Mark Carney will be ‘conflicted at every turn' unless he sells financial assets, Pierre Poilievre claims
'This will put (Carney) in an impossible position where he will be conflicted at every turn,' Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre told reporters Monday afternoon.
'Either he will have to get up three or four times every cabinet meeting to avoid stumbling over the 100-plus potential conflicts that the ethics commissioner has identified, or he will act in cabinet to potentially favour his own interests. Neither of those possibilities is acceptable.'
The disclosure, issued Friday by the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, outlines details of the
former central banker's investments
and the
conflict of interest screen
he agreed to implement to avoid receiving preferential treatment as a public office holder due to his prior business dealings.
The screen is being administered by Carney's chief of staff, Marc-Andre Blanchard, and Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Sabia, 'to ensure that I am neither made aware of nor participate in any official matters or decision-making processes involving the Companies' interests,' Carney's declaration states.
'I may, however, participate in a discussion or decision on a matter that is of general application or that affects the Companies' interests as a member of a broad class of persons unless those interests are disproportionate to the other members of the class.'
The filing shows that Carney has agreed to recuse himself from matters tied to more than 100 entities, including investment firm Brookfield Asset Management, its parent company Brookfield Corporation, and payment processing company Stripe.
Carney resigned as board chair of Brookfield Asset Management in January when he entered the federal political scene, and also stepped down from other positions, including another board role at Stripe.
Following his ascension to the top of the Liberal party, Carney also set up two conflict of interest screens for both companies, and put his assets, aside from 'cash and personal real estate,' into a blind trust, something the prime minister has argued he did well ahead of the deadline that must be met within 120 days of taking office.
Last week's disclosure details the myriad investments Carney placed in the blind trust.
It also shows that Carney divided the 103 entities captured by his ethics screen into three categories: 25 entities for which he previously held a management or oversight role, four 'Brookfield portfolio companies' that appear in the federal lobbyist registry, and 74 entities included 'out of an abundance of caution' because they were identified as being linked to Brookfield, even though Carney 'had no role in managing them, and no direct financial interest in them.'
Errol Mendes, a professor of constitutional and international law at the University of Ottawa and a former senior adviser to the Privy Council Office, said that Carney's third 'catch-all category' shows that the prime minister is prepared to come under close scrutiny.
Mendes also said that while he understands opposition concerns about Carney's assets because they are 'one of the most extensive holdings that a prime minister has had,' he doesn't back Poilievre's call for Carney to sell off all his investments and hand the cash over to a trustee.
'I don't think, to my knowledge, that anyone would fully have expected every single prime minister in this situation to completely sell off everything he or she has,' Mendes said.
Robert Shepherd, a professor of public policy and administration at Carleton University, said it's not entirely realistic to go Poilievre's proposed route.
'Sure, if you want to be purer than the driven snow, then yes, technically, you shouldn't own anything, right?' Shepherd said.
He also said he doesn't put much stock in Poilievre's argument that Carney's corporate history would render the prime minister nearly useless in cabinet meetings.
'The opposite complaint would be that he didn't declare any conflicts of interests or recuse himself. So you can't have it both ways. You either want the law to bring out conflict of interest — potentially or actual — or you don't. So which way would Mr. Poilievre like that argument to go?' Shepherd said.
On Monday, government watchdog group Democracy Watch released a statement also demanding that Carney sell his investments, citing the step as the 'only effective way to end the serious, unethical and damaging financial conflicts of interest caused by his investments in more than 500 companies.'
The group also called the prime minister's ethics shield a 'loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen.'
The Prime Minister's Office said Carney has been working closely with the ethics commissioner to not only comply with all of his obligations, but to also 'exceed them.'
'All of his investments were placed in the blind trust and all investment decisions are taken independently from him. Furthermore, the vast majority of the securities divested had been held in an investment account managed by a third party, over which the prime minister neither controlled nor directed the selection of the specific investments,' read a statement from spokesperson Emily Williams.
'The prime minister also proactively put in place a voluntary screen to proactively avoid any potential conflicts of interest, with the guidance of the ethics commissioner. In all of his work for Canadians, the prime minister will continue to serve with the highest standards for integrity at all times.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Ford says energy projects will be top of mind in talks with Carney
As Queen's Park, Alberta and Saskatchewan sign their new MOU 'to bring Ontario critical minerals and Western Canadian oil and gas to new markets,' Premier Doug Ford says energy projects will be top of mind in discussions later Tuesday morning with Prime Minister Mark Carney. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says Carney is 'off to a good start' in terms of working with the provinces on getting energy to market.
