Evaluation of the First Nation Infrastructure Fund

1.2.1 Background and Description

In 2007, AANDC and Infrastructure Canada entered into an agreement to invest $127.3 million over five years for on-reserve infrastructure projects. The FNIF funding was pooled from three pre-existing federal sources: Infrastructure Canada's Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, the Gas Tax Fund, and AANDC's Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program (CFMP). In Budget 2007, AANDC accessed an additional $107.6 million from Infrastructure Canada's Building Canada Fund and in 2009, this was used to increase the total FNIF contributions envelope to $234.9 million; at this point connectivity was also added to the existing suite of investment categories. The targeted fund was proposal-based and was intended to address long-standing community infrastructure needs that had not been funded under existing infrastructure programming.

FNIF funding was scheduled to expire on March 31, 2013, but was renewed under the 2013 Budget. Over the next five years, just under $139 million of the renewed Gas Tax Fund was set aside for FNIF funding; Gas Tax funding is statutory and can be re-adjusted every five years based on First Nations' population on reserve.^{Footnote 1} Additionally, as part of Canada's Economic Action Plan 2013, a further $155 million over ten years from the New Building Canada Fund was set aside for the FNIF.^{Footnote 2}

1.2.2 Objectives and Expected Outcomes

According to the FNIF Terms and Conditions (2007), the fund specifically seeks to:

• improve the health and safety of First Nation communities;
• contribute to a cleaner and healthier environment;
• improve the delivery of public/government services, including education and e-health to First Nation communities; and
• enhance collaboration among First Nation communities, municipalities, provinces and the Government of Canada.

To reach its strategic outcomes, the FNIF provided funding in five project categories:

• Solid waste (management): construct, restore and improve infrastructure that improves solid waste management and increases the recovery and use of recycled and organic materials, reduces per capita tonnage of solid waste sent to landfill, reduces environmental impacts and enhances energy recovery.
• Energy systems: construct, restore or improve local band-owned infrastructure that optimizes the use of energy sources (e.g., in buildings and other installations), accesses provincially owned energy grids and reduces the greenhouse gas emissions and air contaminants arising from local sources.
• Local roads and bridges: 1) construct, restore or improve public roads and bridges that will result in improved safety, support tourism and commerce, support social and economic development of local areas; and 2) reduce the need for client travel outside of their local region for schooling and healthcare purposes.
• Planning and skills development: to support investment in community planning and/or skills development projects that will support long-term sustainable community development of First Nation communities.
• Connectivity^{Footnote 3}: to support under-connected First Nations to gain access to regional broadband network expansions driven by regional, provincial, and private sector broadband infrastructure partnerships in order to improve social, cultural and economic development opportunities, as well as: improve the delivery of public services, such as government services, education, and e-health to First Nation communities.

The fund's performance measurement strategy is contained under the umbrella of the Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program's 2009 Performance Measurement Strategy. FNIF Performance Indicators include:

• The Community Well-Being index, developed by AANDC's Research and Analysis Directorate
• Percentage of communities able to undertake basic public works activities
• Estimated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
• Percentage of First Nation communities with electricity/power generation in fair or better conditions
• Percentage of First Nation communities that are off-grid
• Percentage of roads and bridges with a fair or better condition rating
• Percentage of First Nation communities with access to broadband connectivity

1.2.3 Program Management, Key Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

AANDC was responsible for program delivery, performance measurement, and reporting annually to Infrastructure Canada and to Parliament on the program's progress. The two departments jointly designed the terms and conditions, a Memorandum of Understanding, and the development of a Results-based Management and Accountability Framework. A National Oversight Committee with representatives from both departments monitored the FNIF's progress.

Eligible applicants included:

• First Nation governments, including a band or tribal council or its agent (wholly-owned corporation), on the condition that the First Nation has indicated support for the project and for the legally designated representative to act as an applicant through a formal band or tribal council resolution; and
• Innu communities where the applicant is on reserve, Crown land in the province.

FNIF funding did not extend to communities in the territories as funding was disseminated by the respective territorial governments.

1.2.4 Infrastructure Investment Decision Making

AANDC's CFMP funds the majority of infrastructure projects on reserve and determines funding priorities using the National Capital Planning Process. This process includes three layers of annual planning: (1) A community level plan is submitted by each First Nation to the AANDC regional office detailing their infrastructure needs; (2) The regional office develops their Capital Plan indicating planned program expenditures; and (3) The First Nations Infrastructure Investment Plan is then developed based on each Regional Capital Plan to provide a strategic overview of national CFMP investment decisions.

Projects are prioritized at the regional level using the National Priority Funding Evaluation and Measurement Matrix (available in Annex A), which includes six columns ranked in order of priority. Within these columns, projects are ranked on a scale of 1-5 depending on their priority level. Projects that impact the health and safety of the community receive the highest ranking while projects that address community growth and future needs receive the lowest ranking. Column D, "Community Infrastructure" includes several of the FNIF funding categories and is ranked lowest in terms of priority. However, funding decisions for the FNIF were not based on this process but instead on a separate proposal submission process where projects were ranked by regional selection committees using FNIF mandatory screening criteria and the selection criteria for specific project categories, in consideration of local needs and priorities.

1.2.5 Program Resources

In total, AANDC invested $240,744,000 in contributions under the FNIF while sourcing an additional $21,423,500 in other departmental funds (Table 1). The FNIF funding was divided amongst AANDC's seven regional offices south of 60̊ on a per capita basis weighted with levels of remoteness (Table 2). Additional project funding from other partners and stakeholders totaled approximately $241,467,113 (Table 1). A total of $2,177,320 was provided for internal AANDC program operating costs (Table 3).

These investments amounted to a total of 434 funded projects from 2007-2013 (Table 1) representing 35 percent of the 1,242 project proposals received. The remaining 808 project proposals either remain unfunded or have been included as lower priorities on Regional Capital Plans, which will likely not be funded by the CFMP.

2.3.1 Data Sources

Literature Review
The literature review was used to examine broader trends, issues and challenges related to municipal infrastructure development and financing, as well as its linkages to economic development and social, health and environmental well-being for communities in the Canadian context. The literature review also concentrated on the necessity of funding infrastructure based on comprehensive community planning practices.

Document and File Review
The document review looked at internal (FNIF) documents such as previous FNIF audits, evaluations, management responses and action plans; previous and current related program evaluations and reports; program reports; project tracking files; external reports and communications; program operational documents (e.g., Results-based Management and Accountability Frameworks, Performance Measurement Strategy, operational plans, strategic plans, AANDC quarterly reporting); and public communications.

Key Informant Interviews
Seventy-one stakeholders and experts were interviewed, including eight program staff at Headquarters; eight additional Headquarters stakeholders; nine external experts and stakeholders; two National Oversight Committee members; two federal partners; and 42 regional AANDC staff members. First Nation recipients and community members were interviewed as part of the case studies and as such, were not included in the total number of Key Informant Interviews.

Case Studies
Five case studies were completed in total, one for each of the funding categories eligible under the FNIF. The case studies included four data collection methods: site visits (or video conferencing when more efficient); focus groups with First Nation project teams; focus groups with targeted community members operating or using the infrastructure developed; and a review of reporting documents from recipients.

The following communities and partners were visited based on four criteria: (1) total project costs; (2) number of projects approved for a community; (3) regional representation; and (4) recommendations from regional offices. In total, the case studies included 46 stakeholders (project details available in Annex C).

