National
Question Period : Barrett vs. Carney Clash Over Offshore Investments

Dan Knight
Prime Minister faces questions over blind trust and past ties to tax havens, as Conservatives demand greater financial transparency on day one of the 45th Parliament.
On the very first day of the 45th Parliament, Canadians witnessed a spectacle that was as revealing as it was disturbing. Conservative MP Michael Barrett stood up and did what any responsible representative should do: he asked Prime Minister Mark Carney to come clean about his offshore investments and potential conflicts of interest. But instead of facing the music, Carney pulled a classic elitist maneuver—he hid behind his House Leader, who delivered a canned response full of platitudes and devoid of substance.
This wasn’t just a missed opportunity for transparency; it was a calculated evasion. Carney, the former banker who helped Brookfield Asset Management establish funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, is now Canada’s Prime Minister. And when pressed about whether any of his investments were previously held in tax havens, he couldn’t even muster the courage to answer for himself. Instead, he let a subordinate deflect with talk of “stringent ethics guidelines” and “economic priorities.” Meanwhile, Canadians are struggling to afford basic necessities, and they deserve to know if their leader is playing by the same rules—or any rules at all.
Barrett—one of the few people in Ottawa actually doing his job—didn’t hold back. As Shadow Minister for Ethics and Accountable Government, he called out Prime Minister Mark Carney for what appears to be a massive financial shell game. The accusation? That Carney, during his time as a high-flying executive at Brookfield Asset Management, helped funnel billions into offshore tax havens—Bermuda, the Caymans, you name it—and then conveniently tucked those assets away in a so-called “blind trust” right before stepping into public office.
Barrett’s message was simple and devastating: “Canadians are lined up at food banks in record numbers. They can’t pay their rent, but they are paying their taxes.” Meanwhile, the guy running their government may have spent years helping billionaires avoid paying theirs. Barrett demanded straight answers: Were any of Carney’s current holdings, now supposedly out of sight, previously parked in these offshore tax shelters? And what exactly was he sitting on when he walked into that first cabinet meeting?
The allegations stem from Carney’s role as chairman of Brookfield from 2020 to January 2025, where he co-chaired funds worth $25 billion registered in Bermuda and a $5 billion fund in the Cayman Islands, according to CBC News reports. These arrangements, which reportedly allowed Brookfield to avoid $5.3 billion in taxes, have drawn scrutiny amid Canada’s economic challenges, including rising food bank usage and housing affordability issues.
In response, the Liberal government House Leader defended Carney, dismissing Barrett’s questions as “hypotheticals and conjured scenarios.” “The Prime Minister has followed all the rules even before they were required,” the House Leader stated, emphasizing that Carney’s blind trust complies with Canada’s “stringent ethics guidelines.” The response pivoted to the government’s agenda, citing efforts to create “the strongest economy in the G7,” reduce taxes, and build new homes, while accusing the opposition of “digging dirt on day one.” The House Leader’s retort, “Shame on them,” drew murmurs of support from Liberal benches.
Undeterred, Barrett doubled down, arguing that Canadians “don’t want an explanation on how to bend over backwards to fit through ethical loopholes.” He called for assurance that Carney’s actions go “above just the basic minimum standard,” referencing a decade of perceived Liberal ethical lapses. “Can he stand up and assure Canadians that none of the funds he had previously were held in offshore tax havens?” Barrett asked, pressing for specifics on Carney’s financial holdings.
The Liberal response reiterated Carney’s compliance, with the House Leader asserting, “Canada has among the most stringent ethics guidelines in the world… The Prime Minister is busy creating opportunity for Canada, standing up in a trade war against the United States.” The deflection, focusing on economic priorities and dismissing the opposition’s probe as a distraction, left Barrett’s core questions unanswered, fueling Conservative claims of evasion.
This entire exchange isn’t just about one question or one day—it’s part of a much larger and very necessary effort by Conservatives to expose something Canadians are starting to see with painful clarity: Mark Carney is not one of them. He’s not scraping to make rent. He’s not standing in a food bank line. He’s not worried about carbon taxes or grocery bills. He’s a Davos man, parachuted into the Prime Minister’s Office by the same Liberal elite that gave us Justin Trudeau. Different face. Same contempt.
Barrett’s takedown of Carney over offshore tax havens hit a nerve, and rightly so. According to Canadians for Tax Fairness, this country loses a jaw-dropping $30 billion every year to offshore tax avoidance. That’s money that working Canadians pay so the elite can squirrel away their wealth in places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. And Carney? He helped orchestrate it. As a top dog at Brookfield Asset Management, he didn’t just benefit from the system—he helped design it. And if that wasn’t enough, under his leadership, Brookfield moved its headquarters from Toronto to New York. In the middle of growing trade tensions with President Trump’s America. That’s not leadership—it’s betrayal.
And how does Carney justify all this? With the most nauseating phrase in the English language: “It was legal.” Oh, well, as long as the loopholes were big enough to drive a luxury yacht through, I guess we’re fine. He claims these “tax-efficient” strategies helped pensioners and that his blind trust protects him from conflicts. Right. Because what better way to gain public trust than hiding your financial interests in a vault and telling voters, “Just trust me”?
Barrett and the Conservatives aren’t buying it—and neither should you. They’re calling for real reform, tougher disclosure rules, and an end to the wink-wink, nudge-nudge ethics games that the Liberals have been playing for a decade. Carney delayed his financial disclosures during his leadership run? Of course he did. That’s not transparency. That’s strategy. And Canadians know it.
Even the so-called experts are noticing the shift. One analyst noted Barrett’s attacks are landing with voters because they’re the ones who are actually suffering. Meanwhile, the Liberals want to pivot to their so-called “economic wins.” Great. Tell that to the family paying $7 for lettuce or the trucker trying to fuel his rig with gas prices through the roof.
As Parliament gets underway, we’re heading into a full-blown war over ethics and economic justice. And the question for Carney is simple: Is he going to answer for his record—or is he going to keep hiding behind the same smug Liberal arrogance that Canadians are sick and tired of?
The people are watching. The mask is off. And Mark Carney has a choice: come clean—or be dragged into the sunlight.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Addictions
Why B.C.’s new witnessed dosing guidelines are built to fail

Photo by Acceptable at English Wikipedia, ‘Two 1 mg pills of Hydromorphone, prescribed to me after surgery.’ [Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
By Alexandra Keeler
B.C. released new witnessed dosing guidelines for safer supply opioids. Experts say they are vague, loose and toothless
This February, B.C pledged to reintroduce witnessed dosing to its controversial safer supply program.
Safer supply programs provide prescription opioids to people who use drugs. Witnessed dosing requires patients to consume those prescribed opioids under the supervision of a health-care professional, rather than taking their drugs offsite.
The province said it was reintroducing witnessed dosing to “prevent the diversion of prescribed opioids and hold bad actors accountable.”
But experts are saying the government’s interim guidelines, released April 29, are fundamentally flawed.
“These guidelines — just as any guidelines for safer supply — do not align with addiction medicine best practices, period,” said Dr. Leonara Regenstreif, a primary care physician specializing in substance use disorders. Regenstreif is a founding member of Addiction Medicine Canada, an advocacy group that represents 23 addiction specialists.
Addiction physician Dr. Michael Lester, who is also a founding member of the group, goes further.
“Tweaking a treatment protocol that should not have been implemented in the first place without prior adequate study is not much of an advancement,” he said.
Witnessed dosing
Initially, B.C.’s safer supply program was generally administered through witnessed dosing. But in 2020, to facilitate access amidst pandemic restrictions, the province moved to “take-home dosing,” allowing patients to take their prescription opioids offsite.
After pandemic restrictions were lifted, the province did not initially return to witnessed dosing. Rather, it did so only recently, after a bombshell government report alleged more than 60 B.C. pharmacies were boosting sales by encouraging patients to fill unnecessary opioid prescriptions. This incentivized patients to sell their medications on the black market.
B.C.’s interim guidelines, developed by the BC Centre on Substance Use at the government’s request, now require all new safer supply patients to begin with witnessed dosing.
But for existing patients, the guidelines say prescribers have discretion to determine whether to require witnessed dosing. The guidelines define an existing patient as someone who was dispensed prescription opioids within the past 30 days.
The guidelines say exemptions to witnessed dosing are permitted under “extraordinary circumstances,” where witnessed dosing could destabilize the patient or where a prescriber uses “best clinical judgment” and determines diversion risk is “very low.”
Holes
Clinicians say the guidelines are deliberately vague.
Regenstreif described them as “wordy, deliberately confusing.” They enable prescribers to carry on as before, she says.
Lester agrees. Prescribers would be in compliance with these guidelines even if “none of their patients are transferred to witnessed dosing,” he said.
In his view, the guidelines will fail to meet their goal of curbing diversion.
And without witnessed dosing, diversion is nearly impossible to detect. “A patient can take one dose a day and sell seven — and this would be impossible to detect through urine testing,” Lester said.
He also says the guidelines do not remove the incentive for patients to sell their drugs to others. He cites estimates from Addiction Medicine Canada that clients can earn up to $20,000 annually by selling part of their prescribed supply.
“[Prescribed safer supply] can function as a form of basic income — except that the community is being flooded with addictive and dangerous opioids,” Lester said.
Regenstreif warns that patients who had been diverting may now receive unnecessarily high doses. “Now you’re going to give people a high dose of opioids who don’t take opioids,” she said.
She also says the guidelines leave out important details on adjusting doses for patients who do shift from take-home to witnessed dosing.
“If a doctor followed [the guidelines] to the word, and the patient followed it to the word, the patient would go into withdrawal,” she said.
The guidelines assume patients will swallow their pills under supervision, but many crush and inject them instead, Regenstreif says. Because swallowing is less potent, a higher dose may be needed.
“None of that is accounted for in this document,” she said.
Survival strategy
Some harm reduction advocates oppose a return to witnessed dosing, saying it will deter people from accessing a regulated drug supply.
Some also view diversion as a life-saving practice.
Diversion is “a harm reduction practice rooted in mutual aid,” says a 2022 document developed by the National Safer Supply Community of Practice, a group of clinicians and harm reduction advocates.
The group supports take-home dosing as part of a broader strategy to improve access to safer supply medications. In their document, they say barriers to accessing safer supply programs necessitate diversion among people who use drugs — and that the benefits of diversion outweigh the risks.
However, the risks — and harms — of diversion are mounting.
People can quickly develop a tolerance to “safer” opioids and then transition to more dangerous substances. Some B.C. teenagers have said the prescription opioid Dilaudid was a stepping stone to them using fentanyl. In some cases, diversion of these drugs has led to fatal overdoses.
More recently, a Nanaimo man was sentenced to prison for running a highly organized drug operation that trafficked diverted safer supply opioids. He exchanged fentanyl and other illicit drugs for prescription pills obtained from participants in B.C.’s safer supply program.
Recovery
Lester, of Addiction Medicine Canada, believes clinical discretion has gone too far. He says take-home dosing should be eliminated.
“Best practices in addiction medicine assume physicians prescribing is based on sound and thorough research, and ensuring that their prescribing does not cause harm to the broader community, as well as the patient,” he said.
“[Safer supply] for opioids fails in both these regards.”
He also says safer supply should only be offered as a short-term bridge to patients being started on proven treatments like buprenorphine or methadone, which help reduce drug cravings and manage withdrawal symptoms.
B.C.’s witnessed dosing guidelines say prescribers can discuss such treatment options with patients. However, the guidelines remain neutral on whether safer supply is intended as a transitional step toward longer-term treatment.
Regenstreif says this neutrality undermines care.
“[M]ost patients I’ve seen with opioid use disorder don’t want to have [this disorder],” she said. “They would rather be able to set goals and do other things.”
Oversight gaps
Currently, about 3,900 people in B.C. participate in the safer supply program — down from 5,200 in March 2023.
The B.C. government has not provided data on how many have been transitioned to witnessed dosing. Investigative journalist Rob Shaw recently reported that these data do not exist.
“The government … confirmed recently they don’t have any mechanism to track which ‘safe supply’ participants are witnessed and which [are] not,” said Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, who has been a vocal critic of safer supply.
“Without a public report and accountability there can be no confidence.”
The BC Centre on Substance Use, which developed the interim guidelines, says it does not oversee policy decisions or data tracking. It referred Canadian Affairs’ questions to B.C.’s Ministry of Health, which has yet to clarify whether it will track and publish transition data. The ministry did not respond to requests for comment by deadline.
B.C. has also not indicated when or whether it will release final guidelines.
Regenstreif says the flawed guidelines mean many people may be misinformed, discouraged or unsupported when trying to reduce their drug use and recover.
“We’re not listening to people with lived experience of recovery,” she said.
This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.
Subscribe to Break The Needle
Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
Lee Harding warns that the federal government’s so-called border bill lets officials snoop on your data, ban big cash payments and even open your mail – all without a warrant
Think Bill C-2 is about stopping fentanyl? Think again. It lets the feds snoop your data, open your mail and ban big cash payments – no warrant needed
The federal government is using the pretext of border security, the fentanyl crisis and transnational crime to push through Bill C-2, legislation that dangerously expands surveillance powers, undermines Canadians’ privacy and restricts financial freedom. This so-called Strong Borders Act is less about protecting borders and more about policing citizens.
Bill C-2, a 130-page omnibus bill introduced on June 3, grants broad new powers to government agencies to spy on Canadians and share personal information with foreign countries. A more honest title might be the Snoop and Gossip Act.
Among its most intrusive provisions, the bill would make it illegal for any business, profession or charity to accept cash payments over $10,000, even if made in smaller, related transactions. Want to pay a contractor $10,001 in five separate payments for home renovations? Too bad.
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms quickly condemned the move. “Restricting the use of cash is a dangerous step toward tyranny and totalitarianism,” the organization posted to X. “Cash gives citizens privacy, autonomy, and freedom from surveillance by government and by banks.”
Under Bill C-2, internet service providers could be compelled—under threat of fines—to hand over names, locations and “pseudonyms” of users without a warrant. Any peace officer or public officer can demand this data by merely claiming “reasonable grounds to suspect” an offence “has been or will be committed.”
It doesn’t stop there. The bill would also authorize the government to open private mail under the same vague threshold of suspicion.
Experts in law and privacy say the bill is a massive overreach. University of Ottawa internet law scholar Michael Geist and Kate Robertson of the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab both point out that successive federal governments have sought to expand internet surveillance for years, but Bill C-2 goes further than ever before.
“Bill C-2’s big brother tactics combine expansive warrantless disclosure with unprecedented secrecy,” Geist warns. He adds that the bill “overreaches by including measures on internet subscriber data that have nothing to do with border safety or security but raise privacy and civil liberties concerns.”
If the intent were truly to combat fentanyl trafficking and transnational crime, better tools already exist. Conservative MP Frank Caputo pointed out that the bill has 16 parts but says nothing about increasing penalties or jail time for fentanyl traffickers.
“There is nothing about bail in the bill,” Caputo said during early debate on the bill. “In this omnibus bill, it says that offenders can serve their sentence for trafficking in fentanyl from their couch.”
Bloc Québécois MP Claude DeBellefeuille argued that strengthening border security requires more boots on the ground. Two rural border crossings in her riding recently had their staffed hours cut in half.
“It is estimated that the CBSA (Canada Border Services Agency) already has a shortage of between 2,000 and 3,000 border services officers for current duties. If they are given new responsibilities, however necessary, there will be an even greater shortage,” she said.
Not only does Bill C-2 contradict Supreme Court precedent. It also sets the stage for Canada to share sensitive personal information with foreign governments. In 2014, the court ruled that Canadians have a “reasonable expectation of privacy in the subscriber information” provided to internet service providers and that police requests for such data amount to a “search” requiring a warrant.
Robertson warns that the bill not only defies this precedent but also enables Canada to share this dubiously acquired information with 49 other countries under the Second Additional Protocol to the Cybercrime Convention. Canada signed the agreement in 2023 but hasn’t ratified it. Bill C-2 would make that possible.
She calls the protocol’s weak human rights safeguards “a direct threat to existing protections under international human rights law.” Robertson co-authored a submission urging the Department of Justice to reject the 2AP and instead support data-sharing frameworks that are built on consistent rights protections across all signatories.
Further complicating matters, Canada is in negotiations with the United States over a data-sharing agreement under that country’s CLOUD Act. Canada’s willingness to comply may reflect lingering trade pressures from the Trump administration, pressures that could again push Canada to compromise its legal independence and citizens’ rights.
This bill should be scrapped or thoroughly revised. Canadians should not have to surrender their privacy and human rights to serve a global law enforcement agenda that disregards civil liberties. If the line between national security and authoritarianism is erased, the greatest threat to Canadians may no longer be drug traffickers—it may be their own government.
Lee Harding is a research fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
-
Business2 days ago
103 Conflicts and Counting Unprecedented Ethics Web of Prime Minister Mark Carney
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
ICE raids California pot farm, uncovers illegal aliens and child labor
-
Business1 day ago
Trump to impose 30% tariff on EU, Mexico
-
Energy1 day ago
LNG Export Marks Beginning Of Canadian Energy Independence
-
Business21 hours ago
Carney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review
-
Entertainment20 hours ago
Study finds 99% of late-night TV guests in 2025 have been liberal
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy9 hours ago
Canada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Uncategorized9 hours ago
CNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda