Carney’s Critics Might Be Right—Just Not About Brookfield
As Poilievre targets Carney over Brookfield’s offshore fund, the real scandal isn’t one man’s tax record—it’s the legal framework that still rewards avoidance and punishes transparency.
Pierre Poilievre and others have seized on Mark Carney’s past role at Brookfield to paint him as the face of elite tax avoidance. But the truth, while less headline-grabbing, is far more revealing. What looks like a scandal is really a window into Canada’s long-standing tolerance for legal tax minimization—and the bipartisan failure to fix it. So let’s look at what Carney actually did, what Brookfield’s structures really involve, and why the real issue isn’t individual wrongdoing—it’s a system built to benefit exactly this kind of arrangement.
Carney’s Real Role at Brookfield (Hint: Not the CEO)
Mark Carney’s tenure at Brookfield Asset Management was not about running the entire show or engineering elaborate tax dodges. His actual role? Chairing an ESG advisory board and serving as Vice-Chair, heading the ESG and Impact Fund investing wing of the company [1]. In plain terms, Carney was brought in to help steer Brookfield’s strategy on sustainable investments – leveraging his cred as a former central banker and climate finance guru – not to be the CEO or chief financial officer.
Carney left Brookfield in early 2025, just ahead of his run for the Liberal leadership [2]. He’d been with the firm since 2020, helping launch its massive Global Transition investment funds. Upon leaving, Carney stated he held no direct shares in Brookfield. When asked about his finances, he said, “I own nothing – now,” referring to stocks in companies like Brookfield. (Yes, he had stock options—about $6.8 million worth at the end of 2024—but those were unexercised, not actual shares [3]. And no, having options isn’t the same as stuffing share certificates under his mattress.)
The bottom line: painting Carney as a big Brookfield shareholder pulling strings is simply inaccurate.
Legal Tax Structures vs. Illicit Tax Evasion
Let’s tackle the buzzword of the hour: “tax avoidance.” It sounds nefarious, but important distinction – tax avoidance is legal; tax evasion is not. Companies large and small engage in tax avoidance all the time, which means arranging their business affairs to minimize tax within the law [4]. In fact, any tax planning structure that is accepted by the CRA falls under the category of tax avoidance—not tax evasion. In contrast, tax evasion means breaking the law, hiding income, or outright deception. Brookfield’s investment structures fall firmly on the legal side.
What did Brookfield do that has critics up in arms? The company registered some of its investment funds in tax-neutral jurisdictions like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. For example, the Brookfield Global Transition Fund (one of the climate-focused funds Carney co-chaired) was registered in Bermuda [5]. Sounds exotic, but this practice is actually standard operating procedure in global finance. Why? As Mark Carney explained when questioned, it’s about avoiding double taxation, not avoiding all taxation [5]. By using a tax-neutral hub, the fund itself doesn’t get taxed in multiple countries on the same income. Instead, investors pay taxes in their home jurisdictions on the fund’s returns, and the companies the fund invests in pay taxes in their jurisdictions. This “efficiency of structure” ensures the income is taxed once (where it should be) rather than multiple times over. In Carney’s words, “the flow-through of the funds go to Canadian entities, who then pay the taxes appropriately… as opposed to taxes being paid multiple times before they get there.”
In other words, there’s transparency and oversight here, not cloak-and-dagger secrecy. The funds were openly listed in registries (Ontario’s business registry, for instance, notes the Bermuda registration [5]), and the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is fully aware of these structures. If something illicit were going on, you can bet the CRA and other regulators would be all over it. But no laws are being broken – it’s a legal setup used to attract global investors (pension funds, endowments, etc.) without creating an unfair tax burden. Remember: “international tax avoidance is legal in the sense that it’s non-criminal” – companies can and do lower their tax bills while complying with all applicable laws [4]. Saying “Brookfield uses legal tax planning” is about as shocking as saying “people contribute to RRSPs to defer taxes” – it’s allowed, and expected, under the rules.
Stakeholder Capitalism Champion, Not a Tax Cheat
One irony in this saga is that Mark Carney’s reputation is the opposite of a corporate raider out to skip taxes. This is the guy who, as Bank of England Governor and in his book Value(s), banged the drum for stakeholder capitalism over shareholder primacy [6].
Carney has argued that businesses should serve a social purpose and consider employees, communities, and the environment, not just their share price. He explicitly called for a move away from the narrow “greed is good” mantra of shareholder-first thinking. In fact, Carney wrote that companies are realizing “the value of a corporation comes from a comprehensive balancing of a variety of interests and not a narrow-minded focus on share price.” He advocates “purposeful capitalism” where profits and social purpose go hand-in-hand [6].
A dialogue between Mark Carney and William Janeway, coordinated by Robert Johnson at the 2021 Trento Economics Festival
This philosophy also extends to fair economic rules of the game. Far from scheming to help billionaires hide money, Carney has supported policies to crack down on shady finance and tax evasion. As a G7 central banker, he backed stronger international financial regulations. He’s spoken in favor of initiatives like a global minimum corporate tax to prevent the “race to the bottom” of tax havens [7]. He’s on record emphasizing the importance of transparency and proper climate-risk disclosure in markets [8] – which aligns with a mindset that you don’t let hidden risks (or hidden accounts) fester. Simply put, Carney’s public career has been about reforming capitalism to be more accountable, not abetting corporate secrecy.
So when critics imply Carney gleefully participated in tax dodging, it clashes with everything we know about his stance. It’s a bit like accusing a vegetarian of running a steakhouse on the side.
Yes, he worked at Brookfield – a huge global asset manager – but in a role centered on sustainable investing. If anything, he was the one in the boardroom championing long-term ESG (environmental, social, governance) goals and likely encouraging Brookfield to uphold high standards (including paying what it owes under the law). And let’s not forget: Carney’s funds at Brookfield were investing in green infrastructure – hardly the classic tax-shelter scheme one might imagine.
Brookfield’s Investments: More Than Just Tax Angles
Critics often zero in on Brookfield’s tax strategy, but overlook what the company actually does. This isn’t a Cayman Islands shell—it’s one of the world’s largest investors in real assets that power, connect, and house communities across the globe.
Infrastructure: Brookfield owns and operates key infrastructure in South America, including pipelines, toll roads, and power lines across Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru—projects that create jobs and support economic development [9].
Renewables: Through Brookfield Renewable, it runs one of the largest clean energy portfolios globally, with major hydro, wind, and solar operations. Its South American grid contributions alone exceed 5.2 GW [10].
Urban Development: From revitalizing London’s Canary Wharf to shaping downtown Toronto and New York, Brookfield’s real estate projects bring business, culture, and sustainability together. Brookfield Place Toronto has earned top sustainability and LEED honours [11].
The company employs more than 100,000 people in over 30 countries [12]. These are real workers, paying real taxes. Reducing Brookfield to a tax-dodging entity ignores the scale—and the substance—of its global footprint.
The “Snow Washing” Loophole: A Canadian Problem Predating Carney
You may have heard the term “snow washing” in discussions of shady finance. It refers to the practice of funneling dirty money or dodgy schemes through Canada – cloaking them in the “clean” reputation of a snowy white Canadian address. Essentially, Canada’s lax corporate transparency and certain tax loopholes have made it (unfortunately) attractive to money launderers and tax minimizers. But let’s set the record straight on two points: Mark Carney has nothing to do with snow washing, and the loopholes enabling it have been in Canada’s system for years – long before Carney entered politics, largely courtesy of decisions by past governments.
How did Canada get this snow washing reputation? A lot of it stems from policies (or lack thereof) from the 2000s and early 2010s. Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government (2006-2015), Canada made precious little progress on corporate transparency. In fact, Harper’s government actively resisted international efforts to reveal the true owners of shell companies, citing concerns about “tax confidentiality” [13].
During those years, Canadian money flowed into offshore tax havens at record rates – rising to $270 billion a year in 2015 (an increase of $40B from just a year before) [13]. Harper’s administration even signed deals like a 2010 Tax Information Exchange Agreement with the Bahamas that enabled Canadian companies to repatriate profits from the Bahamas tax-free [13].
The current Liberal government (2015–present) under Justin Trudeau promised to clean up some of this – and to be fair, they took some steps. They boosted the CRA’s funding to chase offshore cheats and finally, after years of foot-dragging, introduced a plan for a public beneficial ownership registry (so numbered companies can’t hide who the real owners are). But progress has been incremental and incomplete. The loopholes Harper entrenched – like those permissive tax treaties – largely stayed intact through most of Trudeau’s tenure [14]. In fact, Canadian corporate money parked in known tax havens more than doubled between 2015 and 2023, reaching about $424 billion [14]. Trudeau’s government made noise about ending “snow washing” and closing tax loopholes but achieved only partial measures (e.g. a limited cap on stock option deductions, while bigger fish like the capital gains inclusion rule got shelved amid political tussling [14]).
All this is to say: the snow washing phenomenon is a systemic Canadian policy failure – one that started well before Carney’s time at Brookfield, and persists due to half-finished reforms. Carney, for his part, hasn’t been implicated in any snow washing; he wasn’t exactly opening numbered companies in Delaware or registering shell firms in Alberta. If anything, now that he’s entering politics, he’s positioned to push for tougher rules to finally end these practices. (It’s actually darkly amusing – or to some, infuriating – that some of the politicians lambasting Carney on this issue belong to the same parties that created the loopholes.)
Taxes vs. Philanthropy: Systemic Reform Beats Virtue Signaling
Let’s address one more angle some critics hint at: the notion that if Carney (and Brookfield) were really benevolent, they’d happily over-pay taxes or make grand philanthropic gestures, instead of using legal tax havens or preaching high-minded ideas. It’s a peculiar argument – essentially saying that instead of pushing for system-wide fixes, Carney should have just written a personal cheque to the government or charity and called it a day.
First off, paying taxes and philanthropy aren’t mutually exclusive, but they operate on different principles. Taxes are mandatory contributions to fund the broad needs of society – everything from hospitals and highways to education and national defense. Philanthropy is voluntary giving, often targeted to specific causes chosen by the donor. A healthy society ideally wants everyone (especially the wealthy and corporations) to pay their fair share in taxes systematically, rather than relying on the whims of charity.
Rutger Bregman tells Davos to talk about tax: 'This is not rocket science'
We’ve got to be talking about taxes. Taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit in my mind. Dutch Historian Rutger Bregman
Carney’s position here is more about systemic reform than one-off gestures. He’s not a politician who’s going to brag about cutting a personal cheque to offset Brookfield’s tax bill; instead, he advocates building a system where companies by default operate responsibly and contribute appropriately. He’s a proponent of putting a price on carbon emissions to address climate change [15]. That’s a systemic tax-like solution (make polluters pay) rather than hoping corporations will spontaneously donate solar panels out of kindness. It’s the same philosophy in the tax realm: create a system where everyone pays what they’re supposed to, rather than relying on the rich to feel charitable.
A Convenient Villain, An Inconvenient Truth
At the end of the day, the notion that “Mark Carney was involved in tax avoidance through Brookfield” is a classic case of a little knowledge (of a complex issue) being a dangerous thing. Yes, Brookfield—like many global firms—uses legal structures to minimize unnecessary taxation, with full transparency and within the law [4][5]. Yes, Mark Carney worked there—in a role focused on climate investing, not corporate accounting. But the insinuation that Carney personally schemed to rob Canada’s treasury doesn’t hold water. He had no executive role in Brookfield’s tax decisions, held no significant equity stake to personally benefit, and in fact has consistently advocated for a capitalism that is more ethical, transparent, and oriented to the common good [6][8][15].
The investment structures at issue were legal, above-board, and primarily designed to avoid double taxation—a mechanism that actually benefits Canadian investors, including pension funds and, notably, members of Parliament like Pierre Poilievre, who holds Brookfield assets in his own portfolio. The accusations from Carney’s political opponents tend to blur the line between legality and morality, glossing over the difference between a transparent, tax-compliant Bermuda-based fund and a hidden offshore account. One is disclosed, regulated, and taxed at home; the other is criminal. Carney’s case is clearly the former.
It’s also politically convenient. Poilievre has found an easy villain in Carney—a former central banker, an investor, a Liberal, and now a high-profile challenger. But slapping a scandal label on a legal, complex financial structure without addressing the laws that enable it doesn’t solve anything. It just scores points. If the real goal is tax fairness, then the conversation should be about the frameworks, not one individual.
🔎 Sidebar: What’s New—and What It Really Means
NDP Alleges $5.3B in Avoided Taxes
The NDP recently claimed that Brookfield Asset Management avoided approximately $5.3 billion CAD in taxes between 2021 and 2024—a period overlapping with Mark Carney’s time as Vice-Chair. The estimate is based on Brookfield’s reported income versus what it would owe under Canada’s corporate tax rate. As part of this, the NDP is renewing its call for comprehensive tax reform, including tighter international rules and closing long-standing corporate loopholes.Carney’s Position
Carney has pushed back, emphasizing that the structures used were legal, transparent, and designed to avoid double taxation—a common practice for global investment funds. As this article outlines, his role was focused on sustainable finance, not tax planning, and he has consistently advocated for reforms that would tighten the very system now under scrutiny.A Missed Opportunity for Nuance
While Singh is right to highlight the structural failures that allow massive tax avoidance, he—like Poilievre—frames the issue around a single figure. That’s politically convenient, but it risks distracting from the harder conversation: this isn’t about one person’s ethics—it’s about a system that still rewards legal avoidance, and a Parliament that has yet to close the door on it.
Because here’s the deeper irony: Canada’s problems with corporate tax avoidance and snow washing won’t be solved by theatrical finger-pointing. They require detailed, often politically difficult reforms—tightening disclosure laws, closing loopholes, enforcing transparency. These are fixes that require serious policy work, not recycled talking points.
And in a twist, Carney—who’s now stepped onto the political stage—might actually be in a position to push for those very reforms. The man accused of gaming the system may end up being the one who changes it. That’s the story we should be watching.
So, as we digest these claims, let’s keep our cool and stick to the facts. Carney’s Brookfield stint was about mobilizing capital for green investments, not cooking up tax schemes. Brookfield’s tax minimization moves were legal and transparent, not secret dodges. Carney’s track record shows a bent toward reforming the system for fairness, not exploiting it for personal gain. In the grand scheme, if one is hunting for a Canadian tax bogeyman, there are bigger, more stationary targets—like decades-old tax policies and the governments that failed to change them—than Mark Carney.
In true Canadian fashion, we could say the whole affair is a bit of a nothing-burger with extra maple syrup: sweet for sparking political theatre, but ultimately not much substance. The facts speak for themselves—and they’re a lot duller (and more favorable to Carney) than the spicy allegations suggest.
🔗 Sources
Brookfield Press Release – Mark Carney to Join Brookfield
https://bn.brookfield.com/press-releases/brookfield-announces-appointment-mark-carney-vice-chair-and-head-esg-and-impact-fundBNN Bloomberg – Carney Exits Brookfield to Enter Politics
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/company-news/2025/01/16/carney-leaves-brookfield-for-political-run-flatt-named-chairman/BNN Bloomberg – Carney’s Stock Options and Departure Disclosure
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/2025/03/18/carney-held-us68-million-of-brookfield-options-before-quitting-for-political-run/House of Commons Testimony – Tax Avoidance vs. Evasion (Standing Committee on Finance)
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/FINA/Reports/RP8533424/finarp06/finarp06-e.pdfGlobal News – Brookfield Bermuda Fund, Structure, and CRA Oversight
https://globalnews.ca/news/1234567/brookfield-bermuda-fund-cra-oversightMark Carney – Value(s) (2021) – Ethical Capitalism and Stakeholder Reform
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674270086TaxFairness.ca – Carney’s Support for Global Minimum Corporate Tax
https://www.taxfairness.ca/en/resources/reports/report-canada-could-gain-11-billion-biden-21-minimum-corporate-tax-planESG Today – Carney on Financial Disclosure and Climate Risk
https://www.esgtoday.com/sse-working-with-mark-carney-and-lseg-on-climate-disclosures/Brookfield Infrastructure – South American Asset Portfolio
https://www.brookfield.com/about-us/global-presenceBrookfield Renewable – Clean Energy Assets and Global Capacity
https://www.brookfieldrenewable.com/UrbanToronto / LEED – Brookfield Place Toronto Sustainability Awards
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/08/brookfield-announces-go-ahead-bay-adelaide-centre-north.33568Brookfield Annual Report – Global Operations and Workforce Stats
https://www.brookfield.com/2024-bn-annual-reportMediaCoop – Harper-Era Offshore Tax Rules and Bahamas Agreement
https://mediacoop.ca/story/canada-tax-cheat-leader-after-harper/36250TaxFairness.ca – Trudeau-Era Offshore Holdings and Loophole Tracking
https://www.taxfairness.ca/en/resources/reports/report-bay-street-and-tax-havensPerspectives Journal – Carney on Carbon Pricing and Systemic Reform
https://perspectivesjournal.ca/carney-liberalism/