Economic Impact Analysis
The consulting firm Malatest & Associates Ltd. used regional records of funding decisions and a project tracking database alongside provincial input-output multipliers developed by Statistics Canada to estimate the return on investment of FNIF-funded projects. Estimated results included total output generated, contribution to Canadian gross domestic product (GDP), total income generated through employment and total number of jobs created.

Comprehensive Community Planning Workshop
The evaluation team attended British Columbia’s Annual Comprehensive Community Planning (CCP) Workshop co-hosted by Little Shuswap Lake Indian Band and AANDC from October 1-3, 2013. Over 100 attendees representing 50 First Nation communities participated in the workshop. Key note speakers from First Nations implementing their CCPs shared their stories and provided practical workshops on topics such as: Finding the support you need to get started; Engaging community members; Monitoring and evaluating planning progress; Integrating CCP with other planning processes; Indigenous planning as a healing process; and Keeping the plan alive. Through presentations, break-out groups and informal discussions, the evaluation team spoke with a large sample of First Nation representatives, regional staff and external stakeholders about the First Nation community planning process, including key challenges and best practices.

2.3.2 Considerations, Strengths and Limitations

Where possible, the evaluation team collaborated with other Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Branch case study travel for purposes of cost-efficiency.

The main limitation in the evaluation process was a lack of readily available program performance information for analysis. The Integrated Capital Management System was not fully operational during the implementation of the FNIF due to an ongoing review of the system’s performance, and still remains a challenge for some regions that are just now populating the system with completed project data. As such, evaluators could not obtain precise numbers on how many communities benefitted from FNIF funding.

In response to the 2010 implementation evaluation, the program designed performance indicators such as the percentage of communities with roads and bridges or electrical/power generation in fair or better conditions; however, inspections operate on a three year cycle and many FNIF projects have not yet had their first reviews.^{Footnote 8} As a result, evaluators could not obtain usable performance data. It is expected that these concerns will be addressed through the development of the Infrastructure and Capacity Performance Measurement Strategy currently underway as part of the Performance Measurement Strategy Action Plan for 2013-2014.

The 2010 implementation evaluation of the FNIF was undertaken at the same time as an evaluation of the CFMP; this was due to overlapping design and delivery issues and a desire to reduce the reporting burden for regional offices and First Nation communities by amalgamating the interviews, focus groups and site visits. This approach of timing evaluation work under Section 2.4 of the 2014-2015 Program Alignment Architecture should be continued for future evaluation work as the FNIF evaluation results also pertained to funding water and wastewater, education facilities, housing, renewable energy, emergency management assistance and other community infrastructure.

Original Need for the FNIF

AANDC funds infrastructure development on reserve based on the national infrastructure ranking process outlined in Section 1.2.4. In practice, this means that the majority of AANDC's infrastructure funding must be allocated to water and wastewater systems, education facilities and housing. Often, available funding does not cover the expanse of needs within these categories. Furthermore, much of the CFMP funding comes from targeted sources like the First Nations Water and Wastewater Action Plan, which could not be used for community infrastructure even if it were higher on the priority list. AANDC has individual programs for housing and contaminated sites whereas all other types of infrastructure assets and their operations and maintenance requirements fall under the CFMP. CFMP funding is further strained when it must be regularly re-profiled towards addressing statutory obligations such as education, social programming and other priorities. These funding constraints are significant as they make it difficult for community infrastructure priorities to be addressed.

The majority of internal key informants corroborated these concerns by explaining that the strained CFMP budget means other community infrastructure projects cannot be funded. These views corroborate concerns expressed by First Nation community interviewees that there has been a long-standing need to fund community infrastructure such as solid waste management and roads and bridges.^{Footnote 9} The SchoolNet evaluation noted that e-learning, video conferencing and other connectivity-related opportunities were not realistic for First Nations without specific targeted investments.^{Footnote 10} Furthermore, the evaluation of the CFMP called for a targeted program to fill in these gaps,^{Footnote 11} and the implementation evaluation of the FNIF found that it closely mirrored the needs expressed by communities.^{Footnote 12}

AANDC's limited ability to fund community infrastructure is exacerbated by a lack of external options for financing in First Nation communities.^{Footnote 13} The 2011 Evaluation of Implementation of the First Nation Fiscal and Statistical Management Act found that governments use their infrastructure and services to stimulate their economy through industrial, commercial, and residential development in their jurisdictions; however, First Nation communities have faced sizeable challenges in funding infrastructure needs in large part because there is no formal framework under the Indian Act to support the functions of comptrollership, compliance, taxation, and standard-setting that would facilitate First Nation governments gaining affordable access to capital markets.^{Footnote 14} While support for infrastructure in Canada is also typically financed through external loans,^{Footnote 15} securing access to finances is often difficult for First Nation communities given that financing tends to be limited to borrowers already established in the economy.^{Footnote 16}Furthermore, relevant literature revealed that a lack of adequate infrastructure is one of many factors influencing the pace and success of economic development ventures on reserve.^{Footnote 17}

Limited alternatives to funding infrastructure on reserve include the First Nations Finance Authority, which provides low-cost loans to First Nations registered under the First Nations Fiscal Management Act. The Act provides communities with the capacity to collect taxes and ensures accountability to taxpayers by supporting the development of financial management capacity; regulatory oversight is provided for First Nations that are exercising jurisdiction over the collection of property taxes and accessing loans through a pooled borrowing regime. Additionally, the Royal Bank of Canada's Aboriginal Partnerships Program provides funding to promote Aboriginal economic development and has invested $12 million into roads and bridges to date.^{Footnote 18}

An analysis conducted by the GBC Group in 2011 suggests that the challenge of funding infrastructure development is typical for many small or remote Canadian communities. These communities (1) tend to rely on provincial and federal grants; (2) do not tend to access private financial institutions; and (3) will use own-source revenue for funding the operations and maintenance of assets but not for construction of assets.^{Footnote 19} These findings corroborate the 2010 program evaluations of the Capital Facilities and Maintenance Program and the FNIF, which demonstrated that the FNIF was an essential program for developing infrastructure on reserve, and that until First Nation communities are able to develop their own-source funding revenue streams, major capital infrastructure needs will go unaddressed in the absence of federal funding.^{Footnote 20}

Ongoing Need for the FNIF

Originally, the FNIF was a small targeted fund of just over $240 million. Of the 1,242 proposals received, 808 remained unfunded at the end of the third call, amounting to $689 million of eligible unfunded projects. The vast amount of eligible unfunded projects demonstrates that there is a continuing demand for the fund that expired in March 2013. The ongoing need for a similar funding source will be fulfilled by the New Building Canada Plan announced in the 2013 Federal Government Budget in addition to ongoing Gas Tax funding.^{Footnote 21}

Communities' highest requests under the FNIF were for the Planning and Skills Development category and the Roads and Bridges category. Roads and Bridges was also the largest funded category at $137,436,691, representing over 57 percent of the fund. The continued need for funding roads and bridges was also identified in Infrastructure Canada's evaluation of its First Nations Infrastructure component^{Footnote 22} and by the majority of case study interviewees. Roads and bridges were a priority for First Nation communities looking to: (1) increase their access to external resources; (2) improve the look and feel of their communities for community morale; and (3) entice potential investors. The 2010 evaluation of the CFMP also argued that supporting provincial and territorial access roads to First Nation communities is a vital factor in supporting health and safety as well as economic development.^{Footnote 23}

On March 21, 2013, the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, announced additional funding for the FNIF as part of Budget 2013. The findings above demonstrate this renewal responds to the needs - and typically unfunded priorities - of communities identified in this evaluation.

Alignment with Federal Government Priorities:

The FNIF was found to be consistent with a long-standing priority of the Government of Canada regarding infrastructure investment:

• In the 1999 Speech from the Throne, the Government outlined its intention to "make a long term contribution towards a dynamic economy through the building of infrastructure."^{Footnote 24}
• In Budget 2000, $2.05 billion was allocated over six years to improving urban and rural infrastructure.^{Footnote 25}
• The 2002 Speech from the Throne pledged to put in place a ten year initiative of infrastructure renewal.
• Budget 2003 confirmed this commitment by providing $1 billion to help meet the infrastructure needs of smaller communities.^{Footnote 26}
• Budget 2006 committed to providing stable and reliable funding to provinces, territories and communities to help them meet their infrastructure needs.^{Footnote 27}

More recently, the Government has made significant investments in infrastructure through three sources: the Gas Tax Fund, the Building Canada Fund and through additional Economic Action Plan stimulus funds. The Gas Tax Fund was originally intended to provide $5 billion to municipalities over five years; however, in 2007 the fund was extended with the annual amount increased to $2 billion, and on December 15, 2011, the fund was legislated to be a permanent annual infrastructure investment. The Building Canada Fund was announced in the 2007 Speech from the Throne and provided $8.8 billion for national, regional and local infrastructure priorities from 2007-2014. Furthermore, the 2013 Speech from the Throne noted that infrastructure investment "contributes in a fundamental way to growth and long-term prosperity"^{Footnote 28} and thus, a new Building Canada Fund was established that, when combined with other federal infrastructure investments, will result in $70 billion in infrastructure funding over 10 years - the largest long-term commitment to infrastructure in Canadian history.^{Footnote 29} The size and consistency of infrastructure investments over time demonstrates the priority placed on infrastructure development by the Government of Canada.

In terms of infrastructure investments on reserve, Budget 2006 announced "A New Approach" to helping Aboriginal communities, which sought to reduce disparities between Aboriginal people and other Canadians.^{Footnote 30} Canada's Economic Action Plan stimulus funding provided $515 million over two years for "ready-to-go" First Nations infrastructure projects in priority areas, including schools and water. Additionally, Budget 2013 made significant investments in First Nations infrastructure, including $7 billion over ten years for "roads, bridges, energy systems and other First Nations infrastructure priorities".^{Footnote 31}

At the departmental level, AANDC supports infrastructure investment on reserve through its Land and Economy strategic area with the expected ultimate outcome of "full participation of First Nations, Métis, Non-Status Indians and Inuit individuals and communities in the economy."^{Footnote 32} Specifically, AANDC supports a suite of Infrastructure and Capacity programming where FNIF works to support the long-term expected result that "First Nation communities have a base of infrastructure that protects health and safety and enables engagement in the economy."^{Footnote 33} The FNIF, therefore, aligns with these departmental priorities by providing a base of community infrastructure that supports health and safety while also laying the foundations for economic development.

In the 2012-2013 AANDC Report on Plans and Priorities, the Department identified eleven priority areas that fall under three themes. Several of the FNIF funding categories are designed to help meet these priorities.^{Footnote 34} Specifically, under the "Transforming for Improved Results" theme, the priority of "Improving Economic Development and Sustainability"^{Footnote 35} was identified. The FNIF supports this priority by undertaking infrastructure projects that will spur economic development in First Nation communities or enable community members to access nearby economic/employment opportunities. Furthermore, the theme "Improving Partnerships and Relationships" includes the priority "Facilitate Community Development and Capacity."^{Footnote 36} The 2012-13 Departmental Performance Report notes that the Department has worked to achieve this priority by "advancing the Community Development Framework and related tools,"^{Footnote 37} which include comprehensive community planning. Finally, the 2012-13 Departmental Performance Report states that "connectivity is essential to support Aboriginal online services such as e-commerce, e-learning, remote banking, e-health and online program reporting."^{Footnote 38} Additionally, the report states that "sound roads and bridges are essential elements of community infrastructure."^{Footnote 39} As such, the projects funded by the FNIF, through their contributions to community planning and/or economic development, have contributed to the achievement of AANDC departmental priorities.

Alignment with First Nations Priorities:

The evaluation of the CFMP noted that "whereas water projects are given top priority and are well handled with the CFM program…water might not be the highest priority in all communities. Thus, projects such as solid waste management, and roads and bridges may not have received funding."^{Footnote 40} Additionally, the evaluation noted that capital projects, such as road and bridge construction, have received minimal program support because they fall lower on the national priority list. For First Nations that did not have problems related to water, other projects deemed to have high local priority were often delayed.^{Footnote 41} While minor capital funding can be used to address these projects where they are eligible, often they go unaddressed when there is not enough funding available.

The FNIF plays a critical role in addressing First Nations infrastructure priorities that do not receive CFMP funding. According to key informants from AANDC Headquarters, AANDC regional offices, the Assembly of First Nations, First Nations organizations and the case studies conducted in First Nation communities, the FNIF funding categories remain relevant and priority areas for First Nation communities across the country as they address long-standing community infrastructure priorities. Additionally, the targeted nature of the FNIF also allows for flexibility in funding project categories in recognition of the range of infrastructure pressures on First Nation communities. As a result, community member interviewees spoke highly of the fund, and with the fund's renewal announcement, are keen to start addressing the additional items on their long-standing Capital Plans.

Key Impacts with Examples

1. Improved community accessibility

Lac Seul First Nation's causeway has transformed the ability of the remote community to more easily access basic supplies, health care and employment opportunities in surrounding areas. According to interviewees, new and upgraded roads also improved the accessibility of the First Nation to other communities, thereby increasing tourism and investment opportunities on reserve.

2. Better health and safety outcomes from reduced dust

Fisher River Cree Nation's road paving project has increased safety for pedestrians who are now more clearly visible to drivers and reduction of dust has mitigated health concerns. In communities with dirt roads, respiratory issues were a priority concern.

3. Safer roadways and bridges

Inspections of roads and bridges are conducted through the three year Asset Condition Reporting System. In March 2011, 87.4 percent of the 222 bridges inspected were rated as "new", "good" or "fair" condition (65 percent were good or new) and 82 percent of roads were rated as "new", "good" or "fair" condition (41 percent were good or new). The FNIF contributed to raising these numbers by building new roads and bridges or improving existing assets.

For example, Poplar River First Nation's road repair project has improved the journey into and around the community for school buses, water delivery vehicles and fire trucks. Additionally, multiple communities within the Roads and Bridges case study reported less flipped vehicles when roads were paved. Similarly, sidewalk projects (sometimes accompanied by street lighting in the energy systems category) were popular with interviewees who discussed significant safety improvements.

Namgis First Nation had major road safety concerns after a young girl was killed while walking home at night. As a result of this accident, the community put together a FNIF proposal for a boardwalk along the waterfront that is now frequented by community members and neighbouring communities.

4. Lower vehicle maintenance and road maintenance costs

Community members in Poplar River First Nation and Whitecap Dakota First Nation indicated that fewer repairs are necessary on their vehicles as a result of improved roadways. For Whitecap Dakota First Nation, paved roads are more cost effective to maintain than the previous gravel roads.

Key Challenges

Costs are significant for road and bridge construction and repair with little available funding sources. For one FNIF-funded community, a bridge was purchased from a neighbouring community. However, some repairs are still necessary, for which they do not have available funds. Practically, this means that water trucks can only carry 80 percent of their capacity and heavy machinery cannot be transported across it.

In terms of monitoring road and bridges assets, in many cases, inspection data have not been uploaded to the Integrated Capital Management System either because of challenges with the system discussed above or because assets reviews have not yet been conducted. This means that the Department does not have a clear understanding of the funded road/bridge inventory or road/bridge conditions.^{Footnote 50}

Expected Return on Investment

To determine the return on investment for the construction or repair of road/bridges, projects have often been evaluated using the cost benefit analysis method.^{Footnote 51} A World Bank econometric study that builds on a body of this research found that for the period 1983-1992, the average economic rate of return for road building projects was 29 percent.^{Footnote 52} According to David Canning and Esra Bennathan, an economic rate of return such as this "might be described as adequate but not exceptional."^{Footnote 53} However, the literature notes that justification for infrastructure projects through their economic contribution is "extremely controversial, and consists of studies that are divided on both the magnitude and direction of the net effect of infrastructure spending on economic growth."^{Footnote 54} Additionally, Chandra and Thompson note that the economic impact of infrastructure investments in non metropolitan areas remains unclear as 'leakages' are present for certain types of infrastructure projects. For example, new or improved roads/bridges may lead economic activity to shift to nearby metropolitan areas due to the reduced travel time.^{Footnote 55}

Furthermore, Canning and Bennathan state that microeconomic analysis has the potential to overlook externalities, in particular positive externalities, of infrastructure investment. For example, road projects can increase competition and access to markets as well as facilitate access to health, education and other important services.^{Footnote 56} The authors attempt to include the impact of externalities in their study in order to determine the 'social return on investment' for road projects. While Canada is not included in the study by Canning and Bennathan, the rates of social return on road projects from comparable countries, such as Australia (-1 percent) and the United States (seven percent), are.^{Footnote 57} While these rates of social return on investment are low, the authors note that the rates of social return were highest in countries with infrastructure shortages.^{Footnote 58} Therefore, as infrastructure in First Nation communities is commonly lacking relative to other communities in Canada, the social rate of return is likely to be higher than experienced elsewhere in the country.

However, studies promoting the social impact of infrastructure projects have also come under criticism for the quality of their evidence. For instance, Dominique Van de Walle notes that social benefits claimed for infrastructure projects, and in particular the impact of rural road construction, have little convincing empirical evidence.^{Footnote 59} In Van de Walle's view "although the argument that high social benefits will ensue is sometimes plausible, the evidence provided in justification is rarely so" and furthermore "without better evidence, there can be no presumption that such benefits will be high or even positive."^{Footnote 60} The author notes that there are so many contributing factors to the benefits claimed by rural road advocates, such as increased educational achievement, that it is hard to attribute these successes to a road project.^{Footnote 61} As a result, the true return on investment for road and bridge projects is difficult to determine. However, the economic impact analysis for the FNIF estimates that the Roads and Bridges category investment, excluding leveraged funds, generated $278.7 million in output. This included $129.4 million toward Canadian GDP, $83.3 million in income and 1,396 jobs in total.^{Footnote 62}

Key Impacts

1. Reduced burning of garbage and less contamination of groundwater (environmental and health benefits)

For Kitasoo First Nation, leachate from the previous landfill was discharging into the ocean. Through the construction of a transfer station and an agreement with the Naut'sa mawt Tribal Council, Robanco and North Arm Barging, the community moves their "sorted" solid waste off reserve.

2. Future cost savings

In both Quebec and British Columbia, where First Nations sometimes dispose of waste off reserve and are thus subject to provincial regulations, provincial governments, will soon charge fines for communities that do not comply with new regulations, including composting regulations in British Columbia and recycling and other waste management activities in Quebec.

FNIF funding has been used in both cases to help First Nation communities transition to compliance with provincial regulations, which will result in future cost savings. In 2010, the Quebec Government updated its Residual Material Management Policy, imposing an additional fee of $9.50 for each tonne of residual waste disposed of in the province^{Footnote 63}; savings here will be significant.

3. Communities are reducing, reusing and recycling

Multiple case study interviewees discussed additional waste management projects that they are now pursing in conjunction with their FNIF funded projects. In Heiltsuk First Nation, items being sent to the new transfer station are first identified for salvage and donation to interested community members before being disposed as a last resort. The community has also begun a composting project.

Key Challenges

A noted key challenge for all regions engaged in the funding of waste transfer stations was the need for last minute training for operators. AANDC regional office staff in some cases needed to quickly develop training sessions to provide First Nation Public Works staff with the necessary skills to run the transfer stations.

Similarly, the need for complementary community education campaigns was widespread as community members were often dumping toxic and other non-desirable materials, resulting in surcharges to the band administration when removing the waste. In some cases, fencing and security guards were necessary as surrounding populations were found to be trespassing and improperly dumping materials. Communities such as Peguis First Nation and Whitecap Dakota First Nation addressed these challenges by building a fence, hiring and training operators, publishing instructions in the community newsletter and delivering a community outreach campaign.

Expected Return on Investment

As cost savings under various solid waste management regimes vary from place to place, the literature emphasizes return on investment in terms of reduction of greenhouse gases. Levis et. al. use a computer-generated model to determine the estimated reduction based on given levels of investment. They find that a $48 million investment in a combination of recycling, waste-to-energy stations (where combustibles are sent and turned into fuel) and landfills will yield a roughly 1.8 billion metric tonne reduction of carbon dioxide emissions over 20 years, the equivalent of taking almost 370 million cars off the road.^{Footnote 64} Furthermore, a $64 million investment yields a 14 billion tonne reduction (or almost three billion cars) in the same time. Thus, the return on investment in solid waste management in terms of community and environmental health is significant. This is especially significant considering that in 2007, Environment Canada recognized landfills, solid and hazardous wastes, as well as the air emissions from incineration and open burning of garbage as significant on-reserve risks requiring immediate attention.^{Footnote 65}

The economic impact analysis for the FNIF estimates that the Solid Waste Management category investment, excluding leveraged funds, generated $66.1 million in output. This included $40.2 million toward Canadian GDP, $27.3 million in income and 552 jobs in total. ^{Footnote 66}

Key Impacts

1. Improved energy security

In Kitasoo First Nation, a lack of energy capacity caused frequent brown-outs that affected community members and the key economic center, a fish plant. Furthermore, Kitasoo First Nation stopped building vital housing because there simply was not enough electricity to support development. In this context, the new hydro electric generator will significantly improve energy security and allow Kitasoo First Nation to continue with housing expansion and business activities.

2. Reduced diesel dependence (cost savings and environmental benefits)

Following research funded by the ecoENERGY program^{Footnote 67}, the community of Wawakapewin First Nation in northern Ontario received FNIF funds to install a 50 kw summer generator and 25 kw solar panels. These will be used to reduce the community's reliance on diesel, and it is estimated that this will cut consumption of fuel by 14,000 L per year. This will yield an estimated reduction of 10.5 metric tonnes in green house gases and $17,000 in fuel costs. Given that fuel prices fluctuate, one key informant mentioned the savings could be as high as $42,000 otherwise spent on diesel, which tends to cost $1.30 more per barrel in Wawakapewin First Nation than elsewhere due to increased fuel costs in remote locations.

3. Increased use of alternative energy sources (economic and environmental benefits)

T'Souke First Nation undertook a $1.25 million solar energy project, which has succeeded in making the community a "net zero" consumer; they are able to produce and sell energy in the summer to British Columbia hydro, which they use to cover their minimal energy bills in the winter, equaling zero costs at year end.

Expected Return on Investment:

Chris Henderson is a co-founder of the Delphi Group and Lumos Enery who has worked in the clean energy field with First Nation communities for over 25 years. According to Henderson, supporting First Nation communities in the development of renewable energy resources is a proven path toward energy security and Aboriginal prosperity. As of November 2013, Henderson has noted that across Canada there are 27 alternative energy projects in operation that are partially owned by a First Nation with 11 soon to be commissioned, 13 in construction, 30 in the feasibility stage, and 46 being analyzed. In total, this represents 127 projects poised to provide increased energy security and a source of own-source revenue for communities.^{Footnote 68}

The FNIF facilitated investments to improve energy security as a matter of health and safety for communities. As a secondary benefit, many experts and academics in the field argue that energy security is a foundational requirement for improving the economic prosperity of communities by allowing businesses to develop and thrive. Additionally, as Henderson argues, the energy industry itself is an opportunity for First Nations to prosper. According to Henderson's research, communities - such as T'Souke First Nation- are using clean-energy projects to create new jobs and fuel long-term investment in economic prosperity. He states that "for First Nation, Métis and Inuit peoples, clean-energy projects must become an economic engine, not just for today, but also for well into the future."^{Footnote 69} To do this, he argues, it cannot be just about locating temporary employment opportunities or negotiating impact benefit agreements; instead, in order to "to succeed in the business of clean energy, Aboriginal communities need to shift to being active partners in business relationships that are founded on enterprise and effort."^{Footnote 70}

Core ingredients for developing a prosperous clean-energy industry for First Nations include solid community planning, capacity building and human resources training for green jobs. Henderson demonstrates this point by drawing on a number of community examples with the Ojibway of the Pic River First Nation as a noteworthy success. Although not a FNIF funded project, the Pic River example provides insight to the possibilities of an expected return on investment for First Nation energy projects. The Pic River First Nation has taken equity positions in several hydropower projects since 1983 and in return, the band has received employment, income and social stability. The key statistics are as follows:^{Footnote 71}

• A 23 MW hydro-generating plant was constructed
• Its electricity generated can power 17,000 residential homes
• The plant will be the community's financial foundation for 50+ years
• Revenue provided $20 million in income for the local economy during construction
• It has lifecycle income of $400 million (hydroelectric assets have climbed to about $1 million per year helping to finance a women's crisis centre, a youth centre, a recreation center, cable television and high-speed internet services)
• Fifty jobs were created during construction
• Two full-time operating positions were created

Henderson compares this outcome to impact benefit agreements such as where $15,000 was paid to every man, woman and child in the Inuit community of Saluit, Quebec in 2008 by Xstrata. Given this agreement provided for a direct cash payment, "the money disappeared fast and failed to improve the community's economic prospects."^{Footnote 72}

Henderson's findings are corroborated by Brenneman and Kerf's World Bank comprehensive literature review of the impacts of investment in infrastructure, which notes that the many benefits of energy systems include lowering the cost of energy, enhancing the productivity of small businesses and fostering local employment.^{Footnote 73}

The economic impact analysis for the FNIF estimates that the Energy Systems category investment, excluding leveraged funds, generated $26.3 million in output. This included $12.6 million toward Canadian GDP, $8 million in income and 132 jobs in total.^{Footnote 74}

Key Impacts

1. Long-term sustainable community development

Of the 150 Planning and Skills Development projects funded by the FNIF, approximately 117 were for community planning components with the highest number of projects funded in the British Columbia region. The remaining 33 funded projects were directed toward infrastructure training initiatives.

The production of comprehensive community plans in particular provided communities with a foundational document that articulated a common community vision and key priorities. Moving forward, high engagement and buy-in of involved community members allows for long-term sustainable community development. Overall, the impacts of CCPs were varying but when successful, were significant. For Westbank First Nation, the planning processes culminated in a Community Planning Law. As a result, council cannot act in contradiction to the Plan. Additionally, the Council is obligated to continually engage the community when implementing their plans. The Plan has also become the foundation for developing other community laws.

For one chief interviewed, the CCP was about giving the community a collective vision; he stated, "The community was always asking, 'who are we?' So I wanted to show them who they are." For him, the CCP was essential to bringing people together to collectively design a future. It was about showing them who they are through positive messaging billboards around the community; in reviving traditional ceremonies; on electronic photo screens in the new school showing their community at play; on street signs written in their traditional language; and in the bricks and mortar of their buildings.

Multiple case study interviewees noted that the process of developing a CCP led to community healing and increased cohesion. While difficult to quantify, this impact certainly enhances community sustainability in the long run.

2. Improved First Nations' infrastructure management and technical capacity to maintain infrastructure

The Planning and Skills Development category allowed funding recipients to engage in training to enhance their technical capacity to maintain infrastructure or to engage in infrastructure planning activities. In terms of training, projects such as the "Oil Fired Forced Air Furnaces and Safe Transportation of Diesel Fuel Workshops" for the Keewatin Tribal Council allowed communities to upgrade their skills and expertise. However, the vast majority of funding in this category was provided for planning. Funded planning activities and final documents took on a variety of forms. Key informants noted some plans were completed by experts and were thus highly technical in nature and provided a plan for future economic development and how infrastructure should be developed, used and connected for maximum benefits. Although these types of plans were very relevant to infrastructure management, they often proved less useful to community members who did not feel engaged in the process and thus supportive of the final plan.

Other planning initiatives were community driven and touched on all aspects of community development including social, cultural, and educational priorities in addition to infrastructure planning and economic development. Although these more holistic plans were less specific about infrastructure management, they provided for extensive unexpected community benefits such as community healing as will be later discussed under Section 4.2. Holistic plans that were community driven, provided a broader vision moving forward, which then laid the foundation for engaging in more technical planning activities to achieve the identified priorities. The evaluation noted that the majority of CCP case study communities were pursuing the development of Physical Land Use Plans as the natural next phase of their CCP, thereby allowing the CCPs and Physical Land Use Plans to provide the information necessary for Comprehensive Infrastructure Plans.

3. First Nation collaboration with municipalities and/or provinces

The majority of interviewees from the Planning and Skills Development case study revealed that the CCP process in particular led First Nation communities to reach out to surrounding cities and municipalities for pursuing joint programming, often for the first time. Some interviewees noted that the CCP process was a way to meaningfully engage in targeted discussions with public and private entities and to determine practical steps for collaboration. The CCP process also improved collaboration between First Nation communities as demonstrated by the organic development of British Columbia Region's CCP mentorship network. The network of experienced CCP facilitators began and continues to provide support to communities wanting to begin the long-term planning process.

