Latest news with #cabinetmeetings
National Post
15-07-2025
- Business
- National Post
Michael Higgins: Mark Carney's ethical guardrails more of a smokecreen
If Prime Minister Mark Carney is truly serious about making sure he does not breach the Conflict of Interest Act then he is going to be exiting cabinet meetings on a regular basis. Article content Carney has pledged to literally leave the room if a discussion starts involving matters that he has placed behind a conflict-of-interest screen. Article content But the 103 companies behind that screen are extensive and have tentacles stretching far and wide in the business world. Article content Article content And it is not just the screen that is problematic, but also a blind trust in which Carney has shares in hundreds of different companies, a full 16 pages worth, everything from Adobe through to Zoom Communications. Article content Article content Such is the extent of Carney's business dealings that no matter how scrupulous and ethical he tries to behave, the man is bound to breach the Conflict of Interest Act in some way. Article content However, worryingly, Carney in his statement to the ethics commissioner's office, has inserted certain caveats that could act as loopholes. Article content Carney has agreed to put a conflict-of-interest screen between himself and investment firm Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation, financial services company Stripe Inc. and another 100 companies owned or controlled by them. Article content Before running for the Liberals, Carney was chairman of Brookfield Asset Management, a company that loudly boosts about all the investments under its umbrella. Article content 'We are one of the world's largest infrastructure investors,' says the Brookfield website. 'We are a large-scale global investor focused on acquiring high-quality businesses that provide essential products and services,' it adds. Article content Article content With $1 trillion of assets under management, Brookfield has its fingers in a lot of pies. Article content Article content And when it comes to Brookfield, Carney has always been cagey and defensive. Article content When asked in March about Brookfield moving their headquarters to New York from Toronto, the prime minister essentially said it had nothing to do with him — before it was revealed he played a key part in the decision. Article content For the record, as National Post reported, Brookfield's annual report said Carney was entitled to 209,300 stock options at $35.13 each and 200,000 options at $40.07 each, for a market value of more than $6.8 million as of Dec. 31, 2024. Article content It was also in March that the prime minister took umbrage at reporters questioning him about conflicts of interests. Article content 'I'm complying with all the rules,' said Carney. Article content The CBC's Rosemary Barton pressed the prime minister saying, 'For a guy who has spent most of his life in the private sector, there's no possible conflict of interest in your assets? That's very difficult to believe.' Article content 'Look inside yourself, Rosemary. You start from a prior of conflict and ill will,' replied Carney with a comment that tended more towards the condescending than the introspective. Article content But Barton hit the nail on the head. It will be difficult for Canadians to believe that Carney is not in some way in a conflict of interest because of his extensive business dealings. And it will be more difficult now we know just how vast and sprawling those dealings are. Article content 'This screen will prevent me from giving preferential treatment to any of the Companies while I exercise my official powers, duties, and functions as a reporting public office holder,' says Carney in a statement to the ethics commissioner. Article content But the very next paragraph raises two very serious concerns. Article content 'This screen is administered by my Chief of Staff and by the Clerk of the Privy Council,' says Carney. Marc-André Blanchard, the chief of staff, and Michael Sabia, the Clerk to the Privy Council, were both hired by Carney. Article content Having people so intimate with the prime minister running the screen is troublesome, but the paragraph goes on to insert a major loophole for Carney. Article content 'I may, however, participate in a discussion or decision on a matter that is of general application or that affects the Companies' interests as a member of a broad class of persons unless those interests are disproportionate to the other members of the class,' says Carney. Article content Who decides whether something is of a general application? Presumably Carney or one of his minions. Who decides whether the interests are disproportionate? Probably the prime minister and his inner circle. Article content 'The loophole is that as long as the decision applies generally or affects a broad group of people or entities, then PM Carney is allowed to participate in the decision even though it will affect a business he is invested in, and even though he can profit from the decision,' says a statement from Duff Conacher, co-founder of Democracy Watch, an organization devoted to government accountability. Article content This is no way to run a conflict-of-interest screen. Canadians are supposed to be able to trust public officials are not abusing their position. Article content As the ethics commissioner makes clear, 'Canadians must feel confident that those officials do not use their public office for private gain. The things they do in their jobs should be to benefit the public, not themselves or someone they know. Competing interests must not interfere with their ability to be fair and objective.' Article content In the event that someone in a meeting points out that Carney may be in a conflict of interest he has promised, 'to recuse myself from that matter by removing myself from the room where the discussion or decision is taking place.' Article content But will he really leave? Article content Conacher called the 'ethics' screen 'a loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen that allows him to participate in, and hide that he is participating in, almost every decision that affects the companies in which he is invested.' Article content Conacher was also scathing of the so-called blind trust.
