Great now make it like Norway so the oil sector has to fund it. Make us see actual returns on our natural resources.
673
ohgeorgieApr 27, 2026
+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
SgtSnifflesApr 27, 2026
+104
Tbf it can't be that hard. You just did.
104
jermcnamaApr 27, 2026
+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
McFestusApr 27, 2026
+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
StairProApr 27, 2026
+17
It is crazy how many of today's issues are a direct result of past decisions made by Conservatives.
17
jermcnamaApr 27, 2026
+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
StairProApr 28, 2026
+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
BladmastApr 28, 2026
+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
YetAnotherWTFMomentApr 28, 2026
-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-Zone3621Apr 27, 2026
+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
GloomyLove2159Apr 27, 2026
+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_tractorbeamApr 27, 2026
+7
In Norway, both private and state companies exploit oil and gas.
The tax rate on oil profits is 78%
7
originalrocketApr 27, 2026
+4
someone or something is going to have to pay for universal healthcare. Glad its natural resources
4
coporateApr 27, 2026
+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
2134FApr 27, 2026
+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
NxOKAG03Apr 28, 2026
+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
asmjApr 28, 2026
+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
ohgeorgieApr 28, 2026
+1
The resource revenue in Canada is controlled by the provinces so Danielle Smith would have to legislate this not Carney.
1
NxOKAG03Apr 28, 2026
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
ohgeorgieApr 28, 2026
+1
The government owns 67% of equinor which produces 70% of the oil and gas in Norway. That’s a majority.
1
InstructionPurple911Apr 27, 2026
+9
They laughed Trudeau's father out of parliament for suggesting this
9
evangeApr 27, 2026
+5
Because under the Canadian constitution the feds have no right to natural resource revenues. It's up to each individual province.
5
NxOKAG03Apr 28, 2026
+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
IvarTheBonedApr 28, 2026
-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
ReadWriteHexecuteApr 28, 2026
+1
common law ≠ civil law!
1
iamnotyourdogApr 27, 2026
+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
IndependentTalk4413Apr 27, 2026
+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
GreatBigJerkApr 27, 2026
+10
Yes, and there has never been a crown corp ratfucked by subsequent leaders.. .
10
IndependentTalk4413Apr 27, 2026
+1
Will have to see how it’s set up.
1
Cjr8533Apr 28, 2026
+1
Just take a look at Alberta and you can see why this would be an issue
1
MonoBlancoATXApr 27, 2026
+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
sahuiApr 27, 2026
+92
Not voting for pedophiles would be a good start too
92
TamarosApr 27, 2026
+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_ArchlegionApr 27, 2026
+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_ther1nxApr 27, 2026
+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
SituationIll5763Apr 27, 2026
+5
Yeah but that would make us commie
5
MonoBlancoATXApr 27, 2026
+4
Really?
Like Communist Alaska?
4
formerlyanonymous_Apr 27, 2026
+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
MonoBlancoATXApr 27, 2026
+7
Alaska is famously known for its communist former governor, Sarah Palin.
7
Birdman330Apr 27, 2026
+2
You want us to have this and have Trump in control of it?
2
TheGringoDingoApr 27, 2026
+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
piddydbApr 27, 2026
+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-235Apr 27, 2026
+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_pancakeApr 27, 2026
+1
I get wars but QE is not fiscal policy
1
banndi2Apr 27, 2026
+2
It is printing money by another name. And it is terrible policy.
2
insightful_pancakeApr 27, 2026
+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_1Apr 27, 2026
And give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations.
0
IamTheEndOfRedditApr 28, 2026
-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
AndelkarApr 27, 2026
+169
Would be better if funded by oil huge profits.
169
Pastrami_Apr 27, 2026
+30
I’m confused, isn’t that where the article said the money is coming from or did I misinterpret it
30
bapeandvapeApr 27, 2026
+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
AndelkarApr 27, 2026
+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
b1arggApr 27, 2026
+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_Kiwi2514Apr 27, 2026
+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-SporkApr 27, 2026
+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
C3PD2Apr 27, 2026
+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-SporkApr 27, 2026
+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
evangeApr 27, 2026
+1
The feds don't get a say in how oil profits are used. Natural resources are provincial jurisdiction.
1
IndependentTalk4413Apr 27, 2026
+47
I like they are creating a way for Canadians to personally invest in the fund as well.
47
shortAAPLApr 27, 2026
+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
GreatBigJerkApr 27, 2026
+4
They do that with RRSPs, so there probably will be something similar.
4
SnowyEssenceApr 27, 2026
+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
GagewhyldsApr 27, 2026
+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
SobekInDisguiseApr 27, 2026
+1
Hey, you never know? He did mention the CP Rail in the article. It's a long shot, but maybe?
1
[deleted]Apr 27, 2026
+41
[removed]
41
Je5u5_Apr 27, 2026
+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]Apr 27, 2026
+4
[removed]
4
gdrenApr 27, 2026
-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
WarmbloodedearthlingApr 27, 2026
+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]Apr 27, 2026
+4
[removed]
4
[deleted]Apr 28, 2026
+1
[deleted]
1
[deleted]Apr 28, 2026
+2
[removed]
2
lazertittiesrradApr 28, 2026
+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
LieComfortable7764Apr 27, 2026
+3
I guess better late than never and as long as it doesn’t involve just taking over the oil companies
3
x3i4nApr 27, 2026
+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_7682Apr 27, 2026
+10
about damn time, every other country figured this out decades ago
10
dryersockpirateApr 28, 2026
+1
Funded with borrowed money not a petroleum windfall
1
FreeEnergy001Apr 27, 2026
+4
Does Canada have a surplus that they can put this money into a fund as opposed to the general fund?
4
nsoni8882Apr 27, 2026
+2
As an Australian this makes me sad, and mad.
2
Worldly_Anybody_9219Apr 28, 2026
+3
Cautiously optimistic. At least Carney is trying new things.
3
Ecstatic-CoachApr 27, 2026
+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
C3PD2Apr 27, 2026
+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-CoachApr 28, 2026
+3
the money for the fund comes from where? Canada does not run surpluses
3
SleepingToDreamingApr 27, 2026
+1
'MURICA has one, too; it is called Retire At 85 Fund.
1
TauCabalanderApr 27, 2026
+5
50 year mortgages! 🙄
5
RedrumicusApr 27, 2026
+3
This is really awesome to see!
3
Arbiter51xApr 27, 2026
Can't wait until the next conservative government dissolves it and whatever crown corporations it's tied to.... ^/s
0
Impossible_RabbitsApr 27, 2026
+1
I'm tired of the finance bros running the world.
1
[deleted]Apr 27, 2026
-1
[deleted]
-1
IPeeNightlyApr 27, 2026
-1
Cue PP, I predict he’s against it and his plan to axe something is better.
-1
SobekInDisguiseApr 27, 2026
Did you read the article? He's already giving his opinion about it at the end.
0
IPeeNightlyApr 27, 2026
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
EatAllTheShinyApr 27, 2026
-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
ThinYogurtcloset8005Apr 27, 2026
+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
sweetlemon69Apr 27, 2026
-2
Didn't the president of the United States also do that?
-2
YetAnotherWTFMomentApr 28, 2026
-1
Pretty sure he just created a job post for himself to land in after he's done politicking.
-1
HeimerdingerdongerApr 27, 2026
-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
MonoBlancoATXApr 27, 2026
+16
>educated, united and engaged populace
You're describing Canada, buddy.
16
MountNevermindApr 27, 2026
+2
It's not describing what we invest in as Canadians.
2
TheGapInTysonsTeethApr 27, 2026
Education is a provincial jurisdiction though.
They can dole out the money for it, but the Premiers decide how it's used
0
HeimerdingerdongerApr 27, 2026
-6
Yes I know. Keeping it that way is the best investment. Esp. United.
-6
Yung_l0cApr 27, 2026
+6
You should re-read your post, then maybe you meant USA? Not Canada in the first sentence?
6
ProofByVerbosityApr 27, 2026
Large? is 36MM people large?
0
AFewBerriesApr 27, 2026
+2
Canada is over 41 MM now bud
2
ProofByVerbosityApr 27, 2026
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_Apr 27, 2026
+1
Haha i totally understand. I also had 36MM stuck in my head as the population for the longest time
1
[deleted]Apr 27, 2026
-7
[deleted]
-7
formerlyanonymous_Apr 27, 2026
+1
Stitch in a white maple leaf outline on the sleeve!
1
slingbladdeApr 27, 2026
-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-junkieApr 27, 2026
+11
I mean all those examples are under provincial jurisdiction, not federal.
11
TheGapInTysonsTeethApr 27, 2026
+7
Annnd you just cracked the code lol.
Far too many people in Canada don't understand jurisdiction. Like, an absurd amount.
7
ProofByVerbosityApr 27, 2026
+2
but angry at liberals!
2
pinksparklyredditApr 27, 2026
+3
Also, like... Canada is the highest educated country on the planet. Using our education system as a whataboutism is kinda wild, lol.
114 Comments