Bill C-245 changes the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s statutory purpose and governance to prioritize projects that serve the public interest, support climate mitigation or adaptation, and avoid environmental harm. It requires the Bank to give priority to investments from public institutions, all levels of government and Northern and Indigenous communities, and to accept unsolicited proposals and act as a centre of expertise.
The bill also requires Indigenous-recommended representation on the Bank’s board, adds an annual report to the designated Minister listing projects that received priority (with a parliamentary tabling deadline), and expands the Act’s confidentiality regime to cover information held by the Bank’s subsidiaries and advisers. These changes reorient the Bank toward public and climate goals while raising practical questions about definitions, transparency, and how the Bank will balance public-interest priorities against its financing model.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces the Bank’s statutory purpose to emphasize public-interest investments and climate resilience, adds a priority rule requiring the Bank to prioritise public and Indigenous-sourced investments and climate-friendly projects, mandates Indigenous-recommended board membership, and requires an annual report on priority investments to be tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days of receipt.
Who It Affects
The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB) and its subsidiaries, federal, provincial/territorial and municipal public institutions, Northern and Indigenous communities, private proponents who submit unsolicited proposals, Indigenous organizations that recommend board candidates, and Parliamentarians who will receive the new annual report.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the CIB’s statutory compass from largely leveraging private capital toward an explicit public-interest and climate orientation, embeds Indigenous representation in governance, and creates a formal transparency channel to Parliament — all of which change how the Bank will screen projects and allocate financing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill begins by rewriting the Bank’s purpose provision to state clearly that the Bank exists to invest in infrastructure "in the public interest," with explicit examples: supporting conditions that foster climate change mitigation or adaptation and contributing to infrastructure sustainability. That change reframes the Bank’s mission language; it is no longer simply about leveraging private capital but about achieving public and environmental outcomes.
It tweaks the Bank’s statutory functions to emphasise that investments can be made using innovative financial tools, that unsolicited project proposals are an accepted intake route, and that the Bank must act as a centre of expertise on infrastructure projects. Practically, this preserves the Bank’s transactional toolbox while clarifying intake and advisory roles, which could increase the variety of deals the Bank will consider and create higher expectations for analytic support and knowledge-sharing.A new "priority" rule requires the Bank, when carrying out its functions, to give priority to three categories: investments coming from public institutions and governments (including Northern and Indigenous communities), projects proposing climate mitigation or adaptation measures, and projects that are not harmful to the environment.
That list creates a legal preference that will need operational rules — e.g., how the Bank defines and verifies "not harmful" and how those priorities interact with its financial-return assessments.On governance and oversight, the bill requires the Board to include at least one person recommended by organizations representing First Nations, one recommended by organizations representing the Inuit, and one recommended by organizations representing the Métis. The bill also adds an annual special report the Bank must submit to the designated Minister describing which investments and projects received priority; the Minister must table that report in Parliament within 15 sitting days of receipt.
Finally, the bill replaces the privileged-information clause to explicitly extend confidentiality protections to information obtained by the Bank’s subsidiaries and their advisors, reinforcing commercial secrecy while the reporting requirement creates a countervailing transparency channel for Parliament.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces section 6 of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act so the Bank’s purpose is explicitly to invest "in the public interest," with examples including climate mitigation or adaptation and infrastructure sustainability.
It inserts subsection 7(1.1) requiring the Bank to give priority to (a) investments from public institutions, governments and Northern and Indigenous communities, (b) projects with climate mitigation or adaptation measures, and (c) projects that are not harmful to the environment.
Section 8 is amended to require the Board include at least one person recommended by an Indigenous organization for First Nations interests, one recommended for Inuit interests, and one recommended for Métis interests.
The bill creates section 27.1 requiring the Bank to submit an annual report to the designated Minister on investments that received priority, and mandates that the Minister table the report before each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days after receipt.
Subsection 28(1) is replaced to make privileged (confidential) all information obtained by the Bank, its subsidiaries and the subsidiaries of wholly-owned subsidiaries, and to prohibit knowingly disclosing that information except as allowed by subsection (2).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Rewrites the Bank’s statutory purpose toward public-interest and climate goals
This provision removes the previous framing and replaces it with a purpose clause that centers "public interest" and cites climate mitigation/adaptation and sustainability as examples. Practically, this gives the Bank statutory cover to prioritise non-commercial objectives in its approval framework and to justify investments that deliver public policy outcomes even if they are less attractive to private capital markets.
