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

[–] Levi@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Perfect so you’re team Poilievre

You seem like an ass.

I want a government where people are only in it to make Canada a better place. I have no problem with them getting paid enough to support their families, but there is no reason they should ever need to profit beyond that from their position. If they are in it for the money or fame they have no business in politics.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You guys are literally in favor of a policy that would have set barriers to entry to the guy who unseated the consensus favorite career politician after the last career politician fucked this country up well and good for ten years.

Had Carney been dissuaded by overly rigid policies like those being suggested here we would have had Poilievre in office for the Trump disaster. Wake the fuck up, ass.

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

So you're saying that Carney doesn't care enough about the future of Canada that he'd be willing to make sure he's not in a position to personally profit from holding office?

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's what the blind trust is for.

This is actively forcing people to take a loss by liquidating assets. It's a weird idea to begin with. It won't do much of anything but repel people who are independently successful by their own means.

And you think that people relying on a salary of a couple hundred thousand dollars as members of Parliament can mount campaigns on their own steam?

They cannot. So you won't sit still for someone who is financially independent holding office without charging them to make sure they "care enough" but you're okay with people who will need financial backing to get the job and then owe those people once they are in power?

And your original question is flawed to begin with. Do you not care enough about Canada to want the best person for the job, or is your anti-success prejudice more important to you than finding the best person for the job instead of the person who fits your narrow criteria?

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

you do realize that he would still be rich, this isn't a vow of poverty, it's just selling off stocks and stock options etc so that he doesn't stand to directly gain (he's been installing friends to high-paying positions BTW)

anti-success prejudice

lol

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Source on him installing friends to high paying positions?

He'd be "rich" is a funny way of putting it. Do you know what his holdings are? I have seen estimates that his net worth is something like $5 mil. If that's true, it's a good chunk but it's hardly Scrooge McDuck territory. So we're paying him something like $400K a year but if he has to sell $4M in stocks, say, and half of that is a capital gain that's somewhere over a half million in income tax. So we're asking him to fork over about two and a half years of net salary as PM up front for the privilege of being our Prime Minister.

Good plan!

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

His stock options alone are worth around $6 million, IIRC, so i'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from.

Anyway, he would only pay tax on the gains from the sale of his stocks (that's why it's called, get this, a "capital gains tax") and those gains are only taxed at around 50% of the rate people pay when they earn the same amount of money from a real job. But surely you knew all that already.

Source on him installing friends to high paying positions?

Here you go:

https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/on-a-wartime-footing-carneys-new-defence-initiatives-risks-corruption-and-global-conflict/

From the piece:

The DIA is a special operating agency (SOA) within Public Services and Procurement Canada. Carney appointed Doug Guzman, his close friend and donor to his election campaign, as the Chief Executive Officer of the new agency. Guzman was previously a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs where Carney worked and then became Deputy Chair of the Royal Bank of Canada from which he has stepped down to head DIA.

As revealed at the hearing of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) on November 6, 2025, Guzman has been appointed for a three-year term despite having no experience in government procurement, the military, or the defence sector. He will receive one of the highest salaries in the federal government over $670,000/year plus performance bonuses. Guzman’s salary is more than double the Chief of Defence Staff General Jennie Carignan who commands the military at $329,000 and more than the Minister of National Defence David McGuinty at $309,000.

[–] Levi@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Sorry dude, but I still feel that way. Carney has more than enough money to live comfortably without any more income for the rest of his life. If money is more important to him than Canada, then yeah I'd rather him not be PM. That doesn't mean I like the conservatives, but if we never fix our political problems then people like Polievre will continue to be a problem forever.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

No you're missing the point on the Poilievre thing. I didn't mean to imply that you would like conservatives, I'm saying that PeeWee Bumblefuck who lost his own riding and had to cobble together a face saving Alberta seat to remain quasi relevant is a career politician. Trudeau who was weak in almost every facet of his tenure was a career politician AND a nouveau aristocrat wealthfare baby.

Trudeau didn't have to worry too much about assets because they were already locked into his inheritance.

Poilievre got elected before he had to shave regularly and has been nuzzling the public tit since.

Neither of those people are who we want to lead us, but the idea that we will be choosing socially responsible, wise and selfless leaders as PM if we force candidates to abide by a liquidation law is laughable. We will end up with career politicians or worse, career civil servants who are able to mount campaigns not because they are the sharpest minds available but because they know how the game is played and they are the most able to cut the throats of their opposition. Or perhaps we'll have the odd child of a Laurentian aristocrat unfrill their sleeves and deign to spend their salad days playing Parliament.

I would rather the middle-class-raised, self-made-dynamo Mark Carneys of the world have a path to mount a campaign without the price being too high to make it worth their while, and these people are the ones who would be stung by this law, not the Trudeau aristocrats or PP government cheese mice.

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

I agree with what you say here, but my original question was why he should be forced to sacrifice the investments he had before he was in power - and why putting them in a blind trust is insufficient to keep him from profiting from his decisions as PM.

[–] Levi@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

Oh, I didn't mean he should give up the value or anything. The point about capital gains tax is somewhat fair as well, but I think there could be ways around that. I'm not a finance expert, but maybe the capitals gains tax could be cancelled and his investments moved to a broad canadian index fund or something.

The problem with a blind trust (as I understand it) is that the existing investments aren't going to be changed immediately or even soon, so he still could profit via policy decisions based on what he already had invested.