Key Challenges

The key challenge for funding CCPs was the uncertainty around the final utility and success of the process. For some funded communities, there were major challenges in gaining community buy-in and the support of Chief and Council in implementing the final plan, especially when a change in government occurred during the process. Similarly, while it was found to be important for community members to lead the process, planning champions often do not have the technical expertise to plan for land use or infrastructure development, making it necessary to hire external experts to later complete the additional technical components such as a physical land use plan.

Additionally, the Comprehensive Community-based Planning Pilot Project in Saskatchewan in 2011 found that a paid planning champion was key to a CCP's success.^{Footnote 75} When planning champions are not retained, there is a risk of losing momentum in the implementation of identified priorities.

Expected Return on Investment:

It is difficult to measure the tangible benefits of community planning; nonetheless, several scholars have tried in contexts as wide-ranging as regeneration of a troubled London neighbourhood, urban growth in China and fisheries management in Bangladesh. Their findings demonstrate the value of community planning for community well-being, economic development, and effectiveness in land use.

Nick Bailey studied the effect of a local planning and training program for residents of Stockwell in London, England. Under this program, a collection of residents were trained in methods on consultation, and 18 people were hired for a total of 20 weeks to conduct community planning and consultation.^{Footnote 76} At the close of the process, 56 percent of Bailey's interviewees felt the community had improved.^{Footnote 77} Forty-six percent specifically said it was better or significantly better, and 49 percent felt the community was now a more tolerant place to live.^{Footnote 78}

In Bangladesh, Parvin Sultana and Savitri Abeyasakera studied two sets of communities that had recently obtained management of their own fisheries: those that gave responsibility solely to members of the fishing industry and those who used a participatory community consultation and planning approach. In the communities where the participatory approach was conducted, residents reported 10 percent higher sense of community cohesion, and a 45 percent higher likelihood of the local council supporting the fishery.^{Footnote 79} Fishery businesses started up more quickly, saving an average of 170 non-governmental organizations days required to facilitate community discussions, and three months beginning business operations.^{Footnote 80} Poorer fishermen reported five percent higher increases in income, 17 percent higher increases in local fishing knowledge, and 11 percent economic growth for the community relative to those whose approach was not participatory.^{Footnote 81}

Finally, the study in China looked at master plans for growth in five different urban areas. The study found that for those areas with a plan in place, the plan was an effective tool for managing urban expansion.^{Footnote 82} Moreover, the benefits of planning were found to be stronger in more remote areas.^{Footnote 83}

The economic impact analysis for the FNIF estimates that the Planning and Skills Development category investment, excluding leveraged funds, generated $35.9 million in output. This included $21.9 million toward Canadian GDP, $14.8 million in income and 246 jobs in total.^{Footnote 84}

Key Impacts

1. Improved delivery of public/government services, including e-education, e-health and remote water monitoring

According to the September 2013 CFMP Performance Measurement Strategy Progress Report, at least 86 percent of First Nation communities are connected to broadband.^{Footnote 85} FNIF helped to increase the number of communities with access to broadband from 35 percent to 81 percent. At least 274 newly connected communities - where connections were predominantly made to education and health structures - are now accessing e-health, e-learning and even e-justice services. In Alberta, communities are also using their new connections to remotely monitor their water quality. Prior to FNIF connectivity projects, many communities had T1 copper wiring connections, whereas fibre optic cable is now providing internet that is up to 100,000 times faster.

2. Reduced travel

Connectivity case study interviewees provided extensive examples of Chief and Council reducing their travel requirements as meetings are now more frequently held via video-conference. More significant were the examples of reduced travel for community members with health needs. For example, in Manawan, Quebec, community members living with or at risk of diabetes are being tested remotely, saving travel time and costs as online nurses screen 150-160 patients at a time. eHealth (provided by Health Canada, who also partnered on the FNIF connectivity project) in this community has also reportedly (according to case study interviews) resulted in the reduction of premature births by 50 percent as mothers that may not be able to travel for regular check-ups are now doing so through eHealth services.

3. Students becoming electronically savvy

Connected communities are taking advantage of online education resources and for some like Wendake First Nation, innovative technology is being promoted to increase young peoples' technical abilities. For Wendake First Nation, students are provided with the incentive of receiving an iPad upon graduation with the additional goal of helping students maintain contact with their community.

4. First Nation collaboration with provinces and private sector

Connectivity projects were able to leverage significant funding and expertise from provinces and the private sector, as often FNIF funding was able to extend existing provincial initiatives into First Nation communities. In Quebec, the First Nations Education Council, based on the Wendake First Nation reserve outside of Quebec City, worked with AANDC as well as the Province of Quebec on behalf of regional communities. Additionally, the group partnered with the Cree Regional Authority and Eeyou Communication network to extend the fibre optic network to Cree communities in the James Bay area. In Saskatchewan, Sasktel was a major partner in coordination with First Nations and private sector stakeholders while in Alberta, Technical Services Advisory Group and the Government of Alberta, through the Alberta SuperNet broadband network, were project partners.

Key Challenges

Few connectivity challenges were reported aside from the expected logistical difficulties of organizing and negotiating with a large amount of communities to establish community-buy in for the project costs, construction dates and locations of laying cables. At the preliminary stages of the project, the regional offices were not prepared for providing ministerial approval when a third party, such as an internet provider, operates on reserve. These challenges were addressed and should no longer be a challenge in future connectivity projects.

Expected Return on Investment:

While literature that determines the impacts of investments in internet is relatively new, the returns on investment in internet infrastructure are thought to manifest through improvements in health care, child care, education and employment, library services, social interactions and home business development.^{Footnote 86} In the context of rural areas in the United States, Larose et. al. note that federal contributions can play a positive role, particularly when they foster competition in the market and target education.^{Footnote 87}

One study on broader Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development investments in broadband infrastructure confirms this positive impact, noting that it improves gross domestic product growth, likely through enhanced labour productivity.^{Footnote 88} Similarly, a World Bank study in 2010 found that investments in internet infrastructure in high-income countries increased economic growth at a rate of 0.77 percent for every 10 percent increase in the stock of infrastructure. For broadband infrastructure in particular, the rate was 1.21 percent.^{Footnote 89} The study found that for middle- and low-income countries (perhaps more applicable to some First Nation communities in Canada) the impact was even higher, with rates of 1.12 percent for internet infrastructure generally and 1.38 percent for broadband in particular.^{Footnote 90} Kandilov and Renkow, in a study that examined the same United States rural broadband initiative as Larose et. al., found results specifically on development of business development. The 98 rural communities that were part of the $180 million investment saw average increases of five percent in employment, 4.5 percent in payroll increases, and, notably, 6.8 percent increases in the number of businesses per community.^{Footnote 91}

Increasing connectivity has significant linkages to all of the Government of Canada's programs and services as connection allows for communities to be more aware of and better able to access programs and services. Similarly, it provides a greater opportunity for AANDC to develop innovative online programs like Alberta region's remote water quality monitoring. While conducting one site visit, the evaluation team was able to see remote monitoring in action when a minor alarm went off, propelling the team into action. This saved a significant amount of time in responding to the issue, which is crucial for safety when resolving water quality concerns. A similar program is being considered in Quebec as a result of the newly established high-speed internet connections. The expansion of this program alongside connectivity projects would significantly improve preparedness and response time to address water contamination – a key departmental priority.

