DOCSLIB.ORG

Pension Funds Investment in Infrastructure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pension Funds Investment in Infrastructure INTERNATIONAL FUTURES PROGRAMME PROJECT ON STRATEGIC TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE TO 2030 PENSION FUNDS INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE A SURVEY September 2011 © 2011 OECD Contact: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] 2 ABOUT THE STUDY The OECD Project on Infrastructure to 2030, published in 2006/7, already recognized the growing importance of investment needs to 2030 for infrastructure in telecommunication, electricity, water and transport, while highlighting at the same time the notion of an emerging “infrastructure gap”. To bridge this “infrastructure gap” institutional investors were identified as one of the most promising candidates and it was decided to further review opportunities and barriers to investment in infrastructure from the standpoint of pension funds. A survey of a sample of the most significant actors was then launched by the OECD within the framework of the OECD Project on Transcontinental Infrastructure 2030-2050. The main countries that have been covered by the study are Australia, Canada, South Korea, USA and various jurisdictions throughout Europe. The objective of this survey-based study was to understand the main problems encountered by pension funds when investing in infrastructure. In order to do so, a brief analysis of the evolution of the infrastructure and pension fund market in each country was undertaken. On the basis of the barriers to investment identified in the study some policy initiatives are proposed. The focus of the study was mainly on (unlisted) equity investment given the different dynamics and drivers underlying pension fund investment in debt infrastructure and different subjects involved in the investment decision. The analysis was structured on a country-by-country basis to underline different stages of evolution of investment in infrastructure and specific problems encountered and solutions proposed in each market. Although the development of each pension and infrastructure market has taken a unique path, they may provide useful examples and lessons in understanding the potential of infrastructure investment markets now developing in other countries. Findings are mainly based on interviews with industry professionals as the existing data sources are limited, particularly with regard to infrastructure investment policy and risk management. The information acquired in interviews complements that obtained from a literature review, selected pension fund annual reports, and an analysis of the available data sources. The selection of interviewees was tilted towards large-sized defined-benefit, occupational pension funds, since these funds represent a large share of overall infrastructure investment and in some cases have developed investment policies specific to infrastructure. Interviews were held with managers of institutional investors holding assets that collectively totalled over US$4tn at the end of 2010. Besides pension funds themselves, a number of investors from the insurance sector, and prominent financial consultants, infrastructure funds, multilaterals, academics, advisors to treasury and infrastructure departments, were also consulted. The inputs to the present report also incorporate advice and guidance from participants in the Steering Group of the OECD Project, as well as work and publications of line Directorates of the OECD. The study was conducted by the OECD’s International Futures Programme. The principal author was Raffaele Della Croce, working under the direction of Barrie Stevens and Pierre-Alain Schieb. Valuable comments were also provided by John White. Hyung soo Woo conducted research into and interviews for the Korean country study. 3 Steering Committee European Investment Bank Overseas Infrastructure Alliance – India Ministry of Transport – Turkey Ministère de l'écologie, de l'énergie, du développement durable et de la mer – France Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Sécurité (INRETS) – France Flemish Department of Mobility and Public Works – Belgium Swedish Road Administration – Sweden State Planning Organization – Turkey Macquarie Group – Australia Ministry of Transport and Communications – Finland Federal Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) – Austria Ministry of Transport – Denmark Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management – The Netherlands CDC Infrastructure – France Federal Department for Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications – Switzerland Oliver Wyman – United States Invited Experts and Guests ATP – Denmark Von Dewall Advisory & Management – Netherlands Global Infrastructure Fund Research Foundation – Japan 4 List of Interviewees1 Institutional Investors California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) – USA California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) – USA Los Angeles County Employees Retirement (LACERA) – USA Illinois State Retirement System (SURS) – USA Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) – USA New Jersey State Investment Council – USA University of Texas Investment Management Company – USA Union Labor Life Insurance Company (ULLICO) – USA John Hancock – USA Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System (OMERS) – Canada Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) – Canada Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan (OTPP) – Canada OPTrust – Canada PGGM – the Netherlands APG – the Netherlands ATP – Denmark University Superannuation Scheme (USS) – United Kingdom Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company – Finland London Pension Fund Authority (LPFA) – United Kingdom Prudential (M&G) – United Kingdom Aviva Investors – United Kingdom 1 Over sixty interviews were conducted through mainly face to face meetings or if not possible through conference calls between May and December 2010. Additional comments were also provided during the drafting of the document. 5 Zurich Insurance – Switzerland National Pension Service – South Korea Public Employees Pension Service – South Korea Korea Teachers Pension (KTP) – South Korea AustralianSuper – Australia Queensland Investment Corporation (QIC) – Australia Industry Funds Management (IFM) – Australia Fonds de Réserve pour les Retraites – France Caisse de Dépôts Infrastructure (CDC) – France Cassa Depositi e Prestiti (CdP) – Italy Fondazione Cariplo – Italy Other interviewees Infrastructure Australia (IA) Infrastructure Partnerships Australia Macquarie Korea Hewitt Associates Pension Consulting Alliance Cambridge Associates Townsendgroup Ennis & Knupp Probitas Partners IFC – World Bank CP2 – Australia European Investment Bank (EIB) Marguerite Fund Hewitt Associates 6 Tower Watson Mercer Macquarie Group Morgan Stanley Private Equity – USA Axa Private Equity F2i Prometeia RREEF Barclays Private Equity Meridiam Campbell Lutyens Bfinance UBS Goldman Sachs Infrastructure UK Dexia Bank Société Générale JP Morgan Deutsche Bank Moody’s Investors Services Infrastructure Journal Infrastructure Investors Infra-News Global Pensions Stanford University Harvard University 7 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................................ 14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 15 1. Infrastructure Investment – Why is it important and Why Pension Funds are interested .................. 15 2. Setting the Scene – the Infrastructure Market .................................................................................... 16 Key Developments ................................................................................................................................. 17 3. Setting the Scene – The Pension Fund Market ................................................................................... 17 Key Developments ................................................................................................................................. 18 4. Setting the Scene – Regulation ........................................................................................................... 18 5. Evolution of Pension Fund Investment in Infrastructure – Appetite for Infrastructure ...................... 19 Canada .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Australia ................................................................................................................................................. 20 United States .......................................................................................................................................... 20 European Union ..................................................................................................................................... 20 South Korea ............................................................................................................................................ 21 6. Evolution of Pension Fund Investment in Infrastructure – Factors of Growth .................................. 22 7. Barriers to Investment in Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 23 The Investment Opportunities ................................................................................................................ 23 The Investor Capability .........................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Magazine of Aecon Group Winter 2015, Volume 2, Issue 4
    THE MAGAZINE OF AECON GROUP WINTER 2015, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 4 IN THIS ISSUE: ALL ABOARD THE UP EXPRESS CLOSE QUARTERS A DEFINING RELATIONSHIP CONNECTING TO OPPORTUNITY Union Pearson Express Enbridge South Edmonton Highway 407 Interchange Neskantaga Training Centre Terminal ı (Tı) Station Terminal Tank Farm and Brock Road Realignment Expansion PUBLICATION MAIL AGREEMENT #41329046 THE MAGAZINE OF AECON GROUP WINTER 2015, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 4 4 24 34 50 ALL ABOARD CLOSE QUARTERS A DEFINING RELATIONSHIP CONNECTING TO THE UP EXPRESS Enbridge South Highway 407 OPPORTUNITY Union Pearson Express Edmonton Terminal Interchange and Brock Neskantaga Terminal ı (Tı) Station Tank Farm Expansion Road Realignment Training Centre IN THIS ISSUE: 2 Living Our Core Values of Trust, Excellence and a Learning Culture By Teri McKibbon 4 All Aboard the UP Express Union Pearson Express Terminal 1 (T1) Station 18 Did You Know? Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line 24 Close Quarters Enbridge South Edmonton Terminal Tank Farm Expansion 30 Meet Carlos Travassos 34 A Defining Relationship Highway 407 Interchange and Brock Road Realignment 46 Meet Brandon Alpine 50 Connecting to Opportunity Neskantaga Training Centre 58 The Aecon Safety Opportunity Program By Mike Archambault COVER: UP EXPRESS TERMINAL 1 STATION, TORONTO, ONTARIO LEFT: AECON’S VISION: 407 EXTENSION, PICKERING, ONTARIO To be the first company people go to for building things that matter. ABOVE: ENBRIDGE SOUTH EDMONTON TANK FARM, EDMONTON, ALBERTA ONE is a magazine published by Aecon Michele Walter, Editor-in-Chief BACK COVER: Group Inc. for its employees and clients. Matthew Le Blanc, Features Editor GIRDER WORK AT 407 ETR, PICKERING, ONTARIO For more information about Aecon, visit Rick Radell, Photographer This magazine includes certain forward-looking statements our website at aecon.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Information Form
    407 INTERNATIONAL INC. Annual Information Form For the Year Ended December 31, 2020 As at February 11, 2021 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS ............................................................................................... 5 CORPORATE STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... 5 1. Name, Address, Incorporation and Ownership ................................................................. 5 2. Intercorporate Relationships ................................................................................................. 5 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS .................................................................................... 6 1. Traffic ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Construction ............................................................................................................................. 6 3. Information Technology ......................................................................................................... 7 4. Customer Service .................................................................................................................... 7 5. Other Developments ............................................................................................................... 8 5.1. International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Information Form
