Ground Breaking: Canada Launches Its First National Sovereign Wealth Fund

On April 27, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney announced the launch of Canada’s first national sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong Fund (the “Fund”), as a key component of the federal government’s Build Canada Strong agenda. The Fund is a new investment vehicle designed to attract private and institutional capital alongside federal investment in infrastructure, energy, critical minerals and advanced manufacturing.

Framed as a central pillar of a broader “nation-building” agenda, the Fund represents the potential to be more than a new financing vehicle. It signals structural shift in how Canada intends to originate, finance and participate in major projects. For proponents, infrastructure sponsors, lenders, institutional investors, contractors and Indigenous partners alike, the Fund stands to reshape capital formation, project structuring and the role of government in the market.

From Project Pipeline to National Balance Sheet

The Fund will initially be capitalized with $25 billion in federal funding to be deployed over three years on a cash basis, with the expectation that it will grow through returns and additional asset allocations by the government. Its mandate is to invest on a commercial basis alongside private and institutional capital in strategic Canadian projects and companies.

Its design reflects several notable features:

• Equity-focused investment model: The Fund is expected to take equity positions in projects, rather than relying primarily on debt or credit enhancement tools.
• Parity Principle: The Fund’s investment policy is to invest on equal terms as other investors.
• Commercial return mandate: Investments are intended to generate market-rate returns, with proceeds reinvested to grow the Fund over time.
• Arm’s-length governance: The Fund will operate as an independent Crown corporation with professional management and a dedicated board.
• Retail participation: A proposed retail investment product introduces a novel element—direct participation by individual Canadians in project-level returns, intended to be broadly available, easy to acquire and trade and to benefit from government provided capital protection.

Taken together, these elements position the Fund not simply as a policy tool of the current government, but as a long-term institutional investor with a national mandate.

From a legal and commercial perspective, this is a clear departure from traditional Canadian approaches, which have historically relied on a combination of public funding, P3 procurement models and targeted credit support (e.g., through the Canada Infrastructure Bank or export credit agencies).

A Shift in the Role of Government Capital

The launch of the Canada Strong Fund reflects a broader trend already underway: the increasing willingness of governments to act as equity participants rather than solely as regulators or procuring authorities.

In practice, this raises several implications, including potential alignment with private capital or, depending on a project’s capital structure, the potential for tension between the Fund and private capital in the allocation of risks and returns.

Certainly by investing alongside private sponsors and institutional investors, the Fund may help crowd in capital for projects that are otherwise difficult to finance due to scale, risk profile or long development timelines.

At the same time, co-investment introduces new dynamics in areas such as:

• governance rights and board participation;
• exit horizons and liquidity expectations;
• tax treatment of returns for different types of investors;
• return thresholds and risk tolerance; and
• potential conflicts between policy objectives and commercial outcomes.

All of these issues will require careful structuring at both the project and Fund level.

Interaction with Existing Federal Financing Ecosystem

Canada already has a relatively complex ecosystem of public financing institutions, including The Canada Infrastructure Bank, The Canada Growth Fund, Export Development Canada and Business Development Bank of Canada, to name only a handful.

The Canada Strong Fund is expressly intended to complement rather than duplicate these entities. However, from a market perspective, questions remain as to how mandates will be delineated in practice, how to resolve the questions of overlapping jurisdictions, and how project proponents will navigate multiple potential sources of public capital. Clarity on mandate delineation will be critical to maintaining investor confidence and transaction efficiency.

Integration with the Major Projects Pipeline

The announcement links the Fund directly to the federal government’s broader pipeline of “nation-building” projects, including those advanced through the Major Projects Office and the Building Canada Act framework. For information on these initiatives, please see our prior bulletins here and here.

Such linkages suggest a more integrated model of project development, in which project designation, strategic staging, regulatory approvals and capital deployment are increasingly coordinated, along with government participation in the potential for financial upside of nation-building projects.

For proponents, this creates opportunities to accelerate projects—but also heightens the importance of early engagement and alignment with government priorities. The Canada Strong Fund also introduces additional stakeholders seeking to participate in equity-like returns while managing risks.

Implications for Infrastructure Delivery Models

The emergence of a sovereign wealth fund introduces a new layer to Canada’s already evolving infrastructure delivery landscape.

In practice, this evolution is likely to manifest in several ways. Traditional project finance structures may need to evolve to accommodate equity participation by the Fund, potentially alongside traditional private sponsors and institutional investors. Risk allocation frameworks may also shift, particularly where government occupies the dual role of counterparty and investor. Additionally, Indigenous equity participation models may intersect with the Fund’s capital, creating meaningful opportunities for co-investment while also requiring careful governance design to ensure that Indigenous rights and interests are appropriately reflected in project structures.

