154

Prime minister should be required to divest assets, says committee (www.cbc.ca)

submitted 2 days ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

61 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day 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.

[-] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 days ago

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

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No, someone who understands how blind trusts work would believe it. Brookfield and Carney have nothing to do with how blind trusts work and zero control over the investments in his. You’re free to be a crazy conspiracy theorist, but own it.

[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

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

[-] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Edit: after researching it, Carney’s stock options were included in the blind trust. This confirms he does not know what happens with them.

Regardless, options [to purchase stock] aren’t worth anything until they vest and are exercised by purchasing them. Unvested stock options are a promise by the company to allow the individual to purchase the options at a set rate once they vest. That’s it. They hold no immediate value. Generally breaking ties with a company means that your unvested options and RSUs are forfeit.

[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Just FYI it wasn't me who downvoted you - but for one thing, Carney will obviously know the vesting schedule. Secondly, I almost don't even want to entertain this claim because it's just not how things work, but, if they aren't worth anything, then why did Carney agree to be paid in stock options? And why is he holding onto them now, despite the criticisms?

In his book, Carney himself champions the idea of paying out things like executive bonuses in future options, because he says it incentivizes making decisions that will benefit the company over longer periods than just the next quarter or year.

The fact that it also creates a clear conflict of interest when that person suddenly jumps into government, well, that's his own damn problem brought about by his own lack of forethought, and he should waive his right to exercise (or have the "blind" trust exercise) those stock options.

[-] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

I see what you’re getting at. We should find a way to make people in this situation whole after forcing the sale of their positions when they enter the trust