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.
You have a wildly inaccurate concept as to how blind trust operate. They’re not cutthroat aggressive day traders. The job of a blind trust is to shepherd a portfolio. It’s not that they’ll never sell anything because obviously they will sometimes but it would be rare for them to aggressively change a portfolio that was already successful. They are largely a conservative and non-reactionary concept. By the time a blind trust ends it would be wildly unusual for it not to look 90% the same as when it went in.
The idea that the PM would not generally know what was in his trust is just bonkers.
How is that going to change if they know what he had from public disclosures and they get a pile or cash instead? It wont.
If what you say is true, they’ll just rebuy the same successful portfolio and it’ll be 90% the same anyway.
That’d be the most conservative approach, dont change what they had that was working.
I’m perfectly okay with them just rebuying it afterwards. That’s fine by me. They’ll be buying it at a higher price. But that’s fair. The point is that they’re not materially benefiting while in office. If when they’re out of office they buy the things that they made stronger then that’s perfectly fine.
The corruption is the difference. The difference is them increasing the value of something while they hold a piece of it. If they don’t have it while they increase the value there’s no corruption, and assuming there’s no other quid pro quo.
If i have $1,000,000 in Apple (edit today) and am forced to sell it, and after rebuying it tomorrow in the blind trust i have 700,000 due to taxes I still have 700,000 in apple. The only difference is the taxes and now its easier to claim a capital loss.
The price doesn’t matter. If it goes down and its worth $600,000 that million would have been worth 875,000 instead or whatever.
They either pay 125k less in capital gain taxes because they haven’t sold if they sell or they get a 100k capital loss to put against a future gain tax free.
Its ultimately the same, you just forced all PMs to pay a tax to become PM, but dont ultimately change any of the corruption youre worried about.
Its tax + theater if what you say is true and blind trusts are conservative and dont want to change anything.
Edit: clarity, but also the only way to not have the problem you’re worried about is to not allow them to own anything, or maybe only a broad market ETF like VEQT or one with bonds like VGRO in a blind trust, but at that point why even need a trust.
Edit: or a rule the blind trust cant own any individual stock previously owned.