Can Selling Canada’s Airports Finally Pay for the Infrastructure We Actually Need?
Mark Carney, the former central banker who steered both Canada and the United Kingdom through financial turbulence, has never been one to avoid a provocative policy discussion. His latest suggestion? That Canada should seriously consider selling off mature public infrastructure—starting with airports—to generate the massive capital needed for next-generation projects like high-speed rail, green energy grids, and affordable housing.
It’s a proposal that cuts directly to the heart of Canada’s chronic infrastructure funding gap. And it raises equally sharp questions about what we, as citizens, are willing to trade for faster progress.
Let’s dig into Carney’s logic, the real-world trade-offs, and what this could mean for Canadian taxpayers, travellers, and investors.
The Core Argument: Why Sell What Already Works?
Carney’s reasoning is deceptively simple. Governments are sitting on billions of dollars in assets that generate steady, predictable cash flows—assets that don’t need government ownership to operate effectively. An airport, for example, is a mature infrastructure asset. It has established revenue streams from landing fees, retail leases, and parking. It requires strong regulation, but not necessarily public-sector management.
By selling or entering long-term concession agreements for these assets, the federal government could unlock an immediate, one-time capital infusion measured in tens of billions of dollars. That money could then be redeployed into infrastructure where public funding is desperately needed—projects that are capital-intensive, have longer payback periods, or serve social rather than purely commercial goals.
Carney is careful to frame this not as a fire sale, but as a disciplined, strategic recycling of public capital. Think of it as selling a rental property you’ve held for decades to fund a new development with higher long-term returns.
Why Airports Are the Natural Starting Point
Canada’s airport model is already a hybrid. Most major airports are operated by local airport authorities under long-term leases from the federal government. They are not fully privatized, unlike many airports in Europe, Australia, or the United Kingdom. Carney’s suggestion pushes this halfway house one step further: full privatization via sale or a 30-to-50-year concession.
From a practical standpoint, airports are ideal candidates for several reasons:
- Predictable revenue streams – passenger traffic, retail, and parking generate stable cash flows.
- Mature infrastructure – the runway, terminals, and airside facilities are already built.
- Strong regulatory framework – Transport Canada and local authorities already set safety and operational standards.
- Global investor appetite – institutional investors like pension funds and sovereign wealth funds actively seek such assets.
Carney’s idea essentially argues that Canada is sitting on a goldmine of value that is not being optimized. Selling or leasing airports would capture that value today, rather than letting it trickle out slowly over decades.
The Trade-Off: Who Pays, Who Benefits?
This is where the conversation gets heated—and legitimately so.
The Case for Selling
Proponents, including many infrastructure economists and former finance officials, point to several potential upsides:
- Immediate capital injection without tax increases. A single airport privatization could net the government $5–10 billion. Multiple airports could yield $30–50 billion or more.
- Private-sector efficiency. Private operators often invest more aggressively in passenger experience, retail optimization, and terminal modernization.
- Frees government focus. Ottawa could redirect its energy and expertise toward regulatory oversight, social infrastructure, and climate transition—areas where public involvement is harder to replace.
The Case Against Selling
Critics raise equally valid concerns, many rooted in Canadian consumer experience with privatized utilities and toll roads:
- Higher user fees. Private operators maximize profit. Landing fees, parking charges, and retail markups could rise significantly. Travellers would ultimately foot the bill.
- Loss of strategic control. Airports are national gateways. A foreign-owned or profit-driven operator might prioritize lucrative international routes over domestic connectivity or rural service.
- Short-termism. Private owners have a fiduciary duty to maximize returns within the concession period. Long-term investments—like adding runway capacity for 2050—could be delayed or avoided.
Carney acknowledges these risks. He’s not advocating for an unregulated free-for-all. Instead, he envisions a model where the government retains strong regulatory powers, caps certain fees, and ensures that public interest conditions are baked into sale agreements.
What This Means for Canadian Investors
One of the more intriguing angles is the potential role of Canadian pension funds. Institutions like CPP Investments, OMERS, Ontario Teachers’, and the Caisse de dépôt are already major global owners of infrastructure assets, including airports in the UK, Australia, and continental Europe.
Buying Canadian airports would be a natural fit. These funds have long investment horizons, low cost of capital, and a mandate to generate stable, inflation-linked returns for retirees. They also have a track record of responsible stewardship—think of their ownership of Toronto Pearson’s global link or the 407 ETR highway.
A domestically owned airport network, operated by Canadian pension funds, could address many of the “loss of control” concerns. The profits would stay in Canada, and the funds would be accountable to Canadian pensioners, not foreign shareholders.
Could This Really Happen? Political and Practical Realities
The political landscape for airport privatization in Canada has historically been frosty. Previous attempts—notably the mid-1990s push to sell Pearson International Airport—were met with public backlash and quietly shelved. Politicians fear the optics of selling “family silver” to the private sector.
However, the context is shifting. Canada faces a massive infrastructure deficit estimated at over $150 billion. The federal government is grappling with ambitious spending commitments on housing, green energy, and transit—all while trying to avoid exploding deficits or raising taxes.
Carney’s proposal offers a third way. It’s not a silver bullet, but it could provide a meaningful portion of the capital needed to jumpstart projects that are otherwise stuck in “planning purgatory.”
For the idea to gain traction, Carney and his supporters will need to build a compelling case that addresses public skepticism head-on. That means:
- Transparent auction processes to avoid crony capitalism.
- Clear consumer protections against price gouging.
- Strong regulatory oversight to maintain safety and service standards.
- Earmarking of proceeds so that Canadians can see exactly where the money is going.
The Bottom Line: A Thought Experiment Worth Taking Seriously
Carney’s suggestion is not a fully baked policy platform—it’s a provocation, designed to force a serious conversation about how Canada pays for its future. And it’s a conversation we badly need.
Airport privatization is emotionally charged, politically risky, and operationally complex. But dismissing it out of hand ignores a fundamental truth: Canada has a lot of valuable public assets, and we are not using them to their full potential. Meanwhile, we keep saying we can’t afford the infrastructure we need.
Perhaps the answer isn’t to find new sources of tax revenue or borrow more. Perhaps the answer is to stop hoarding the assets we already own—and to put them to work.
