A barrage of criticism from think-tanks, economists and opposition MPs is tearing into a Liberal plan for a private Infrastructure Bank – but the Trudeau government is fast-tracking what NDP MP Guy Caron calls “a reverse Robin Hood scheme.”

After election, the Liberals abandoned a platform pledge to “use the government’s strong credit rating” to fund infrastructure, opting instead for an investor-recommended Infrastructure Bank.

The Infrastructure Bank would collect fare, fee and toll revenue when Canadians use infrastructure financed by the Bank – transit, roads, bridges, waterworks, etc. – and remit it back to the Bank’s private investors.

Guy Caron – at the time the NDP’s Finance Critic, now a candidate for his party’s leadership – was ahead of the curve last Fall when he alerted MPs to a concerning speech by Michael Sabia, CEO of a $500 billion pension fund.

Sabia told a Bay Street crowd his fund expects a 7 to 9% return on infrastructure financing. That range was confirmed in April when the Quebec government announced it would pay Sabia’s fund an 8% return to finance a Montreal transit project.

The Bank of Canada can borrow the same money at 2% interest.

Paying higher fares, fees and tolls because of a political decision to use more expensive private capital would be a “massive transfer of wealth to the wealthy,” says Caron.

Now the chorus of think-tanks voicing concern includes the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Broadbent Institute, C.D. Howe Institute and the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, which is headed by former Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page.

The idea for the Bank followed a curious path. The Liberal-appointed advisory council which recommended a private Infrastructure Bank included executives whose investment funds stand to profit from it. That process is now subject of a conflict of interest complaint by Democracy Watch.

Then, last November at the five-star Shangri-La Hotel near Toronto’s financial district, Trudeau and ministers pitched the plan to investment fund managers. The meeting was organized by BlackRock, the world’s biggest private fund manager, and included sovereign wealth funds from China, Norway and Qatar and private funds from Singapore and the Saudi Kingdom.

That pitch was reviewed and edited by BlackRock representatives before the Infrastructure Minister gave it, according to a Globe and Mail report earlier this month.

More concerns surfaced when the legislation was tabled. Bill C-44 shows the Bank’s CEO and board would be selected by, and accountable to, Cabinet. While that structure can work if respected, a fear of politicization has come with Trudeau’s appointment of a former Metrolinx CEO as a key advisor on the Bank.

Metrolinx is a heavily politicized transit planning agency established by the Ontario Liberals.

Last summer, Metrolinx announced a $100 million GO commuter train station in the riding of the Liberals’ Transport Minister despite a staff report finding the new station would hurt ridership. Metrolinx is also funding a politically-motivated single-stop extension to a Toronto subway line that will cost at least $3.6 billion – if it’s ever built.

As more Canadians see the Infrastructure Bank as an inside job to drain their wallets and enrich the rich, the sharpness of opposition attacks continues to grow.

Perhaps Trudeau thought an Infrastructure Bank would hitch his star to powerful people. Maybe he’s anchored himself to a sinking sack of cement.

Tom Parkin is a former NDP staffer and social democrat media commentator