Hamilton Spectator
32 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Premiers gathered to meet with PM call for new pipelines built with Ontario steel
TORONTO - As provincial leaders prepare to meet with Prime Minister Mark Carney later this morning, the premiers of Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan have signed a memorandum of understanding calling for the construction of new pipelines using Ontario steel. The premiers are gathered in Ontario's cottage country to talk about eliminating internal trade barriers and U.S. President Donald Trump's threat to impose 35 per cent tariffs on a wide variety of Canadian goods on Aug. 1. Ontario Premier Doug Ford calls this morning's agreement a 'game changer' that focuses on shipping western oil to refineries in southern Ontario and a new deep sea port in James Bay. The agreement also calls for new rail lines to be built to help ship critical minerals from yet-to-be approved mines in Ontario's Ring of Fire region to Western Canada. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says she's heard from Carney that he wants to make Canada an energy superpower, and she wants him to remove 'nine bad laws' she says hurt Canada's business investment climate. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says that he wants to hear from Carney on how port capacity can be expanded to get more exports to overseas markets and reduce Canada's reliance on U.S. trade. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 22, 2025.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
The UK Just Created A Regulated Market For Carbon Removals
Big Ben with bridge over Thames and flag of England against blue sky in London, England, UK We're used to thinking of carbon markets as a punishment mechanism—a tax in disguise for those who pollute. But what happens when the same system starts to reward the people actively cleaning up the atmosphere? After months of consultation, the UK government has laid out a clear path: greenhouse gas removals—including engineered solutions like direct air capture (DAC) and enhanced weathering—will become part of the country's carbon market by the end of this decade. If you're in the weeds of carbon policy, this is a watershed moment. If you're not, here's why it matters: it means corporations will soon be able to buy carbon removal credits in a regulated market—and carbon removal companies will, for the first time, have a predictable, price-driven demand signal for cleaning up the atmosphere. Until now, carbon removals—like DAC, biochar, or enhanced weathering—have mostly lived in the voluntary market, propped up by early-adopter buyers like Microsoft, Stripe, and Shopify through initiatives like Frontier. But voluntary demand is tiny. Currently the global voluntary carbon market is worth just $2 billion. By contrast, the global compliance carbon market—driven by schemes like the European Union's Emissions Trading System, California's Cap-and-Trade, and now the UK Emissions Trading system (ETS)—was valued at over $800 billion. Right now, the UK ETS covers around 111 million tonnes of carbon emissions annually across the power, industrial, and aviation sectors. The average price of a UK allowance in July 2025 is around $48 per tonne. Even if just 1% of UK ETS obligations are fulfilled through removals, that's a potential $43 million market annually for removals. And here's the key: this isn't a hypothetical. The UK has committed to legislating integration by 2028, with removals entering the market by the end of 2029. That timeline is long enough to allow for standard setting and infrastructure development, but near enough to start attracting real investment now. For a sector that's often lived off philanthropic capital and early adopter corporate buyers, this is oxygen. What does this mean in practice? A few things. First, only removals that take place on UK soil will be eligible—this ensures that the benefits of investment (jobs, infrastructure, MRV capabilities) stay local. Second, removal credits will be awarded after the carbon has been verified to be sequestered, not in advance. That's important. It signals a clear move away from the 'pay-now-promise-later' dynamic that has plagued lower-integrity offset markets. Perhaps most importantly, only removals that can demonstrate carbon will be stored for at least 200 years will qualify. That threshold effectively draws a line in the sand: no reforestation credits that could reverse in a few decades. The UK is saying, if you want an allowance, your removal better last two centuries. That's a powerful signal to companies focused on permanence—those relying on mineralization, geologic storage, or stable biochar. The government has also indicated it is 'minded to differentiate' between these new removal credits and existing allowances—potentially creating a dual-credit system. In other words, a tonne of avoided emissions and a tonne of removed carbon might be priced and treated differently. That opens up the potential for two carbon markets to exist side-by-side: one punishing emitters, the other incentivizing removers. It's a nuanced idea, but if done well, it could provide flexibility while preserving environmental integrity. There will be auctions to facilitate a route to market—helping removal operators sell their credits into a structured and transparent system, rather than relying solely on opaque bilateral deals. The government will also maintain the existing 'gross cap'—that is, the total amount of allowances won't increase to accommodate removals. This ensures that carbon removals don't create space for additional emissions. It's not a license to pollute—it's a tool to neutralize emissions that can't be cut. Some of this might sound arcane, but it reflects a growing maturity in how we think about removals. Climate science is clear: reaching net zero means both cutting emissions and removing what we can't avoid. The UK is the first country to bake that second half of the equation into its compliance market architecture. This decision is also a direct boost to the UK's emerging carbon removal ecosystem. Take UNDO, a recent XPRIZE winner, which spreads finely crushed basalt on farmlands to accelerate natural weathering processes—permanently storing carbon in soils. Or Mission Zero Technologies, a direct air capture startup developing modular electrochemical systems that capture CO₂ from ambient air and store it underground. Both are UK-based, and both could now see a real, regulated path to monetizing their impact—not through donations or hype cycles, but through policy-anchored carbon demand. And this matters beyond the UK. Globally, the carbon removal sector must grow from removing tens of thousands of tonnes of CO₂ per year to billions by 2050. That means turning niche science projects into bankable infrastructure. It means shifting from tech demonstrations to projects that institutional investors, insurers, and utilities can underwrite. None of that happens without real markets—and until now, those have been missing. The UK's move is not perfect, and it won't be fast. But it's a milestone: the first major economy to say, explicitly, that carbon removal belongs in the same market as pollution—and that removing carbon deserves the same financial seriousness as cutting it.
