Privy Council Clerk Michael Sabia, one of the individuals responsible for overseeing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s ethical conduct, stated that the prime minister’s ethics screen is activated at the slightest potential need. This declaration came during Sabia’s testimony in Ottawa before Conservative MPs on the House ethics committee, who continue to scrutinize whether Carney has benefited personally from his policy decisions.
Earlier this year, an ethics screen was implemented following Carney’s full disclosure of his assets to the federal ethics commissioner. This move occurred shortly after Carney assumed the Liberal leadership, transferring the majority of his assets, except for select items like cash, his residence, and a cottage, into a blind trust.
A blind trust arrangement designates a trustee as the legal owner of assets, allowing them autonomy to manage transactions without Carney’s involvement or knowledge of the trust’s contents. Carney’s disclosure to the ethics commissioner detailed his assets pre-blind trust formation, with the ethics screen aimed at preventing decisions that could favor these assets.
Carney’s ethics screen pertains to about 100 companies in which he had stakes, prohibiting involvement in decisions benefiting these entities while in office. Sabia confirmed that the ethics screen has been invoked 13 times, resulting in Carney being restricted from participating in six instances after scrutiny by the ethics commissioner.
While specific details were not disclosed, Sabia mentioned that decisions unrelated to the listed companies or concerning general tax measures led to the removal of the ethics screen in some cases. The Conflict of Interest Act outlines regulations to prevent public office holders from making self-serving decisions.
Carney, with a background in finance and previous roles at institutions like Brookfield Asset Management, is subject to laws barring controlled assets ownership by office holders. Opposition MPs question the adequacy of these regulations, with discussions on whether total divestment, rather than a blind trust, is necessary to eliminate any perception of conflict of interest.
Sabia defended the current system’s robustness but suggested room for parliamentary review. He cautioned against potential barriers for talented individuals transitioning from the private sector to public service if regulations are too stringent. The ethics screen overseen by Sabia and Marc-André Blanchard references official matters involving companies like Brookfield and Stripe, where Carney had holdings at the time of divestment.
Carney’s assets in these companies, including unexercised stock options, were not publicly quantified. However, Brookfield Asset Management’s financial reports suggest Carney had significant holdings in the firm.