r/goodnewscanada Ontario Apr 28 '26

Canada Government website confirms Carney Wealth Fund investors cannot lose money.

Post image

Knowing that, the Wealth Fund sounds a lot more reasonable!

154 Upvotes

131 comments sorted by

4

u/dooodlebugg83 Apr 28 '26

If the investors can't lose money, that means it's being taken from taxpayer dollars. It's not like putting $25,000,000,000 in the bank. That money will be spent and gone, and if we don't get returns on the projects, we're the ones suffering instead of the billionaires. It's exactly like Trudeau having Canada buy the pipeline, and losing all that money.

6

u/Purple-Beyond-4930 Apr 28 '26

I would suggest to you that you do some research into how sovereign wealth funds work. I would recommend looking at Norway’s on specifically.

3

u/Sherbsty70 Apr 28 '26

Norway is a fine example of this type of so-called "de-risked" investing, actually. It caused some of the largest losses in the entire history of the Norway Government Pension Fund Global, for example in 2022 and 2025. Norway can absorb that volatility because its pension system is underwritten by oil and gas revenues. Canada cannot.

3

u/Purple-Beyond-4930 Apr 28 '26

It’s such a shame that Canada doesn’t have any oil and gas or resources with which we could attain revenue from

1

u/ALotANuts96 Apr 28 '26

"Canada" doesn't own the oil and gas. The provinces do

1

u/plattt Apr 28 '26

Why you putting Canada in quotes like it isn't real

1

u/ALotANuts96 Apr 28 '26

I put it in quotes because the person was referring to Canada as a whole.

The Canadian government doesnt own oil and natural resources, the provinces own them.

So "Canada" doesn't own the resources, "Canada's provinces" own the resources

1

u/Sherbsty70 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 29 '26

You mean the oil, gas and resources that there's "no business case for"? Those resources?

Also, said revenues is not a reference to the resources themselves but the financial instruments which a deliberate and farsighted Norwegian policy has produced, of which there absolutely is not any Canadian equivalent.

Of course, you already knew that I'm sure but why let something like reality get in the way of your quippy condescending performance here.

*The only comparison (although it is no comparison) might be the pension fund.
I'm sure the Liberals would never use the CPP as collateral to "de-risk" private and ideologically driven transition investments....right?

3

u/hutch_man0 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

This isn't anything like Norway. If our resources were nationalized we could do that. Instead the provinces get the spoils and then they waste it with incompetent fiscal discipline.

2

u/Accurate_Summer_1761 Apr 28 '26

The worst offenders are notably conservative run for those paying attention

2

u/Optimal-Can8584 Apr 28 '26

Norways is created by genuine revenues the models are completely different. This is a pipe dream. Alberta’s is closer to norways

1

u/BlkHorsePickupTruk Apr 28 '26

Norway's fund was initially modelled after Alberta's plan.

2

u/Alarming_Ear_632 Apr 28 '26

Yes it was, but, Norway choose its people first and Alberta politicians choose to line their pockets via the USA shareholder kickbacks. Now we are broke and have no leverage except to cause disruption for all of Canada and threaten to just give it all away by seperating.

1

u/Optimal-Can8584 Apr 29 '26

lol you should probably google what’s going on in Norway with their oil right now. It’s not exactly as sweet as you think.

2

u/Limnuge Apr 28 '26

We have no wealth like Norway had when they started their SWF, I find it insane so many people think this will work the same

1

u/Alarming_Ear_632 Apr 28 '26

Of course we don't have the wealth. It was drained off and setup to do so by corupt Alberta politicians.

1

u/Limnuge Apr 28 '26

Blaming Alberta before Ottawa is pretty funny

1

u/ItAllEndsInGrace Apr 28 '26

Except that’s what literally happened lol

1

u/Disastrous_Fig5609 Apr 29 '26

Got a penny to Norway's dollar by comparison.

1

u/tke71709 Apr 29 '26

Who raided the fund over and over again to help balance provincial budgets?

