· 114 comments · Save ·
News & Current Events Apr 27, 2026 at 4:24 PM

Carney announces creation of Canada's first sovereign wealth fund | CBC News

Posted by ThinYogurtcloset8005



🚩 Report this post

114 Comments

Sign in to comment — or just click the box below.
🔒 Your email is never shown publicly.
NxOKAG03 1 day ago +673
Great now make it like Norway so the oil sector has to fund it. Make us see actual returns on our natural resources.
673
ohgeorgie 1 day ago +159
In Norway the state owns the oil production and the refineries I believe - previously Statoil, currently called Equinor. So they don’t just get a royalty on the revenue they get the profits to invest. In Canada we largely let private business develop the oil and the provinces and Feds collect some royalties but the vast majority of the profits go to the private businesses. Hard to compare the two.
159
SgtSniffles 1 day ago +104
Tbf it can't be that hard. You just did.
104
jermcnama 22 hr ago +54
We can thank Mulrooney and Chrétien for that. Canada owned Petro Canada and started selling it in 1991. Ironically the same year Norway started their fund. We had the same opportunity and chose to give it away
54
McFestus 21 hr ago +31
Trudeau I tried to do this with the NEP and Alberta completely lost their shit, it created the reform movement that now dominates Canadian conservatism.
31
StairPro 20 hr ago +17
It is crazy how many of today's issues are a direct result of past decisions made by Conservatives.
17
jermcnama 20 hr ago +21
Chrétien sold the final 30% so it was def both parties. For sure we’d have $1 trillion fund if we kept it. And we gave it up for 3 billion.
21
StairPro 18 hr ago +9
19% and it was Paul Martin that finalized the sale. There was significant pressure from the opposition (surprise, surprise!) to sell the remaining 19% to help pay down debt and fund other projects. Today, I think everyone would agree that that was a mistake financially.
9
Bladmast 17 hr ago +4
Mulroney sold about 28.5%. Chretien sold the majority, a little over 50% in 1995 and Martin sold the remainder of 19% in 2004.
4
YetAnotherWTFMoment 15 hr ago -5
you mean like that spike in inflation, no jobs for teens, rampant abuse of immigration, not to mention a messed up home ownership/real estate market. yeah. those idiot conservatives.
-5
Icy-Zone3621 19 hr ago +6
Look up John Diefenbaker's (conservative) sellouts to Eisenhower. Oil to Standard Oil (ie ESSO), aerospace including Avro, half the grand banks fishery, aluminum.
6
GloomyLove2159 20 hr ago +3
This makes me so sad. Canadians could have benefitted so much from the wealth and now it's in the hands of a few.
3
backyard_tractorbeam 21 hr ago +7
In Norway, both private and state companies exploit oil and gas. The tax rate on oil profits is 78%
7
originalrocket 19 hr ago +4
someone or something is going to have to pay for universal healthcare. Glad its natural resources
4
coporate 1 day ago +42
I think what you meant to say, Canada decided to sell its petroleum crown corporation so that conservative Brian Mulroney could pay for his tax cuts.
42
2134F 20 hr ago +2
Which is the concern with how this will be implemented. Huge possibility, based on our track record with oligopolies, that there will be “industry experts” assisting with the management of the fund so lobbying etc. will decimate any actual returns to the average citizen. Cautiously optimistic, but doubtful this will work as intended.
2
NxOKAG03 16 hr ago +1
not really, we've had this for a while in Quebec with the FTQ and it's basically like a private fund except they have slightly worse returns and as a tradeoff they don't gamble your money away in the next global financial crisis, and they also invest in locally beneficial projects instead of dystopian bullshit.
1
asmj 16 hr ago +2
If they can legislate striking workers back to work, expropriate citizen's land through legislation, maybe they can come up with a legislation that in some form funds citizenry by the corporations' profits.
2
ohgeorgie 15 hr ago +1
The resource revenue in Canada is controlled by the provinces so Danielle Smith would have to legislate this not Carney.
