News   Jul 19, 2024
 461     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 1.9K     4 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 721     1 

New Transit Funding Sources

A path for Ontario?

Quebec turns to pension giant Caisse to help fund transit projects

Quebec turns to pension giant Caisse to help fund transit projects

The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is set to boost its bet on infrastructure under a new deal with Quebec that will see the pension fund take over financing and ownership of new public transit projects in the province.

The pension-fund manager, which has assets of $214-billion, has struck an agreement with Quebec’s Liberal government that will see it be the maître d’oeuvre, or project owner, for new transit projects in the French-speaking province. Details of the deal are scheduled to be made public at a news event in Montreal on Tuesday.

Sources familiar with the agreement described it as “a new way of financing and running public transportation infrastructure” for Quebec that will see the Caisse assume ownership over new transit assets and responsibility for building them. Essentially, the province is privatizing the plan for new public transportation projects but with an investor with which it has an established and privileged relationship.

“[The infrastructure] is not government-owned, directly or indirectly,” said one person close to the situation. “It will be run like a private business.”

The government’s main rationale for unloading responsibility for developing new transit projects is financial. Quebec’s total public-sector debt now tops $272-billion, according to the Montreal Economic Institute. The province will pay $8.6-billion in fiscal 2014-2015 to service it.

Lower oil prices will help in the short term by giving consumers more money to spend and lifting exports as the dollar declines. But government revenue still lags projections as it aims to balance the budget in fiscal 2015-2016 on the back of program spending cuts.

Facing limited financial wiggle room, the government of Premier Philippe Couillard has concluded it can accelerate the pace of new transit investments if it transfers responsibility to a deep-pocketed investor it trusts. The Caisse manages public pensions for retirees in Quebec, including civil servants. It operates with a dual legislated mandate to maximize returns for depositors and help stoke economic growth.

“All of these new projects that are in the pipeline, they will probably have to take longer to come to fruition if they were funded in the traditional way,” said one source, who asked not be named. “This way they can come in faster.”

Quebec estimates it will spend $7.6-billion on public transportation projects under its current 2014-2024 infrastructure plan. That’s part of a larger $90-billion in infrastructure investments the province believes will be required over the next decade.

Top projects already underway include replacement of subway cars on Montreal’s metro system, a contract won by Bombardier Inc., and a new commuter rail line extending east off the island to Mascouche. Among the projects under study is a light rail line across the new Champlain bridge.

A Caisse spokesman did not respond Tuesday to questions about the announcement. It was not immediately clear how much it is setting aside for the new investments.

Caisse chief executive Michael Sabia has been increasing the pension fund’s holdings in real estate, infrastructure and private equity as he seeks what he calls “less-liquid” assets with intrinsic value. It’s part of a profound change in investment strategy at the Caisse whereby it is trying to generate more stable returns by cutting its holdings in bonds and traditional stocks.

The Caisse is heavily present in Quebec, with recent investments in the Agropur dairy cooperative and Groupe Germain Hotels. Mr. Sabia has expressed a willingness to invest in Quebec infrastructure projects should the opportunity present itself. Last summer, the pension fund created a new executive position specifically mandated to seek business opportunities in the province. Its current portfolio of Quebec-based assets topped $53-billion at the end of 2013.

Outside its home base, the Caisse’s infrastructure investments include a 26.7-per-cent stake in the Port of Brisbane in Australia’s Queensland and, more recently, a multi-partner development anchored around a new GO Bus terminal in downtown Toronto.

Brossard-Champlain Bridge-Downtown
956154-pour-rive-sud-slr-pourrait.jpg


Downtown-Airport-West Island
956155-variante-fairview-projet-train-ouest.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 956154-pour-rive-sud-slr-pourrait.jpg
    956154-pour-rive-sud-slr-pourrait.jpg
    193.2 KB · Views: 434
  • 956155-variante-fairview-projet-train-ouest.jpg
    956155-variante-fairview-projet-train-ouest.jpg
    207 KB · Views: 439
Last edited:
The Caisse accepts (it seems) political direction. I think it would be a harder ask in Ontario. In any case the Auditor General says all PPPs are bad, m'kay?
 
A carbon tax may be acceptable with the price of carbon fuels low.

From this link:

Carbon pricing coming to Ontario, strategy to be unveiled this year

The Ontario government is closing in on a plan to put a price on carbon emissions after nearly seven years of delays.

The Liberals have promised to make corporations and consumers pay for burning carbon – an effective way to battle global warming – since 2008, but have put off making a decision. However, Environment Minister Glen Murray is now working on a comprehensive plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions, and he pledges carbon pricing will be part of it.