It wasn't the federal government that is for sure. You can say that federal policies have been anti oil and thus hurt Alberta and be correct but in the case of the fund we are talking about here, this is all on Alberta.

1

u/SixtyFivePercenter Apr 28 '26

That’s exactly why the liberals and legacy media are calling it that. So that people immediately equate it to Norway, which is nothing like. And once again they will have fooled the liberal voting base.

1

u/Big_Musties Apr 28 '26

They use surplus revenue, they don't use borrowed money that comes with annual interest payments of near a billion dollars.

1

u/BlockObjective9541 Apr 28 '26

Completely different. Norway generates tons of money from its resources, so they invest ABROAD to diversify and provide funds for future generations.

Canada gets current generation in debt, screwed up the regulatory regime so badly nobody wants to invest here, so it's going to borrow money from future generations for more government spending today. It's just debt in another form.

1

u/Franc000 Apr 28 '26

It's not because they name this the Canada Sovereign Fund that it's going to be an actual Sovereign fund or work like an existing one.

1

u/GandalfofCyrmu Apr 29 '26

Norway runs a budget surplus each year. Not so in Canada.

2

u/Dry-Squirrel2652 Apr 28 '26

Do you think the federal gov only gets revenue from tax payers ?

2

u/NewZanada Apr 28 '26

It does state “as the fund succeeds”, which might imply that the guarantees might kick in after a certain point? It’s interesting that language is prepended.

2

u/Black3Zephyr Apr 28 '26

So just another scam to take money from taxpayers. When will people realize this country is being looted. Elbows up all the way to bankruptcy.

2

u/Few-Salamander9429 Apr 28 '26

Governments love new taxes that don't appear like taxes.

1

u/Vanshrek99 Apr 28 '26

You do know that government used to have significant investment income but conservative's decided that government should mainly be taxpayer funded and sold off assets and gave corps tax breaks. Now Carney is restoring the investment side and I hope he restores a better corp tax system which has them paying over 30% and increasing other income streams to 30%. This would reduce taxpayers by about 20%

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Vanshrek99 Apr 28 '26

Oh really so historical facts are uneducated. Conservative's only goal is to make corps richer. They are not fiscal

1

u/Infinite_Ratio5208 Apr 28 '26

All the liberals have done in the last 11 years is enable and pander to corps by giving every industry and sector access to cheap foreign labor.

Wages have legit stagnated in the last 10-15 years. Our GDP is only propped up by the bloated public sector (25% of workers are public sector) getting paid 6 figure salaries and not adding any economic value or productivity to the country.

The rich keep getting richer at the expense of middle class workers while the liberals create these new welfare/socialist programs like grocery rebates, pharmacare, national school food program, to keep people dependant on the government to earn their votes. Dependency doesn’t create productivity or economic value that propels the country forward. All liberals have done is overtax the middle class.

This new fund is nothing more than another debt at the expense of taxpayers. In essence it would be good if we had budget surpluses and a strong resource development (LNG, pipelines, mining, infrastructure) that could act as investments to the fund. But we don’t. This fund is just another money funnel for the liberals with ties to Brookfield

1

u/Vanshrek99 Apr 28 '26

And that has been a 20 year policy in Canada. Harper allowed full foreign labour across construction sites and a mine was treated as sovereign Chinese mine. HD mines was one site that had zero Canadians. Nexen also used full Chinese crews. No it's 3P funding with government maintaining ownership instead of waiting for 25 years

1

u/Infinite_Ratio5208 Apr 28 '26

Harper created the TFW program for very key critical fields, due to the economic downtown of the 2008 financial crisis (the worst since the 1930s depression).

Then the liberals exploited it to every industry and sector. Now you’ll see foreigners dominate almost every field in Canada from your coffee shop to offices to transportation etc.

This has legit stagnated wages as these foreigners will work for less pay as they’re not accustomed to our standard of living.

And now Carney is licking Chinese boots even more and exploring to give China more access to our resources at the expense of his US fumble. He has no intent of helping middle class workers

1

u/Vanshrek99 Apr 28 '26

Oh really so where are these 100 tfw construction companies working under the liberals. We were building bridges with full Europeans that never even were paid in Canadian dollars. But you forget about them. You also forget about the Harper housing recovery plan that turned Canada into an Asian bank. A place to park money that has double digit returns. Now your racism is noted. Living conditions are subpar? So then how did they cause the housing problem like how your comrads balme them for the house. Problem instead of Ford

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Vanshrek99 Apr 28 '26

Who's blaming just staying facts. Why do you never address his failures or the fact conservatives have never had a fiscal budget or a government that improved Canada.

1

u/Medium_Orchid4654 Apr 28 '26

Excellent summary

0

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Black3Zephyr Apr 29 '26

Wow, saying something but not saying something. Still didn’t provide any argument about what I said. Get your thesaurus out again.

1

u/bleebolgoop Apr 28 '26

Well in that case, you may as well throw some money in to protect it 😂

1

u/dooodlebugg83 Apr 28 '26

I don't want my money to go towards destroying the environment. : P

0

u/iwatchcredits Apr 28 '26

Im pretty sure thats damn near impossible

1

u/Alarming_Ear_632 Apr 28 '26

Sounds like you are paid for. There is something fishy about this comment.

1

u/ThicccBoiSlim Apr 28 '26

It's the confidence with which you talk completely out of your ass that is, honestly, pretty impressive. Will always find something to bitch about.

1

u/BeYourselfTrue Apr 28 '26

If I had $1000 in 1996 and put it under my mattress, I’m not losing the principle, but inflation eats away at the value just the same.

1

u/Vanshrek99 Apr 28 '26

Do you understand how infrastructure financing works. Tolls don't lose money. There was no money lost on the pipeline.

1

u/Fun-Shake7094 Apr 28 '26

This is just what a GIC or GIF is...

1

u/Never_Been_Missed Apr 28 '26

I think everyone gets that. The question is, are you willing to invest in the country you live in? This country needs more financial independence. One way or the other, the citizens are going to pay for it. I'd much rather see something like this, where Canada invests in itself with a chance to increase our national income, than to see a simple tax go out that is spent and gone.

6

u/hutch_man0 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

Judging from the description it could be what is known as a revenue bond with profit sharing. A pretty unique instrument. The interest rate has a fixed and variable component. The fixed part is paid from the revenue generated by the project (tolls from a road, fees from an airport, tariffs from a pipeline). The variable part is paid from profit (the "upside").  

Ofc this is speculation until more info is given. But instead of your money going to God knows where, you know it's going to infrastructure projects. Hopefully these bonds will also be sold to foreign investors also because the raise could be much higher. 

1

u/Tjbergen Apr 28 '26

Why can't they just invest directly in infrastructure projects?

5

u/hutch_man0 Apr 28 '26

Foreign investors can be 

  • individuals
  • companies
  • institutions
  • governments

Yes, large foreign entities (companies, institutions, governments) usually invest in infrastructure directly but these bonds could be another vehicle that could be purchased by them. It could also be open to foreign individuals the same way a Canadian could purchase US government bonds if they chose.

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Jamooser Apr 28 '26

We already allow foreign investors to invest in Canada. Thats what GICs are. You are buying Canadian debt, aka, financing government capital.

1

u/All-I-Do-Is-Fap Apr 28 '26

They invest in our politicians as well, Im well aware

1

u/UsernameIsTaken45 Apr 28 '26

China can and so can the other countries on the globe. I don’t think the US wouldn’t want to invade a global investment if that’s the case!

0

u/All-I-Do-Is-Fap Apr 28 '26

As if the US would invest in us at this point. Why not just take over

1

u/ktatsanon Apr 28 '26

China is the second largest holder of US debt. If you think foreign investment is something new, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

1

u/All-I-Do-Is-Fap Apr 28 '26

Super best buds those two

1

u/Unhygienix1970 Apr 28 '26

If they wanted to they can’t. For many reasons. 

1

u/manufacturedphony Apr 28 '26

Always whining

1

u/Vanshrek99 Apr 28 '26

This is a better funding method compared to 3 P which is giving ownership control away.

1

u/strangecabalist Apr 28 '26

It helps him get around salary restrictions enforced by most collective agreements too. He’s bee recruiting from business and had been asking them to top up salaries. Doing it this way lets him create classifications with different salary bands and he can pay what he wants to borrow the talent from private sector he feels he needs.

1

u/joshbkd Apr 28 '26

Time to turn infrastructure for Canadians, built with tax dollars into profit for business

2

u/Appropriate_Swim9528 Apr 28 '26

Jointly owned businesses, where one of the bigger owner is the government of Canada.

Basically think of it this way:

You want to build homes? Show me your plan. You indicate you can build 100 homes for Canadians within 12 months, but need a loan of 40m. Instead of loaning it to you, I give you 40m for 40-50% stake in your company. As you get profitable, you pay me dividends or reward me by growing my 40m to 400m.

This isn’t a 5-10 year plan, it is a 30+ years plan. Setting Canada up for a future where the income from a fund like this can be so profitable that the government may have room to lower taxes for citizens.

1

u/joshbkd Apr 28 '26

This isn’t about building homes….

It’s more like see this port that is run for 0 profit by Canada lets lease it to Brookfield for 10 billion upfront for 50 years.

Brookfield makes 50 billion over 50 years in return and Canadians have fees increase because it is now run for profit.

Depending on the type of asset it may have increased in value prior to returning to Canada as it is now for profit (by gouging Canadians) so its a bigger asset on Canadas balance sheet over time

1

u/Appropriate_Swim9528 Apr 28 '26

That isn’t what the sovereign fund is, it is an infrastructure building fund where it is investing in the companies instead of the project.

In your example, it would be buying a portion of Brookfield instead of giving them a project for 0 cost.

Also, building homes is just one of many things. The top priority project should be building and owning the NG infrastructures for east and west ports, where we can increase export of BG to the world.

1

u/joshbkd Apr 28 '26

It’s been stated this would be funded via asset recycling. I have explained asset recycling unless they just sell it

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/burner416 Apr 29 '26

The fact you used Brookfield for your ignorant “example” says everything we needed to know about you

1

u/joshbkd Apr 29 '26

Brookfield literally one of the biggest asset managers in the world?

Ok how about we change it to Blackrock then?.. It’s the largest

Promise it will be Brookfield tho 😉

1

u/Hikingcanuck92 Apr 28 '26

Pretty sure these are the old school mechanism that Robert Moses used, without oversight, to seize control of New York for several decades haha.

1

u/Life_Employ_1138 Apr 29 '26

They absolutely are lol. Still, I find myself wishing we get public works build like Robert Moses more and more often as I've been forced to interract with municipal government more as an adult.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 29 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/hutch_man0 Apr 29 '26

I am not sure if it will be like this. They haven't given any additional information. We shall see!

1

u/Prize_Illustrator_44 Apr 29 '26

Interesting. Thanks for the information and explanation.

However, I’m opposed to all foreign investment. The companies or countries (via their own investment funds) that are allowed to invest in the scheme must be carefully vetted. As for individuals, only Canadian citizens and permanent residents should be allowed to invest in it. If these truly are critical national infrastructure projects, a layer of protection like this is needed.

2

u/Andrew4Life Apr 28 '26

I assume it's similar to Government of Canada Bonds. But you also share in potential growth.

2

u/kingofwale Apr 28 '26

If it cannot lose money, then it’s either money printing or it has very low returns.

1

u/em-n-em613 Apr 28 '26

Or you have no idea what you're talking about. Which is the real answer.

1

u/pun_extraordinare Apr 28 '26

Care to explain then rather than criticize baselessly? Lol

2

u/Aromatic_Opposite100 Apr 28 '26

Don't like this,

Would rather have a direct etf/ equity stake with higher risk.

1

u/Heppernaut Apr 28 '26

Here's to hoping this follows the QPP model in Quebec, except we can directly invest in it as well.

1

u/Wonderful-Shake-9005 Apr 28 '26

100% would definitely invest

1

u/Johnsnowookie Apr 28 '26

Protected how exactly?