    407 INTERNATIONAL INC. Annual Information Form For the Year Ended December 31, 2017 As at February 15, 2018 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS ............................................................................................... 5 CORPORATE STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... 5 1. Name, Address, Incorporation and Ownership ................................................................. 5 2. Intercorporate Relationships ................................................................................................ 5 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS .................................................................................... 6 1. Traffic ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Construction ............................................................................................................................. 6 3. Information Technology ......................................................................................................... 7 4. Customer Service .................................................................................................................... 7 5. Other Developments ............................................................................................................... 8 5.1. International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Information Form
    407 INTERNATIONAL INC. Annual Information Form For the Year Ended December 31, 2019 As at February 19, 2020 ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM TABLE OF CONTENTS FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS ............................................................................................... 5 CORPORATE STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... 5 1. Name, Address, Incorporation and Ownership ................................................................. 5 2. Intercorporate Relationships ................................................................................................ 5 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF BUSINESS .................................................................................... 6 1. Traffic ......................................................................................................................................... 6 2. Construction ............................................................................................................................. 6 3. Information Technology ......................................................................................................... 6 4. Customer Service .................................................................................................................... 7 5. Other Developments ............................................................................................................... 7 5.1. International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Operations Committee Minutes May 29, 2017 -7:00 Pm Council Chambers Whitby Municipal Building
    Operations Committee Minutes May 29, 2017 -7:00 pm Council Chambers Whitby Municipal Building Present: Mayor Mitchell Councillor Emm Councillor Gleed Councillor Leahy Councillor Mulcahy Also Present: Councillor Drumm (left the meeting at 9:01 p.m.) Councillor Roy Councillor Yamada M. Gaskell, Chief Administrative Officer S. Beale, Commissioner of Public Works P. LeBel, Commissioner of Community & Marketing Services W. Mar, Commissioner of Legal and By-law Services/Town Solicitor K. Nix, Commissioner of Corporate Services/Treasurer R. Short, Commissioner of Planning C. Siopis, Manager of Corporate Communications D. Speed, Fire Chief S. Cassel, Deputy Clerk L. MacDougall, Council and Committee Coordinator (Recording Secretary) Regrets: None noted 1. Declarations of Pecuniary Interest 1.1 Councillor Leahy made a declaration of pecuniary interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act with respect to Item 6.12, FR 07-17 regarding Accessory Apartments - Education and Regulatory Options, as he is in the process of constructing an accessory apartment. Councillor Leahy did not take part in the discussion or voting on this matter. 2. Presentations 2.1 There were no presentations. Page 1 of 22 Operations Committee Minutes May 29, 2017 - 7:00 PM 3. Delegations 3.1 There were no delegations. 4. Correspondence 4.1 There was no correspondence. 5. Public Meetings 5.1 There were no public meetings. 6. Staff Reports 6.1 Corporate Services Department and Public Works Department Joint Report, CS 44-17 Re: Replacement of Chain Link Fence (T-573-2017) Recommendation: Moved By Councillor Gleed 1. That the Town of Whitby accept the low tender of C&C Built Right Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial and Technical Feasibility of Dynamic Congestion Pricing As A
    MN WI MI OH IL IN USDOT Region V Regional University Transportation Center Final Report NEXTRANS Project No 044PY02 Financial and Technical Feasibility of Dynamic Congestion Pricing as a Revenue Generation Source in Indiana – Exploiting the Availability of Real-Time Information and Dynamic Pricing Technologies By Apichai Issariyanukula Graduate Student School of Civil Engineering Purdue University [email protected] and Samuel Labi, Principal Investigator Assistant Professor School of Civil Engineering Purdue University [email protected] Report Submission Date: October 19, 2011 DISCLAIMER Funding for this research was provided by the NEXTRANS Center, Purdue University under Grant No. DTRT07-G-005 of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), University Transportation Centers Program. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. MN WI MI OH IL IN USDOT Region V Regional University Transportation Center Final Report TECHNICAL SUMMARY NEXTRANS Project No 044PY02 Final Report, October 19 Financial and Technical Feasibility of Dynamic Congestion Pricing as a Revenue Generation Source in Indiana – Exploiting the Availability of Real-Time Information and Dynamic Pricing Technologies Introduction Highway stakeholders continue to support research studies that address critical issues of the current era, including congestion mitigation and revenue generation. A mechanism that addresses both concerns is congestion pricing which establishes a direct out-of-pocket charge to road users thus potentially generating revenue and also reducing demand during peak hours.
