Banks and financial institutions are jumping ship from Carney's climate organization Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) all at once. Wonder why?
There was a US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee investigation into the Carney/Bloomberg banking climate coalition.
Their interim report titled "Climate Control: Decarbonization Collusion in Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Investing" was released June 11. judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subs…
A short thread 🧵
Committee members, as part of their study, conducted interviews Carney and former U.S. SEC Chair Mary Schapiro three days prior on June 7.
Carney is mentioned 7 times in the linked report. Reuters reporting on it at the time states:
"No antitrust lawsuit has so far been brought against any climate coalition of companies. Yet fear of being accused of colluding has driven some financial firms out of such coalitions or has pushed them to reduce their level of co-ordination" 2/ reuters.com/sustainability…
But given that this week, Republicans will control congress and the presidency, Banks fear that Republican senators will commence anti-trust legal action against Carney's former organization for attempting to form what some call a "Climate Cartel." Lawmakers allege Caney's group uses coercion to force financial institutions to stop funding resource based projects and limit investment in areas that might increase carbon emissions. 3/
Founded by Carney and backed by the United Nations, GFANZ was launched in 2021 for financial firms to liaise on efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It now has more than 650 members, including banks, insurers, asset managers, financial service providers and investment consultants.
But due to the recent loss of high-profile members, they have had to restructure 4/ esgtoday.com/bloomberg-carn…
Carney couldn't be leaving GFANZ at a worse time to run for the Liberal Leadership.
His departure gives the impression that he too has given up on the survival of GFANZ in-tact. 5/
Some of the House Judiciary Committee on 'climate collusion' hearings were public. In this clip, KY Republican Thomas Massie is seen asking witnesses affiliated with GFANZ about the appearance of collusion using "demand management" 6/
Don't expect CBC or any MSM media to point out that what Carney was doing on a global scale was what the Carbon Tax was intended to do within Canada.
It was intended to change the behaviour of bankers to deliberately reduce their funding of fossil fuel companies, despite fossil fuel demand increasing globally. Boasting that the GFANZ coalition members controlled $130 trillion in financing, a crazy number given that global GDP is pegged at $105 trillion, regardless of the actual number, that is a lot of financial leverage 7/
The largest institutions are leaving, likely for both shareholder returns and the fear of US government anti-trust lawsuits. Global banks provided about US$680 billion worth of fossil fuel loans and bond deals in 2024, according to Bloomberg. Up from US$667 billion in 2021. 8/
Media defenders of Carney's Net-Zero initiative try to pin the Blame on Trump. Critics say ultimately consumers and shareholders are being punished for environmental activist reasons. Wherever one stands, for a guy with so much pinned on emissions reductions, Carney is going to have to make a pretty compelling case for why he wants to dump the Trudeau Carbon Tax, given he has been such a staunch defender of it in the past. 9/
And just yesterday, four of Canada's biggest banks, BMO, National Bank, TD Bank Group and CIBC, left Carney's initiative 10/ cbc.ca/news/business/…
No doubt, defenders like Carney and Bloomberg will continue to fight for their stated Climate Coalition goals. Some have suggested that Carney, should he become PM, would use/abuse his position to leverage his climate ideology more on a global scale than did Trudeau.
Peter Foster proves in this FP piece from 2021 that Carney doesn't take criticism well, nor does he actually address criticism but would rather refer to naysayers ideas as 'bananas.'
Might be wise over the next few weeks to get real answers from Carney, lest Canada become more of a Banana Republic should he take the helm. financialpost.com/opinion/peter-…
11/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
David Cochrane and his CBC producers are playing a seriously flawed game of gotcha here.
Kate Harrison is correct it is not an apples to apples comparison
Alright, let’s break this down clearly and simply, as if explaining it to someone with special needs who needs it spelled out, like a certain CBC personality, namely David Cochrane.
The difference between a former chair of Brookfield Asset Management, like Mark Carney, earning millions in stock and stock options, and a regular Member of Parliament (MP) holding a few thousand dollars in shares of a Brookfield investment fund boils down to scale, influence, control, and potential conflicts of interest. Here’s a thread for explanation: 🧵
Financial Stake:
Former Chair: Carney held stock options worth $6.8 million USD at the end of 2024, with options on 409,300 shares at a strike price of $37.54. Additionally, he had deferred share rights (DSRs) and other grants totaling around 539,136 shares, valued at approximately $20.8 million CAD in February 2024. These are direct, high-value holdings in Brookfield itself, tied to his executive compensation for steering the company. Such a massive stake creates a strong personal financial interest in Brookfield’s success, especially since stock options gain value if the share price rises.
Regular MP (Melissa Lantsman): An MP might hold a few thousand dollars in a Brookfield-related investment fund, often indirectly through diversified exchange-traded funds (ETFs) like the Vanguard FTSE Canada Index ETF, which includes Brookfield among many other companies. These holdings are passive, small-scale investments with no direct control or significant financial impact. For example, Pierre Poilievre’s disclosed investments in ETFs include Brookfield shares, but they’re a tiny fraction of his portfolio and not direct stock ownership @MarkJCarney @MelissaLantsman
Compensation and Incentives:
Former Chair: Carney’s wealth from Brookfield came from multi-million-dollar compensation packages, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock awards, and options. Brookfield’s 2024 filing shows Carney, alongside two other directors, shared $7.5 million in salaries and bonuses, plus his stock options. This is standard for C-suite executives at global firms, rewarding them for driving corporate profits, even if it involves controversial practices like tax haven use or fossil fuel investments
MPs like Melissa Lantsman earn a fixed salary (around $203,100 CAD in 2025) and may invest personal savings in funds like Brookfield’s for retirement or wealth growth. Their holdings are typically modest, often in the thousands or tens of thousands, and don’t come from corporate compensation. They’re not paid to boost Brookfield’s stock price; their income is tied to public service, not corporate performance
Taxpayers are funding journalists more than ever in Canada
Keep a a skeptical eye on how all these programs create a media independence deficit during campaign coverage
The following are the key funding programs supporting Canadian journalists (Excluding CBC) and how much (approx) they have paid out over the last 10 years 🧵
Canada Periodical Fund (CPF)
Purpose: Supports print magazines, non-daily newspapers, and digital periodicals with funding for content creation, distribution, and innovation.
-2015–2019: ~$75.5 million/year (baseline for Aid to Publishers and other components).
-2020–2022: ~$85–$100 million/year (includes ~$10–$21.5 million for Special Measures during COVID).
-2023–2024: ~$75 million/year (post-COVID stabilization).
Total Over 10 Years: ~$800 million.
2. Local Journalism Initiative (LJI)
Funds journalists to cover underserved communities, focusing on civic journalism. Administered by non-profits to maintain independence
- 2019–2024: ~$50 million over five years, or ~$10 million/year.
- 2024–2027: Extended with $58.8 million over three years, or ~$19.6 million/year.
Total Over 10 Years: ~$80 million (since 2019; no funding before).
Supports ~400 journalists. Critics question whether “underserved” is too vaguely defined, potentially allowing funds to flow to niche or advocacy-driven outlets
Mark Carney, at the Flying Monkeys brewery yesterday in Barrie, steals chunks of Poilievre's platform. What did we learn? A 🧵
"We are going to build, baby, build."
Isn't that a Poilievre slogan? And aren't slogans bad?
Realizes only as he's talking, that despite being rich, he's not giving any proceeds of his book to charity... great look!
"We better start putting proceeds to charity."
The guy is worth $50M+
Acknowledges the issues with the Liberal leadership voting app... crowd agrees. He then claims the app issue is all a security issue... when even CBC reports that it is not. Calling it "awful" and "a nightmare to navigate." cbc.ca/news/politics/…