Loading...
Canada deserves to know.
Loading...
On April 27, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the Canada Strong Fund — "Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund." Initial federal contribution: $25 billion over three years. The funding mechanism, per Policy Options Canada: government deficit spending. Canada is projected to run a deficit of $66.9 to $78.3 billion this year, with federal debt-service costs ($55.6 billion) already exceeding what Ottawa transfers to the provinces for healthcare. Real sovereign wealth funds — Norway's, Singapore's, the Gulf states' — are built on surplus revenues. Canada is borrowing the seed money. Here is the structural problem with that.
On April 27, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the Canada Strong Fund — characterized in the official news release as "Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund." The fund's initial federal contribution is $25 billion, seeded over three years, with stated investment priorities in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture, and infrastructure. A retail investment product is planned to allow individual Canadians to participate. Per the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP / Policy Options Canada), the $25 billion initial capitalization is "initially financed through government-deficit spending, meaning there are no savings to be found." The federal government is, in IRPP's direct phrase, "borrowing money to invest elsewhere — the opposite of what a SWF traditionally does." Sovereign wealth funds historically — Norway's Government Pension Fund Global (oil-revenue surplus), Singapore's GIC (trade-and-fiscal surplus), the UAE's ADIA (oil surplus), China's CIC (current-account surplus) — are vehicles for deploying ACCUMULATED national wealth. Canada does not have an accumulated surplus to deploy. The federal government is projected to run a deficit of approximately $66.9 to $78.3 billion in 2025-26 (depending on the source), with the Parliamentary Budget Officer projecting average deficits of $64.3 billion per year over the five-year window — more than double the prior Fall Economic Statement estimate. Federal debt-service costs are projected at $55.6 billion this year, rising to $76.1 billion by 2030, and already exceed the $54 billion the federal government transfers to the provinces for healthcare. Net federal debt is projected to rise from $1.473 trillion to $1.789 trillion by 2029-30. This article documents the announcement, the funding mechanism, the contrast with real sovereign wealth funds, the deficit and debt context, the government's defense, and the honest qualifiers.
On April 27, 2026, the Office of the Prime Minister issued a news release with the title "Prime Minister Carney announces the Canada Strong Fund — Canada's first sovereign wealth fund."
The announced terms: - **Initial federal contribution: $25 billion**, seeded over three years. - **Investment priorities:** "key, strategic Canadian projects and companies" in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture, and infrastructure. - **Future capital sources:** "unlocking the full value of federal assets" (i.e., potential asset sales) and a retail-investment product allowing individual Canadians to invest in the fund. - **Governance:** a dedicated Canada Strong Fund transition office, with further details in the 2026 Spring Economic Update.
The announcement was made the same week that the Carney government tabled the Spring Economic Update showing a federal deficit projection of approximately $66.9 billion for 2025-26 — among the largest non-pandemic deficits in Canadian history.
The news release's framing — "Canada's first sovereign wealth fund" — is the language this article examines. The branding is consequential. Sovereign wealth funds are a specific class of financial institution with a specific economic logic. The Canada Strong Fund, on inspection, does not fit that logic.
A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment vehicle that deploys ACCUMULATED national wealth — typically surplus revenue from natural resources, trade, or fiscal operations — into long-term investments.
The defining feature is the source of capital: surplus, not borrowed money.
The major recognized examples all conform to this model:
- **Norway's Government Pension Fund Global** (~US$1.7 trillion). Capitalized entirely from oil and gas surpluses since 1996. The fund's mandate is explicitly intergenerational: invest current oil-revenue surpluses for the benefit of future Norwegians once the oil is gone. - **Singapore's GIC and Temasek** (combined ~US$1.0 trillion). Funded by Singapore's persistent fiscal and trade surpluses over decades. - **Abu Dhabi Investment Authority** (~US$800 billion). Oil surplus. - **Kuwait Investment Authority** (~US$800 billion). Oil surplus, established 1953. - **China Investment Corporation** (~US$1.3 trillion). Funded from China's vast current-account surpluses — specifically, by issuing bonds against the country's foreign-exchange reserves accumulated through decades of trade surpluses. - **Saudi Public Investment Fund** (~US$925 billion). Oil surplus, plus state-asset transfers.
In every case the funding source is the same: a country with MORE money than it needs to operate its government creates a vehicle to invest the surplus. As Policy Options Canada puts it: "Sovereign wealth funds are instruments of surplus economies."
The question for the Canada Strong Fund is whether Canada is a surplus economy.
Canada runs a federal budget deficit. It has run one for most of the past 50 years (with brief surplus periods in the late 1990s through the mid-2000s).
The most recent figures, all from federal government sources or the Parliamentary Budget Officer:
- **2024-25 deficit:** $48.3 billion. - **2025-26 deficit (projected):** $66.9 billion (Spring Economic Update 2026) to $78.3 billion (alternative projections cited by the Montreal Economic Institute and others). - **Five-year average projected deficit (PBO):** $64.3 billion per year over 2025-26 to 2029-30. This is more than DOUBLE the deficit projected in the previous Fall Economic Statement. - **Net federal debt:** $1.473 trillion now, projected to rise to $1.789 trillion by 2029-30. - **Federal debt-service costs:** $55.6 billion in 2026, projected to rise to $76.1 billion by 2030.
On the current-account side (the broader external balance), Canada also runs a persistent deficit, meaning the country requires "a constant inflow of foreign capital" (Policy Options).
The Carney government's own deficits are projected to exceed any non-pandemic federal deficit in Canadian history. There is no accumulated surplus to draw on. There is no equivalent of Norway's oil-revenue savings, Singapore's trade surpluses, or China's foreign-exchange reserves.
This is the context in which the Canada Strong Fund is being capitalized.
Policy Options Canada — the public-policy journal of the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), one of Canada's most established non-partisan policy think tanks — published its analysis in May 2026: "Why the Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund."
IRPP's direct findings:
- "**The Canada Strong Fund will be initially financed through government-deficit spending, meaning there are no savings to be found.**" - "**The federal government is borrowing money to invest elsewhere — the opposite of what a SWF traditionally does.**" - "**Sovereign wealth funds are instruments of surplus economies.**" - "**Canada has no equivalent reserve pool, and no equivalent transaction.**" - "**Borrowing to invest would raise the national debt without reducing present consumption, diminishing overall savings.**"
The last point is the structural argument. A SWF is supposed to INCREASE national savings — to convert current surplus consumption into future productive investment. Borrowing $25 billion to capitalize a fund does not increase national savings; it raises federal debt by $25 billion (plus the interest costs over time). The net effect on national wealth depends entirely on whether the fund's investment returns exceed the federal government's borrowing costs and any deadweight loss from increased deficit pressure on the rest of the economy.
That's a real possibility — productive borrowing happens. But it is the opposite financial transaction from what every recognized SWF performs.
If a household is running a sustained deficit on its monthly budget — spending more than it earns, financing the gap with borrowing — what happens when it adds another credit card?
The new credit card is real money. It can be used to buy useful things. If the household uses it to invest in something that yields more than the credit-card interest rate, the household ends up better off.
But the new credit card does not change the underlying problem: the household is still spending more than it earns. The new line of credit is not "savings." It is additional borrowing capacity drawn against future income.
The Canada Strong Fund's $25 billion is structurally analogous. The federal government is, on the most recent fiscal projections, spending $66-78 billion more per year than it raises in revenue. Annual debt-service costs are $55.6 billion — already larger than annual federal health transfers to the provinces. Net debt is heading from $1.47 trillion to $1.79 trillion over five years.
Adding a new $25 billion line of investment capital, funded by additional borrowing, does not increase Canada's national wealth. It adds $25 billion to the national debt and creates an investment vehicle that may, over time, generate returns that justify the borrowing. The returns are speculative; the additional debt is certain.
The "credit card while maxed out" framing is, structurally, what is happening. The framing is editorial. The structure is the economic reality identified by Policy Options Canada and consistent with the standard public-finance treatment of borrowing-to-invest in a deficit economy.
Fairness requires the strongest version of the case for the Canada Strong Fund.
**Productive borrowing is real.** Private corporations routinely borrow to invest when expected returns exceed borrowing costs. The same logic can apply to government, particularly if the alternative is no investment in strategically important sectors (critical minerals, energy infrastructure, agricultural modernization). If the fund earns 7 percent and the government borrows at 4 percent, the spread is real value creation.
**Not every SWF was capitalized from surplus.** Australia's Future Fund (established 2006) was capitalized in part through government contributions backed by surplus AND by the proceeds of asset sales (notably Telstra). The boundary between "SWF" and other state-investment vehicles is not as bright as Norway-purist economists sometimes suggest.
**The retail-investment product could leverage private capital.** If Canadian retail investors put their own savings into the fund alongside the federal $25 billion, the effective leverage of the federal seed could be substantial. Norway's fund does not have retail participation; the Canada Strong Fund could mobilize private capital in ways traditional SWFs do not.
**Strategic priorities are real.** Critical minerals supply chains, energy infrastructure for the EV transition, agricultural productivity — these are areas where Canada faces genuine competitive and strategic gaps. The case for some form of patient long-term capital is not theoretical.
**$25 billion is small in context.** The federal government spends approximately $500 billion per year. A $25 billion fund seeded over three years is roughly 1.5 percent of annual federal spending. It is not a fiscal-policy game-changer.
Each point is legitimate. None of them changes the underlying fact that the seed capital is borrowed, not saved — and that the choice to brand the vehicle as a "sovereign wealth fund" applies language designed for surplus economies to a deficit-running country.
On the documented record:
- The Canada Strong Fund is being capitalized through government deficit spending. (Policy Options Canada / IRPP.) - Canada is running federal deficits of $66.9 to $78.3 billion per year and is projected to do so for five years. - Federal debt-service costs are $55.6 billion this year — already exceeding federal health transfers to the provinces. - Sovereign wealth funds, as a category, are surplus-economy instruments. Canada is not a surplus economy. - Calling the Canada Strong Fund "Canada's first sovereign wealth fund" is consistent with the marketing but inconsistent with the economic category the term describes.
The government's defenses are real: productive borrowing can work, retail participation could mobilize private capital, and strategic priorities are genuine. None of them changes the source of the seed money.
The "credit card while maxed out" framing is a structural critique, not a partisan attack. A household running sustained deficits that adds a new credit line has not increased its wealth; it has increased its leverage. Canada's federal government, on the current fiscal projections, is in that household's position.
The Strong Fund may end up producing investment returns that vindicate the borrowing. That is the empirical question over the next decade. The structural question — whether borrowing to fund a "sovereign wealth fund" is a category error from the start — has only one defensible answer on the public-finance literature: yes, and the fund should be assessed on what it actually is (a deficit-financed strategic-investment vehicle) rather than what it is being marketed as.
During Prime Minister Mark Carney's January 2026 visit to Beijing, the RCMP signed a law-enforcement cooperation memorandum with China's Ministry of Public Security — the national police agency whose Fuzhou bureau ran the clandestine "overseas police stations" that the RCMP itself investigated in Toronto and Montreal. The RCMP will not release the agreement's contents without Beijing's permission. This is happening after Canada's own Foreign Interference Commission found the People's Republic of China to be "by far the most significant" foreign-interference threat to Canadian democracy.
Mark Carney built his 2025 campaign on a single economic promise: to make Canada "the strongest economy in the G7" through the Trump tariff crisis. As of the latest Statistics Canada figures, Canada has posted two consecutive quarters of annualized GDP decline — a technical recession, the first since COVID-19. Mexico, whose economy is even more exposed to U.S. tariffs than Canada's, grew (barely) in 2025 and avoided recession. Here is the documented record, with the honest caveats.
Mark Carney was Vice Chair and then board Chair of Brookfield Asset Management from 2020 until January 2025 — the months before he became Liberal leader and Prime Minister. He still held 409,300 Brookfield stock options worth approximately US$6.8 million at the end of 2024. He has placed his assets in a blind trust and operates under a conflict-of-interest screen administered by his own chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. In April 2026, the House of Commons Ethics Committee said that is not enough — and recommended that prime ministers be required to fully divest. This is the documented financial record.
About this article
Parliament Audit is non-partisan and does not endorse or oppose any legislation. This article is based on publicly available legislative documents and parliamentary records; all sources are linked above.
AI-assisted, human-edited. AI tools help us ingest parliamentary records and draft analysis; an editor reviews every article and verifies key facts against primary sources before publication. Quotation marks are reserved for verbatim text from a primary source. See our methodology and corrections log.
