Carney caught meeting Brookfield execs despite ethics warnings

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s financial fate is directly tied to the success of Brookfield Asset Management, according to testimony from Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein.

Source: X

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s financial fate is directly tied to the success of Brookfield Asset Management, according to testimony from Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein.

Despite this glaring conflict of interest, Carney continues to meet with his former co-workers, allegedly unbeknownst to von Finckenstein, and against his advice.

“It is clear Mr. Carney’s future compensation is tied to the success of Brookfield,” Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein told the Commons ethics committee on Monday.

“But in order to avoid making decisions which can be seen to benefit Brookfield and therefore indirectly himself, first of all he has put everything in a blind trust.”

While Carney is well aware that he is not to be meeting with members of Brookfield’s organization, he’s continued to do so, and without the knowledge of the ethics commissioner.

“We know that Mr. Carney was lobbied by NorthRiver Midstream, said Conservative MP Michael Cooper. “On May 6, a week later, he met with Sam Pollock, the CEO of Brookfield infrastructure in Washington D.C. Brookfield infrastructure is also subject to the ethics screen, yet it has recently come to light that in October Mr. Carney met with the chief operating officer of Brookfield, Justin Beber, in the prime minister’s office.”

News of Carney’s continued correspondence has recently come to light, despite the fact that he still holds $9.8 million stock options with the company.

“So here we have a pattern. A pattern of Mr. Carney meeting with top Brookfield executives, who have direct access to the prime minister, as well as Brookfield-owned companies,” said Cooper. “Is this what you envisioned when you set up the ethics screen?”

The commissioner responded by telling Cooper that he “wished he wouldn’t focus on the ethics screen,” while acknowledging that there was a “conflict of interest that the prime minister has to recuse himself” of.

von Finkenstein went on to say that his goal was for Carney to recuse himself in a way that should be made public. However, he has yet to do so because “he’s a busy man,”

“The office has established a screen to try to make sure that he doesn’t get exposed to it,” he said.

Cooper retorted that the conflicts Carney is involved in are “so vast” that the ethics department felt a screen was necessary as a “precautionary measure,” yet it has not stopped the prime minister from continuing to meet and correspond with his former Brookfield associates.

“You told the prime minister to, basically, stay away from Brookfield, and yet here we have the prime minister meeting with the chief operating officer, being personally lobbied by one of the major Brookfield companies that is on the list of companies that is captured in the screen,” he responded to the commissioner.

“I’m asking you, does that not raise questions about whether, in the face of all of Mr. Carney’s conflicts, does Brookfield have a direct line to the prime minister?”

Commissioner von Finkenstein appeared confused by these meetings, asking Cooper to repeat when they occurred and who Carney had met with.

Once Cooper reiterated the meetings, all of which took place after Carney became prime minister, von Finkenstein said he was only aware of one.

He added that it was his understanding from the prime minister’s and Beber’s previous testimony that the two only spoke about the rise of anti-Semitism, and had “absolutely nothing to do with business.”

“It was a personal visit, etc.,” the ethics commissioner said. “Should it have taken place or not? That is for you to decide.”