Prime Minister Mark Carney and other Canadian prime ministers should be required to divest their investment portfolios when they assume office, not just put them in a blind trust, the House of Commons ethics committee recommends in a new report.

In its report made public Thursday morning, the committee said putting assets in a blind trust isn’t good enough, recommending instead “that the Government of Canada amend the Conflict of Interest Act that, for the application of subsection 27(1) the prime minister, as a reporting public office holder, is fully divested from their controlled assets through sale, since placement in a blind trust does not constitute true divestment.”

The committee also wants the law amended to require public disclosure of “high-level holdings categories placed in a blind trust by reporting public office holders (sector/asset class, and whether the holdings are Canadian-market concentrated),” a recommendation that could shed new light on the financial interests of a number of top officials and cabinet ministers.

  • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.worksOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    It’s insuffient because …

    " … the prime minister, as a reporting public office holder, is fully divested from their controlled assets through sale, since placement in a blind trust does not constitute true divestment."

    The committe is also advising revisions that will affect other officials and cabinet ministers …

    The committee also wants the law amended to require public disclosure of “high-level holdings categories placed in a blind trust by reporting public office holders (sector/asset class, and whether the holdings are Canadian-market concentrated),” a recommendation that could shed new light on the financial interests of a number of top officials and cabinet ministers.

    It’s all in the very short article link.

    • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well that’s something of a circular argument.

      It’s absolutely true that placing investments in a blind trust isn’t divestment - but I didn’t really see why they considered full divestment (rather than a blind trust) necessary in the first place. The article made is sound like the committee just declared that as their goal.

      Regardless, the public disclosure on a broader scale of politicians is a great idea. We deserve to see that.