How rich can a prime minister be before it clashes with the job? It’s the question that is quickly dominating the debate over Prime Minister Mark Carney’s finances. 

On November 28, the House ethics committee presented its most recent report to Parliament, with Conservatives doubling down in their quest to amend the Conflict of Interest Act to “restore public confidence in federal government decision-making.” Since September, the Conservative-led committee had been studying whether the law adequately addresses concerns raised about Carney’s extensive investment portfolio and his past ties to Brookfield Asset Management, the global firm he once helped lead.

“Conservatives have serious concerns about the Prime Minister’s unprecedented corporate and shareholding interests,” wrote chair of the committee John Brassard, Member of Parliament for Barrie South, in a supplementary opinion to the report. 

Liberal members of the committee, however, said Carney’s ethics screen — the set of safeguards meant to prevent the prime minister from taking part in decisions that could affect his private financial interests — was sufficient, satisfied with testimony from senior public servants as to its efficacy: “[The prime minister’s] private sector experience is a boon that Parliamentarians should be celebrating, not condemning,” they wrote in a dissenting opinion.

Until recently, the committee had only indirectly touched on the Liberal leader’s finances. But that changed three weeks ago, when Privy Council Clerk Michael Sabia and Carney’s chief of staff Marc-André Blanchard were compelled by Conservative and other opposition MPs to appear before the committee to explain the ethics screen they’ve been tasked to oversee.“It’s a mistake to think that there’s just a small dedicated group of people working on this,” Sabia told the committee. “This is something, like other priorities of the government, that reaches into departments [and their operations].” 

During his November 24 appearance before the committee, Brookfield’s chief operating officer Justin Beber said the company has had no contact with the prime minister about Brookfield business since Carney left the firm. Beber stressed that Brookfield “did not expect to be treated any differently” than any other player doing business with the government.

Yet despite repeated assertions by Liberals of the rigor and efficiency of the Carney’s ethics screen, over the last three months, the ethics committee has heard differing opinions from integrity commissioners, legal experts and academics about how, at best, Parliament could tighten the rules around sitting politicians’ blind trusts by strengthening reporting and transparency — and, at worst, how the current framework allows for a prime minister to indirectly benefit from government decisions. 

‘It doesn’t solve the problem’

Mark Carney is by no means the first prime minister to be grilled about his personal wealth.

From R.B. Bennett — whose investments in land, oil and railways during the 1920s and 1930s made him one of the richest Canadians of his era — to Justin Trudeau, who inherited $1.2 million from Trudeau the Elder when he passed, Canada has a long history of electing titans of industry born of political dynasties. 

Paul Martin, who had previously served as president of Canada’s largest shipping company before becoming prime minister, Canada Steamship Lines, transferred his stake in the company to his three sons to try to head off any allegations of conflict of interest. It didn’t work, and his family’s holdings continued to draw scrutiny as to whether his government’s decisions were benefiting his former company.

Ian Stedman, a lawyer and associate professor with York University’s School of Public Policy and Administration, who testified to the committee in October, said though what makes Carney different from past heads of government is his extensive background as a modern-day financier. 

Before entering politics, Carney served as chair of Brookfield Asset Management, one of the world’s largest investment firms, in possession of approximately U.S. $1 trillion in assets and investments. In July, when the federal ethics commissioner released the list of investments Carney had placed in a blind trust before taking office — the process by which a politician transfers control of their investments to an independent trustee to avoid the appearance of conflicts before taking office — it revealed Carney held stakes in more than 500 companies, including Brookfield stock options valued at $6.8 million at the end of December 2024.

“Carney comes in with the potential for conflict across almost every major industry and market because of the breadth of Brookfield’s engagement,” Stedman told Ricochet. “We’ve never had someone hold this level of public office whose assets are so diverse and the quantity so high.” 

Despite the government responding that Carney had met all disclosure requirements, many critics remained skeptical that a blind trust could fully neutralize risks of conflict of interest. 

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre argued that even with his assets placed under independent management, Carney would still know the broad contours of his portfolio, including the long-term holdings such as his Brookfield stock options. He demanded Carney instruct his trustee to sell his portfolio and start anew. 

Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, an Ottawa nonprofit focused on government and corporate accountability — who also testified before the committee in October — had doubts as to whether that would solve the issue. 

“If [a politician] is still allowed to give initial instructions, you can just say [to a trustee] ‘Buy everything that you just sold,’” Conacher told Ricochet. “It doesn’t solve the problem.”

Stedman added that even with a blind trust in place, trustees have a fiduciary duty: they will not exercise (i.e. cash in) stock options until it is financially advantageous to do so. Doing otherwise would violate their obligation to act in the holder’s best interest. 

“That’s where the conflict lies […] As long as [Carney] is not absolutely tanking and destroying the whole economy, decisions he makes are going to have a positive impact on the bottom line of Brookfield. There’s no way around it.”

During Beber’s testimony, Conservative MP Michael Barrett pressed him to admit that, as Brookfield profits increase, so too will Carney’s investments, regardless whether those investments are held in a blind trust. “Increases in Brookfield’s performance, increases the value of the instruments that Mark Carney still holds, so he makes more when Brookfield does better, yes?” Barrett asked, to which Beber responded, “Yes, as the value increases, the value of those instruments also increases.”

Where should the commissioner’s responsibility end?

To address concerns around Carney’s holdings, the ethics commissioner announced that Carney had agreed to an ethics screen — to be administered by Blanchard and Sabia — designed to prevent him from participating in decisions that could benefit his former employer. Under the terms of the screen, Carney must recuse himself from discussions, debates, decisions or votes specifically related to more than 100 corporate entities, including Brookfield.

Lingering uncertainty around how that screen operates led many experts during their testimony to the committee to focus on how the system itself could be strengthened. Andrew Stark, a governance scholar at the University of Toronto-Scarborough, testified before the committee in November. He told Ricochet before Sabia’s appearance that truthfully, it’s hard to know how well the screen is being managed because so few details about the screen have been made public.

“To suggest it’s poorly managed is as groundless as suggesting it’s well managed,” said Stark. “The committee should examine — especially in cases involving the prime minister — whether the ethics commissioner’s role ends once the screen is set up, or whether periodic monitoring or even more hands-on involvement is needed.”

Sabia told the committee that Carney’s ethics screen has been applied in six situations involving Prime Minister Mark Carney, after 13 potential conflicts were flagged by officials. Four of those screens are still active, he said, and can’t be described publicly because doing so would alert the prime minister and undermine the process. 

Sabia, who sold his own Brookfield shares when he got his job, also faced questions from MPs about why Carney hasn’t sold his shares. He said the screen is designed to manage those concerns, and noted that ethics rules must balance public trust with the need to attract qualified people into top government roles. While the Conflict of Interest Act doesn’t require the government to disclose how screens are applied, Sabia said he would provide the committee with information on the two cases that have concluded.

A headache for Carney

While Stedman endorsed the need for an ongoing reporting mechanism that could reassure the public without compromising confidentiality or national security, Conacher proposed going further: applying conflict-of-interest rules on a sliding scale tied to a person’s proximity to power.

“If you’re a backbench MP, you sit on no committees and you’re told how to vote on everything, I’m not too worried about what you’re invested in,” Conacher said. “But if you’re a friend of the prime minister, I don’t want you using that relationship to push for things that help you. It should be a sliding scale based on your relationship to power and your role in the system, with the strictest requirements for the prime minister.”

In any case, whatever reforms the committee ultimately recommends, Conacher argues Carney’s PR problem won’t go away until he removes himself from the financial interests that raised these questions in the first place.

“Is he serving the public, or is he dedicated to serving himself as long as he has investments? That question is legitimate to ask.,” says Conacher. “Why would you want that hanging over every policy decision that you make as prime minister?” 

“Raised in the House again and again, people reminded again and again: are you really doing this for us? Or are you doing it for yourself?”