Mark Carney’s Blind Trust Is a Lie — And Democracy Watch Just Proved It

The untouchable technocrat now called Prime Minister is running a conflict-of-interest racket. Here’s how the scam works, and why it must end.

They say democracy dies in darkness. In Canada, it’s been quietly euthanized behind the polite smokescreen of “ethics screens” and media adoration. This week, one of the last watchdogs still barking—Democracy Watch—ripped the mask off the man the elite have groomed as their next savior: Mark Carney.

To the untrained eye, Carney is the ultimate centrist technocrat. Former Bank of Canada governor. Former Bank of England head. Former vice-chair of Brookfield Asset Management. Climate finance champion. Davos darling. The face of clean capitalism. And now, Prime Minister.

But behind the veneer of professionalism and reason lies something far more corrupt: a carefully constructed system of legalized self-dealing. Carney’s personal financial empire is vast—he holds investments in over 550 companies. Yet the public is told not to worry, because his assets are tucked away in a “blind trust.”

Except… they aren’t. And Democracy Watch just blew the whistle on the entire sham.

The “Blind Trust” That Isn’t

Let’s start with the basics. A legitimate blind trust requires three key features:

1. The official must not know what assets are in the trust.

2. The trustee must be completely independent.

3. The trustee must be free to manage or sell those assets without direction.

Carney’s arrangement fails on all three.

He personally chose the trustee. He placed the assets in himself. He instructed that none of the holdings be sold. And—get this—he’s allowed to receive updates on those very holdings.

That’s not a blind trust. That’s a monitored trust with blackout curtains that only apply when the media’s looking.

This isn’t just a loophole. It’s a deliberate ethical farce—and it’s been endorsed by the very institution that’s supposed to police it: the federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.

550+ Reasons to Worry

Most troubling is the scope of Carney’s investments. Over 550 companies. Think about that. He has a financial stake in a significant chunk of the global economy—and he’s now writing policy that affects all of it.

Let’s zoom in on two examples:

• Brookfield Asset Management, where Carney once served as vice-chair, and

• Stripe, the Silicon Valley fintech giant where Carney sits on the board and holds equity.

These aren’t passive index funds. These are strategic investments in companies that benefit directly from policy changes—carbon credits, green finance, digital identity, central bank digital currencies, ESG subsidies. These are Carney’s wheelhouse. And his former (and current) colleagues profit when the wheel turns.

Carney knows what he owns. He knows which policies will boost those holdings. And yet, he continues to participate in decisions that shape financial regulation, energy markets, climate incentives, and more.

The idea that a man with this level of financial entanglement can govern impartially is laughable.

Ethics Screens: A System of Self-Deception

Carney’s defenders will point to his “ethics screen.” According to filings, he’s recused himself from dealings with 103 companies.

But here’s the problem:

• That list doesn’t even cover one-fifth of his total holdings.

• The so-called recusal is self-administered.

• And worst of all, there’s a built-in legal escape hatch.

Under Section 25 of the Conflict of Interest Act, public office holders are required to publicly declare when they recuse themselves. But thanks to an innovation by former Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson, politicians can instead use “ethics screens” to quietly step back—no disclosure, no declaration, no transparency.

Even worse, under the “general application” exemption, politicians are allowed to make sweeping decisions that impact entire industries—as long as they don’t target a specific company by name.

Translation: Carney can approve a $10 billion climate investment fund that benefits Brookfield, BlackRock, or any number of firms in which he holds stock, and as long as it’s not “targeted,” it’s legal.

This is legalized insider trading. It is corruption codified.

Democracy Watch: The Canary in the Ethical Coal Mine

The most damning critique of this system—and of Carney himself—comes not from partisan hacks or conspiracy theorists. It comes from Democracy Watch, a nonpartisan group that has been fighting for transparency and accountability in Canadian politics for decades.

In their July 2025 statement, they called Carney’s trust and ethics arrangement “a loophole-filled, unethical smokescreen.” They went further, calling for Carney to immediately sell all his private investments, including his options in Brookfield and other high-profile firms.

This isn’t just about appearances. It’s about trust. You cannot serve the public interest while maintaining hundreds of private interests. You cannot claim moral leadership while hiding behind legal technicalities. And you cannot call it democracy if the people making policy are personally profiting from it.

The Real Game: Laundering Power Through Policy

Carney isn’t just some outlier. He’s not a rogue actor. He is the model.

This is how the modern managerial class consolidates power:

• Step 1: Build influence in banking, global finance, and academia.

• Step 2: Join elite boards and accumulate private stakes.

• Step 3: Enter politics under the banner of “ethics” and “climate.”

• Step 4: Install legal mechanisms to protect personal profit under the guise of transparency.

This isn’t an accident. It’s the system working exactly as intended.

Ethics laws weren’t written to prevent corruption. They were written to sanitize it. And the media? Complicit. Most journalists will never cover this, because their editors sip from the same trough. Brookfield, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street—these are the real owners of the information ecosystem. Carney is their man.

Where Are the Opposition Parties?

It’s worth asking: where is the Conservative Party of Canada? Why has Pierre Poilievre said nothing about Carney’s blind trust?

Because this issue cuts too close to home. Ethics screens and blind trusts are used by all parties. Everyone in Ottawa benefits from keeping the scam going.

The watchdogs have been declawed. The public ethics office is a rubber stamp. And most Canadians have been lulled into complacency by the language of “reform” and “neutrality.”

But neutrality is not an ethical stance. When the powerful are corrupt, silence is complicity.

What Needs to Happen Now

The solution is as straightforward as it is radical:

1. Mandatory divestment of all private investments for senior public officials.

2. Abolition of blind trusts—as recommended by Justice Parker in 1987.

3. Full public disclosure of any recusals or conflicts under Section 25.

4. Creation of an independent ethics enforcement body, outside the PMO’s influence.

5. Criminal penalties for knowingly abusing ethics screens while participating in related policy decisions.

If Carney is serious about public service, he must lead by example. Sell the shares. Cancel the options. Fire the handpicked trustee. Open the books. Anything less proves what Democracy Watch has already made clear: this is a man serving his portfolio, not his people.

Final Word: Don’t Be Gaslit

Carney’s defenders will tell you he’s operating within the law. That’s true. But the law was written to protect people like him. The real test is not legality. It’s legitimacy.

Does it pass the sniff test that the man shaping national policy is also sitting on hundreds of stock options tied to those decisions?

No.

This is not the politics of public good. This is private equity with a government face. This is Davos governance dressed up as democratic accountability.

And if you still believe this is all just a misunderstanding—if you believe Mark Carney’s blind trust is legitimate, his ethics screen is airtight, and his silence on divestment is principled—then I’ve got a Brookfield wind turbine to sell you.

---