1
NxOKAG03 16 hr ago
As far as I know Norway does not own most energy extraction or refining, they simply have a stake in it, because the sovereign wealth fund has to have a stake in every project by law. There is literally nothing stopping us from doing that in Canada, your argument is basically "we enjoy getting exploited so you can't compare"
0
ohgeorgie 15 hr ago +1
The government owns 67% of equinor which produces 70% of the oil and gas in Norway. That’s a majority.
1
InstructionPurple911 22 hr ago +9
They laughed Trudeau's father out of parliament for suggesting this
9
evange 21 hr ago +5
Because under the Canadian constitution the feds have no right to natural resource revenues. It's up to each individual province.
5
NxOKAG03 16 hr ago +3
of course because multinational capital interests keep Canada politically fragmented to ensure their lobbies get the final say and they can continue robbing us of natural resource revenues.
3
IvarTheBoned 18 hr ago -3
Which is f****** dumb, but per the articles of Confederation I understand why. Still f****** dumb though. Resources are the wealth of the entire nation, not just the provinces on top of them. Local provinces get jobs, that should be enough. Profits should just be nationalized.
-3
ReadWriteHexecute 13 hr ago +1
common law ≠ civil law!
1
iamnotyourdog 1 day ago +56
Norway has a constitutional amendment to protect its fund. Even in extreme cases of emergency there is an absolute maximum spend. We need to do this so some idiots in parliament don't spend it all on an emergency one day.
56
IndependentTalk4413 22 hr ago +4
Well thankfully they are setting it up as a crown corp with its own board. Hopefully that shelters it a bit from being a piggy bank for whatever party is in power.
4
GreatBigJerk 22 hr ago +10
Yes, and there has never been a crown corp ratfucked by subsequent leaders.. .
10
IndependentTalk4413 22 hr ago +1
Will have to see how it’s set up.
1
Cjr8533 15 hr ago +1
Just take a look at Alberta and you can see why this would be an issue
1
MonoBlancoATX 1 day ago +277
The US could've done this with 10s of trillions on multiple occasions, but we decided to have a War on Terror instead. Then, we decided to do "quantitative easing" multiple times as well. Oh well. Guess we'll just have to bootstrap and hustler harder.
277
sahui 1 day ago +92
Not voting for pedophiles would be a good start too
92
Tamaros 1 day ago +27
My economics final is a 5 minute persuasive "podcast." I chose to rail against QE. It's shouting into the void, but it's making me feel a little better.
27
Phyrexian_Archlegion 1 day ago +8
And now we have to take out loans just to pay down the 1 trillion dollars in interests our debt accumulates on a yearly bases. When the US becomes insolvent and our economy fully collapses, people will look for who to blame and they will blame us ALL now, the idiots in power from the last 50 years that got us here to begin with and all of us for either voting the idiots in or being to apathetic to vote at all, regardless of whether or not it was justified.
8
xlews_ther1nx 19 hr ago +2
Can you even have a sovereign fund while deep in debt? Wouldn't we need ti take another massive loan for the fund?
2
SituationIll5763 1 day ago +5
Yeah but that would make us commie
5
MonoBlancoATX 1 day ago +4
Really? Like Communist Alaska?
4
formerlyanonymous_ 1 day ago +5
Ex-Russian province, rolled out red carpet to Putin? >! Yes this is a joke and ignores both events being outside of Communist Russia, or that Alaska wasn't responsible for red carpet !<
5
MonoBlancoATX 1 day ago +7
Alaska is famously known for its communist former governor, Sarah Palin.
7
Birdman330 1 day ago +2
You want us to have this and have Trump in control of it?
2
TheGringoDingo 1 day ago +9
That would be a bad idea. A sovereign wealth fund is a great idea, if implemented correctly. The current administration is not concerned with the correct way to run financial programs.
9
piddydb 23 hr ago +5
End of the day that’s why (in my opinion) sovereign wealth funds are a bad idea. They allow politicians to exert control over industries that would probably be better run without that. I know the money generated is a good benefit, but the same effect can be achieved by taxing corporations more. Also, that way the state isn’t invested heavily in a particular industry and has motivations to prop that up relative to other national interests.
5
U-235 19 hr ago +2
Sovereign wealth funds work better the smaller your country is. Which makes the US one of the worst countries for this strategy. If everyone on earth started investing in the stock market, we would quickly run out of investable opportunities. Its the law of diminishing returns. So I wouldn't be too gloomy about it. Im not saying its a terrible idea, just that there is actually no scenario in which this would work out for the US as it did for Norway.
2
insightful_pancake 1 day ago +1
I get wars but QE is not fiscal policy
1
banndi2 1 day ago +2
It is printing money by another name. And it is terrible policy.
2
insightful_pancake 1 day ago +5
Not money printing but it can have similar effects in some cases. I can get arguments that it went on too long but it was certainly necessary policy during GFC/covid lows from a liquidity backstop perspective. Effects of credit/liquidity crunches are grim.
5
homebrew_1 1 day ago
And give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations.
0
IamTheEndOfReddit 13 hr ago -1
Yup! We had more oil than Norway, our fund would be larger. Social security was originally designed to be this fund but congress fucked it 15+ times over. One of our biggest liabilities could have been and could still be a massive source of wealth through investment
-1
Andelkar 1 day ago +169
Would be better if funded by oil huge profits.
169
Pastrami_ 1 day ago +30
I’m confused, isn’t that where the article said the money is coming from or did I misinterpret it
30
bapeandvape 1 day ago +43
As of right now, the understanding is it will be funded by the royalties, and taxes on these companies. They’re working out creating a way for citizens to “invest” into the fund as well. From what I understand it’s similar to opening up a GIC that’s directly meant for that fund. The government is providing 25BN initially to start it off and go from there. There will be more information when the Federals Government releases their Spring Economic Statement, which I think is tomorrow.
43
Andelkar 1 day ago +4
Not really. The article says that, this year, the government might get more income from oil than planned which will reduce the federal government deficit. However, that will happen with or without the newly announced fund. It is not clear yet how sustained funding will work. So far, Carney only says that it will be open for people and companies to invest in, but it is suspected that the core funding will come from debt.
4
b1argg 1 day ago +3
Well if they can get a higher rate of return on that invested money than the interest rate they are paying on the debt, they come out ahead. 
3
Capable_Kiwi2514 1 day ago +2
Are you saying they're issuing specific debt to fund it or are you describing this as debt- funded and not tax-funded because Canada is already in a deficit? 
2
Runcible-Spork 1 day ago +9
100% agreed. This whole time, we should have been doing what the Netherlands did and investing all the money from oil back into the country instead of into oil exec pockets. The Groningen gas field funded some spectacular public infrastructure and land reclamation projects that have made the country one of the most affluent in the world. Some very significant taxes on Big Oil should be imposed to reclaim some of that money.
9
C3PD2 22 hr ago +9
>we should have been doing what the Netherlands did and investing all the money from oil back into the country instead of into oil exec pockets. The Groningen gas field funded some spectacular public infrastructure and land reclamation projects that have made the country one of the most affluent in the world. Except that nearly ruined the Dutch economy and destroyed their manufacturing industry. What happened in the Netherlands in the 1960's and 1970's coined a term known as "Dutch Disease" - where nearly every other sector of the Dutch economy suffered due to influx of money poured into the country from the Groningen projects. As a major commodity exporter Canada has always been teetering on the edge of Dutch Disease. The more they focus on resource exports the more pressure is put on the currency, and when you couple that with rising labor costs - you end up with a struggling manufacturing industry that cannot compete on the global markets. It's also highly risky to rely so heavily on commodities that have their prices controlled by external markets - if the price for those commodities goes down, your economy is screwed. There is a reason Norway set up their wealth fund to manage oil revenues and invest them **abroad**. Norway has treated oil and gas as a temporary revenue source, which will not last forever, and they've invested the money generated by it into other industries like technology, pharma, real estate, etc. What they didn't do was pump that money back into Norwegian infrastructure, or directly back into their own economy - because the Netherlands showed that's exactly what you *don't* want to do.
9
Runcible-Spork 21 hr ago +2
Thank you for that history lesson. I wasn't aware of the Dutch Disease, I just know that nationalizing revenues from the gas fields generated over €400 billion (adjusted for inflation) over nearly 60 years for the Netherlands and allowed the country to reclaim hundreds of square miles of land, brought thousands of jobs (Big Oil spent money earned from the Dutch gas field *in* the Netherlands), and is now funding a transition to green energy. As long as the benefits of Canadian resources are invested into making Canada richer and prosperous in the immediate and long term, smarter people than I can work out the policy details.
2
evange 21 hr ago +1
The feds don't get a say in how oil profits are used. Natural resources are provincial jurisdiction.
1
IndependentTalk4413 1 day ago +47
I like they are creating a way for Canadians to personally invest in the fund as well.
47
shortAAPL 1 day ago +19
Me too. They should also provide tax incentives for Canadians investing in it (I.e returns not taxed, or taxed at a much lower rate). Incentivize Canadians to invest in the success of the country.
19
GreatBigJerk 22 hr ago +4
They do that with RRSPs, so there probably will be something similar. 
4
SnowyEssence 1 day ago +26
It’s not a sovereign wealth fund like Norway or other countries if you read the details. This is a fund that finances projects for the private sector.
26
Gagewhylds 23 hr ago +4
Through loans, grants and other incentives. Using high paying union labour. Sounds good to me. I’d love to have cross country high speed rail. But I doubt this will happen.
4
SobekInDisguise 20 hr ago +1
Hey, you never know? He did mention the CP Rail in the article. It's a long shot, but maybe?
1
[deleted] 1 day ago +41
[removed]
41
Je5u5_ 22 hr ago +7
As a european Im so jealous of how much this prime minster f****** rocks. Intelligent, calm and well-meaning. What a combination.
7
[deleted] 21 hr ago +4
[removed]
4
gdren 20 hr ago -14
The Liberals have been in power for more than 10 years. My lord you sycophants are too much. Carney has been providing terrible advice (on the record in you care to look) for more than 10 years. If we had funded any of our resource projects that they've been blocking for more than 10 years we might actually be able to fund a wealth fund. This, unfortunately is just more debt. Tapping the credit card even further despite historic deficits.
-14
Warmbloodedearthling 19 hr ago +13
Between 2013 and 2020 he was the Governor of the bank of England and during covid was an informal special advisor. Ironic that you're calling people sycophants when you're acting like one, regurgitating the talking points of the opposition leader that lost his own riding.
13
[deleted] 18 hr ago +4
[removed]
4
[deleted] 18 hr ago +1
[deleted]
1
[deleted] 18 hr ago +2
[removed]
2
lazertittiesrrad 18 hr ago +1
My apologies, the sun was shining on my screen and I lost track of who was commenting what. I retract my own comment and will now delete it. Carry on.
1
LieComfortable7764 1 day ago +3
I guess better late than never and as long as it doesn’t involve just taking over the oil companies
3
x3i4n 1 day ago +7
We need to exploit our natural ressources. But not giving all profits to the private sector. We should copy what Norway did.
7
That_Country_7682 1 day ago +10
about damn time, every other country figured this out decades ago
10
dryersockpirate 16 hr ago +1
Funded with borrowed money not a petroleum windfall
1
FreeEnergy001 23 hr ago +4
Does Canada have a surplus that they can put this money into a fund as opposed to the general fund?
4
nsoni8882 1 day ago +2
As an Australian this makes me sad, and mad.
2
Worldly_Anybody_9219 18 hr ago +3
Cautiously optimistic. At least Carney is trying new things.
3
Ecstatic-Coach 23 hr ago +1
Not really a sovereign wealth fund; more like war bonds. A lot of these infrastructure projects have huge upfront costs and will be financed with national debt. The hope is that the return on the investment is greater than the interest owed
1
C3PD2 22 hr ago +2
This fund is not financing any debt - that's the Canadian Infrastructure Bank. The fund will *invest* in companies/projects, alongside the private sector - it's a commercial investment fund not a bank. They will own shares in companies and receive dividends just like a private investor would.
2
Ecstatic-Coach 18 hr ago +3
the money for the fund comes from where? Canada does not run surpluses
3
SleepingToDreaming 1 day ago +1
'MURICA has one, too; it is called Retire At 85 Fund.
1
TauCabalander 23 hr ago +5
50 year mortgages! 🙄
5
Redrumicus 1 day ago +3
This is really awesome to see!
3
Arbiter51x 23 hr ago
Can't wait until the next conservative government dissolves it and whatever crown corporations it's tied to.... ^/s
0
Impossible_Rabbits 1 day ago +1
I'm tired of the finance bros running the world.
1
[deleted] 1 day ago -1
[deleted]
-1
IPeeNightly 1 day ago -1
Cue PP, I predict he’s against it and his plan to axe something is better.
-1
SobekInDisguise 20 hr ago
Did you read the article? He's already giving his opinion about it at the end.
0
IPeeNightly 19 hr ago
Yup read it and guess what, PP response was given as an update as PP had a news conference. So yes when I read it PP response was not printed yet. PP gave his response this afternoon, article was originally posted in the morning.
0
EatAllTheShiny 20 hr ago -4
This is not a sovereign wealth fund. Sovereign wealth funds exist where governments are financially responsible and invest surpluses. This is just another debt funded boondoggle, probably going to be used to funnel money to 'investments' that benefit political insiders at the expense of everyone else, and is completely on brand for the LPC.
-4
ThinYogurtcloset8005 20 hr ago +1
It also says in the article that he mentions their going to make it possible for people to "invest" in it. Asking people to invest implies there will be some sort of financial gain for them, but it doesn't mention what that will be.
1
sweetlemon69 19 hr ago -2
Didn't the president of the United States also do that?
-2
YetAnotherWTFMoment 15 hr ago -1
Pretty sure he just created a job post for himself to land in after he's done politicking.
-1
Heimerdingerdonger 1 day ago -31
Not sure if this is the best approach for a large country like Canada. The best sovereign wealth fund you can have is an educated, united and engaged populace.
-31
MonoBlancoATX 1 day ago +16
>educated, united and engaged populace You're describing Canada, buddy.
16
MountNevermind 1 day ago +2
It's not describing what we invest in as Canadians.
2
TheGapInTysonsTeeth 23 hr ago
Education is a provincial jurisdiction though.  They can dole out the money for it, but the Premiers decide how it's used 
0
Heimerdingerdonger 1 day ago -6
Yes I know. Keeping it that way is the best investment. Esp. United.
-6
Yung_l0c 1 day ago +6
You should re-read your post, then maybe you meant USA? Not Canada in the first sentence?
6
ProofByVerbosity 1 day ago
Large? is 36MM people large?
0
AFewBerries 1 day ago +2
Canada is over 41 MM now bud
2
ProofByVerbosity 1 day ago
I'm so used to the 36MM, just muscle memory. didn't know it was over 40MM though, thought it was still under that.
0
Pastrami_ 1 day ago +1
Haha i totally understand. I also had 36MM stuck in my head as the population for the longest time
1
[deleted] 1 day ago -7
[deleted]
-7
formerlyanonymous_ 1 day ago +1
Stitch in a white maple leaf outline on the sleeve!
1
slingbladde 1 day ago -19
Help with healthcare? Better education? Just like the loto profits...trickle down little by little..too much administrative levels here..nothing comes of it to improve citizens lives.
-19
caffeine-junkie 1 day ago +11
I mean all those examples are under provincial jurisdiction, not federal.
11
TheGapInTysonsTeeth 23 hr ago +7
Annnd you just cracked the code lol. Far too many people in Canada don't understand jurisdiction. Like, an absurd amount. 
7
ProofByVerbosity 22 hr ago +2
but angry at liberals!
2
pinksparklyreddit 21 hr ago +3
Also, like... Canada is the highest educated country on the planet. Using our education system as a whataboutism is kinda wild, lol.
3
← Back to Board