“We’re looking at how we can transition Ontario to a low-carbon economy through initiatives such as setting a price on carbon … it will be real, efficient, effective and economically positive,†Mr. Murray, who will unveil his strategy this year, told The Globe and Mail. He said his plan will also include cleaner fuel standards and energy conservation measures.

The province committed to carbon pricing when it signed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) with California, British Columbia and Quebec in the summer of 2008. Since then, B.C. has implemented a carbon tax that has helped slash greenhouse gas emissions by 16 per cent. Quebec and California, meanwhile, created a joint cap-and-trade system.

A carbon tax places a levy on every purchase of fossil fuel. In a cap-and-trade model, the government limits how much carbon a company can burn; if it wants to use more, it must buy “credits†from a company that has used less than its share.

Despite passing enabling legislation in 2009 and years of consultation, Ontario has not moved ahead with either system.

“It has been frustrating to have a commitment, to have the WCI come in, and then to not really see much happen on that front,†said Keith Brooks of Toronto-based Environmental Defence. “There’s been a long time waiting for this to come.â€

Mr. Brooks and other environmentalists are optimistic the province is ready to move now.

When Mr. Murray took over as environment minister after last spring’s election, he was given wide latitude to develop a plan to fight climate change. Last November, Ontario recommitted to carbon pricing in a memorandum with Quebec. And the Premier’s office is said to be onside; among Kathleen Wynne’s chief advisers is Andrew Bevan, who helped craft former federal Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s GreenShift policy, and once ran an environmental think tank.

“Our interpretation is that they are quite serious about doing it,†Mr. Brooks said. “Some kind of carbon pricing needs to be brought in.â€

Mr. Murray is hosting a summit of subnational governments in July to help prepare for the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris at the end of the year. Provincial environment commissioner Gord Miller said he expects the province to reveal its hand before the meeting.

“Momentum is building tremendously. And Paris is a deadline. We need to get our act together this year,†he said. “It is my sense that the government is seized with this decision now.â€

Mr. Murray would not say when he will release his plan. Asked why the province did not move earlier, he suggested Ontario was too busy with its other major environmental policy, closing coal-fired power plants. The province has not decided what sort of system to adopt. Both carbon tax and cap-and-trade show promise.

B.C., which imposes a $30 levy on each tonne of carbon emissions (this works out, for instance, to seven cents on a litre of gasoline) has driven down emissions without stopping economic growth. In California, which recently linked its cap-and-trade system to Quebec’s, greenhouse gas emissions dropped over the past seven years.

“Much of that reduction [at least half] had to do with the recession. But as California’s economy has begun to grow again … those emissions have not come back with it,†Dave Clegern of the California Air Resources Board, the agency that runs the cap-and-trade program, said in an e-mail. The state also has rules to make fuels more environmentally friendly and laws that require 15 per cent of new vehicles sold by 2025 to be zero-emissions vehicles, such as electric cars.

Each system has advantages. A carbon tax is simpler than cap-and-trade, and easier to administer. Cap-and-trade means politicians do not have to sell a tax to voters.

Whichever system Ontario chooses, the key is to ensure the price is high enough todrive people to burn less of it, said Matt Horne of environmental think tankthe Pembina Institute.

“In terms of comparing system to system, that’s going to be the best indicator: looking at wht carbon permits are trading at versus what a carbon tax rate is at,†he said.
 
The deal between the Gov't of Quebec and CDPQ represents nothing more than a sole sourced privatization of the construction of new infrastructure (including transit projects).

CDPQ is just one of the many, many, pension fund managers worldwide that invest in infrastructure and it would seem to me that Quebec sole sourcing to one of them just seems a recipe for increasing the price/cost. Quebec will, for these projects, be at the whim of this one pension fund manager and whatever their hurdle rates of return are at any given time...seems an approach where as each project came up you exposed it to bidding by all of the potential pension fund partners would likely lead to lower costs/prices.
 
The deal between the Gov't of Quebec and CDPQ represents nothing more than a sole sourced privatization of the construction of new infrastructure (including transit projects).

CDPQ is just one of the many, many, pension fund managers worldwide that invest in infrastructure and it would seem to me that Quebec sole sourcing to one of them just seems a recipe for increasing the price/cost. Quebec will, for these projects, be at the whim of this one pension fund manager and whatever their hurdle rates of return are at any given time...seems an approach where as each project came up you exposed it to bidding by all of the potential pension fund partners would likely lead to lower costs/prices.

It's the lesser of 2 evils. Without that deal there was no way in hell that those two routes would have been built. Just like Ontario, Quebec is crippled in debt and are trying "for once" to get themselves out of it and cutting their programs.

