Fund for a Strong Canada: Mark Carney already tried this once, and it didn’t work

• 58 per cent of Canadians are against borrowing $25 billion to finance the Canada Strong Fund
• The UK’s National Wealth Fund has recorded significant losses in three of its four years of existence

Montreal, August 13, 2026 – Before his recent call for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund in Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney helped construct a similar fund launched in the United Kingdom. This UK fund’s poor performance to date should inspire caution, argues an Economic Note published by the MEI this morning.

“Two years before selling this model to Canadians, Mark Carney recommended it to the British, who implemented it,” says Bryan Cheang, research fellow at the London School of Economics and senior fellow at the MEI. “Given the losses it has incurred since then, Canadians are right to think twice before supporting such a model.”

According to an MEI-Ipsos poll published in July 2026, 58 per cent of Canadians are opposed to borrowing $25 billion to finance Carney’s fund, and a mere 20 per cent of respondents are in favour of it.

An equivalent fund is already in place in the United Kingdom

In July 2024, the British government announced the creation of the National Wealth Fund. Presented as a sovereign wealth fund, it promised to raise three dollars of private investment for every dollar invested using taxpayers’ money.

To implement this, the British government relied on a report drawn up by a working group of the Green Finance Institute. Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, was part of the taskforce that produced the report.

What the British government presented as a sovereign wealth fund was, in fact, just a reorganization of the UK Infrastructure Bank, a state-owned lending institution, launched in 2021, that was simply rebranded as the National Wealth Fund Limited a few years later.

An industrial policy that dressed up as a sovereign wealth fund

Unlike a sovereign wealth fund such as Norway’s, the National Wealth Fund employs equity, debt and loan guarantees: all the traditional tools of a bank.

The UK’s House of Commons Finance Committee concluded in October of 2025 that the fund “is not a conventional sovereign wealth fund,” and that its very name risks “misleading the public.”

The fund proposed by the Carney government bears a strong resemblance to the National Wealth Fund, points out the MEI researcher. It is based on borrowing money, it is designed to finance private projects in specific sectors favoured by the state, and it involves no commitment to adhere to the globally accepted governance principles established for sovereign wealth funds.

“Though Mr. Carney likes to present his project as a sovereign wealth fund, the details currently available make it look much more like an industrial policy fund,” explains Dr. Cheang. “Canadians deserve to know about the underwhelming results of the British model before Ottawa commits $25 billion of borrowed funds to it.”

Poor results

During its tenures as the UK Infrastructure Bank and as the National Wealth Fund (following its subsequent rebranding), the British institution recorded losses in three of its four years in operation.

In its first year of operation as a National Wealth Fund, the 2023-2024 fiscal year, the institution reported a loss of £85.6 million (C$162 million). In 2024-2025, its losses reached £152.2 million (C$288 million). This represents rates of return of –10.7 per cent and –14.2 per cent, respectively.

Moreover, the head of internal audit has issued a “limited” opinion for 2024-2025, highlighting weaknesses in governance, risk management and internal controls.

The UK National Wealth Fund’s results are not unusual when one considers the history of industrial policy, especially the idea that the government should steer economic growth by subsidizing specific industries, companies or technologies.

The study’s author cites the examples of the Concorde and the National Enterprise Board in the United Kingdom, as well as those of the battery sector and Northvolt in Quebec and Canada.

“Industrial policy not only costs taxpayers a great deal, but it also harms small business owners by diverting significant resources to a handful of favoured sectors,” concludes Dr. Cheang. “From the Concorde to Northvolt, the logic behind the subsidies remains the same, and the results have been no more successful.

“Doing the same thing on a larger scale with a fund like the one proposed by Prime Minister Carney is likely simply to lead to even greater losses.”

You can read the MEI’s Economic Note here.

***

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

– 30 –

Interview requests
Florence Plourde
Manager, Communications
Cell: 418-670-5939