Executive Summary

Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a landmark Memorandum of Understanding with Alberta on November 27, 2025, agreeing to support a new bitumen pipeline to British Columbia's coast. Just twelve days later, on December 9, 2025, his government voted against a Conservative motion that called for precisely the same thing—parliamentary support for that pipeline. This apparent contradiction raises fundamental questions about whether Carney's pipeline position is driven by genuine policy considerations, political gamesmanship, or financial interests tied to his former employer Brookfield Asset Management.

The Contradiction Examined

What Carney Agreed To (November 27)

The MOU signed in Calgary commits Ottawa to:

• Supporting construction of a pipeline carrying "at least one million low-emissions barrels per day to Asian markets"
• Amending the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act "if necessary"
• Suspending Clean Electricity Regulations for Alberta
• Not implementing the proposed oil and gas emissions cap
• Advancing "Pathways Plus"—the world's largest carbon capture project

In exchange, Alberta agreed to implement an industrial carbon price floor of $130 per tonne by April 2026.

What Carney Voted Against (December 9)

The Conservative motion, defeated 196-139, called for:

• Support for "one or more pipelines enabling the export of at least one million barrels a day of low-emission Alberta bitumen"
• Construction from a "strategic deep-water port on the British Columbia coast to Asia markets"
• "Adjustment to the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, while respecting the duty to consult Indigenous Peoples"

The language is strikingly similar. So why the different outcomes?

The Government's Explanation

Carney's government offered several justifications for voting no on a motion that mirrors his own agreement:

"You have to eat the entire meal, not just the appetizer," Carney said, arguing the Conservative motion omitted key conditions from the MOU—specifically Alberta's carbon pricing commitments, Indigenous co-ownership provisions, and British Columbia engagement requirements.

Energy Minister Tim Hodgson called the motion "a cheap political stunt." Indigenous Services Minister Mandy Gull-Masty branded it "an immature waste of parliamentary time" and "an insult towards Indigenous Peoples."

When Conservatives amended their motion to include the missing elements—carbon capture commitments, Indigenous consultation language, and climate provisions—the Liberals still voted against it.

The Unanswered Questions

Question 1: Was This About Policy or Politics?

The motion was non-binding. A yes vote would have had zero legal force. Yet the government treated it as an existential threat.

Alberta Liberal MP Corey Hogan revealed the political calculus: A yes vote "looks like we are undermining the rights of Indigenous Peoples, it looks like we're undermining conversations with B.C.," while a no vote "is designed to look like we don't support the pipeline."

In other words, the vote wasn't about pipelines—it was about optics. But whose optics benefit?

Question 2: The Brookfield Connection

This is where the investigation takes a more troubling turn.

Mark Carney served as Chair and Head of Transition Investing at Brookfield Asset Management before entering politics. His financial entanglement with the company is extensive:

Current Holdings:

• Stock options worth over $6.8 million (as of December 2024)
• Deferred share units in Brookfield Corp.
• Potential carried interest payments worth "tens of millions of dollars"
• Assets placed in a blind trust—but he knows what they are

Brookfield's Canadian Energy Portfolio:

• Inter Pipeline: Acquired in 2021; operates petroleum transportation and natural gas liquids processing across Western Canada
• Entropy Inc.: $300 million investment in carbon capture technology
• Bow Valley Carbon Cochrane: Carbon capture project expected to launch 2025-2026
• Global Transition Fund: $20 billion raised for clean energy transition, including carbon capture investments

The Critical Question: Does Carney's preferred approach to pipelines—one tied to carbon capture commitments (Pathways Plus)—benefit Brookfield's substantial carbon capture investments more than a straightforward pipeline approval would?

The Pathways Alliance project, which Carney has rebranded as "Pathways Plus," involves massive carbon capture infrastructure. Brookfield has positioned itself as a leader in carbon capture technology investments through Entropy Inc. and other ventures.

A simple pipeline approval = Infrastructure for oil companies.
A pipeline tied to carbon capture requirements = Infrastructure for oil companies + mandatory carbon capture = potential bonanza for carbon capture investors like Brookfield.

Carney must recuse himself from discussions involving more than 100 corporate entities tied to Brookfield. The ethics commissioner has acknowledged "a conflict of interest that the prime minister has to recuse himself" from. Yet he negotiated the Alberta MOU, which directly involves carbon capture investments in which Brookfield has interests.

Question 3: Climate Betrayal or Pragmatic Politics?

Carney's climate credentials were once impeccable:

• UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance (2020-present)
• Co-Chair of Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero
• As Bank of England governor, urged investors to divest from fossil fuels
• Wrote in his 2021 book: "Meaningful carbon prices are a cornerstone of any effective policy framework"

Yet as Prime Minister, he has:

• Eliminated the consumer carbon tax
• Suspended Clean Electricity Regulations for Alberta
• Abandoned the oil and gas emissions cap
• Supported a new bitumen pipeline

Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault resigned from cabinet hours after the MOU signing, calling it "the last straw" after watching climate policies he built get "dismantled." Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said the resignation "dashes the last hope that Mark Carney is going to have a good climate record, ever."

Is this pragmatism in the face of U.S. tariff threats—the U.S. buys 95% of Canadian oil exports—or has Carney abandoned his principles?

The Evidence Summary

What We Know:

1. Carney signed an MOU supporting a pipeline on November 27
2. Carney voted against a motion supporting essentially the same pipeline on December 9
3. The stated reason—missing conditions—was addressed by Conservative amendments, which were also rejected
4. Carney has millions in Brookfield holdings and potential carried interest payments
5. Brookfield has significant carbon capture investments that benefit from "Pathways Plus"
6. Carney must recuse himself from 100+ Brookfield-related decisions but negotiated the MOU
7. His former environment minister resigned in protest

What Requires Further Investigation:

1. Did Carney recuse himself from any MOU negotiations involving Brookfield-related interests?
2. What specific carried interest payments is Carney entitled to from Brookfield transition funds?
3. Will Brookfield-affiliated companies bid on Pathways Plus carbon capture contracts?
4. Why were amendments addressing the government's stated objections also rejected?

The Larger Pattern

This investigation reveals a prime minister who has constructed an elaborate framework where he can claim to support pipelines (to appease Alberta and energy interests) while voting against pipeline motions (to appease environmentalists and British Columbia) while tying any actual pipeline to carbon capture requirements (which benefit his former employer's investments).

It's not "environmental ethics syndrome." It's not a "betrayal of climatism." It may be something more mundane and more troubling: a carefully constructed policy position that threads the needle between competing political pressures while potentially enriching the decision-maker's financial holdings.

Or it could be exactly what Carney says it is—a commitment to a comprehensive approach that requires environmental conditions alongside development.

The problem is: we can't know which interpretation is correct without fuller disclosure of Carney's financial entanglements and a clearer explanation for why amended motions addressing every stated objection were still rejected.

Conclusion

Mark Carney's pipeline paradox—supporting a pipeline in an MOU while voting against the same pipeline in Parliament—demands more than political spin to explain. The proximity of his Brookfield financial interests to the carbon capture requirements embedded in his preferred pipeline approach raises legitimate conflict-of-interest questions that the ethics framework has not adequately addressed.

Canadians deserve to know: Is their prime minister making energy policy based on Canada's interests, political calculation, or personal financial gain?

Until that question is answered with full transparency, the pipeline paradox remains an open investigation.