Prime Minister Mark Carney and other Canadian prime ministers should be required to divest their investment portfolios when they assume office, not just put them in a blind trust, the House of Commons ethics committee recommends in a new report.
In its report made public Thursday morning, the committee said putting assets in a blind trust isn’t good enough, recommending instead “that the Government of Canada amend the Conflict of Interest Act that, for the application of subsection 27(1) the prime minister, as a reporting public office holder, is fully divested from their controlled assets through sale, since placement in a blind trust does not constitute true divestment.”
The committee also wants the law amended to require public disclosure of “high-level holdings categories placed in a blind trust by reporting public office holders (sector/asset class, and whether the holdings are Canadian-market concentrated),” a recommendation that could shed new light on the financial interests of a number of top officials and cabinet ministers.
Carney also has a conflict of interest screen designed to prevent him from being involved in any decisions that could affect Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation and Stripe.
Didn’t previously know about this, but how is that even supposed to be possible? Brookfield is massive. The idea that someone could lead foreign policy on trade and economics for Canada without affecting Brookfield just doesn’t make any sense. There’s no way to make important decisions and act as a leader on these types of topics without having an impact on Brookfield.
There’s no way to make important decisions and act as a leader on these types of topics without having an impact on Brookfield.
He’s already doing it. Dropping the DST and Carbon levy, steering Ottawa to fund AI projects. All benefit Brookfield more than Canada.
So the PM can’t have any investments?
This seems like overkill to me. Are they supposed to take the full capital gains hit and then stuff their money in a bank account while they’re PM?
What is insufficient about a blind trust?
What is insufficient about a blind trust?
A very naive question. Carney knows exactly what his investments are, and how his trust would be impacted by his policies in the longer term, post political career. Data centers? Ottawa spending on AI initiatives? Brookfield projects, what a coincidence.
A better question is why would a very wealthy man bother to become a civil servant?
Are they supposed to take the full capital gains hit and then stuff their money in a bank account while they’re PM?
Oh no, what precedent would a Prime Minister set for paying taxes? “Full capital gains hit” = half the income tax rate and a >$1M lifetime exemption.
People in this country just want a corrupt government, small wonder we have one.
No - Carney knows exactly what his investments were when they entered the blind trust. He does not know what they are now.
That’s very much not the case for his stock options, he will still know exactly what those are
Options [to purchase stock] aren’t worth anything until they vest and are exercised. Once they vest they will be entered into the blind trust and what happens with them is unknown to Carney.
I guess a 14 year old would believe this. Look up Brookfield’s track record on tax evasion. This group does not play by rules.
Carney is just another Harper.
No, someone who understands how blind trusts work would believe it. You’re free to be a crazy conspiracy theorist, but own it.
They could just not be PM.
Exactly. If their money is more important than Canadian interests I’d rather them not be PM. (or even a politician)
Perfect so you’re team Poilievre, a political lifer who has done nothing else and has nothing to show for it over someone like Carney who became successful before entering politics?
I’m no fan of wealthy people making themselves richer on the public dime, but I also think that setting up barriers to entry for people who have achieved success in other areas is a losing proposition in the long term.
Of course we should have measures in place to prevent people from using their offices to enrich themselves, but to call for people to divest their portfolios as a pre-requisite could repel candidates whose experience and know-how in financial and economic matters might be of great benefit to us all.
Liquidating portfolios is no joke, 50% capital gains inclusion to income tax when triggering a distribution is more than enough to cause someone to reconsider running for office.
Perfect so you’re team Poilievre
You seem like an ass.
I want a government where people are only in it to make Canada a better place. I have no problem with them getting paid enough to support their families, but there is no reason they should ever need to profit beyond that from their position. If they are in it for the money or fame they have no business in politics.
Perfect so you’re team Poilievre
We don’t need the turd sandwich or shit burrito choice. Poilievre promoted CDN government investing in crypto when he was a holding crypto.
It’s insuffient because …
" … the prime minister, as a reporting public office holder, is fully divested from their controlled assets through sale, since placement in a blind trust does not constitute true divestment."
The committe is also advising revisions that will affect other officials and cabinet ministers …
The committee also wants the law amended to require public disclosure of “high-level holdings categories placed in a blind trust by reporting public office holders (sector/asset class, and whether the holdings are Canadian-market concentrated),” a recommendation that could shed new light on the financial interests of a number of top officials and cabinet ministers.
It’s all in the very short article link.
It would be interesting to explore something like requiring a PM to liquidate assets they hold beyond things like a primary residence but making it free of any capital gains tax, then have a separate fund that tracks a basket of assets designed to be representative of the wealth and wellbeing of Canadians broadly but having an adjustable RoR based on broad measures of wellbeing. Could even make that available to all MPs and requiring ten years before divestment or something.
Totally just spitballing, but interesting to think of different ways of aligning incentives.
This is functional reform in a capitalist representative democracy. So it will never happen! I expect guillotines before accountability.
There’s more than one way to read “I expect to see guillotines before accountability.”
liquitate these assets, buddy
Well their home is provided so I suppose they really have no need for assets while in power.
Yes, why the fuck does a Prime Minister need additional investments while in office?
Its not like they will ever hurt for money again after they leave the position.
If you want successful people to hold office, you can’t make them divest their portfolios and take capital gains tax hits that could ostensibly cost them more than their salary and pension combined.
I know I know “boo hoo rich people” but if you think that Mark Carney is a good PM, why would you then set up a pre-requisite that repels people like him from even considering taking the position?
I don’t want “successful” people in office!
I want someone who has community building experience. Someone with non-profit experience. Someone with the interest of people not someone that has demonstrated a thorough understanding of how to acquire personal wealth.
We have financial and economic specialists to advise the PM, but we act like that’s the only fucking metric we can weigh our worth on.
I want a PM that is grateful for the opportunity to help Canadians and is humbled by the $400 000 salary as compensation, not someone that sees it as a small asset to their inflating portfolio.
If the loss of assets is enough to prevent you from considering the position, I don’t want you in that position. The PM is supposed to make decisions good for Canada, not their assets in particular.
In addition to the other responses, a blind trust is especially insufficient in this case, since his remaining Brookfield stock options are only be able to be exercised in the future, meaning the operator of the blind trust cannot buy and sell them as they would with any other asset.
In other words, Carney knows the schedule of those options becoming available for him to exercise (or for the blind trust to exercise, depending on the schedule and whether or not he’s still in public office at that point), and the blind trust operator has no control over that schedule.
Brookfield, incidentally, has a lot of money invested in places like Qatar and the UAE, as well as tens of billions invested in AI and data centres worldwide. The value of his stock options, therefore, is tied to the value of those investments.
If the trust cant sell them then he cant either?
I don’t see any reason why he couldn’t have signed away any claim on those stock options, or asked Brookfield to renegotiate things so he could cash out.
Some people might think it’s somehow unfair, but I mean, he wanted to be PM, no one made him do it.
Does the blind trust need his permission to renegotiate them though? Couldn’t they just do it?
Edit.
Or what if they costless collared them and effectively locked in the price on the date it went into the trust. Then it becomes this $x.xx is locked in at today’s price until you can exercise them, but you wont really make or lose any money on them between now and then.Edit: you need to own the underlying stock for the collar idea, not options.
And how do you pray tell prevent the blind trust from just rebuying what he had?
If they weren’t going to sell it once transferred, they’ll just rebuy it after?