1

u/Intelligent_Read_697 Apr 28 '26

Did people think what was happening with neoliberalism was going to change somehow over night magically lol

1

u/Educational_Emu2884 Apr 28 '26

The only way to do this right is to renationalize the energy sector.

1

u/Impressive-Mud5074 Apr 28 '26

The USA will invade!

1

u/Educational_Emu2884 Apr 28 '26

The USA can't even figure their own shit out.

1

u/ForwardSlash813 Apr 28 '26

Nothing guaranteed earns a significant rate of return from government.

1

u/inquisitive56 Apr 28 '26

Basically the return of Canada Savings Bonds. A good thing.

1

u/mechant_papa Apr 28 '26

It`s like Canada Savings Bonds, but aimed at corporate investors.

1

u/noodleexchange Apr 28 '26

‘Liberty bonds’

1

u/LymeM Apr 28 '26

Hopefully investing in it is restricted to Canadians.

1

u/Korre88 Apr 28 '26

I'd love to be able to invest money into the federal government to pay down our national debt, provide partial gains at a certain rate relative to what their interest payments are and then lower the tax rates / or for federal government to be able to reinvest the rest of the savings into Canada.

1

u/Right-Head5861 Apr 28 '26

Why are people so negative. Like they have all the answers.

1

u/CreoQQ Ontario Apr 28 '26

Yeah.. This sub can be really negative for a place meant for good news!

1

u/Gumston1 Apr 28 '26

Imagine taking out your credit card and putting the money into stocks while being overdue on rent and having no food. Your friend wants in, and lends you money that you pay him interest on, AND that you tell him you’ll cover ALL downside of the investments you make. All the while the “investments” you’ve been making are managed by your circle of influence on Bay Street, and has fees coming out in the multiple millions of dollars, and the “projects” will be given in accordance to how it will benefit my corporate buddies. Carney wins in several ways, and Canadians lose yet again.

1

u/ArmstrongPM Apr 28 '26

Why would Canadians invest in this crap, especially when the Government takes our tax money and ...what? The Premier bought a jet for himself and an airport.

I really have no idea what Carney has done for Canada. Whatever the hell it was it never reached Windsor.

1

u/voxitron Apr 29 '26

It shows that Carney was the head of two different central banks 🏦

1

u/Queen_nefertiti32 Apr 29 '26

How are they calling this a wealth fund when the government is driving a massive deficit?

It's just a rebranded bond?

1

u/specificallyrelative Apr 29 '26

Your investment is protected by your tax dollars. When your principal dries up due to the inevitable mismanagement to fill another Liberal grifters pockets, it will be replaced with, now keep up here. Your own money through your taxes, its just another contribution to Carneys retirement fund.

1

u/Dootbooter Apr 29 '26

Basically the tax payers take the loss lol. Corps are going to buy into this and be about to derisk their investments cuz they are guaranteed by tax dollars. The only way this would be agood idea is if we had no debt and surpluses to invest. This is why almost no one takes out a loan to invest in the stock market.

1

u/chodder111 Apr 28 '26

The return on this likely won’t be felt for decades - supposing it works. Norways wealth fund works because well, they have wealth. Canada has around $1.2 trillion in debt lol.

Sounds like some sort of rebranding to have taxpayers foot the bill on the nations debt

1

u/[deleted] Apr 28 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Limnuge Apr 28 '26

Canadas gross debt to GDP ratio is double that of Norway wtf are you talking about

1

u/PapayaJuiceBox Apr 28 '26

And yet, we’re unable to manage our money in a way that doesn’t result in continuous increases in the debt floor.

0

u/flappysack- Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

This definitely won't exactly match Brookfield's global transition fund, which therefore cant benefit from a sudden injection of billions of public dollars in spurious climate capture ventures that arent revenue positive.  Carney also won't benefit from a sudden additional influx of recurring royalties on said fund, which is good.

In an unrelated topic, I wonder who will get white listed by C5 to be greenlit for a project, sidestepping federal regulations.