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.
Like I said, we have a job for that. Its called the Finance Minister. The Finance Minister should absolutely be an experienced economist laser focused on the economy. The Prime Minister should be taking the Finance Minister’s expertise into consideration, the same way they get expert advice from Foreign Affairs, National Defense, Agricultural, Industrial, Energy, and Environment Ministers.
The Prime Minister should be a leader for Canadians - the community of people that call this land our home - backed by the expert advice of their specialized ministers to best serve Canadians in all aspects of our lives. But the focus is always on them being a leader for our economy, which is a series of numbers that seeks to enrich the mean average which allows the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer so long as the rich can get more rich than the poor get poor. And we need someone who can temper the advise to make the average Canadian richer from the Finance Minister with the actual impact to Canadians. No community leader would ever yield “acceptable losses” to the the most vulnerable to benefit the well off.
I mean, that’s nonsense. You’re presupposing that a successful businessman or economist’s only asset is their financial knowledge. To gain the success that someone like Mark Carney has achieved takes a lot more than just financial knowledge. It takes leadership, vision, guts, tenacity, and many other qualities that would make them excellent PMs, as he has shown himself to be.
Your prejudice against financially successful people is not constructive. Just because people have leadership qualities that they have acquired through means other than financial success doesn’t mean that people who do enjoy financial success should be held away from leadership with a barrier to entry like this. It is flat out stupidity.
The article is about the idea that he should divest his assests so personally enriching himself is not a motivation for political action and your argument is that would dissuade people like him from taking office.
I’m saying people that seek power to personally enrich themselves that would be dissuaded from taking office if they couldn’t stand to profit beyond the salary are not the people I want as Prime Minister.
If you can’t see how someone refusing to divest their assets to be in a position of power could be a problem, I don’t know what to tell you, other than look south.
Where does that stop? Do they sell their houses so they aren’t manipulating the stock market? The blind trust is already there for investments. Forced liquidation of investments may just keep good people out of the race to solve a problem that is already mitigated by the blind trust. I know I know, if they REALLY love Canada they would give away all their money and crawl across broken glass for the privilege of being PM.
Imagine you work your ass off, become successful, campaign for Prime Minister, win a minority, sell all your shit, then six months later the opposition call for another election and you’re out on your ass. That’s a great way to attract the sharpest minds of our generation. No flaws in that plan!
First of all, YES! We have an affordability crisis and affording a place to live is at the top of financial stress. That cost has exploded because real estate is seen as an investment that can never be allowed to lose value. Why would we want a PM that stands to personally benefit from houses being more expensive?
Second of all, yes all of their houses. We give them a place to live. Normal people sell their house to move forward work all the time
Well that’s a relief, I thought for a moment I was missing something, but it’s just that you have no grounding in reality. Thanks!