Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
Obviously I don't know any details about the proposal beyond what was written in the NP article, but I highly suspect it would work like this:
The government identifies an infrastructure project that would be a good candidate for P3-style financing. Rather than offering the contract to private enterprises, CPP instead would get first right of refusal. CPP then does their due diligence and determines if they would receive a good ROI for their investment. If yes, then they fund the project and construction begins. If no, then they pass and the government either finds another source of funding or cancels the project.
|
The questions in my earlier post must be answered before any decisions on funding any projects by CPP can even be considered. CPP is already investing billions in public, private and mixed instruments (see
here). It does invest in
infrastructure projects already too. But, supposedly, only based on merits of the investments and not for political reasons. So far, they have not been doing a very good job, unfortunately, from a pure return on investment perspective, but that's not the point of the article (and the OP).
Trudeau is in favour of using CPP money for infrastructure projects, because the Government (and, perhaps, the public) needs to build infrastructure. These are political reasons. This is arguably VERY wrong. It's not up to the Government to make the investment decisions based on needs
from the fund allocated for pensions. Hence; the difference.