COLUMN: On Parliament Hill – Conflicted: The prime minister’s portfolio problem

During the election, Mr. Carney was asked by CBC’s reporter Rosemary Barton whether there were any conflicts of interest that he might have. The answer at the time raised a few eyebrows among some media, as his answer was framed in a question back to the reporter: “What possible conflict would you have?” he replied. Then he quipped back in what some thought was somewhat condescending, “Look inside yourself, Rosemary.”

Yet, it was a valid question. Any leader needs to be free to act in the interest of the people they serve. A prime minister needs to be free to serve in the public interest of Canadians.

Last week, while Prime Minister Carney was on holidays, his long-awaited ethics disclosures were released. Confirmed was what was already suspected: to comply with ethical scrutiny, the prime minister would have to recuse himself from any decisions related to over 100 companies through a conflict-of-interest screen. Furthermore, his investment portfolio includes 574 separate stock holdings, with 91 percent of them headquartered in the United States, not Canada.

Mr. Carney insists that there is no conflict of interest, as he stated to reporter Rosemary Barton during the election and reiterated at his swearing-in press conference on March 14: “My assets are now in a blind trust. So, I don’t know what exactly is in there.”

But as National Post writer Michael Higgins highlighted, “The blind trust in which Carney has shares [is] in hundreds of different companies, a full 16 pages worth, everything from Adobe through to Zoom Communications.”

That’s why Conservatives have proposed that he sell his holdings, allowing a trustee to manage the proceeds in a genuine blind trust—the only responsible path forward

Mr. Carney has instead proposed to recuse himself by leaving the room whenever discussions arise that relate to any of his holdings. However, in light of last week’s disclosures, such an approach risks turning prime ministerial deliberations into a constant game of musical chairs. Whether Mr. Carney occupies a seat at those discussions will ultimately be determined by a screening process overseen by his chief of staff and the clerk of the Privy Council, which would concede some level of transparency—except for the glaring loophole Higgins highlights. That is, the prime minister could retain his chair for all matters of “general application”—only as deemed so by the two close staffers.

It gets complicated. Despite Mr. Carney’s statement on March 26 claiming he “owns nothing but cash and personal real estate,” and his Feb. 25 denial of any connection to Brookfield Asset Management, the facts suggest otherwise. Mr. Carney served as chairman of Brookfield Asset Management—an entity managing over $1 trillion in assets—raising serious questions about transparency and potential conflicts of interest. Furthermore, from the Liberal election pledges, there are companies that align with Brookfield investments, such as Westinghouse, a nuclear firm that the prime minister helped Brookfield acquire while in office. Additionally, Modulaire is connected to pre-fabricated homes and Compass Data Centres, as well as Data4 and AI development.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre called it an unprecedented cornucopia of conflicts, a phrase not commonly heard every day. Yet, it depicts the bottomless nature of potential tensions. And former Integrity Commissioner and now Associate Professor at York University, Ian Stedman, seems to agree when he calls the revelations “the largest scope” he has ever heard of.

In a CBC interview, Stedman admits this has not been seen before. “As long as he (Mr. Carney) is in the conversation, he’s going to have influence over the results.” When asked about the Conservatives suggesting that Mr. Carney sell his investments, turn them into cash, hand them to a trustee who can then invest in a way that is truly blind, Mr. Stedman replies, “I think absolutely that would be the only way for us to know, he’s blind to what is in his share portfolio.”

Perhaps with such a move, reporters will be better poised to answer the prime minister’s question, “what possible conflicts would you have?”