Your MP votes on this. Their constituency inbox is the most-read channel for feedback on bills in committee.
You're welcome to run this article in full on your newsroom, blog, newsletter, or paper. Keep the byline and the link back to parliamentaudit.ca. See the full terms.
<!-- Parliament Audit — republished under CC BY-ND 4.0 -->
<article>
<h1>Carney's $25 Billion "Sovereign Wealth Fund" Is Borrowed Money. Real Sovereign Wealth Funds Are Funded by Surpluses. Canada Doesn't Have One.</h1>
<p><em>By Parliament Audit · May 30, 2026 · 7 min read</em></p>
<p><strong>On April 27, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the Canada Strong Fund — characterized in the official news release as "Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund." The fund's initial federal contribution is $25 billion, seeded over three years, with stated investment priorities in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture, and infrastructure. A retail investment product is planned to allow individual Canadians to participate. Per the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP / Policy Options Canada), the $25 billion initial capitalization is "initially financed through government-deficit spending, meaning there are no savings to be found." The federal government is, in IRPP's direct phrase, "borrowing money to invest elsewhere — the opposite of what a SWF traditionally does." Sovereign wealth funds historically — Norway's Government Pension Fund Global (oil-revenue surplus), Singapore's GIC (trade-and-fiscal surplus), the UAE's ADIA (oil surplus), China's CIC (current-account surplus) — are vehicles for deploying ACCUMULATED national wealth. Canada does not have an accumulated surplus to deploy. The federal government is projected to run a deficit of approximately $66.9 to $78.3 billion in 2025-26 (depending on the source), with the Parliamentary Budget Officer projecting average deficits of $64.3 billion per year over the five-year window — more than double the prior Fall Economic Statement estimate. Federal debt-service costs are projected at $55.6 billion this year, rising to $76.1 billion by 2030, and already exceed the $54 billion the federal government transfers to the provinces for healthcare. Net federal debt is projected to rise from $1.473 trillion to $1.789 trillion by 2029-30. This article documents the announcement, the funding mechanism, the contrast with real sovereign wealth funds, the deficit and debt context, the government's defense, and the honest qualifiers.</strong></p>
<h2>What was announced</h2>
<p>On April 27, 2026, the Office of the Prime Minister issued a news release with the title "Prime Minister Carney announces the Canada Strong Fund — Canada's first sovereign wealth fund."</p>
<p>The announced terms:
- **Initial federal contribution: $25 billion**, seeded over three years.
- **Investment priorities:** "key, strategic Canadian projects and companies" in clean and conventional energy, critical minerals, agriculture, and infrastructure.
- **Future capital sources:** "unlocking the full value of federal assets" (i.e., potential asset sales) and a retail-investment product allowing individual Canadians to invest in the fund.
- **Governance:** a dedicated Canada Strong Fund transition office, with further details in the 2026 Spring Economic Update.</p>
<p>The announcement was made the same week that the Carney government tabled the Spring Economic Update showing a federal deficit projection of approximately $66.9 billion for 2025-26 — among the largest non-pandemic deficits in Canadian history.</p>
<p>The news release's framing — "Canada's first sovereign wealth fund" — is the language this article examines. The branding is consequential. Sovereign wealth funds are a specific class of financial institution with a specific economic logic. The Canada Strong Fund, on inspection, does not fit that logic.</p>
<h2>What a sovereign wealth fund actually is</h2>
<p>A sovereign wealth fund (SWF) is a state-owned investment vehicle that deploys ACCUMULATED national wealth — typically surplus revenue from natural resources, trade, or fiscal operations — into long-term investments.</p>
<p>The defining feature is the source of capital: surplus, not borrowed money.</p>
<p>The major recognized examples all conform to this model:</p>
<p>- **Norway's Government Pension Fund Global** (~US$1.7 trillion). Capitalized entirely from oil and gas surpluses since 1996. The fund's mandate is explicitly intergenerational: invest current oil-revenue surpluses for the benefit of future Norwegians once the oil is gone.
- **Singapore's GIC and Temasek** (combined ~US$1.0 trillion). Funded by Singapore's persistent fiscal and trade surpluses over decades.
- **Abu Dhabi Investment Authority** (~US$800 billion). Oil surplus.
- **Kuwait Investment Authority** (~US$800 billion). Oil surplus, established 1953.
- **China Investment Corporation** (~US$1.3 trillion). Funded from China's vast current-account surpluses — specifically, by issuing bonds against the country's foreign-exchange reserves accumulated through decades of trade surpluses.
- **Saudi Public Investment Fund** (~US$925 billion). Oil surplus, plus state-asset transfers.</p>
<p>In every case the funding source is the same: a country with MORE money than it needs to operate its government creates a vehicle to invest the surplus. As Policy Options Canada puts it: "Sovereign wealth funds are instruments of surplus economies."</p>
<p>The question for the Canada Strong Fund is whether Canada is a surplus economy.</p>
<h2>Canada is not a surplus economy</h2>
<p>Canada runs a federal budget deficit. It has run one for most of the past 50 years (with brief surplus periods in the late 1990s through the mid-2000s).</p>
<p>The most recent figures, all from federal government sources or the Parliamentary Budget Officer:</p>
<p>- **2024-25 deficit:** $48.3 billion.
- **2025-26 deficit (projected):** $66.9 billion (Spring Economic Update 2026) to $78.3 billion (alternative projections cited by the Montreal Economic Institute and others).
- **Five-year average projected deficit (PBO):** $64.3 billion per year over 2025-26 to 2029-30. This is more than DOUBLE the deficit projected in the previous Fall Economic Statement.
- **Net federal debt:** $1.473 trillion now, projected to rise to $1.789 trillion by 2029-30.
- **Federal debt-service costs:** $55.6 billion in 2026, projected to rise to $76.1 billion by 2030.</p>
<p>On the current-account side (the broader external balance), Canada also runs a persistent deficit, meaning the country requires "a constant inflow of foreign capital" (Policy Options).</p>
<p>The Carney government's own deficits are projected to exceed any non-pandemic federal deficit in Canadian history. There is no accumulated surplus to draw on. There is no equivalent of Norway's oil-revenue savings, Singapore's trade surpluses, or China's foreign-exchange reserves.</p>
<p>This is the context in which the Canada Strong Fund is being capitalized.</p>
<h2>Where the $25 billion is actually coming from</h2>
<p>Policy Options Canada — the public-policy journal of the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), one of Canada's most established non-partisan policy think tanks — published its analysis in May 2026: "Why the Canada Strong Fund is not a sovereign wealth fund."</p>
<p>IRPP's direct findings:</p>
<p>- "**The Canada Strong Fund will be initially financed through government-deficit spending, meaning there are no savings to be found.**"
- "**The federal government is borrowing money to invest elsewhere — the opposite of what a SWF traditionally does.**"
- "**Sovereign wealth funds are instruments of surplus economies.**"
- "**Canada has no equivalent reserve pool, and no equivalent transaction.**"
- "**Borrowing to invest would raise the national debt without reducing present consumption, diminishing overall savings.**"</p>
<p>The last point is the structural argument. A SWF is supposed to INCREASE national savings — to convert current surplus consumption into future productive investment. Borrowing $25 billion to capitalize a fund does not increase national savings; it raises federal debt by $25 billion (plus the interest costs over time). The net effect on national wealth depends entirely on whether the fund's investment returns exceed the federal government's borrowing costs and any deadweight loss from increased deficit pressure on the rest of the economy.</p>
<p>That's a real possibility — productive borrowing happens. But it is the opposite financial transaction from what every recognized SWF performs.</p>
<h2>The "maxed out cards" question</h2>
<p>If a household is running a sustained deficit on its monthly budget — spending more than it earns, financing the gap with borrowing — what happens when it adds another credit card?</p>
<p>The new credit card is real money. It can be used to buy useful things. If the household uses it to invest in something that yields more than the credit-card interest rate, the household ends up better off.</p>
<p>But the new credit card does not change the underlying problem: the household is still spending more than it earns. The new line of credit is not "savings." It is additional borrowing capacity drawn against future income.</p>
<p>The Canada Strong Fund's $25 billion is structurally analogous. The federal government is, on the most recent fiscal projections, spending $66-78 billion more per year than it raises in revenue. Annual debt-service costs are $55.6 billion — already larger than annual federal health transfers to the provinces. Net debt is heading from $1.47 trillion to $1.79 trillion over five years.</p>
