The chief operating officer of Brookfield Corporation acknowledged that Prime Minister Mark Carney would likely face fewer conflicts if he had disposed of his assets with the global investment firm, rather than placing them in a blind trust—a matter that continues to spark debate in Canadian politics.
On Monday, Justin Beber provided testimony for two hours before the House ethics committee, as lawmakers examined the Conflict of Interest Act and scrutinized whether Carney’s actions as prime minister directly enhance his personal wealth.
“If the prime minister had liquidated all his Brookfield-related assets instead of maintaining them in a trust, there would be no conflict to address. Is that accurate?” Conservative ethics critic Michael Barrett inquired.
The Brookfield executive replied that it was “probably an accurate statement.”
Prior to his political career in Canada, Carney held the position of board chair at Brookfield Asset Management and has also served in significant financial roles, including as the head of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.
The Conflict of Interest Act prohibits politicians, including the prime minister, cabinet ministers, and parliamentary secretaries, from owning what are termed “controlled assets.” These are assets whose worth might be influenced directly or indirectly by government actions or policies.
-
Civil service leader defends Carney’s ethics oversight at House committee
-
Ethics committee initiates inquiry into Conflict of Interest Act
To comply with these regulations, politicians are required to either divest their assets through an arm’s-length transaction (where the buyer acts in their own interest) or place them in a blind trust.
Following these guidelines, Carney transferred most of his assets—excluding some cash, his residence, and his cottage—into a trust shortly after he secured the Liberal leadership earlier this year.
Additionally, he established a comprehensive ethics screen with the federal commissioner, designed to prevent Carney from participating in any decisions that could be perceived as benefiting his assets prior to their placement in the blind trust.
Carney’s office has consistently asserted that he is in compliance with the law.
Nonetheless, critics and Opposition MPs frequently highlight that Carney would have knowledge of his assets before they were entrusted, and decisions that enhance Brookfield’s value would likely increase his personal wealth.
The Conservative Party has suggested amending the law to mandate that future prime ministers and their cabinets divest assets that could lead to potential conflicts of interest.
Barrett stated that such a change would “restore Canadians’ waning trust in democratic institutions and their elected representatives.”
‘What we have isn’t a Brookfield issue,’ Conservative MP Michael Barrett remarked to the parliamentary ethics committee as Brookfield Corporation COO Justin Beber testified on Monday. Barrett emphasized that Prime Minister Mark Carney should have divested his controlled assets ‘through a sale’ upon taking office.
“What we have isn’t a Brookfield issue,” the MP stated to Beber.
“The reason you’re here is that the prime minister has a financial stake in the performance of this company.”
Beber consistently indicated to the committee that it is beyond his role to comment on conflict of interest legislation for Canadian officials.
When it was mentioned that many of Brookfield’s investment ventures—from artificial intelligence to nuclear initiatives—were reflected in the Liberals’ budget, Beber asserted that no representative from Brookfield had discussed policy with Carney since his resignation on January 16.
“I can’t comment on what the prime minister is considering. We do not engage with the prime minister regarding policy or any other matters that would influence Brookfield’s operations,” Beber stated.
“However, after reviewing the policies that the prime minister has articulated, I would say they are beneficial for a range of industries, and the specific impact on any individual company is uncertain.”
Beber did mention that he personally met with Carney in October to address the rising levels of antisemitism, a meeting he had requested.
Ethics screen invoked 13 times
Last week, the committee heard from the two officials responsible for overseeing Carney’s ethics screen: his chief of staff, Marc-André Blanchard, and Privy Council Clerk Michael Sabia.
Sabia indicated that the screen has been invoked in 13 instances so far. It was later established that it was deemed inapplicable in seven of those cases, while it was applied in six instances—effectively preventing Carney from making decisions in those specific situations. All instances were cross-verified with the ethics commissioner, according to Sabia.
Conservative MP Jacques Gourde questioned Brookfield chief operating officer Justin Beber during a parliamentary ethics committee meeting about potential connections between the company’s investment projects and the federal budget.
The nation’s top bureaucrat did not provide further details but mentioned that in the situations where the screen was ultimately abandoned, it was because the decisions either had no relevance to the companies listed in Carney’s ethics disclosures or were related to the general implementation of tax policies.
Sabia noted that he had divested his own Brookfield shares to “better manage” Carney’s ethics screen.