The literature review also indicated that reliable access to high-speed internet is foundational to closing the socio–economic gap between First Nations and non-Aboriginal people. According to Brenneman and Kerf's literature review, the use of information technology and the computerization of administrative processes have had a positive impact on community governance.^{Footnote 92} Similar studies have shown that in Alberta, the Sunchild E-Learning programs have helped students and employees in the areas of capacity building, administration, and governance,^{Footnote 93} and in British Columbia, the fully integrated First Nation clinical tele-health network^{Footnote 94} is providing "a hub for community information and knowledge sharing."^{Footnote 95}

The economic impact analysis for the FNIF estimates that the Connectivity category investment, excluding leveraged funds, generated $96.4 million in output. This included $45.9 million toward Canadian GDP, $28.7 million in income and 477 jobs in total. ^{Footnote 96}

The Annual Report to Communities

As reiterated throughout this report, AANDC funds and supports numerous types of planning processes for First Nation communities, including CCPs, capital plans, physical land use plans, economic development plans, and disaster mitigation plans. Recognizing the resource and capacity requirements these plans and their subsequent reporting requirements place on communities, the Department has been working on various ways to reduce their reporting burden. One such initiative is the Annual Report to Communities pilot currently underway led by the Audit and Evaluation Sector. The goal of the Annual Report to Communities is to provide a reporting alternative to communities instead of completing the considerable number of Data Collection Instrument reports required by various areas of the department. As a result of the work to design the Annual Report to Communities model, the developers are also including a complementary operational planning tool that will be community-focused, scalable and operational in nature. Although additional tools and support services provide communities with planning options, there is a risk of duplication of efforts if clear linkages are not made between a new operational planning tool and the community planning, capital planning, physical land use planning and economic development planning work already underway.

Interviewees from communities involved in completing AANDC reporting requirements noted that a single report would be much more efficient and for communities that have CCPs, it would be perfectly aligned with their completed community plan. For Penticton First Nation (one of the Annual Report to Communities pilot communities with a completed FNIF-funded CCP) their vision is to make the Annual Report to Communities a report card on their CCP for the community to be shared and discussed at their Annual General Meeting. The concept of having an overarching Comprehensive Community Plan with annual Operational Plans and a corresponding Annual Report Card to measure progress is being explored by multiple First Nations of their own initiative. For Gitanmaax First Nation, a small 13 page Progress Report for 2013 was printed in the form of a brochure for community members.

A Vision for AANDC

Description of A Vision for AANDC

This figure is a diagram framed by the text of a section titled, "A Vision for AADNC." The diagram is shaped like a triangle, with 5 rectangular boxes. Each of the five boxes includes one of the following statements: "Annual Report to Community," "Contribution Agreements," "Annual Financial Plan," "Annual Operational Plan," and "Comprehensive Community Plan."

For many of the departmental, regional and First Nation interviewees engaged in this evaluation, the ideal vision for AANDC moving forward is to promote a holistic approach to providing programs and services that is based on solid community-driven planning with extensive local engagement and consultation. Informants have suggested long-term planning could then support annual operational planning, budgeting and the design of contribution agreements with the department as well as final reporting requirements that meet the accountability and transparency needs of AANDC and community members. Such a focus is also aligned with the Department's current Community Development Training led by Professional and Institutional Development for AANDC staff to support the wider initiative to encourage departmental programming that is focused on individual community needs and priorities instead of programming conducted in departmental silos.

As well articulated by one planner from a First Nation interviewed for this evaluation, it is about:

encouraging communities to think about what they want to ultimately achieve instead of chasing funding that becomes available and applying for whatever they stumble across as eligible. Communities are project-driven instead of priority-driven. It is possible to address priorities sometimes with little to no funding. For example, a multi-purpose recreation center may be a great thing for a community. But it is expensive. But if the main goal of the community is not about getting a centre, but it is really about getting the youth active, then you can still meet that priority by buying a truck to take youth into the bush to camp, learn their history and traditions and build their community bonds. If the focus is just on the center and funding isn't available, then you aren't looking to meet the need… We need to switch the focus to meeting priorities instead of chasing funders.

Another planner working with First Nation communities also noted:

If we are going to be serious about communities having more control to plan and creatively using their resources… requirements on the funding and accountability side need to recognize that this is happening so that there is some traction on the Plan. It is unfair to their passion, energy and commitment that they've put into the process.

The key challenges to overcome in developing a new community-based approach with Community Planning as a foundational component will be (1) ensuring the process has sustained AANDC support; (2) that the intention of ultimately reducing the reporting burden is upheld; and (3) that future AANDC funding allocations are aligned with the planning documents. As one interviewee noted, community members are tired of similar pilots coming and going and losing momentum: "We have tried this already and Chief and Council didn't implement it or AANDC didn't fund it." Similarly, a CCP Champion currently leading the process in their community stated that it is "hard to get past all the cynical people. People feel that we've been here before, we've done this before."

However, it should be noted that internal, regional and First Nation interviewees made it a point that community planning cannot become a mandatory requirement institutionalized by AANDC. Concerns were that any move to promote a national requirement would likely put the process into the hands of consultants and thus, the process would lose the key community-driven and community engagement elements that made certain processes so successful. Instead, interviewees suggested building incentives into programs such as First Nations Land Management Act, settlement agreements, funding for structural disaster mitigation and reducing other required reporting.

Finally, numerous studies and informants have noted that planning and implementing projects is only the first step. For infrastructure developments on reserve to be effective, they must be linked to economic development. Significant gains, particularly in the energy sector, are increasingly a possibility for First Nations. However, returns to the community in revenue, skills development, employment and social sectors are needed to ensure local capacity and sustainability are truly built. This should be a core consideration of planning moving forward.

In summary, the current push to reduce the reporting burden should also take note of consolidating planning processes and aligning them with reporting requirements.

Overview of the First Nations Infrastructure Fund

Since 2007, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada has invested $235 million in the infrastructure of First Nations communities through the First Nations Infrastructure Fund (FNIF). The Department has since launched three calls for proposals in order to identify projects for investment to which 1,242 funding proposals were received. After the Department evaluated each proposal on their merits, 434 projects were approved for funding.

These projects aimed to foster healthier and more connected First Nations communities by investing in:

• Solid waste management to allow First Nations communities to better address their long-term waste requirements;
• Energy systems to connect First Nations communities to existing grids and to have them become more self sustainable through local energy sources;
• Local roads and bridges to enhance safety, commerce and access to schooling and healthcare resources;
• Community planning and skills development to support long-term sustainable community development; and
• Connectivity to allow First Nations communities to gain access to the information and development associated with the Internet.

Purpose of the Evaluation

As part of the Summative Evaluation of the First Nation Infrastructure Fund, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada is looking to understand how and to what extent the Fund has had an impact on First Nations communities, as well as the broader Canadian context. The Department wants to quantify the economic impact on infrastructure investment activities by region, funding category and industry sector.

The purpose of the Evaluation of the First Nation Infrastructure Fund is to evaluate the success of the fund and determine the Input-output per dollar spent and the number of possible jobs being created.

Methodology

The Consultant undertook a review of submission and decision documents for the 434 projects funded under the First Nation Infrastructure Fund. The Consultant also reviewed the databases provided by the Department that summarized various aspects of all the 434 projects.