<p>Adding a new $25 billion line of investment capital, funded by additional borrowing, does not increase Canada's national wealth. It adds $25 billion to the national debt and creates an investment vehicle that may, over time, generate returns that justify the borrowing. The returns are speculative; the additional debt is certain.</p>
<p>The "credit card while maxed out" framing is, structurally, what is happening. The framing is editorial. The structure is the economic reality identified by Policy Options Canada and consistent with the standard public-finance treatment of borrowing-to-invest in a deficit economy.</p>
<h2>The government's defense — in full</h2>
<p>Fairness requires the strongest version of the case for the Canada Strong Fund.</p>
<p>**Productive borrowing is real.** Private corporations routinely borrow to invest when expected returns exceed borrowing costs. The same logic can apply to government, particularly if the alternative is no investment in strategically important sectors (critical minerals, energy infrastructure, agricultural modernization). If the fund earns 7 percent and the government borrows at 4 percent, the spread is real value creation.</p>
<p>**Not every SWF was capitalized from surplus.** Australia's Future Fund (established 2006) was capitalized in part through government contributions backed by surplus AND by the proceeds of asset sales (notably Telstra). The boundary between "SWF" and other state-investment vehicles is not as bright as Norway-purist economists sometimes suggest.</p>
<p>**The retail-investment product could leverage private capital.** If Canadian retail investors put their own savings into the fund alongside the federal $25 billion, the effective leverage of the federal seed could be substantial. Norway's fund does not have retail participation; the Canada Strong Fund could mobilize private capital in ways traditional SWFs do not.</p>
<p>**Strategic priorities are real.** Critical minerals supply chains, energy infrastructure for the EV transition, agricultural productivity — these are areas where Canada faces genuine competitive and strategic gaps. The case for some form of patient long-term capital is not theoretical.</p>
<p>**$25 billion is small in context.** The federal government spends approximately $500 billion per year. A $25 billion fund seeded over three years is roughly 1.5 percent of annual federal spending. It is not a fiscal-policy game-changer.</p>
<p>Each point is legitimate. None of them changes the underlying fact that the seed capital is borrowed, not saved — and that the choice to brand the vehicle as a "sovereign wealth fund" applies language designed for surplus economies to a deficit-running country.</p>
<h2>The bottom line</h2>
<p>On the documented record:</p>
<p>- The Canada Strong Fund is being capitalized through government deficit spending. (Policy Options Canada / IRPP.)
- Canada is running federal deficits of $66.9 to $78.3 billion per year and is projected to do so for five years.
- Federal debt-service costs are $55.6 billion this year — already exceeding federal health transfers to the provinces.
- Sovereign wealth funds, as a category, are surplus-economy instruments. Canada is not a surplus economy.
- Calling the Canada Strong Fund "Canada's first sovereign wealth fund" is consistent with the marketing but inconsistent with the economic category the term describes.</p>
<p>The government's defenses are real: productive borrowing can work, retail participation could mobilize private capital, and strategic priorities are genuine. None of them changes the source of the seed money.</p>
<p>The "credit card while maxed out" framing is a structural critique, not a partisan attack. A household running sustained deficits that adds a new credit line has not increased its wealth; it has increased its leverage. Canada's federal government, on the current fiscal projections, is in that household's position.</p>
<p>The Strong Fund may end up producing investment returns that vindicate the borrowing. That is the empirical question over the next decade. The structural question — whether borrowing to fund a "sovereign wealth fund" is a category error from the start — has only one defensible answer on the public-finance literature: yes, and the fund should be assessed on what it actually is (a deficit-financed strategic-investment vehicle) rather than what it is being marketed as.</p>
<hr />
<p><small>
Originally published by <a href="https://parliamentaudit.ca/news/canada-strong-fund-sovereign-wealth-fund-debt-funded">Parliament Audit</a>
under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND 4.0</a> license.
<img src="https://parliamentaudit.ca/api/republish-beacon?slug=canada-strong-fund-sovereign-wealth-fund-debt-funded" alt="" width="1" height="1" />
</small></p>
</article>