Stripe, Carney, and the Liberals: Is lobbying oversight being ignored?

A new issue begs a persistent question: should Mark Carney be allowed to shape public policy while serving senior corporate and partisan interests?

Today, Conservative MP Michael Barrett again called on the federal Lobbying Commissioner to investigate whether senior Liberal economic advisor Mark Carney violated lobbying rules, this time via his role on multinational payment company Stripe’s Board of Directors. This follows a previous request from Barrett to examine Carney’s involvement with international mega-corp Brookfield, where Carney also holds a senior leadership role.

This latest request to the Lobbying Commissioner comes after testimony from a Stripe representative before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. At the committee, Stripe admitted to lobbying the federal government on various economic policies, which is standard practice for a company of its size. However, one of its board members—Mark Carney—has cozy, unfettered access to key government figures like the Prime Minister and Finance Minister and now serves as a senior economic advisor to the federal government. Barrett’s letter asks the Lobbying Commissioner to investigate whether Carney or Stripe violated lobbying rules in this web of personal connections and policy interests.

Here’s the issue: recently, the government made an agreement with Visa and Mastercard aimed to reduce interchange fees for small businesses. Stripe, however, as a payment processor between businesses and credit card companies, wasn’t obligated by the federal government to pass on these savings. Instead of passing on the savings, in most instances, Stripe has chosen to retain the benefit, prioritizing its profits over the bottom line of small businesses. 

Said differently, the federal government’s decision not to require Stripe, and other payment processors, to pass along the savings likely meant a big fat win for the company, likely at the expense of small businesses. Further, if Carney’s compensation (which Stripe did not disclose at the committee today) on the Stripe Board includes shares, options or other instruments designed to motivate directors to maximize the value of their compensation through these share units, Mr. Carney could have been motivated to ensure that the government no legislation or regulation existed that required the payment processor to offload the savings. While this is an unknown, if combined with his access to the Liberal government and now being tasked to develop its economic policy, this could be a scenario for the Lobbying Commissioner to consider.

At the committee today, I questioned Stripe about whether it had contacted the federal lobbying commissioner before Carney took his advisory role with the Liberals and if any measures were put in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Stripe’s response lacked clarity, which is concerning, especially given how the company may have benefited from the government’s lack of mandated requirement for payment processors to pass along the savings.

For their part, Stripe has cited the recent reintroduction of GST/HST taxes on certain fees as the reason why they weren’t passing along the savings to all of their clients, likely referencing a recent change by the Canadian Revenue Agency. This change now makes credit card surcharges subject to GST/HST. But these aren’t new fees, they used to exist in the past. But by not passing along the savings from the government’s deal to reduce fees for small businesses, Stripe’s reintroduced tax burden might have simply been offset, leaving its clients, particularly small businesses, disadvantaged.

As of now, the Lobbying Commissioner has not publicly confirmed an investigation into Carney, Stripe, or Brookfield. Nor has any sort of wrongdoing on any of their parts been proven. But given the litany of economic and tax policy these companies are involved with, Carney’s close relationship with the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, and his economic policy role, should raise eyebrows. So while companies like Brookfield and Stripe may seek to leverage Carney’s influence for their benefit, they must also limit the risk of reputational damage and big potential economic consequences on the Canadian public by having visible, public guardrails to prevent unauthorized lobbying or potential misuse of highly sensitive government information, particularly as Carney ramps up his potential bid for the Liberal Party’s leadership.

This is particularly true since it’s now difficult for Carney to deny lobbying governments, either. Recently, reports surfaced that he lobbied the British government to relax rules on heat pump subsidies, which could benefit the asset management firm he chairs. With Carney’s direct access to multiple governments, and his significant corporate interests, it’s puzzling that there hasn’t been more scrutiny of his actions.

And as Carney flirts with running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, his activities must now be viewed through a political lens. His guardrail free, dual roles in politics and major corporations create the potential for epic conflicts of interest that cannot be ignored. It’s possible that Carney views his actions as entirely altruistic, but it’s difficult to believe that someone in his position wouldn’t be influenced by his corporate ties when making decisions, and vice versa.

It strikes me, at best, as extremely poor judgement on Carney’s part to allow this type of speculation to linger over him and his companies by not severing his corporate ties when he took the role with the Liberals. For the companies Carney is involved with, putting it mildly, it would be wise to address these concerns before they become a larger issue.

Carney’s growing political ambitions could lead to an ethical misstep that harms not only his reputation but also the businesses and governments with which he is associated.