The Trade deals and Infrastructure spending are intertwined.
RE the TPP:
Excerpts from Wikipedia, in chronological order, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
5 October 2015 Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper indicated he expected “signatures on the finalized text and deal early in the new year, and ratification over the next two years.”[62]
4 February 2016 The finalized proposal was signed in Auckland, New Zealand, concluding seven years of negotiations.
4 February 2016, at the TPP signing, Canadian International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland said “There is a big difference between signing and ratifying”. “Consultations in Canada very much will include aboriginal communities, they are a very important part of the national discussion,” she said. “We are committed to a full parliamentary committee study and a full parliamentary debate ahead of ratification.”[63]
23 January 2017 It (TPP) currently cannot be ratified due to U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. (Trump signed an executive order, withdrawing the U.S. from the TPP).
May 2017 The other 11 TPP countries agreed in to revive the deal without US participation.[18][19]
So, CURRENT STATUS
2017-05-26 (last update) The Globe and Mail published The ABCs of TPP. I don’t get it. The U.S. is shown as one of the members. I did a search on the page for the word “Trump”. There is no match. Did the G&M, Report on Business section, not know that Trump took the U.S. OUT of the TPP? No wonder people are confused. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/what-is-tpp-understanding-the-new-pacific-tradedeal/article26648948/
Continuing, the Wikipedia info:
The U.S. International Trade Commission,[20] the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada (WHO is he? scroll down at http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=19639) found that the final agreement would, if ratified, lead to net positive economic outcomes for all signatories,
while a heterodox analysis by two Tufts University economists found that the agreement would adversely affect the signatories.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]
Many observers have argued that the trade deal would have served a geopolitical purpose, namely to reduce the signatories’ dependence on Chinese trade and bring the signatories closer to the United States.[30][31][32][33]