Loading...
Canada deserves to know.
Loading...
Mark Carney was Vice Chair and then board Chair of Brookfield Asset Management from 2020 until January 2025 — the months before he became Liberal leader and Prime Minister. He still held 409,300 Brookfield stock options worth approximately US$6.8 million at the end of 2024. He has placed his assets in a blind trust and operates under a conflict-of-interest screen administered by his own chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. In April 2026, the House of Commons Ethics Committee said that is not enough — and recommended that prime ministers be required to fully divest. This is the documented financial record.
Mark Carney joined Brookfield Asset Management in 2020 as Vice Chair and Head of ESG and Impact Investing, later becoming Chair of the Brookfield Asset Management board. He held those roles until January 2025, immediately before launching his successful Liberal leadership campaign and becoming Prime Minister in March 2025. According to Brookfield's 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Carney held 409,300 unexercised Brookfield stock options worth approximately US$6.8 million as of December 31, 2024. Brookfield is one of the largest residential property owners in Canada, with 31,211 residential units in the country (part of a North American portfolio of over 73,000 single-family lots). Upon becoming Prime Minister, Carney placed his assets in a blind trust and established a conflict-of-interest screen — administered by his chief of staff Marc-André Blanchard and Privy Council Clerk Michael Sabia — intended to wall him off from official decisions involving Brookfield and the payment-processing firm Stripe (on whose board he also served). His ethics filing lists more than 100 entities under the conflict-of-interest screen. In April 2026, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics published a report recommending that prime ministers be required to fully divest their investment portfolios on taking office, not merely place them in a blind trust. Democracy Watch has characterized the blind-trust-and-screen arrangement as "loophole-filled." This article documents the financial relationship, the conflict-of-interest architecture, the specific concerns raised about it, and Carney's defenses — sticking strictly to the documented financial record.
Mark Carney joined Brookfield Asset Management in 2020, after concluding his term as Governor of the Bank of England. His title was Vice Chair and Head of ESG and Impact Investing. He later became Chair of the Brookfield Asset Management board of directors.
Brookfield is one of the largest alternative-asset managers in the world, with over US$900 billion in assets under management across real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure, private equity, and credit. In Canada specifically, Brookfield is one of the largest residential property owners — holding 31,211 residential units in the country as part of a broader North American portfolio of more than 73,000 single-family lots and over 200 multi-family, industrial, and commercial parcels.
Carney held his Brookfield board chairmanship until January 2025 — the same month he launched his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. He won that leadership race and was sworn in as Prime Minister in March 2025.
The timeline is the foundation of everything that follows: the Prime Minister of Canada was the board chair of one of the world's largest asset managers until weeks before he sought the office.
According to Brookfield Asset Management's Form 10-K filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission — a mandatory, legally-binding corporate disclosure — Mark Carney held **409,300 unexercised Brookfield stock options worth approximately US$6.8 million as of December 31, 2024.**
The options have a strike price (the price at which Carney can buy the underlying shares) reported at US$37.54, with expiry dates in 2033 and 2034. The value of the options fluctuates with Brookfield's share price; the US$6.8 million figure is the value at the end of 2024 and has changed since.
A stock option is not the same as a share. An option gives the holder the right to buy shares at a fixed price in the future. The value of that right rises and falls with the company's share price. The critical feature for a conflict-of-interest analysis: the holder has a direct, ongoing financial interest in the company's performance. If Brookfield's share price rises, Carney's options become more valuable. If it falls, they become less valuable.
This is the central fact. The Prime Minister of Canada holds millions of dollars in financial instruments whose value depends on the performance of a company that operates in sectors — residential real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure — that federal government policy directly affects.
Carney did not ignore the conflict-of-interest question. On becoming Prime Minister, he took two steps that comply with Canada's Conflict of Interest Act.
**The blind trust.** Carney placed his assets into a blind trust shortly after winning the Liberal leadership but before being sworn in. A blind trust is a legal arrangement in which a trustee manages the assets without the beneficiary's knowledge or direction. The theory: if Carney does not know what the trust is buying or selling, he cannot make government decisions to benefit specific holdings.
**The ethics screen.** Carney established a conflict-of-interest screen administered by two people: his chief of staff, Marc-André Blanchard, and the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Sabia. (Sabia is the most senior non-partisan civil servant in the federal government.) The screen is designed to ensure that Carney "is not made aware of and does not participate in any official matters or decision-making processes involving" Brookfield and Stripe (the payment-processing company on whose board Carney also served).
Carney's ethics filing, published by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, lists **more than 100 entities** under the conflict-of-interest screen — the full set of companies in which Carney has a documented interest and from whose government files he is meant to be walled off.
This is the legally-sufficient mechanism under current Canadian law. Carney has done what the Conflict of Interest Act requires.
In April 2026, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics published a report with a direct recommendation: prime ministers — and Carney specifically — should be required to **fully divest** their investment portfolios on taking office, not merely place them in a blind trust.
The Committee's reasoning addresses the structural gap in the blind-trust mechanism:
1. **A blind trust does not eliminate knowledge of what you own.** Carney knows he owns Brookfield stock options — he held them when he set up the trust. The trust prevents him from directing trades; it does not erase his memory of the major holdings. For an asset like 409,300 Brookfield options, the holder knows they are there. 2. **A blind trust does not eliminate the financial interest.** Whatever the trustee does with the smaller liquid assets, the Brookfield stock options (which cannot simply be sold by a trustee without triggering tax and contractual consequences) represent a continuing financial stake in Brookfield's performance. 3. **An ethics screen depends on the screen-holders.** The screen is administered by Carney's own chief of staff and the Privy Council Clerk. Both are appointees who serve at the Prime Minister's pleasure or in close working proximity to him. The Committee questioned whether a screen administered by the PM's own senior staff can be truly independent.
Democracy Watch — the non-partisan democratic-accountability advocacy organization — went further, characterizing the blind-trust-and-screen arrangement as "loophole-filled" and an "unethical smokescreen." The organization's core argument: the only arrangement that genuinely eliminates a conflict of interest is divestment, because only divestment removes the financial stake itself.
The conflict-of-interest concern is sharpest in one specific policy area: housing.
The Carney government's signature domestic-policy commitment is a housing plan with a target of building 500,000 homes per year, supported by a federal financing vehicle. The government's framing emphasizes modular and prefabricated construction as a way to accelerate the build-out.
The overlap with Brookfield's business is direct: - Brookfield owns 31,211 residential units in Canada. Government housing and rental policy affects the value of residential property portfolios. - In 2021, Brookfield acquired Modulaire Group — a global modular and prefabricated-construction firm — for approximately US$5 billion. Carney was at Brookfield at the time. The Carney housing plan's emphasis on modular construction is in the same sector Brookfield invested in.
It is important to be precise about what this does and does not establish. It does NOT establish that Carney has directed any government housing decision to benefit Brookfield — the ethics screen is designed specifically to prevent that, and there is no documented evidence he has breached it. What it establishes is the STRUCTURE of the conflict: the Prime Minister has a continuing financial interest in a company that operates in the exact sector his signature policy targets. That structure is what the Ethics Committee's divestment recommendation is responding to.
The honest framing: the conflict is structural and documented; a breach is neither documented nor alleged by the Committee. The concern is that the structure should not exist in the first place for an officeholder at the Prime Minister's level.
One further documented fact bears on the question of Carney's relationship to Brookfield's corporate interests.
In 2024, while Carney was Chair of the Brookfield Asset Management board, Brookfield moved its head office from Toronto to New York City. Carney, as board chair, recommended that the board approve the move.
This became a campaign issue in early 2025. Conservatives accused Carney of misrepresenting his role in the relocation; Carney's campaign disputed the characterization. The factual core that is not in dispute: Brookfield relocated its headquarters from Canada to the United States during Carney's chairmanship, and Carney participated in the board process that approved it.
The relevance to the conflict-of-interest question: a Prime Minister who, months earlier, chaired the board that moved a major Canadian asset manager's headquarters out of Canada is in an unusual position when his government addresses questions of Canadian corporate competitiveness, head-office retention, and the tax treatment of multinational asset managers. The head-office move is documented; the inference about its political significance is the reader's to weigh.