Irish Times
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Super-juniors treated ‘identically' to senior Ministers, ex-cabinet member Shane Ross tells High Court
Super-junior Ministers are treated 'identically' to senior Ministers at Government meetings and can influence decision-making, former cabinet member Shane Ross has told the High Court. Mr Ross, who served as minister for transport, tourism and sport from 2016 to 2020, on Wednesday gave evidence at the hearing of People Before Profit-Solidarity TD Paul Murphy 's High Court action challenging the attendance of super-junior Ministers at Cabinet meetings. Cross-examinating Mr Ross, Attorney General Rossa Fanning suggested Mr Ross breached a constitutional obligation to respect cabinet confidentiality by publishing a book with accounts of discussions at cabinet meetings. Mr Ross denied any illegality, and said the book pertained to political matters of public interest. 'I thought it was justifiable, there was plenty of precedent for it,' he said. READ MORE Mr Murphy's case alleges super-junior Ministers' presence at Cabinet breaches this Cabinet confidentiality provision and several other sections of the Constitution. [ Government accepts 'super junior' Ministers are involved in decision-making at Cabinet with no constitutional basis, court hears Opens in new window ] Mr Murphy wants an injunction restraining super-juniors from going to Government meetings. 'Ministers of State attending Cabinet', or super-junior Ministers, are appointed by the Government on the nomination of the Taoiseach. They participate at Government meetings but do not vote. Senior government ministers are appointed by the president of Ireland on the advice of the taoiseach and with the prior approval of Dáil Éireann . Mr Fanning is leading the State's defence. The hearing of Mr Murphy's case immediately followed the conclusion of submissions in a similar case brought by Sinn Féin TD Pa Daly . Mr Ross told the court super-junior ministers were treated 'identically' to senior ministers in the context of cabinet meetings during his tenure in government. Giving evidence, he agreed they were never 'curtailed' from participating by virtue of their 'nominally lower status'. On one occasion, Finian McGrath, a super-junior minister between 2016 and 2020, 'changed the government's mind' on a specific cabinet decision after threatening to resign, Mr Ross said. Put to him by Mr Fanning that there is a difference between having political influence and being a member of government, and that many people can exercise political influence, Mr Ross said being present at cabinet is 'not just a matter of political influence'. Super-juniors' presence at meetings gives them a 'special influence' over legislation, Mr Ross said. 'I saw it; they have a much greater influence than other ministers of state.' Taking to the witness box, Mr Murphy said super-junior Ministers are acting as de facto members of Government but are not accountable to or approved by the Dáil. Similar to Mr Daly's case, Mr Murphy's case points to article 28 of the Constitution, which limits the number of Government members to 15, including the Taoiseach, and provides that they meet and act as a collective authority. Mr Murphy's senior counsel, John Rogers, said there is 'no law whatsoever to say that a minister of state is permitted to be in the government'. He said the Taoiseach and the Government have 'usurped a power they don't have' to bring strangers – in a constitutional sense – into the Government room. Mr Rogers submitted that a 'democratic principle' underpins the process by which deputies are nominated to Government by the Taoiseach and approved by the Dáil. Counsel submitted that super-juniors attend participate in Government deliberations and decisions without any process of approval in the Dáil – unlike the 15 members of Government. The case, sitting before three High Court judges, continues.
