Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Remius]

All good points.


That's fair. You might also think the rules need to be strengthened, and perhaps more importantly, the scale of punishment increased. What happened in the SNC case? Fuck all. I'm punished more severely for being late to work.

I’m all for more strengthened rules and enforcement.

 

[Remius]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-support-some-liberal-legislation-1.7526468

Looks promising.

 

[Blackadder1916]

But that's not the point. I'm guessing you don't see any conflict of interest behind the Carney government awarding Brookfield contracts as long as Carney isn't signing the dotted line approving it?

I couldn't help but wonder what sort of contracts the PM could spoon-feed Brookfield that would so energize their bottom line that it would override the PM's and the company's sense of self protection that they would risk not only the public outrage but the potential criminal entanglement. But, I suppose my understanding of the present structure of the company, and the part that Carney was primarily involved with (asset management - investing other groups money), overlooked the myriad subsidiaries that the Brookfield heritage contained, particularly facilities management. However, a quick search did find a list of contracts that 'Brookfield' has and the things that they do for government.

Search Government Contracts over $10,000

 

[The Bread Guy]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-support-some-liberal-legislation-1.7526468

Looks promising.

Great first step, for sure.

It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, happens on Jenni Byrne's x.com feed after this, given her track record dissing a different former leader more than once already.

 

[MilEME09]

I couldn't help but wonder what sort of contracts the PM could spoon-feed Brookfield that would so energize their bottom line that it would override the PM's and the company's sense of self protection that they would risk not only the public outrage but the potential criminal entanglement. But, I suppose my understanding of the present structure of the company, and the part that Carney was primarily involved with (asset management - investing other groups money), overlooked the myriad subsidiaries that the Brookfield heritage contained, particularly facilities management. However, a quick search did find a list of contracts that 'Brookfield' has and the things that they do for government.

Search Government Contracts over $10,000

I highly doubt the government would risk a conflict of interest that they know would destroy them in the polls

 

[ModlrMike]

I would argue that this is how parliament is supposed to function. It should not be binary, confrontational, and opposition for the sake of opposing. Perhaps a more conciliatory approach would be more beneficial to the Torries than anything they've tried thus far.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I couldn't help but wonder what sort of contracts the PM could spoon-feed Brookfield that would so energize their bottom line that it would override the PM's and the company's sense of self protection that they would risk not only the public outrage but the potential criminal entanglement. But, I suppose my understanding of the present structure of the company, and the part that Carney was primarily involved with (asset management - investing other groups money), overlooked the myriad subsidiaries that the Brookfield heritage contained, particularly facilities management. However, a quick search did find a list of contracts that 'Brookfield' has and the things that they do for government.

Search Government Contracts over $10,000

I highly doubt the government would risk a conflict of interest that they know would destroy them in the polls

I think we are far greyer waters than that given the connections already being made. As we're seeing now, even following the Act there's a very good chance that there's going to be the appearance of impropriety. Carney puts us into a strange place in terms of conflict of interest. An economist with a vision for change who was using markets and investment to drive said change while also making shareholders strong returns- is now in the position to drive that change via the Federal government. Even if the implementation is 100% above board and by the book, his continued pursuit of that agenda is likely to create a business environment more favourable to the sorts of companies BAM Impact invested in.
It's going to draw fire to some degree.

 

[MilEME09]

I think we are far greyer waters than that given the connections already being made. As we're seeing now, even following the Act there's a very good chance that there's going to be the appearance of impropriety. Carney puts us into a strange place in terms of conflict of interest. An economist with a vision for change who was using markets and investment to drive said change while also making shareholders strong returns- is now in the position to drive that change via the Federal government. Even if the implementation is 100% above board and by the book, his continued pursuit of that agenda is likely to create a business environment more favourable to the sorts of companies BAM Impact invested in.
It's going to draw fire to some degree.

The problem is with how inter connected the markets are, it doesn't matter what he does, brookfield stocks will likely increase if the economy does well which the CPC can then scream he is benefiting or helping his former employer. He needs to take public steps to distance him self from any decisions that might directly impact brookfield

 

[MilEME09]

Some good news for AB, oil prices have been tanking, but in a small part due to TMX, the price differential is dramatically less now.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The problem is with how inter connected the markets are, it doesn't matter what he does, brookfield stocks will likely increase if the economy does well which the CPC can then scream he is benefiting or helping his former employer. He needs to take public steps to distance him self from any decisions that might directly impact brookfield

That's what I'm trying to get at- I don't think that's possible without him completely renouncing his agenda. BAM has been built around investing in exactly the kind of products/solutions/etc that he believes in. His platform is shaped around building the future Canadian economy around these types of things. Companies that BAM controls or has invested in will benefit from his platform- it's inevitable. What will be interesting to see is whether a man that has bragged about not changing his mind since being a teenager unironically tries to make issue about another man (who has made a lot of people a lot of money with his judgment) not immediately changing his mind about the companies and industries he thinks will be good investments for Canadians.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I highly doubt the government would risk a conflict of interest that they know would destroy them in the polls

Like the government dared not risk pressuring the attorney general to bend the law for Liberal-Friendly SNC Lavalin...

 

[Jarnhamar]

He needs to take public steps to distance him self from any decisions that might directly impact brookfield

Chances are Carney has connections, stock, and assets associated with Brookfield.

Assets we'll never hear about now because of how quickly they were rushed into a blind trust.

Even if Carney isn't signing on the dotted line, any large scale contract awarded to Brookfield is (very likely) going to benefit Carney. No different if the previous government gave big contracts to WE or the Trudeau Foundation.

Best to put a moratorium on Brookfield getting contracts for 4 years and award them to other Canadian businesses.

