Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation

From Conservative Party Communications

Canadians Deserve to Know How Much Carney is Being Paid

Today, Common Sense Conservative MPs Michelle Rempel Garner and Michael Barrett wrote this letter to Bruce Flatt, the CEO of Brookfield, calling on him to fully disclose Carbon Tax Carney’s compensation for his role as Chair of Brookfield Asset Management. The full text can be found below:

Dear Mr. Flatt,

We are writing with regard to the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, Mark Carney, who has acted in a senior leadership position for your company for some time now.

During the same time period, Mr. Carney has been advising Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government, and advocating for policies that have arguably wreaked havoc on Canada’s economy, like the carbon tax.

After nine years of this NDP-Liberal Government, which by their own very public admissions have relied on Mark Carney for advice, Canadians are witnessing the worst decline in living standards in forty years. The cost of housing has doubled, and record numbers of Canadians are having to depend on food banks to survive.

Since August 2020, Mr. Carney has helped the NDP-Liberal Government hike its carbon tax on the backs of working Canadians, even endorsing it in his book, saying “One of the most important initiatives is carbon pricing…The Canadian federal carbon pricing framework is a model for others.” And since September 2024, when Trudeau appointed Carney as the Liberal Party’s Chair of the Leader’s Taskforce on Economic Growth, he would have had input into the most recent Fall Economic Statement which plunged Canada into a $62 billion deficit, blowing past the NDP-Liberal Government’s own fiscal guardrails.

And all the while Carney was advising the Liberals to continue carrying out their agenda of economic vandalism, he remained the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management, posing grave ethical questions that could have real-life consequences for millions of Canadians.

For instance, just a few days after his official appointment as Chair of the Leader’s Taskforce on Economic Growth, The Logic reported that Brookfield Asset Management has been actively lobbying the same federal Liberal government he’s been advising for $10 billion from the Canadian taxpayer. And Mr. Carney has strongly advocated for policies that would destroy Canada’s oil and gas sector, while at the same time your company invested in oil companies in Brazil and the United Arab Emirates.

There are many other instances of questionable policy decisions the NDP-Liberal Government has made while Mark Carney was both advising them and acting as the Chair of Brookfield Asset Management – decisions that potentially could have resulted in Mr. Carney’s personal gain.

While we have written to the Federal Lobbying Commissioner to examine whether this arrangement broke any lobbying rules, that investigation may not shed public light on whether Mr. Carney was personally motivated by the structure of his compensation model with your company to advocate for certain policies in his senior advisory capacity with Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government.

Executive compensation for a Chair at a company the size of Brookfield can include salary, performance bonuses, stock options, lucrative expense accounts and more. Since Mr. Carney has a direct, senior, advisory line into Justin Trudeau’s government, and since your company has many interests which involve the type of policy on which Mr. Carney was advising the government, revealing the full scope of Mr. Carney’s compensation package to the public is essential to understanding what impact his access into the federal Liberal government had on his personal fortunes, if any.

For this reason, you must disclose Carney’s compensation structure with Brookfield Asset Management. This is especially important as Carney is now mounting a leadership campaign – with the help of members of Justin Trudeau’s inner circle – that could see him become the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and the Prime Minister of this country, with even more power and more access.

It is vitally important for Canadians to know whether or not Mr. Carney’s compensation with Brookfield could increase if the Liberals implement his policy ideas. While food banks report over two million visits in a single month, Canadians have a right to know the fine details about the impact of insider access on their lives.

You must be transparent with Canadians on this matter. The stakes could not be higher.

Related Topics:#MarkCarney BrookfieldManagement feature LiberalLeadership

Up Next

Trudeau not seeking re-election as MP following resignation as prime minister 

Don't Miss

US Ally’s Approach To Handling Drones Over Military Bases Is Vastly Different From Biden Admin

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

Alberta / 60 mins ago

Cross-Canada NGL corridor will stretch from B.C. to Ontario

Business / 2 hours ago

B.C. premier wants a private pipeline—here’s how you make that happen

Business

Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home

Published on July 12, 2025

Todayville

77 per cent say Canada’s tariffs on U.S. products increase the price of consumer goods
72 per cent say that their current tax bill hurts their standard of living

A new MEI-Ipsos poll published this morning reveals a clear disconnect between Ottawa’s high-tax, high-spending approach and Canadians’ level of satisfaction.

“Canadians are not on board with Ottawa’s fiscal path,” says Samantha Dagres, communications manager at the MEI. “From housing to trade policy, Canadians feel they’re being squeezed by a government that is increasingly an impediment to their standard of living.”

More than half of Canadians (54 per cent) say Ottawa is spending too much, while only six per cent think it is spending too little.

A majority (54 per cent) also do not believe federal dollars are being effectively allocated to address Canada’s most important issues, and a similar proportion (55 per cent) are dissatisfied with the transparency and accountability in the government’s spending practices.

As for their own tax bills, Canadians are equally skeptical. Two-thirds (67 per cent) say they pay too much income tax, and about half say they do not receive good value in return.

Provincial governments fared even worse. A majority of Canadians say they receive poor value for the taxes they pay provincially. In Quebec, nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of respondents say they are not getting their money’s worth from the provincial government.

Not coincidentally, Quebecers face the highest marginal tax rates in North America.

On the question of Canada’s response to the U.S. trade dispute, nearly eight in 10 Canadians (77 per cent) agree that Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs on American products are driving up the cost of everyday goods.

“Canadians understand that tariffs are just another form of taxation, and that they are the ones footing the bill for any political posturing,” adds Ms. Dagres. “Ottawa should favour unilateral tariff reduction and increased trade with other nations, as opposed to retaliatory tariffs that heap more costs onto Canadian consumers and businesses.”

On the issue of housing, 74 per cent of respondents believe that taxes on new construction contribute directly to unaffordability.

All of this dissatisfaction culminates in 72 per cent of Canadians saying their overall tax burden is reducing their standard of living.

“Taxpayers are not just ATMs for government – and if they are going to pay such exorbitant taxes, you’d think the least they could expect is good service in return,” says Ms. Dagres. “Canadians are increasingly distrustful of a government that believes every problem can be solved with higher taxes.”

A sample of 1,020 Canadians 18 years of age and older was polled between June 17 and 23, 2025. The results are accurate to within ± 3.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The results of the MEI-Ipsos poll are available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Business

B.C. premier wants a private pipeline—here’s how you make that happen

Published on July 12, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”)

The Eby government has left the door (slightly) open to Alberta’s proposed pipeline to the British Columbia’s northern coast. Premier David Eby said he isn’t opposed to a new pipeline that would expand access to Asian markets—but he does not want government to pay for it. That’s a fair condition. But to attract private investment for pipelines and other projects, both the Eby government and the Carney government must reform the regulatory environment.

First, some background.

Trump’s tariffs against Canadian products underscore the risks of heavily relying on the United States as the primary destination for our oil and gas—Canada’s main exports. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. Clearly, Canada must diversify our energy export markets. Expanded pipelines to transport oil and gas, mostly produced in the Prairies, to coastal terminals would allow Canada’s energy sector to find new customers in Asia and Europe and become less reliant on the U.S. In fact, following the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion between Alberta and B.C. in May 2024, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent.

However, Canada’s uncompetitive regulatory environment continues to create uncertainty and deter investment in the energy sector. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas investors, 68 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment in Canada compared to only 41 per cent of respondents for the U.S. And 59 per cent said the cost of regulatory compliance deters investment compared to 42 per cent in the U.S.

When looking at B.C. specifically, investor perceptions are even worse. Nearly 93 per cent of respondents for the province said uncertainty over environmental regulations deters investment while 92 per cent of respondents said uncertainty over protected lands deters investment. Among all Canadian jurisdictions included in the survey, investors said B.C. has the greatest barriers to investment.

How can policymakers help make B.C. more attractive to investment?

At the federal level, the Carney government should scrap several Trudeau-era policies including Bill C-69 (which introduced vague criteria into energy project assessments including the effects on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”), Bill C-48 (which effectively banned large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast, limiting access to Asian markets), and the proposed cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the oil and gas sector (which will likely lead to a reduction in oil and gas production, decreasing the need for new infrastructure and, in turn, deterring investment in the energy sector).

At the provincial level, the Eby government should abandon its latest GHG reduction targets, which discourage investment in the energy sector. Indeed, in 2023 provincial regulators rejected a proposal from FortisBC, the province’s main natural gas provider, because it did not align with the Eby government’s emission-reduction targets.

Premier Eby is right—private investment should develop energy infrastructure. But to attract that investment, the province must have clear, predictable and competitive regulations, which balance environmental protection with the need for investment, jobs and widespread prosperity. To make B.C. and Canada a more appealing destination for investment, both federal and provincial governments must remove the regulatory barriers that keep capital away.