Fairness requires the strongest version of the Prime Minister's defense.
**He complied with the law.** The Conflict of Interest Act does not require divestment. A blind trust is the standard, legally-sufficient mechanism, used by previous officeholders with significant assets. Carney did exactly what the law requires and arguably more (the ethics screen is an additional measure).
**The screen-holders are credible.** The Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Sabia, is the most senior non-partisan civil servant in Canada, with a decades-long record across the public and private sectors. He is not a political appointee in the partisan sense.
**The divestment standard would exclude business expertise from public office.** Carney's defenders argue that requiring a successful business figure to liquidate their entire portfolio — potentially triggering enormous tax liabilities and crystallizing losses — sets a standard that would deter anyone with significant private-sector achievement from entering public life. The counter-argument to the Ethics Committee is essentially: do you want prime ministers who have never succeeded in business?
**Stock options cannot simply be sold.** The 409,300 Brookfield options are subject to vesting schedules, contractual restrictions, and tax consequences. A trustee cannot simply liquidate them the way they could sell a mutual fund. The practical difficulty of divesting this specific asset class is real.
These are not trivial arguments. They are the reason the current law permits the blind-trust mechanism. The Ethics Committee's recommendation is a proposal to CHANGE the law — which is itself an acknowledgment that, under the current law, Carney has done nothing improper.
On the documented financial record, the situation is this:
- The Prime Minister of Canada was the board Chair of Brookfield Asset Management until January 2025. - He holds approximately US$6.8 million in Brookfield stock options (as of end-2024). - Brookfield is one of Canada's largest residential landlords and operates in sectors — housing, energy, infrastructure — that federal policy directly affects. - He has complied with the Conflict of Interest Act via a blind trust and an ethics screen. - Parliament's own Ethics Committee has concluded that compliance with the current law is structurally insufficient and has recommended mandatory divestment for prime ministers.
The article makes no claim that Carney has breached his ethics screen or directed any decision to benefit Brookfield. No such breach is documented or alleged by the Committee. What is documented is the structure of the conflict and the formal finding, by a committee of Parliament, that the structure should not be permitted to exist at the prime-ministerial level.
Parliament Audit takes no position on whether Mark Carney should be Prime Minister. We publish the documented financial record and the formal concerns raised about it. Whether a blind trust is sufficient for an officeholder with this profile — or whether the Ethics Committee is right that only divestment will do — is a judgment for Parliament and, ultimately, for voters.
(Note on scope: claims have circulated online that Brookfield acquired housing near Canadian Forces military bases and raised rents dramatically. We could not verify that specific claim in any primary or mainstream source — the on-base military housing units are owned by the federal Canadian Forces Housing Agency and are not private assets for sale — so this article confines itself to the documented financial record above.)
During Prime Minister Mark Carney's state visit to India in March 2026, the University of Toronto announced a pledge of up to $100 million to fund up to 200 fully-funded scholarships for Indian students — covering tuition, living expenses, and other costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that operating the existing First Nations water-treatment infrastructure in Canada is currently underfunded by approximately $138 million per year. Forty long-term drinking-water advisories remain in place on First Nations reserves in Canada as of early 2026. Both numbers are real. The political-optics comparison is what this article is about.
On Tuesday, April 28, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary of Health moved the cameras off two minutes after a Conservative MP moved to ask the Auditor General to audit PrescribeIT. A parallel in-camera vote happened the same morning at the Ethics Committee on a motion about the Prime Minister’s ethics screen. Both votes were 6–5 on Liberal party lines.
After 10 years and roughly $290 million in federal spending on the national e-prescribing service, fewer than 5% of Canadian prescriptions ever moved through it. Conservative MPs have asked the Auditor General to investigate.
About this article
Parliament Audit is non-partisan and does not endorse or oppose any legislation. This article is based on publicly available legislative documents and parliamentary records; all sources are linked above.
AI-assisted, human-edited. AI tools help us ingest parliamentary records and draft analysis; an editor reviews every article and verifies key facts against primary sources before publication. Quotation marks are reserved for verbatim text from a primary source. See our methodology and corrections log.
Your MP votes on this. Their constituency inbox is the most-read channel for feedback on bills in committee.
You're welcome to run this article in full on your newsroom, blog, newsletter, or paper. Keep the byline and the link back to parliamentaudit.ca. See the full terms.
<!-- Parliament Audit — republished under CC BY-ND 4.0 -->
<article>
<h1>The Prime Minister Still Holds $6.8 Million in Brookfield Stock Options. Parliament's Ethics Committee Says a Blind Trust Isn't Enough.</h1>
<p><em>By Parliament Audit · May 28, 2026 · 7 min read</em></p>
<p><strong>Mark Carney joined Brookfield Asset Management in 2020 as Vice Chair and Head of ESG and Impact Investing, later becoming Chair of the Brookfield Asset Management board. He held those roles until January 2025, immediately before launching his successful Liberal leadership campaign and becoming Prime Minister in March 2025. According to Brookfield's 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Carney held 409,300 unexercised Brookfield stock options worth approximately US$6.8 million as of December 31, 2024. Brookfield is one of the largest residential property owners in Canada, with 31,211 residential units in the country (part of a North American portfolio of over 73,000 single-family lots). Upon becoming Prime Minister, Carney placed his assets in a blind trust and established a conflict-of-interest screen — administered by his chief of staff Marc-André Blanchard and Privy Council Clerk Michael Sabia — intended to wall him off from official decisions involving Brookfield and the payment-processing firm Stripe (on whose board he also served). His ethics filing lists more than 100 entities under the conflict-of-interest screen. In April 2026, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics published a report recommending that prime ministers be required to fully divest their investment portfolios on taking office, not merely place them in a blind trust. Democracy Watch has characterized the blind-trust-and-screen arrangement as "loophole-filled." This article documents the financial relationship, the conflict-of-interest architecture, the specific concerns raised about it, and Carney's defenses — sticking strictly to the documented financial record.</strong></p>
<h2>The relationship, on the record</h2>
<p>Mark Carney joined Brookfield Asset Management in 2020, after concluding his term as Governor of the Bank of England. His title was Vice Chair and Head of ESG and Impact Investing. He later became Chair of the Brookfield Asset Management board of directors.</p>
<p>Brookfield is one of the largest alternative-asset managers in the world, with over US$900 billion in assets under management across real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure, private equity, and credit. In Canada specifically, Brookfield is one of the largest residential property owners — holding 31,211 residential units in the country as part of a broader North American portfolio of more than 73,000 single-family lots and over 200 multi-family, industrial, and commercial parcels.</p>
<p>Carney held his Brookfield board chairmanship until January 2025 — the same month he launched his campaign for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. He won that leadership race and was sworn in as Prime Minister in March 2025.</p>
<p>The timeline is the foundation of everything that follows: the Prime Minister of Canada was the board chair of one of the world's largest asset managers until weeks before he sought the office.</p>
<h2>What he still holds</h2>
<p>According to Brookfield Asset Management's Form 10-K filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission — a mandatory, legally-binding corporate disclosure — Mark Carney held **409,300 unexercised Brookfield stock options worth approximately US$6.8 million as of December 31, 2024.**</p>
<p>The options have a strike price (the price at which Carney can buy the underlying shares) reported at US$37.54, with expiry dates in 2033 and 2034. The value of the options fluctuates with Brookfield's share price; the US$6.8 million figure is the value at the end of 2024 and has changed since.</p>
<p>A stock option is not the same as a share. An option gives the holder the right to buy shares at a fixed price in the future. The value of that right rises and falls with the company's share price. The critical feature for a conflict-of-interest analysis: the holder has a direct, ongoing financial interest in the company's performance. If Brookfield's share price rises, Carney's options become more valuable. If it falls, they become less valuable.</p>
<p>This is the central fact. The Prime Minister of Canada holds millions of dollars in financial instruments whose value depends on the performance of a company that operates in sectors — residential real estate, renewable energy, infrastructure — that federal government policy directly affects.</p>
<h2>The blind trust and the ethics screen — what Carney did</h2>
<p>Carney did not ignore the conflict-of-interest question. On becoming Prime Minister, he took two steps that comply with Canada's Conflict of Interest Act.</p>
<p>**The blind trust.** Carney placed his assets into a blind trust shortly after winning the Liberal leadership but before being sworn in. A blind trust is a legal arrangement in which a trustee manages the assets without the beneficiary's knowledge or direction. The theory: if Carney does not know what the trust is buying or selling, he cannot make government decisions to benefit specific holdings.</p>
<p>**The ethics screen.** Carney established a conflict-of-interest screen administered by two people: his chief of staff, Marc-André Blanchard, and the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Sabia. (Sabia is the most senior non-partisan civil servant in the federal government.) The screen is designed to ensure that Carney "is not made aware of and does not participate in any official matters or decision-making processes involving" Brookfield and Stripe (the payment-processing company on whose board Carney also served).</p>
<p>Carney's ethics filing, published by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, lists **more than 100 entities** under the conflict-of-interest screen — the full set of companies in which Carney has a documented interest and from whose government files he is meant to be walled off.</p>
<p>This is the legally-sufficient mechanism under current Canadian law. Carney has done what the Conflict of Interest Act requires.</p>
<h2>Why Parliament's Ethics Committee says it isn't enough</h2>
<p>In April 2026, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics published a report with a direct recommendation: prime ministers — and Carney specifically — should be required to **fully divest** their investment portfolios on taking office, not merely place them in a blind trust.</p>
<p>The Committee's reasoning addresses the structural gap in the blind-trust mechanism:</p>
<p>1. **A blind trust does not eliminate knowledge of what you own.** Carney knows he owns Brookfield stock options — he held them when he set up the trust. The trust prevents him from directing trades; it does not erase his memory of the major holdings. For an asset like 409,300 Brookfield options, the holder knows they are there.
2. **A blind trust does not eliminate the financial interest.** Whatever the trustee does with the smaller liquid assets, the Brookfield stock options (which cannot simply be sold by a trustee without triggering tax and contractual consequences) represent a continuing financial stake in Brookfield's performance.
3. **An ethics screen depends on the screen-holders.** The screen is administered by Carney's own chief of staff and the Privy Council Clerk. Both are appointees who serve at the Prime Minister's pleasure or in close working proximity to him. The Committee questioned whether a screen administered by the PM's own senior staff can be truly independent.</p>
<p>Democracy Watch — the non-partisan democratic-accountability advocacy organization — went further, characterizing the blind-trust-and-screen arrangement as "loophole-filled" and an "unethical smokescreen." The organization's core argument: the only arrangement that genuinely eliminates a conflict of interest is divestment, because only divestment removes the financial stake itself.</p>
<h2>The housing-policy overlap</h2>
<p>The conflict-of-interest concern is sharpest in one specific policy area: housing.</p>
<p>The Carney government's signature domestic-policy commitment is a housing plan with a target of building 500,000 homes per year, supported by a federal financing vehicle. The government's framing emphasizes modular and prefabricated construction as a way to accelerate the build-out.</p>
<p>The overlap with Brookfield's business is direct:
- Brookfield owns 31,211 residential units in Canada. Government housing and rental policy affects the value of residential property portfolios.
- In 2021, Brookfield acquired Modulaire Group — a global modular and prefabricated-construction firm — for approximately US$5 billion. Carney was at Brookfield at the time. The Carney housing plan's emphasis on modular construction is in the same sector Brookfield invested in.</p>
<p>It is important to be precise about what this does and does not establish. It does NOT establish that Carney has directed any government housing decision to benefit Brookfield — the ethics screen is designed specifically to prevent that, and there is no documented evidence he has breached it. What it establishes is the STRUCTURE of the conflict: the Prime Minister has a continuing financial interest in a company that operates in the exact sector his signature policy targets. That structure is what the Ethics Committee's divestment recommendation is responding to.</p>
<p>The honest framing: the conflict is structural and documented; a breach is neither documented nor alleged by the Committee. The concern is that the structure should not exist in the first place for an officeholder at the Prime Minister's level.</p>
<h2>The headquarters move</h2>
<p>One further documented fact bears on the question of Carney's relationship to Brookfield's corporate interests.</p>
<p>In 2024, while Carney was Chair of the Brookfield Asset Management board, Brookfield moved its head office from Toronto to New York City. Carney, as board chair, recommended that the board approve the move.</p>
<p>This became a campaign issue in early 2025. Conservatives accused Carney of misrepresenting his role in the relocation; Carney's campaign disputed the characterization. The factual core that is not in dispute: Brookfield relocated its headquarters from Canada to the United States during Carney's chairmanship, and Carney participated in the board process that approved it.</p>
<p>The relevance to the conflict-of-interest question: a Prime Minister who, months earlier, chaired the board that moved a major Canadian asset manager's headquarters out of Canada is in an unusual position when his government addresses questions of Canadian corporate competitiveness, head-office retention, and the tax treatment of multinational asset managers. The head-office move is documented; the inference about its political significance is the reader's to weigh.</p>
<h2>Carney's defense, in full</h2>
<p>Fairness requires the strongest version of the Prime Minister's defense.</p>
<p>**He complied with the law.** The Conflict of Interest Act does not require divestment. A blind trust is the standard, legally-sufficient mechanism, used by previous officeholders with significant assets. Carney did exactly what the law requires and arguably more (the ethics screen is an additional measure).</p>
<p>**The screen-holders are credible.** The Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Sabia, is the most senior non-partisan civil servant in Canada, with a decades-long record across the public and private sectors. He is not a political appointee in the partisan sense.</p>
<p>**The divestment standard would exclude business expertise from public office.** Carney's defenders argue that requiring a successful business figure to liquidate their entire portfolio — potentially triggering enormous tax liabilities and crystallizing losses — sets a standard that would deter anyone with significant private-sector achievement from entering public life. The counter-argument to the Ethics Committee is essentially: do you want prime ministers who have never succeeded in business?</p>
<p>**Stock options cannot simply be sold.** The 409,300 Brookfield options are subject to vesting schedules, contractual restrictions, and tax consequences. A trustee cannot simply liquidate them the way they could sell a mutual fund. The practical difficulty of divesting this specific asset class is real.</p>
<p>These are not trivial arguments. They are the reason the current law permits the blind-trust mechanism. The Ethics Committee's recommendation is a proposal to CHANGE the law — which is itself an acknowledgment that, under the current law, Carney has done nothing improper.</p>
<h2>The bottom line</h2>
<p>On the documented financial record, the situation is this:</p>
<p>- The Prime Minister of Canada was the board Chair of Brookfield Asset Management until January 2025.
- He holds approximately US$6.8 million in Brookfield stock options (as of end-2024).
- Brookfield is one of Canada's largest residential landlords and operates in sectors — housing, energy, infrastructure — that federal policy directly affects.
- He has complied with the Conflict of Interest Act via a blind trust and an ethics screen.
- Parliament's own Ethics Committee has concluded that compliance with the current law is structurally insufficient and has recommended mandatory divestment for prime ministers.</p>
<p>The article makes no claim that Carney has breached his ethics screen or directed any decision to benefit Brookfield. No such breach is documented or alleged by the Committee. What is documented is the structure of the conflict and the formal finding, by a committee of Parliament, that the structure should not be permitted to exist at the prime-ministerial level.</p>
<p>Parliament Audit takes no position on whether Mark Carney should be Prime Minister. We publish the documented financial record and the formal concerns raised about it. Whether a blind trust is sufficient for an officeholder with this profile — or whether the Ethics Committee is right that only divestment will do — is a judgment for Parliament and, ultimately, for voters.</p>
<p>(Note on scope: claims have circulated online that Brookfield acquired housing near Canadian Forces military bases and raised rents dramatically. We could not verify that specific claim in any primary or mainstream source — the on-base military housing units are owned by the federal Canadian Forces Housing Agency and are not private assets for sale — so this article confines itself to the documented financial record above.)</p>
<hr />
<p><small>
Originally published by <a href="https://parliamentaudit.ca/news/carney-brookfield-conflict-of-interest-documented-record">Parliament Audit</a>
under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND 4.0</a> license.
<img src="https://parliamentaudit.ca/api/republish-beacon?slug=carney-brookfield-conflict-of-interest-documented-record" alt="" width="1" height="1" />
</small></p>
</article>