The federal government first announced its plans for an Infrastructure Bank in the Fall 2016 Economic Statement, and fleshed out an implementation schedule and funding in the Budget released in March 2017 . The Infrastructure Bank website here describes: “If approved by Parliament, the Bank would invest $35 billion from the federal government into transformative infrastructure projects. $15 billion would be sourced from the over $180 billion Investing in Canada infrastructure plan, including: $5 billion for public transit systems; $5 billion for trade and transportation corridors; and, $5 billion for green infrastructure projects, including those that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, deliver clean air and safe water systems, and promote renewable power.” It will function as an arms-length Crown corporation “and would work with provincial, territorial, municipal, Indigenous, and private sector investment partners to attract pension funds and other institutional investors to new revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest.” A May 13 press release from the responsible Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announces that the selection process for senior management positions has begun, and the goal is to launch the Bank in 2017. The enabling legislation is buried deep in the enormous Bill C-44, the Budget Implementation Act (as Division 18 of Part 4) . Bill C-44 is now in 2nd reading in the House of Commons, and the Finance Committee began a clause-by-clause review of the legislation in the week of May 29.
There is no shortage of criticism and critics of the Infrastructure Bank, from across the political spectrum. In “Where Were They Going Without Ever Knowing the Way? Assessing the Risks and Opportunities of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”, (May 4) economists at the University of Ottawa Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy argue that the case for the infrastructure bank is weak since Canada doesn’t yet have a comprehensive inventory of the status of existing infrastructure. (The May 18 report submitted to Canada’s Climate Change Adaptation platform may answer some of those objections) .
The Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) is leading the union charge of criticism , mostly on the grounds that the infrastructure bank encourages and enables privatization of public projects. Even before the March budget was delivered, CUPE Economist Toby Sanger wrote Creating a Canadian infrastructure bank in the public interest , published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. After the budget was delivered, CUPE’s initial response was published in April . In May, CUPE compiled expert criticisms here , and on May 29, the union issued the call to “Scrap bank of privatization, build infrastructure for Canadians” . CUPE also presented a detailed brief to government committees in May, with ten points of criticism and recommendations for change so that public bridges, roads and waterways remain under public control.