Canada Needs Investment — But the Public Interest Cannot Be an Afterthought

Spread the love

Canada needs investment that strengthens public value and national resilience.

Canada is preparing to make an enormous pitch to global capital. On September 14 and 15, the federal government will bring major investors to Toronto for the first Canada Investment Summit, part of a plan to catalyse more than $1 trillion in total investment over five years.

That ambition is welcome. Canada needs new electricity generation and transmission, stronger ports and transportation links, more housing, modern digital infrastructure, responsible critical-mineral development and the industrial capacity to reduce our dangerous dependence on any single foreign market.

But the size of an investment announcement is not the same thing as its public value.

If governments use public money, tax incentives, regulatory changes or public assets to attract private capital, Canadians deserve more than a ribbon-cutting ceremony and an impressive headline. They deserve enforceable commitments on jobs, affordability, Indigenous rights, environmental responsibility, Canadian ownership and long-term community benefit.

A trillion-dollar target requires trillion-dollar scrutiny

When Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the summit in April, the government said roughly $280 billion in federal capital investments and incentives were expected to help enable more than $1 trillion from public, private and institutional partners. It also said Canada had secured $97 billion in foreign-investment commitments over the previous year and identified clean energy, critical minerals, new technologies and artificial intelligence as priority sectors. Those are consequential numbers and sectors, and the country should treat them with seriousness rather than reflexive cynicism.

Canada does have real advantages: an educated workforce, political stability, vast energy and mineral resources, established public institutions and preferential trade access to a large share of the global economy. At a time of economic coercion and unpredictable trade policy from the United States, using those strengths to diversify markets and supply chains is not optional. It is part of defending Canadian sovereignty.

Yet the federal government’s own framing makes clear that substantial public support is intended to help mobilize private investment. That means the public is not merely watching from the sidelines. Canadians are taking risks, changing rules and helping create the conditions in which investors expect to earn returns. Public participation must bring public influence.

The Prime Minister’s Office says the summit is intended to advance nation-building projects, create new career opportunities and build a stronger, more independent economy. Those are worthy goals. The test will be whether the deals eventually signed actually do those things.

The money is beginning to line up

On September 11, BMO announced that it plans to mobilize up to $70 billion over ten years for sectors it describes as critical to Canadian economic security and resilience. Its list includes electricity infrastructure, transportation, mining and critical minerals, AI computing, defence, pipelines, oil and gas.

BMO’s announcement is significant, but the words “up to” and “mobilize” matter. This is not a $70-billion cheque written today, nor is it a detailed list of approved projects. Canadians should welcome the willingness to invest while still asking how much capital is genuinely new, which projects will qualify, what financial terms will apply and what communities will receive in return.

Sun Life has also announced a $5-billion Canadian infrastructure initiative over five years, including a planned $1.5 billion in direct equity. Its September 11 release points to digital technology, energy, transportation and logistics, while noting that the equity component depends on proposed changes to federal insurance legislation. Power Sustainable announced a plan on September 10 to invest and mobilize more than $10 billion in Canadian infrastructure and related companies.

These commitments demonstrate that capital is available. They do not, by themselves, answer the most important question: available for what, and on whose terms?

Private capital is a tool, not a public-policy substitute

Private and institutional investors can help Canada build projects faster and at a scale that public budgets alone may struggle to finance. Pension funds, insurers and banks can also bring long-term expertise. There is nothing inherently wrong with earning a reasonable return for financing useful infrastructure.

Publicly supported projects should deliver accessibility, good jobs and measurable community benefits.

The danger begins when governments treat investor appetite as the main test of whether a project is worthwhile. Markets are good at identifying revenue streams. They are much less reliable at protecting people who cannot pay high user fees, communities that need service despite lower profits, or future generations who bear environmental costs that never appear on a project balance sheet.

A public transit project can generate broad economic value even if fare revenue is insufficient to excite investors. Deeply affordable housing may save governments money in health care, shelters and policing without producing the return demanded by a private fund. Rural broadband, accessible infrastructure and climate adaptation can be essential even where the direct financial payoff is modest.

Canada must not confuse what is profitable with what is necessary.

Private financing should complement robust public investment, not become an excuse to privatize gains while socializing risk. If taxpayers guarantee revenue, absorb early losses, provide discounted land or fund enabling infrastructure, agreements should disclose those obligations and clearly identify the value Canadians receive.

Five conditions for investment in the national interest

First, every publicly supported major project should include transparent community-benefit requirements. Canadians need measurable commitments on employment, apprenticeships, local procurement, accessibility and fair wages—not vague promises about “thousands of jobs” that cannot later be verified.

Second, Indigenous consultation, consent and economic participation must begin at the design stage. Rights cannot be treated as a regulatory obstacle to be managed after investors have already decided what will happen. Projects are more legitimate, durable and economically sound when Indigenous nations are genuine partners with meaningful ownership opportunities.

Indigenous rights, consent and economic participation must be built into projects from the beginning.

Third, Canada needs stronger protections for strategic assets and data. Investment in ports, electricity, critical minerals and AI infrastructure carries national-security implications. Foreign capital can be useful, but control over essential systems, intellectual property and sensitive Canadian data cannot be casually surrendered. Canada should diversify partnerships without replacing dependence on the United States with dependence on another single power.

Canada must retain meaningful control over strategic infrastructure, intellectual property and data.

Fourth, governments must publish the public side of each bargain. Tax credits, loan guarantees, power agreements, land transfers and other subsidies should be easy to find and understand. Commercial confidentiality can protect narrow proprietary details; it should not conceal the public’s exposure or prevent independent evaluation.

Fifth, climate and affordability tests must be real. Canada needs more energy and infrastructure, but long-lived assets must fit credible emissions-reduction plans and withstand a changing climate. At the same time, essential electricity, transportation and housing cannot become unaffordable because governments promised investors protected returns.

What this means beyond Toronto

The summit may be held in Toronto, but its consequences will reach communities across the country, including Moncton and New Brunswick.

Atlantic Canada needs better trade corridors, resilient electricity systems, housing infrastructure, ports and connections to markets beyond the United States. New Brunswick also needs investment that creates durable local employment instead of merely extracting resources, consuming scarce grid capacity or exporting profits. A national strategy should make room for smaller provinces and municipalities, not concentrate every opportunity in the largest financial centres.

Municipalities will often carry the practical burden of growth. New industrial projects require roads, water, wastewater capacity, transit, emergency services and housing. If federal and provincial governments celebrate major investments while leaving local taxpayers to finance the supporting infrastructure, the arrangement is not sustainable. Municipal voices belong at the table before deals are finalized.

Build more, but build with a purpose

Canada should enter the coming summit confidently. We do not need to beg for investment or offer any concession necessary to secure it. We have resources, talent, stable institutions and access to global markets. Those advantages give us leverage.

The right progressive response is not to reject private investment. It is to insist that investment serve a democratic economic plan: one that strengthens Canadian ownership and capacity, respects Indigenous rights, accelerates the transition to a resilient low-carbon economy, creates good jobs and leaves communities with lasting assets.

Canada’s goal cannot simply be to announce one trillion dollars. It must be to build a country that is more productive, more independent, more inclusive and more affordable because of how that money was invested.

Capital should be invited to participate in that project. It should never be allowed to define the project for us.