More broadly, the Fund reinforces a transition away from purely procurement-driven infrastructure delivery toward capital partnership models that blend public and private investment.

Retail Participation: A Distinctive Canadian Feature?

One of the more novel aspects of the Canada Strong Fund is the proposed retail investment product, which would allow individual Canadians to invest directly in the Fund and share in its returns.

While details remain limited, this feature introduces a number of considerations that will require careful attention. Most fundamentally, it creates a new class of stakeholders in infrastructure and strategic assets—retail investors, whose expectations around parameters such as liquidity, returns and risk may differ materially from those of institutional participants. The presence of retail capital, while mitigated by a capital protection feature, may introduce additional governance challenges around investment decisions, short and longer-term Fund performance targets, the provision of liquidity as well as tax considerations. A participating retail product will raise additional operational challenges in respect of distribution, reporting and investor servicing, and may raise additional securities compliance requirements related to investor protection.

This approach is relatively uncommon among sovereign wealth funds globally and will require careful implementation to balance accessibility with financial discipline.

Comparative Perspective: Sovereign Wealth Funds Globally

While new to Canada at the national level, sovereign wealth funds are well-established internationally and offer useful points of comparison.

Often cited as the benchmark for sovereign wealth fund governance, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global is characterized by strong institutional independence, global diversification across asset classes and a clear separation between fiscal policy and investment decision-making — all elements that may be directly relevant to the Canada Strong Fund’s design.

Singapore’s dual-fund model offers a different but equally instructive comparison. Temasek pursues active, strategic investment in domestic and regional assets, while GIC focuses on long-term portfolio management with global exposure. Notably, Temasek has played a direct role in shaping national industrial and infrastructure development.

In the Middle East, sovereign wealth funds have taken divergent approaches. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority has historically operated as a passive, globally diversified portfolio investor, while Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) has been more aggressively deployed to drive domestic economic diversification, anchor large-scale infrastructure and development projects, and attract foreign investment through co-investment platforms. The PIF model, in particular, illustrates how sovereign capital can serve as a catalyst for broader economic transformation.

Australia’s Future Fund, established in 2006 to strengthen the country’s long-term financial position, offers a contrasting model focused on long-term fiscal sustainability rather than direct domestic project development. The Future Fund operates with a clear financial mandate, professional independence and a long investment horizon, but without the strategic or nation-building orientation contemplated by the Canada Strong Fund.

In the United States, the federal government recently acquired direct equity stakes in strategic mining and critical minerals projects, through a combination of restructured loan arrangements and direct equity participation facilitated by the Department of Energy’s Loans Program Office. These investments reflect a broader U.S. policy objective of reducing reliance on foreign supply chains and also underscore the trend toward sovereign equity participation in strategic assets. This is particularly relevant to the Canada Strong Fund given the overlapping strategic priorities of both countries in energy security and critical mineral supply chain resilience.

Key Takeaways for Canada

Across international examples, several themes emerge that are directly relevant to the Canada Strong Fund’s development. Institutional independence in governance has consistently emerged as a common theme in establishing credibility and driving performance—a principle that the Fund’s proposed Crown corporation structure is expressly intended to reflect. Clarity of mandate, particularly the balance between financial and strategic objectives, is essential to maintaining investor confidence and operational discipline. The scale and patience of sovereign capital can materially influence project viability, particularly for complex, long-duration infrastructure investments. Finally, co-investment models are increasingly central to attracting private capital, suggesting that the Fund’s ability to structure effective partnerships will be a key determinant of its success.

The launch of the Canada Strong Fund represents a significant inflection point in Canada’s infrastructure and investment landscape, and its implications will continue to evolve as enabling legislation, the Fund’s investment policy statement and the design of the retail product come into focus. For project proponents, early engagement with the Fund’s mandate and priority sectors will be important to positioning projects competitively within the emerging pipeline. For private sponsors, lenders and institutional investors, the Fund’s co-investment model will require careful attention to governance arrangements, return expectations and risk allocation at both the project and fund level. Indigenous partners and communities will need to assess how the Fund’s capital intersects with existing and emerging equity participation frameworks and ensure that their rights and interests are appropriately reflected in project structures from the outset. Across all of these workstreams, the window for shaping early precedents — in transaction structure, governance design and policy engagement — is narrow.

Our team advises across the full spectrum of investment funds, infrastructure finance, project development, Indigenous law, and related regulatory matters, and is well-positioned to assist clients in navigating this new landscape. We will continue to monitor developments and publish further guidance as details emerge.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

The foregoing provides only an overview and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are cautioned against making any decisions based on this material alone. Rather, specific legal advice should be obtained.

© McMillan LLP 2025