PM Carney evades question about his assets, calls it “odd”

At his first press conference after being sworn in as Canada’s unelected head of government on Friday, Prime Minister Mark Carney said it was “odd” that a journalist asked him about his potential...

Source: Facebook

At his first press conference after being sworn in as Canada’s unelected head of government on Friday, Prime Minister Mark Carney said it was “odd” that a journalist asked him about his potential conflicts of interest due to his financial holdings.

The exchange comes amid Conservative attacks on Carney over alleged conflicts of interest stemming from his finance work across public and private sectors.

“I understand that your assets have been put into a blind trust,” one reporter asked Carney. “What is the value of the assets, and where did they come from? How can Canadians know that there's no conflict of interest if they don't know where the assets come from?”

Carney called the question “odd” before claiming that he doesn’t know where his assets are held now despite only being prime minister for less than a day. Carney claimed Canadians can be assured that the money invested comes from his employment in both the public and private sectors.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s team has demanded that Carney disclose his financial interests ahead of becoming Prime Minister saying his holdings in American companies could be leveraged against him and Canada’s interests.

“I have six months to put, or 120 days to put the assets in a blind trust. I already have put the assets in a blind trust, and once assets are in a blind trust, you don't know, but by definition, you don't know the assets because the trustees take over the responsibility,” he said.

Poilievre predicted that Carney would use a blind trust to skirt scrutiny and have his trustee keep him invested in the same companies Carney has a vested interest in, making the “blind trust” effectively meaningless.

“He could go on and govern for years, quietly and subtly, knowing what investments he has and making decisions that profit himself at the expense of the Canadian people,” Poilievre claimed. “He could affect vital regulatory decisions, national security, international trade, all to his own benefit, all against the benefit of the Canadian people.”

Poilievre called on Carney to voluntarily disclose all of his past financial assets and let Canadians “judge for themselves.”

Carney threw jabs at Poilievre, saying that unlike the Conservative leader he has worked extensively in both sectors and that his government would focus on the positives of Canada, unlike Poilievre, which he claimed was being “negative.”

Conservatives have also scrutinized Carney for misleading Canadians on several issues, including claims that he had no part in his investment firm Brookfield Asset Management’s move to New York after Trump began threatening economic sanctions on Canada.

Carney responded saying that meeting the standards expected of a leader of a party is not something Poilievre has been doing.

“Complying or meeting standards expected of a leader of a party, let alone a prime minister, is something that the leader of Opposition is not respected either,” Carney said. “I'm speaking directly with respect to his refusal, still at a time of great crisis, to get his security clearance, something I managed to do in two weeks.”

Poilievre refused to get the security clearance needed to read the unredacted National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report on foreign interference, saying that he would be sworn to secrecy if he read it.

He instead advocated for the report to be made public so Canadians could judge for themselves on its contents rather than have to take his word for it. The report alleged that some MPs wittingly aided agents of foreign governments in one case, even allegedly providing confidential information to a known agent.

In 2017, former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced a law that prevented parliamentarians from informing the public of the content of NSICOP reports. The law is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada after Professor Ryan Alford challenged it, saying it violated the free speech of parliamentarians.