    [Show full text]
  • Erlene Brown & Rosa Macleod
    FOR SALE | MIXED USE / HIGH RISE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL 1855-1911 DUNDAS STREET EAST MISSISSAUGA, ON 3025 LENWORTH DRIVE INCLUDED IN PARCEL Erlene Brown & Rosa Macleod Erlene Brown Rosa MacLeod Sales Representative Sales Representative 905.580.5349 647.444.9715 [email protected] [email protected] Royal LePage Realty Plus, Brokerage* Royal LePage Signature Realty, Brokerage* 2575 Dundas Street West Suite 201-30 Eglinton Ave. West Mississauga, ON L5K 2M6 Mississauga, ON L5R 3E7 T 905.828.6550 | F 905.828.1511 T 905.568.2121 | F 905.568.2588 www.royallepagecommercial.com www.royallepagecommercial.com THE OFFERING HIGHLIGHTS Royal LePage Commercial is pleased to offer for sale 1855-1911 Dundas Street East (the “Property” or PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED “Site”), a landmark investment opportunity located on Ontario’s major arterial road, Dundas Street East in PROPERTY Mississauga. This 7.09 Acre site has 819’ frontage on Dundas and is located within the Mississauga “Dundas Capital spending on the existing building which Connects” Master Plan and Ontario’s “A Place to includes roof replacement completed in July Grow: Growth Plan” act. It is ideal for mixed-use/ 2020 plus several tenant improvements high rise development that can provide for the future residents of this growing city. Mississauga, Canada’s 6th largest city and third-most GREAT INVESTMENT TO HOLD AND in Ontario is known for its suburban living with urban DEVELOP conveniences. Sought after location by immigrants from all over the world, Mississauga has seen a lot of Currently the buildings on the site are 100 % investment flowing in to build condos, residential and Leased.
    [Show full text]
  • PM#0001161822 Editorial Board Comité De Rédaction
    PM#0001161822 Editorial Board Comité de rédaction Published for: All communications on matters relating to Béatrice Ngatcha, Editor/Rédactrice en chef the Canadian Intellectual Property Review Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (CIPR) should be addressed to: 360 Albert Street, Suite 550 Ann Carlsen Ottawa, ON K1R 7X7 Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Tel: 613-234-0516 Fax: 613-237-7371 Constitution Square, 360 Albert Street, www.ipic.ca Suite 550, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 7X7 Jeilah Chan Tel: 613-234-0516 Publisher Email: [email protected] Michael Bell Johanna Coutts The Editorial Board welcomes the Editor submission of articles and notes promoting Steve Pecar the Institute’s objectives. Manuscripts sent Meghan Dillon to the above address will be acknowledged and, if found acceptable through our peer- review process, published at the earliest Neil Fineberg Published by: opportunity. ISSN-0825-7256 Robert Hendry © 2020 Intellectual Property Institute of Strategy, Network, Partnerships, Canada. All rights reserved. Mala Joshi Technologies The Institute as a body is not responsible 100 Kellogg Lane either for statements made or for opinions Athar K. Malik London ON N5W 2T5 expressed in the following pages. Tel. 647-801-4434 www.fthinker.co Kelly McClellan Beverley Moore President Toute communication ayant trait à la Revue Michael Bell canadienne de propriété intellectuelle (RCPI) doit être transmise à : Stephanie Naday Vice-President Rob Leuschner Institut de la propriété intellectuelle du Canada Marcel Naud Fthinker.co Constitution Square, 360, rue Albert, bureau Answer Apps 550, Ottawa (Ontario) K1R 7X7 Tél : 613-234-0516 Beatrice T. Ngatcha Published October 2020 Courriel : [email protected] Publication mail agreement #0001161822 Le Comité de rédaction accueille James Plotkin favorablement la soumission d’articles et Please return undeliverable copies to: de notes permettant l’atteinte des objectifs Intellectual Property Institute of Canada de l’IPIC.
    [Show full text]
  • September 1, 2011
    clrY couNqL Laura Olhasso, Mayor Donald R. Voss, Mayor Pro Tem ii Gregory C. Brown Slephen A. Del Guercio David A. Spence Funrruocn Mr. Mike Jones Regional Planner Southem California Association of Governments 818 W, 7h Street, 12ù Floor I-os Angeles, CA 90017-3435 SUBJECT: ul-710 Missing Link Truck Study" Comments Dear Mr. Jones: Backeround: The City of La Cañada Flintridge has reviewed the Draft Final Report for the I-7I0 Missing I ink Truck Study prepared by Iteris dated lNlay 2009. In addition, City staff has participated in several meetings hosted by the Arroyo-Verdugo Subregion regarding this Study. This Study was commissioned by the Southern Califomia Association of Governments (SCAG) to further exnmine the poûential vehicle and tn¡ck impacts on the surrounding freeway and roadway network if a tunnel was constn¡cted between the existing northerþterminus of the SR-710 FreewayinAlhambra andthe I-210ISR- 1 34 frceway interchange in Pasadena. SCAG has emphasized that this study is technical and comparative in nature and is not meant as a recommendation either for or against a freeway tunnel. Citv Comments: The City's primary objections are the assumptions made in the preparation of the Study and unilateral recommendations of its conclusion. We question the usefulness and inænt of the Study's findings, and are concemed about the myopic analysis made without consideration of the larger context of the alternatives and effects on regional traff,rc. But most importantly, the City also questions the usefulness of constructing the tunnel, since, based on the study's findings, if the In response to SCAG's request for comments on the draft Final Report, the following detailed comments have been prepared after a review of the Study and listening to the technical consultant presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Transportation Corridors to Support Southern Ontario Innovation Ecosystems
    Enhancing Transportation Corridors to Support Southern Ontario Innovation Ecosystems May 10, 2016 Enhancing Transportation Corridors To Support Southern Ontario Innovation Ecosystems Mark Ferguson Carly Harrison Joelle Pang Chris Higgins Pavlos Kanaroglou McMaster Institute for Transportation and Logistics McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario May 10, 2016 mitl.mcmaster.ca Enhancing Innovation Corridors in Southern Ontario Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... v 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................ 8 1.1 Rationale and Objectives ..........................................................................................................8 1.2 An Overview of Innovation Clusters ..........................................................................................9 1.3 Innovation Clusters and Transportation ................................................................................... 11 1.4 Transportation Improvements and Economic Development Impacts ........................................ 11 1.5 The Importance of Transportation Corridors ............................................................................ 12 1.6 Commuting Behaviour and “Super-Commuting” ...................................................................... 13 1.7 Comparisons of Freight and Rail between North America and Europe ...................................... 15 1.8 Scope
    [Show full text]
  • Public-Private Partnership (P3) Procurement: a Guide for Public Owners
    Public-Private Partnership (P3) Procurement: A Guide for Public Owners March 2019 Public-Private Partnership Procurement Guide Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products of manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Quality Assurance Statement The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) provides high quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. U.S. DOT periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Public-Private Partnership Procurement Guide Form DOT F 1700. 7 (8-72) 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. FHWA-HIN-18-004 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date March 2019 Public-Private Partnership (P3) Procurement: A Guide for Public Owners 6. Performing Organization Code FHWA 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Nancy Smith, Patricia de la Peña, Edward Kussy (Nossaman LLP), Sonika Sethi Report No.
    [Show full text]
  • Pricing Traffic Congestion Report
    WE CAN’T GET THERE FROM HERE: WHY PRICING TRAFFIC CONGESTION IS CRITICAL TO BEATING IT NOVEMBER 2015 CANADA’S ECOFISCAL COMMISSION WHO WE ARE A group of independent, policy-minded Canadian economists working together to align Canada’s economic and environmental aspirations. We believe this is both possible and critical for our country’s continuing prosperity. Our Advisory Board comprises prominent Canadian leaders from across the political spectrum. We represent different regions, philosophies, and perspectives from across the country. But on this we agree: ecofiscal solutions are essential to Canada’s future. OUR VISION OUR MISSION A thriving economy underpinned by clean To identify and promote practical fiscal air, land, and water for the benefit of all solutions for Canada that spark the innovation Canadians, now and in the future. required for increased economic and environmental prosperity. For more information about the Commission, visit Ecofiscal.ca WE CAN’T GET THERE FROM HERE II A REPORT AUTHORED BY CANADA’S ECOFISCAL COMMISSION Chris Ragan, Chair Bev Dahlby Paul Lanoie McGill University University of Calgary HEC Montréal Elizabeth Beale Don Drummond Richard Lipsey Atlantic Provinces Economic Council Queen’s University Simon Fraser University Paul Boothe Stewart Elgie Nancy Olewiler Western University University of Ottawa Simon Fraser University Mel Cappe Glen Hodgson France St-Hilaire University of Toronto Conference Board of Canada Institute for Research on Public Policy This report is a consensus document representing the views
    [Show full text]