Brookfield executive questioned at ethics committee about Carney’s corporate connections

Brookfield Corporation’s chief operating officer agreed Prime Minister Mark Carney likely wouldn’t have as many conflicts to manage if he had sold off his assets with the global investment firm, instead of putting them into a blind trust — an ongoing point of contention in Canadian politics.

Justin Beber testified for two hours Monday before the House ethics committee as MPs review the Conflict of Interest Act and question whether Carney’s decisions as prime minister benefit his personal wealth. 

“If the prime minister sold all of his Brookfield-linked assets instead of keeping them in trust, there would be no conflict to manage. Is that correct?” asked Conservative ethics critic Michael Barrett.

The senior Brookfield executive said it’s “probably a correct statement.” 

Carney served as board chair of Brookfield Asset Management before entering Canadian politics and has held several other prominent roles in the world of finance, including leading both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England.

Under the Conflict of Interest Act, politicians like the prime minister, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries are not allowed to own what’s called “controlled assets.” Those are assets whose value could be directly or indirectly affected by government decisions or policy.

They are required to either sell their assets in an arm’s-length transaction (where the buyer is acting in their own interest) or place them in a blind trust.

Following those rules, Carney transferred a majority of his assets — with the exception of some cash, his home and cottage — into a trust shortly after he won the Liberal leadership earlier this year.

He also set up a lengthy ethics screen with the federal commissioner, which is meant to prevent Carney from taking part in decisions that could be seen as benefiting his assets as they stood before they were put into the blind trust.

Carney’s office has long maintained he’s followed the law.

However, as critics and Opposition MPs have routinely pointed out, Carney would be aware of what assets he had before they were put into the trust and decisions adding to Brookfield’s value would very likely add to his personal fortune.

The Conservatives have proposed amending the law to require future prime ministers and their cabinet to sell assets that create potential conflicts of interests.

Barrett said such a move would “restore Canadians’ flagging confidence in democratic institutions, in their elected officials.”

Conservative calls out PM’s ‘financial interest’ in Brookfield as COO appears before committee

“What we have isn’t a Brookfield problem,” the MP put to Beber.

“The reason that you’re here is because the prime minister has a financial interest in the performance of this company.”

Beber repeatedly told the committee it is not his place to opine on conflict of interest laws for Canadian politicians. 

When it was suggested that many of Brookfield’s investment interests  — from artificial intelligence to nuclear projects — were reflected in the Liberals’ budget, Beber said no one from Brookfield has spoken to Carney about policy since he resigned Jan. 16.

“I can’t speak to what the prime minister has in mind. We don’t speak with the prime minister about policy, or any other matters that would impact Brookfield’s business,” said Beber. 

“But in reviewing the policies that the prime minister has espoused, I would say they’re good for a host of different industries and how it plays out for any particular company is very uncertain.” 

Beber did say he personally met with Carney in-person in October to discuss rising levels of antisemitism. Beber said he requested the meeting.

Last week the committee heard from the two officials who oversee Carney’s ethics screen: his chief of staff Marc-André Blanchard and Privy Council Clerk Michael Sabia.

Sabia said so far the screen has been raised in 13 instances. It was later determined that it wasn’t applicable in seven of those cases, but was applied in six — meaning Carney was blocked from decisions in those half-dozen instances. All were double-checked with the ethics commissioner, Sabia said.

‘We don’t expect to be treated any differently’ Brookfield COO tells House ethics committee

The country’s top bureaucrat didn’t elaborate on specifics, but he said in the cases where the screen was ultimately dropped it was because the decisions either had no interaction with the companies listed in Carney’s ethics disclosure or had to do with the general application of tax measures.

Sabia said he did divest his own Brookfield shares in order to “better manage” Carney’s screen.