 

[dapaterson]

Are you familiar with the concept of a blind trust? You no longer know what assets are in there; the administrator is a fiduciary, and acts as such, but you have no control over those assets.

 

[QV]

At least so far there isn't a "Carney Foundation" with millions of dollars coming into it from sketchy connections to the CCP... that I know of.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Best to put a moratorium on Brookfield getting contracts for 4 years and award them to other Canadian businesses.

Best for who, and for accomplishing what objective?

Would that extend to barring Inter Pipeline from taking part in O&G expansion in the West?
Genesee & Wyoming from bringing their expertise in First and Last Mile to open up the ring of fire?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Are you familiar with the concept of a blind trust? You no longer know what assets are in there; the administrator is a fiduciary, and acts as such, but you have no control over those assets.

I'd be happy to get educated on it.

Is the administrator someone comepletely unfamiliar to Carney who is just as likely to dump everything for pennies on the dollar? Or someone trusted who he's confident will take care of his assets and investments?

He has no control over them now, but he gets them back when he's no longer prime minister, right?

 

[Jarnhamar]

Best for who, and for accomplishing what objective?

Best for transparency. Carney is heavily associated with Brookfield. While he's in such a powerful position they're barred from government contracts. Price of doing business. Surely Canada has other companies he's that can bid.

Would that extend to barring Inter Pipeline from taking part in O&G expansion in the West?
Genesee & Wyoming from bringing their expertise in First and Last Mile to open up the ring of fire?

Are they a part of Brookfield? If yes then sure. Let other companies bid.

What about a compromise. Canadians are made aware of any and all assets of Carneys that had anything to do with Brookfield gping into the blind trust. Then put it to a vote whether Brookfield can bid on contracts.

 

[dapaterson]

I'd be happy to get educated on it.

Is the administrator someone comepletely unfamiliar to Carney who is just as likely to dump everything for pennies on the dollar? Or someone trusted who he's confident will take care of his assets and investments?

He has no control over them now, but he gets them back when he's no longer prime minister, right?

Things can go wrong, definitely (like in the UK example cited in Wikipedia). But by and large they are an important tool.

Blind trust - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[IKnowNothing]

Best for transparency. Carney is heavily associated with Brookfield. While he's in such a powerful position they're barred from government contracts. Price of doing business. Surely Canada has other companies he's that can bid.


Are they a part of Brookfield? If yes then sure. Let other companies bid.

What about a compromise. Canadians are made aware of any and all assets of Carneys that had anything to do with Brookfield gping into the blind trust. Then put it to a vote whether Brookfield can bid on contracts.

They are not "part of Brookfield." They are firms that Brookfield has invested in. Brookfield is an asset management company. They take investor money and return back more by picking winners in their chosen sectors of focus. Those chosen areas of focus cover a lot of strategic areas of investment for Canada. The firms that Brookfield can, and likely will, change while Carney is PM.

Compromise- Canada picks the best firms for given endeavours, and doesn't let itself be held hostage by a failed campaign manager's info op.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'd be happy to get educated on it.

Is the administrator someone comepletely unfamiliar to Carney who is just as likely to dump everything for pennies on the dollar? Or someone trusted who he's confident will take care of his assets and investments?

He has no control over them now, but he gets them back when he's no longer prime minister, right?

More on this from MSM (also archived here) ....

Confused about Mark Carney's blind trust? Here's how they work

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney’s critics have been asking pointed questions lately about the assets in the former central banker’s blind trust — a tool meant to allow politicians to avoid conflicts of interest. How do blind trusts work? What is a blind trust? A trust is a legal arrangement...

halifax.citynews.ca

From this piece, sounds like any back & forth goes through the Commissioner (highlights mine):
"... Are blind trusts truly blind?

(Ian Stedman, associate professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at York University) and (Jason Heath, managing director at Objective Financial Partners) both said that once assets are placed in a blind trust, it’s impossible to know exactly which assets remain in a particular portfolio.

The ethics commissioner’s website says that a public office holder can submit “general investment instructions” in writing to the trustee through the commissioner, who must approve the instructions in advance. Beneficiaries cannot direct specific changes to their portfolios.

Stedman said all communication between a blind trust’s beneficiary and trustee must flow through the commissioner’s office — no back-channels allowed.

Heath said a blind trust is likely to be managed like any other portfolio, with a few adjustments made here and there, but it’s rare for trustees to make sweeping changes.

Stedman said “it’s very unlikely” that a trustee for a blind trust portfolio that’s already set up according to the beneficiary’s risk tolerance would “rock the boat.”

In theory, a trustee could sell off every single asset in a blind trust and replace them with completely new investments.

“But really, that’s probably not how the world works if you’re a trustee and you have to act in the best interest of the person whose money you’re managing,” Stedman said.

Are blind trusts good enough for government work?

Carney floated in a press conference on Tuesday that he likely would get “screens” set up through the ethics commissioner that would automatically recuse him from any decisions that could present a conflict.

Stedman said putting up screens like this would be a good “prophylactic” that would build trust among Canadians, since he may still have a general idea of his assets based on the composition of his portfolio before taking office.

“He would say, ‘I can’t be 100 per cent sure, it’s in a blind trust, but I’m going to make sure that in case that is what’s still my portfolio, I’m not making decisions that could impact its value,’” Stedman said."

To be fair, there's at least one critic ...

Duff Conacher

Invited professor | Political Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ottawa

uniweb.uottawa.ca

... who asks if you know what's in it before it's imposed, is it REALLY blind?

Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 30th, 2006 | openparliament.ca

openparliament.ca

Blind Trust

An interview with Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, on Prime Minister Mark Carney’s blind trust, and why it's basically a ‘sham façade’

lindapannozzo.substack.com