional Development Agencies: Western Economic Diversification (WD), the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario (FedDev), the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions (CED-Q).
- Footnote 2
Includes Provincial incremental administrative costs. Generally, Provinces may use up to 3 percent of allocations for their own incremental administrative costs. This is the case for all provinces except Ontario and British Columbia who may use up to 2% and Alberta who may use up to 1%.
- Footnote 3
At the time of the evaluation, INFC operating funding was linked at the program level; therefore the information in this table also includes the LUCC data of the FDPsBCF.
- Footnote 4
January 2009, as part of Canada's EAP, a $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) and the CC Top-Up of $500 million was announced. These were short-term initiatives with a March 31, 2011 deadline to complete projects. A condition to access the funding was that all BCF–CC funding already be committed. Therefore, INFC resources were largely dedicated to delivering on EAP programs for that fiscal year.
- Footnote 5
Reviewing Canada’s Infrastructure: Can the Gas Tax Agreement Reconcile National Priorities with Local Autonomy? Christopher Stoney, Robert Hilton, Ericka Adams, Susan Phillips. Carleton University, 2008.
- Footnote 6
January 2009, as part of Canada's EAP, a $4 billion Infrastructure Stimulus Fund (ISF) and the CC Top-Up of $500 million was announced. These were short-term initiatives with a March 31, 2011 deadline to complete projects.
- Footnote 7
The Public Transit, National Highway System and Shortline Rail categories are not included as no projects were undertaken in these categories within the BCF–CC.
- Footnote 8
Funding flows vary significantly based on stage of funding activity. By using an average over a 5-year timeline, the efficiency indicator respects a Contribution Program Life Cycle.
- Footnote 9
Prior to 2009-2010, the BCF–CC was grouped with other funding programs under the Targeted Project-Based Infrastructure Funding program activity. Therefore expenditures for 2008-09 and earlier were grouped under the former program activity.
- Date modified: