152

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
[-] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours 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 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 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

this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2026
152 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

11908 readers
650 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS