Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[lenaitch]

The only thing the Liberal base cares about is remaining in power.

You can insert any party name in here and be accurate. The goal of any party is to gain then keep power.

Everyone should have been screaming for it. 103 companies with a conflict of interest screen? That is more than a significant issue to have, let alone navigate. This is something that should have been out before the election and was unethical to hide it from Canadians until a Friday in July.

It seems some people would only be happy if a candidate sold everything they owned prior to running for office. People have been saying 'great - finally someone with business experience' but don't like the reality that he has personally benefitting from that experience.

PP would be easier - he's never held a job outside of government but, then again, people would whine that where his RSP or TFSA is parked.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Everyone should have been screaming for it. 103 companies with a conflict of interest screen? That is more than a significant issue to have, let alone navigate. This is something that should have been out before the election and was unethical to hide it from Canadians until a Friday in July.

This is a big nothing burger. Throwing fits about his investments (now in a blind trust) is pretty petty. Especially considering most investors have diversified holdings.

Certainly acting much more ethically with his stocks/conflicts than the previous PM or many other members of government of all stripes (at all levels).

As much as some Canadians think the best course of action is to fight tooth and nail with the States that is because they don’t understand what is at stake for us. 75% of our trade is with them. They can destroy us, max we can do is hurt them. I would rather not have a devastating recession because we would rather cut off our nose to spite our face.

 

[RangerRay]

You can insert any party name in here and be accurate. The goal of any party is to gain then keep power.

I would argue that some parties’ bases prefer ideological purity over power. Those parties tend not to gain power, nor retain power if they do manage to gain it.

 

[YZT580]

You can insert any party name in here and be accurate. The goal of any party is to gain then keep power.


It seems some people would only be happy if a candidate sold everything they owned prior to running for office. People have been saying 'great - finally someone with business experience' but don't like the reality that he has personally benefitting from that experience.

PP would be easier - he's never held a job outside of government but, then again, people would whine that where his RSP or TFSA is parked.

There sure are a lot of times that he will have to recluse himself and with his chief of staff administering the whole thing I fail to see how there won't be lots of questions asked. It is a very very narrow tightrope that he is walking

 

[Jarnhamar]

This is a big nothing burger.

If this list was available before the election he wouldn't have been able to pull off the big elbows-up charade that he did. It's clear from the list how invested he is in American companies.

 

[Eaglelord17]

If this list was available before the election he wouldn't have been able to pull off the big elbows-up charade that he did. It's clear from the list how invested he is in American companies.

So are tons of other Canadians (and people around the world). If he didn’t have investments in a bunch of American companies it would be more shocking. Not withstanding the current administration it was historically a pretty safe bet to invest in American businesses.

No one with any sense was going to go hard on the whole ‘elbows up’ thing. The reality is if they did they would be doing a disservice to their constituents.

Carney has to walk a very tight rope here between the erratic Trump administration, conflicting Canadian public (who may want to do things against their own interests because they fail to understand what is at stake), and his own political party. I do not envy him. So far he as done a decent job in my opinion and this is as someone who dislikes the stance he takes on some topics very dear to me (mainly firearms).

 

[brihard]

Anyone with investments who’s prudently diversified should have a fair bit of exposure to different US assets. It would be foolish not to. I’d question the competence or judgement of any finance or economics professional who doesn’t.

 

[Jarnhamar]

So are tons of other Canadians (and people around the world).

That's a huge defleftion. They weren't running to be elected PM, and running on a pretense of standing up to big bad USA while moving to sever Canadian interests from American pockets.

Carneys investments were hidden from public view via blind trust before be signaled his intent to run for office.

While you can say people ought to have known any investor worth their salt would have shares in US companies had this list been available prior to the election Carney wouldn’t have been able to paint himself the way he did. He has shares in hundreds of US companies, he clearly benefits from these American companies benefiting.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Anyone with investments who’s prudently diversified should have a fair bit of exposure to different US assets. It would be foolish not to. I’d question the competence or judgement of any finance or economics professional who doesn’t.

Good point. Carney should have disclosed his list of shares in hundreds of US companies to show Canadians how prudent of an investor he is.

 

[CBH99]

Anyone with investments who’s prudently diversified should have a fair bit of exposure to different US assets. It would be foolish not to. I’d question the competence or judgement of any finance or economics professional who doesn’t.

Brihard, I have absolutely come to respect your take on matters far more than I do most other people in my life.

You are a voice of reason, and often explain the other side of various issues that gives them far more context.

I think you may be missing the point on this one tho...

 

[PuckChaser]

If this list was available before the election he wouldn't have been able to pull off the big elbows-up charade that he did. It's clear from the list how invested he is in American companies.

There's a reason Trump wanted Carney. He either perceives him as weak and able to be pushed around, or is deeply connected to American products so would want those investments to succeed.

I absolutely love the idea that somehow because all these investments are in a blind trust, it's like someone MIB-flashed Carney to forget they exist. Regardless of the ethics screens, he knows what he used to hold and what cannot be divested.

 

[brihard]

Good point. Carney should have disclosed his list of shares in hundreds of US companies to show Canadians how prudent of an investor he is.

Brihard, I have absolutely come to respect your take on matters far more than I do most other people in my life.

You are a voice of reason, and often explain the other side of various issues that gives them far more context.

I think you may be missing the point on this one tho...

No, I see the point, and I think it’s an uninformed and uninsightful take; it’s just an attempt at a gotcha that doesn’t hold any water. Anyone who truly cared about Carney’s broad investment portfolio and who has a basic understanding of personal finance would already expect it to be broad and diversified including plenty of US exposure. And it is. I didn’t need to be explicitly told because it was already the only reasonable assumption. Any of our political leaders with RRSP/TFSA and decent investment knowledge or advice would have something pretty similar looking for the most part. Many of us here on this site do. The CPP and any private pension portfolios do. So it’s a non-issue to me; anyone with any real financial success at all will have similar exposure.

That doesn’t create a real conflict of interest; his interests don’t conflict with the broader national interest due to these portfolio generalities. On the contrary his financial interests are very much aligned with what’s good for Canadians broadly. That’s a good thing- contrast it with, say, a political leader whose primary source of wealth is housing and who might be in a position to significantly shape housing policy. Or same for a heavy overweighting of investments within a narrow and specific equity sector or individual company.

Now, against those risks - say, for instance, any remaining interest PM Carney may have in Brookfield - we have conflict of interest rules in place. Those rules weren’t set up specially for him, they haven’t been tailored to his advantage. They’ve been there and have applied for a long time.

Now, has PM Carney followed those conflict of interest rules to the letter? No, he hasn’t… Because he actually exceeded the requirements in terms of reporting earlier than he had to.

All in all, I have no issue with any of what I see here. Like I said, it’s an attempted ‘gotcha’ by his political opponents. For me, it doesn’t stick. I’d say the same if a similar set of facts were the case for any new PM of any party.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Like I said, it’s an attempted ‘gotcha’ by his political opponents.

Is it accurate to say that in light of the threat of Trump and an unfriendly US
you think Canadians wouldn't have received Carney (and his messaging) any differently had it been public knowledge that he had investments in hundreds of American companies?

 

[brihard]

Is it accurate to say that in light of the threat of Trump and an unfriendly US
you think Canadians wouldn't have received Carney (and his messaging) any differently had it been public knowledge that he had investments in hundreds of American companies?

Oh, I’m sure some would have, but it would have reflected a lack of critical thinking and financial literacy on their part, IMO.

If we want to establish a norm of proactive disclosure of all investments and finances to the voting public coming into an election, ok, sure- but do so well ahead of time and make it an expectation of all party leaders, to include all income, assets, and liabilities. Let’s also know who they might be indebted to. If it’s to be a standard expected of one because he comes from a finance background, expect it of all of them because it’s not like any of them come into this poor.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Regardless of the ethics screens, he knows what he used to hold and what cannot be divested.

Oh I don't know. He's probably excited about L3Harris being the likely winner of our NVG contract (after last minute unexpected changes to the requirements that all but secure a single company) for the reasons that you or I are.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Is it accurate to say that in light of the threat of Trump and an unfriendly US
you think Canadians wouldn't have received Carney (and his messaging) any differently had it been public knowledge that he had investments in hundreds of American companies?

Believe it or not, generally speaking when American companies do good, so does Canada.

75% of our exports go to them. That means American companies buying Canadian products. That means the better they do generally the better we do. That relationship is strained at the moment but again up until this administration that was the status quo.

Obviously things are changing, very chaotically day by day but that was the status quo for over 70 years and it is partially why people like investing in America because of their historically business friendly and stable economy.

Again this is all some attempt to find dirt on Carney which if this is all the Conservatives can come up with, he has to be relatively clean as far as politicians go.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Oh, I’m sure some would have, but it would have reflected a lack of critical thinking and financial literacy on their part, IMO.

That's my point.

I agree people should have expected him to have those investments. I certainly expected him to have them and I'm not financially literate. Carney and the LPC benefited from the average Canadian not knowing any better, or having that physical proof. That wasn't accidental.

He's not the anti-american messiah the LPC tried to project. Believing he was would be a lack of critical thinking. People still bought into it though. Does it change anything? No, he won



For what it's worth I think he's doing a better job than what Poilievre would have done at this point. He's a banker CEO and not a politician and it's showing (good thing).

 

[brihard]

Anyone who mistook him for an ‘anti-American messiah’ wasn’t paying close attention. He’s not ‘anti-American’ and has never been held up as such. He’s playing a long term, strat level defensive game that he’s unusually well equipped for by virtue of his macroeconomic expertise, and that, I believe, is what informed and aware voters were expecting and hoping for.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Believe it or not, generally speaking when American companies do good, so does Canada.

Yup. Not the point though.

Again this is all some attempt to find dirt on Carney which if this is all the Conservatives can come up with, he has to be relatively clean as far as politicians go.

Also not the point, at least as far as my argument goes. As I said to Brihard he's not the anti-american messiah that the LPC tried to message, especially in contrast to Poilievres more conservative approach to dealing with Trump.

Poilievre got lambasted for his views on how we should respond to Trump. Carney is doing what Poilievre suggested and being hailed a hero for it.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Anyone who mistook him for an ‘anti-American messiah’ wasn’t paying close attention. He’s not ‘anti-American’ and has never been held up as such. He’s playing a long term, strat level defensive game that he’s unusually well equipped for by virtue of his macroeconomic expertise, and that, I believe, is want informed and aware voters were expecting and hoping for.

The Liberal Party and Mark Carney deliberately embraced anti-american messaging as part of their broader strategy during the election.

Carney repeatedly described Trump as an economic and political threat to Canada, warning of potential tariffs, annexation, and undermined sovereignty. In his campaign launch, he argued Canada was “facing the most significant crisis of our lifetime” due to America’s aggressive actions.

Several Liberal campaign materials emphasized Canada's need to decouple from overreliance on the US, boosting domestic manufacturing and forging ties with Europe and Asia.

Liberals intentionally portrayed the US as a looming adversary, using this framing to:
1. Position Carney as a defender of Canadian sovereignty; and
2. Advance a Canada-first, us-vs-them narrative

Rather than a side effect, this anti‑american posture was central to the Liberal campaign’s strategy to rally voters around Carney. You say people weren't really listening. I'd disagree and say people were. The anti-american messiah trick worked.