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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

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?

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

No - Carney knows exactly what his investments were when they entered the blind trust. He does not know what they are now.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

That's very much not the case for his stock options, he will still know exactly what those are

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Thank you for (a) insulting me, (b) belittling me, (c) providing incorrect information, (d) building a straw man, and (e) making an unrelated and silly conclusion.

[–] chemical_cutthroat@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They could just not be PM.

[–] Levi@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 weeks ago (13 children)

Exactly. If their money is more important than Canadian interests I'd rather them not be PM. (or even a politician)

load more comments (13 replies)

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is functional reform in a capitalist representative democracy. So it will never happen! I expect guillotines before accountability.

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There's more than one way to read "I expect to see guillotines before accountability."

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

liquitate these assets, buddy

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

Well that's something of a circular argument.

It's absolutely true that placing investments in a blind trust isn't divestment - but I didn't really see why they considered full divestment (rather than a blind trust) necessary in the first place. The article made is sound like the committee just declared that as their goal.

Regardless, the public disclosure on a broader scale of politicians is a great idea. We deserve to see that.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If the trust cant sell them then he cant either?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

THANK YOU!

This is the first substantive reason that anyone has given. I hadn't thought about deferred maturation.

That said, if they can't be exercised, that usually means he can't fully divest himself of them, so he'd be facing the same issue.

In either case, I guess the answer would have to be something like setting a fixed payment structure on them (maybe tied to a TSX index).

At the extreme end, forcing him to abandon all non-vested options wouldn't be the end of the world.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

At the extreme end, forcing him to abandon all non-vested options wouldn't be the end of the world.

Honestly this is what I think should happen.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but Carney's own book champions the idea of company managers/executives getting bonuses paid in things like future stock options, because he notes that it creates an incentive for that person to make decisions that are good for the company (or, I guess, for its stock price) on a longer time scale than "this quarter" or "this year".

Well, turns out that same system also creates incentives for that person if they suddenly hop over into government. Carney only has himself to blame for this ending up as a conflict of interest.

[–] DarkSirrush@piefed.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

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?

[–] Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

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.

[–] thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Can we go higher on the salary, sure. Let's make it $1milion a year.

But, who do we want running the country? I'd like someone with the guts to raise the salary, but also say that they'll willingly dis-invest and put their assets in a blind trust.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Carney’s assets are in a blind trust. He has zero visibility into what investments he holds. All he knows is the overall performance of the total.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

That's great, but I want someone who knows what they're doing with the economy, and as valuable as community building is, it's not a particular responsibility at the federal level.

[–] DarkSirrush@piefed.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It fucking should be. Running government as a business is what got the states into the fucking mess its in right now, and is also why all of our major infrastructure costs so fucking much compared to other countries.

We need a government that sees the current price gouging and foreign ownership of our resources as a bad thing, not as something that can benefit them personally.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Community building is a grassroots issue. I know a lot of community organizers who are fantastic people and good at what they do. I'm not sure they would do particularly well on the international stage.

But let's say maybe they are great leaders and would do well as PM. Would it not be better to establish laws that take money out of the campaign landscape and level the playing field so that people like this are able to have a fighting chance? That doesn't mean forcing them to liquidate once they're elected. It means controlling the influence of wealth on campaigns and providing guidelines that socializes the campaign process.

If you force liquidation on the PM, you won't solve the problem. You will just make sure that the average PM is a stooge. The guy who made his own fortune won't bother with this shit, but the sleazy prick with nothing to lose, out the career politician with skeletons in their closet will damn well jump at the chance to gain power at the behest of anyone willing to throw money at their campaign.

You're fixing the wrong problem. We want people with the wherewithal to become Carney-esque in the first place to run just as much as we want community organizers to have that opportunity, but placing barriers to entry to the former won't ensure the latter gets the job.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago

Well their home is provided so I suppose they really have no need for assets while in power.