At least something gets built and will be operational by 2020.
 
The deal between the Gov't of Quebec and CDPQ represents nothing more than a sole sourced privatization of the construction of new infrastructure (including transit projects).

CDPQ is just one of the many, many, pension fund managers worldwide that invest in infrastructure and it would seem to me that Quebec sole sourcing to one of them just seems a recipe for increasing the price/cost. Quebec will, for these projects, be at the whim of this one pension fund manager and whatever their hurdle rates of return are at any given time...seems an approach where as each project came up you exposed it to bidding by all of the potential pension fund partners would likely lead to lower costs/prices.

Can you elaborate here? I don't understand what you are implying. What do hurdle rates have to do with this and why would they be "on a whim"? Are you saying the Quebec government should have not outsourced ownership? It is implied they were forced to since they are in such poor financial shape.
 
It's the lesser of 2 evils. Without that deal there was no way in hell that those two routes would have been built. Just like Ontario, Quebec is crippled in debt and are trying "for once" to get themselves out of it and cutting their programs.

At least something gets built and will be operational by 2020.


Yes lesser of two evils may be to introduce the private sector and their need for profits....not sure it needs to be on an exclusive basis however.

Can you elaborate here? I don't understand what you are implying. What do hurdle rates have to do with this and why would they be "on a whim"? Are you saying the Quebec government should have not outsourced ownership? It is implied they were forced to since they are in such poor financial shape.

What I am saying is if you are going to privatize the construction of your infrastructure do not do it on the basis where you hand it all to one private partner. Put projects out to the market and seek/find the best bid to design/build/operate them. Quebec has handed this over to one partner (CDPQ) and their hurdle rates matter a whole lot because they have a mandate to maximize the returns to their stakeholders......surely getting bids from other pension funds would control costs of these projects rather than subjecting them all to the return needs/expectations of one fund.
 
Is the Caisse, only building the line, or are they going to be operators as well?

If they're also operating and maintaining the line I see big problems.
 
That is still pretty ambiguous. The province will own (and IIRC maintain) Eglinton, Finch and Sheppard East but the TTC will be the ones operating it, for example.

The province likely does not have the same profit expectations that CDPQ has....here is how the Montreal Gazette reports it:

Two projects will be the first manifestations of the agreement: a train linking downtown Montreal with Trudeau International Airport, and a new electrified transit system on the Champlain Bridge. Both could be functional as early as 2020 under the new formula that will be see the Caisse expanding its normal role as a passive investor to become the developer, manager and effective owner of infrastructure projects prioritized by the government that it finds potentially profitable.......Couillard said the Caisse will retain its independence and has the option of refusing any project it doesn’t see as financially viable.
 
...Couillard said the Caisse will retain its independence and has the option of refusing any project it doesn’t see as financially viable.
Ah - I think I see now how this will play out.

There's nothing like Montreal for endlessly announcing various transit projects year-after-year, decade-after-decade that never get built.
 
The Caisse accepts (it seems) political direction. I think it would be a harder ask in Ontario. In any case the Auditor General says all PPPs are bad, m'kay?

Absolutely something like this would be harder in Ontario, and for good reason. The ghostly spectre of the 407 deal hangs over the placing of public infrastructure into private hands in this province and should serve as a reminder of the risk involved in doing so - both the risk for the public, who will have to deal with private for-profit companies building/owning/operating their infrastructure, and for whichever government ropes the province into something like this (political risk).
 
The arrangement with the Caisse is a little bit strange - it's important to point out that it's a Crown corporation. But it's not altogether clear where the Caisse will be able to extract profit from these ventures.
 
The arrangement with the Caisse is a little bit strange - it's important to point out that it's a Crown corporation. But it's not altogether clear where the Caisse will be able to extract profit from these ventures.

it may be a crown corp but it has the responsibility (and mandate) to maximize the returns to its depositors (31 pension funds). While it does have a bias to investments in Quebec, this bias is not at the expense of the primary mandate which is the returns. They will sacrifice geographic diversity in favour of supporting the Quebec economy but not returns.

As for extracting profits from these projects....it has been reported that while the government will prioritize the projects....CDPQ can refuse any that they do not see as profitable.

For some perspective....the returns have been averaging 10% overall in the 4 years leading up to the end of 2013 and over 13% in that year alone. Since they would have to have a balanced portfolio that would include a fairly significant amount of risk free/low risk assets (cash, government bonds, etc) that have much lower yields than this you can be certain that the target/hurdle rate for riskier investments would be in the 15 - 20% range.

Again, back to my original post on the subject, this is nothing more than a privatization deal....and done on a sole sourced basis.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top