Clarifies transaction tools, intake routes, and advisory role
The bill explicitly authorizes the Bank to use innovative financial tools, accepts unsolicited proposals as a formal intake path, and labels the Bank a centre of expertise. These are operational signals: expect broader deal structures, a formal process and criteria for unsolicited proposals, and higher expectations for knowledge products and advisory services that inform government infrastructure planning.
Creates a binding priority rule for project selection
Subsection 7(1.1) instructs the Bank to prioritise certain classes of investments and projects. This is not a discretionary preference — the statute says the Bank "must" give priority — so the Bank will need internal policies and metrics to apply that rule consistently, reconcile competing priorities, and document why a given project qualified for priority treatment.
Mandates Indigenous-recommended Board members
The Board must include at least one person recommended by an Indigenous organization representing First Nations, one recommended by an organization representing the Inuit, and one recommended by an organization representing the Métis. The provision leaves open which organizations qualify to recommend members and how recommendations interact with existing appointment processes, creating a practical design task for implementing regulations or guidelines.
Introduces an annual priority investments report with parliamentary tabling
The Bank must submit a yearly report to the designated Minister listing investments and projects that received priority under the new subsection 7(1.1). The Minister must table that report before each House within 15 sitting days of receipt, creating a statutory timeline for Parliamentary oversight and a public record (subject to the Act’s confidentiality rules) of how the Bank applied its priorities.
Extends privileged-information protections to subsidiaries and advisers
The replaced subsection expands the Act’s confidentiality regime so all information obtained by the Bank, its subsidiaries, and subsidiaries of wholly‑owned subsidiaries is privileged, and prohibits directors, officers, employees, agents or advisers from knowingly disclosing it. That broad confidentiality protects commercial details but will need to be reconciled with the annual reporting obligation and access-to-information expectations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Northern and Indigenous communities: The statutory priority for investments from and for Indigenous and Northern communities increases their claim on CIB resources and creates a clear channel for receiving priority consideration.
- Public institutions and governments (federal, provincial/territorial, municipal): Governments and public institutions gain a stronger pathway to secure CIB support for projects that serve public objectives, potentially easing financing for public-interest infrastructure.
- Proponents of climate-resilient projects: Projects that include climate mitigation or adaptation measures are elevated by statute, improving their eligibility and likelihood of funding from the Bank.
- Parliament and public accountability actors: The mandated annual report gives Parliament a formal, regular information flow about how the Bank applied statutory priorities, strengthening oversight opportunities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Private investors and commercial proponents seeking priority access: The statutory priority for public and Indigenous-sourced investments reduces the Bank’s implicit preference for deals driven by private capital, which may limit opportunities for purely private-led projects to access CIB support.
- The Canada Infrastructure Bank (operationally): The Bank must develop criteria, verification processes and internal controls to apply the new priority rules and to integrate Indigenous recommendations into board composition, creating administrative and potential reputational costs.
- Indigenous organizations asked to recommend board members: These organizations will face requests to recommend individuals and may bear political or administrative burdens if no recognition mechanism or selection criteria exist in the Act or regulations.
- Taxpayers/public balance sheets (indirectly): Prioritising public-interest or lower-return projects could shift more finance onto public balance sheets or require greater public risk-sharing if those projects are less attractive to private partners.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between legally prioritizing public-interest and climate-resilient infrastructure (and embedding Indigenous representation) and preserving the Bank’s ability to operate confidentially and attract private capital through commercially oriented deals; prioritising public outcomes may constrain the Bank’s market-facing model, while broad confidentiality and vague statutory language can limit the transparency and accountability needed to justify that shift.
The bill contains several implementation uncertainties that matter materially. First, key terms — "public interest," "not harmful to the environment," and what qualifies as "measures aimed at mitigating or adapting to climate change" — are undefined in the text.
The Bank will need operational definitions and measurement frameworks to apply the priority rule reliably; absent them, priority could become a source of ad hoc decision-making or legal challenge.
Second, the bill tightens confidentiality for information held by the Bank and its subsidiaries at the same time it mandates an annual parliamentary report on priority investments. The law does not specify the level of detail the report must contain or how to reconcile commercial confidentiality with Parliament’s need for meaningful oversight.
That tension will require careful drafting of reporting templates and possibly carve-outs in the confidentiality regime.
Third, the Board composition requirement names categories of Indigenous representation but leaves the recommending bodies unspecified. That omission raises practical questions: which organizations can recommend, whether recommendations are binding, how candidates are vetted, and how to avoid politicization.
These procedural details will determine whether the provision produces meaningful Indigenous governance influence or whether it becomes a formal checkbox without substantive role.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.