The submission and decision documents provided the detail required to attribute funding amounts by province, project category, and to allocate proportions of the funding to specific industry sectors. However, many funded projects were not supported by submission and decision documents. In these instances, the consultant attributed all funds to the single, most appropriate industry sector.

The summary spreadsheets provided further information on the funded projects. In particular, the summary spreadsheets shed light on cases where there were discrepancies between the proposed and the actual funding amounts.

The consultant then used provincial and industrial multipliers to determine the outcomes of the funding on economic and employment impacts.^{Footnote 134} The multipliers have been developed by Statistics Canada to estimate the impact that a dollar of investment would have on various economic and employment dimensions. The different economic and employment dimensions estimated from this analysis are described below.

Defining Northern Communities

Due to the remote location of many of the communities receiving funding, the Consultant recommended not using the relevant provincial multiplier in all cases. Rather, remote northern communities were deemed to have more in common with the Northwest Territories than the province in which they were located. It was decided that for northern communities, the relevant Northwest Territories multipliers would be more accurate and would be applied for this analysis.

The consultant defined remote First Nation communities using a map of Canadian population density. The Consultant drew a line across Canada where communities north of the line have population densities less than 0.5 per square kilometre. Communities north of this line used the Northwest Territories multiplier for this analysis regardless of their province (see figure 1 below).

Description of figure 1 - Defining Northern Communities by Population Density

This figure is a map of Canada with its provincial and territorial boundaries. It illustrates the population density of Canada. A scale is included that reflects population density. Population density is measured by persons per square mile and/or by persons per square kilometer.

A line of population density delineates a boundary, north of which are areas that have fewer than 1.3 persons per square mile, or fewer than 0.5 persons per square kilometer. All communities north of this line used the NWT multiplier. South of the line, population density increases from less than 0.5 persons per square kilometer to 0.5 to 2 persons per square kilometer to even higher densities nearer to major urban centres.

One portion of the map shows a more detailed version of the area from Windsor, ON to Quebec City. The population density in these areas varies from 0.5 to 2 persons per square kilometer South and North of Ottawa to more than 150 people per square kilometer in the area surrounding Toronto and Hamilton, ON.

Overall Results

Since 2007, the $235 million invested into Aboriginal communities through the FNIF is estimated to have generated $503 million in total economic output, including $250 million towards Canadian national GDP. The funding has created 2,800 jobs with $162 million in associated revenues.

Results by Province

Table 2 below shows the distribution of the FNIF fund by province and the Input-output values, as well and projected jobs created for each of the provinces.

Based on the data collected, there was a similar trend in Input-output values by province with Manitoba being the highest recipient of FNIF funding (19 percent), and as a result also the highest output and jobs estimated. The output by province is shown in Figure 2 below.

Description of Figure 2 - Projected output for FNIF Funds by Province 2007-2013

This figure is a bar chart showing "Projected output for FNIF Funds by Province." The scale of one axis of the graph is "Output" in millions of dollars, beginning at zero and increasing in increments of $20.0 million dollars to $120.0 million dollars. The other axis shows the 10 provinces beginning with Manitoba, which has the highest value, at $96.9 million. Following Manitoba, Saskatchewan was $92.8 million, Ontario was $84.6 million, BC was $75.6 million, Alberta was $72.0 million, Québec was $59.0 million, New Brunswick was $13.3 million, Nova Scotia has $4.9 million, PEI has $3.0 million, and Newfoundland and Labrador has $1.3 million.

The Atlantic provinces combined received less than five percent of the FNIF funds between 2007 and 2013 while all the other provinces received approximately similar proportions of FNIF funds. Figure 3 below shows the proportion of FNIF funding received by province.

Description of figure 3 - Distribution of FNIF Funds by Province 2007-2013

This figure is a pie chart showing "Distribution of FNIF Funds by Province." The main pie chart entitled "Rest of Canada" is divided into seven segments: Manitoba comprises 19.3%; Saskatchewan comprises 18.4%; Ontario comprises 16.8%; British Columbia comprises 15.0%; Alberta, comprises 14.3%; Québec comprises 11.7%. The Atlantic provinces constitute the seventh segment of the main pie chart. A second pie chart shows the distribution of FNIF funds among the Atlantic provinces. New Brunswick comprises 2.6%; Nova Scotia comprises 1%,PEI comprises 0.6%, and Newfoundland and Labrador comprises 0.3%.

Results by Project Category

As discussed above, the FNIF is intended to improve First Nation communities through five priority areas:

• Solid waste management;
• Energy systems;
• Local roads and bridges;
• Community planning and skills development; and
• Connectivity.

All projects funded under FNIF were categorized based on the priority area it addressed. The distribution of the funds and their outcomes for each of these project categories are outlined in Table 3 below.

It was determined that more than half (55 percent) of the FNIF funds were allocated to the building of roads and bridges, while the smallest allocation was towards energy systems. Figure 4 below shows the distribution of the FNIF funds by project category.

Description of figure 4 - Projected output for FNIF Funds by Project Categories

This figure is a bar graph showing "Projected output for FNIF Funds by Project Categories." The scale of one axis of the graph is "Output" in millions of dollars, beginning at zero and increasing in increments of $50.00 million dollars to $300.00 million dollars. The other axis shows the Project categories. The first bar is for "Roads and bridges," and accounts for $279.7 million dollars. The second bar is for "Connectivity," which accounts for $96.4 million dollars. The third bar is for "Solid waste management," which accounts for $66.1 million dollars. The fourth bar is for "Planning and skills development," which accounts for $35.9 million dollars. The final bar is "Energy systems," accounting for $26.3 million dollars.

Results by Industry Sector

The submission and decision documents provided the detail required to attribute funding amounts to specific industry sectors. The distribution of the funds and their outcomes for each of these industry sectors are outlined in Table 4 below.

More than half (54 percent) of the FNIF funds were allocated to non-residential construction. Figure 6 below shows the distribution of the FNIF funds by industry sector.

Description of figure 5 - Projected output for FNIF Funds by Industry Sector 2007-2013

This figure is a bar graph ranking "Projected output forFNIF Funds by Industry Sector." The scale of one axis of the graph is "Output" in millions of dollars, beginning at zero and increasing in increments of $50.00 million dollars to $300.00 million dollars. The other axis of the graph shows the Industry sectors. The first bar is "BS23B – Non-residential construction," which accounts for $27.40 million dollars. The second bar is "BS123C – Engineering Construction," accounting for $119.40 million dollars. The third bar is "BS560 – Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services," accounting for $64.49 million dollars. The last bar is for "BS540 – Professional, scientific and technical services," accounting for $49.11 million dollars.

However, since our Input-output multipliers were based on the industry sector, the percentage of of jobs created differed slightly. Despite having an output of only 13 percent, 19 percent of the jobs created were in administrative and support, waste management and remediation services. Figure 7 shows the projected number of jobs by industry sector

Description of figure 6 - Projected Number of jobs by Industry Sector

This figure is a pie chart illustrating the "Projected Number of Jobs by Industry Sector." The largest segment is "BS23B – Non-residential Constriction," accounting for 48%. The second-largest segment is "BS23C – Engineering Construction," accounting for 21%, followed by "BS560 – Administrative and support, waste management and remediation services," accounting for 12%, and "BS540 – Professional, scientific and technical services," accounting for 12%.