What Is It About Politicians and Corporate Bribery Scandals?

Another possible case of influence peddling – this time on behalf of Brookfield Asset Management

On the surface, this is about a strange venture involving Canadian private equity firm Brookfield Asset Management – whose chair until a few weeks ago was Mark Carney. But it seems to me that this particular event is really just one example of a much larger pattern.

In 2016, as Matt Taibbi recently wrote, the U.S. Justice Department settled a claim against the Brazilian construction conglomerate Odebrecht on a case “involving at least $788 million in illegal payments to officials all over the world, as a means of rigging bids and securing contracts.”

As the terms of the settlement were being negotiated, Brookfield made a big purchase from Odebrecht: a 57 percent stake in Rutas de Lima, a private road toll authority in Peru. According to the U.S. Justice Department, Rutas de Lima has demonstrably engaged in corrupt activities.

What’s of interest to us right now is how the 2016 settlement didn’t include – or even mention – Rutas de Lima. That, presumably, would be to Rutas de Lima’s considerable advantage, as their assets would thereby be shielded from the U.S. government. It’s notable that one of the two Justice Department officials who signed off on the settlement had – both before and after his time at Justice – also happened to work for a law firm that represented Brookfield in Washington.

None of which proves any wrongdoing on the part of Brookfield. But it does hint to an association between them and a combination of criminal behavior and political influence peddling. And it turns out that, not only does Brookfield still own Rutas de Lima in 2025, but they’re still actively engaged in legal efforts to recover profitable concessions lost after in the aftermath of the original prosecution.

To be clear, Mark Carney only joined Brookfield in 2020 – long after the Odebrecht settlement – so it’s unlikely any of this directly impacts him.

The thing is, that corporate bribery and government influence peddling are not exactly rare events. In fact, they’re not even rare in Canada.

Remember SNC-Lavalin? That’s the Montreal-based engineering and construction firm that got into some trouble back in 2018 when they were caught bribing (there’s that word again) Libyan officials with upwards of $48 million to secure contracts.

That was a problem. But the Liberal government in Ottawa seemed to have felt that a criminal conviction for SNC-Lavalin in the case would have been a much larger problem. A conviction, after all, would have limited the company’s ability to bid for future federal construction contracts.

During the summer of 2019, as you probably don’t recall, Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion concluded that Prime Minister Trudeau used inappropriate means in an attempt to “circumvent, undermine and ultimately discredit” the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions. In other words, political heavy hitters went to bat to protect favored corporations from the consequences of an international case of criminal bribery (and fraud).

In the end, SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc. pleaded guilty to just one fraud charge related to Libya, and agreed to a $280 million fine and three years’ probation. Other charges were dropped, avoiding a full trial on the broader allegations. And SNC-Lavalin – since rebranded as AtkinsRéalis – is still happily signing on for many of the largest infrastructure projects in the country.

I suppose government contracts and bribery go together like peanut butter and jam. The Libyan scandal wasn’t even SNC_Lavalin’s first kick at the can. There was, after all, the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) bribery scandal of 2007 where company executives funneled $22.5 million to MUHC executives to seal the $1.3 billion contract for the new Glen site hospital in Montreal.

But I’m specifically interested in the close personal relationships that seem to inspire powerful government officials to actively subvert the judicial process to cover for such massive crimes. Those seem to represent the greatest threat to our social contract. And, as we’ve just seen from developments in the Brookfield/Rutas de Lima case, they’re aren’t showing signs of disappearing.

Subscribe to The Audit

Related Topics:#BrookfieldAssetManagement #DavidClinton #SNCLavalin PoliticiansCorporateBribery RutasDeLima TheAudit

Up Next

Poilievre Promises to Unlock Ring Of Fire

Don't Miss

CSIS report says China infiltrated Provincial and Federal Party leadership races in 2022

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Jury: Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions in damages over pipeline project protests

National / 1 hour ago

Daughter of Canadian PM Mark Carney uses ‘they/them’ pronouns

Courageous Discourse / 3 hours ago

Europe Turns Totalitarian

Business

Trudeau collecting two pensions worth $8.4 million

Published on March 19, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on all party leaders to commit to ending the second pension for prime ministers.

“Taxpayers can’t afford to pay for all of the perks in Ottawa and the government should start saving money by ending the prime minister’s second taxpayer-funded pension,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Prime ministers already take a salary nearly six times more than the average Canadian and they already get a lucrative MP pension, so taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for a second pension for prime ministers.”

Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates.

First, there’s the MP pension.

The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90.

Then there’s the prime minister’s pension.

“A prime minister who holds the Office of the Prime Minister for at least four years is entitled to receive a special retirement allowance in addition to their members of Parliament pension benefit,” according to the government of Canada.

The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.

Add the $6.5-million MP pension to the $1.9-million prime minister’s pension and Trudeau will collect a total of about $8.4 million.

The prime minister’s current annual salary is $406,200.

Trudeau’s pension payouts would be even higher if not for reforms implemented in 2012, which increased the retirement age, cut benefits and saw MPs increase their own contributions. Prior to the reforms, MPs contributed just $1 for every $24 of taxpayer and federal monies invested in their pensions.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper forfeited an estimated $1 million to $2 million in additional payouts by implementing the reforms. Nevertheless, the CTF estimates Harper’s lifetime pensions will total about $7 million.

“A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension,” Terrazzano said. “Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and all party leaders should commit to ending the second pension for future prime ministers.”

Business

Next federal government should reduce size of Ottawa’s bureaucracy

Published on March 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

With an election looming, and despite uncertainty over when the next federal budget will be tabled, the federal government recently launched its pre-budget consultations to get input from Canadians about their policy priorities.

And a change in course is long overdue. For example, from 2018 to 2023, the Trudeau government recorded the six highest levels of per-person spending (adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history. Put differently, before, during and after COVID the government spent more money annually than it did during the Great Depression, both world wars, and the peak of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008/09.

Meanwhile, the revenue generated through a bevy of tax hikes (on top income earners and 86 per cent of middle-income families) has been insufficient to pay for all this spending. So the government chose to borrow and burden future generations of Canadians who will pay for today’s debt through higher taxes tomorrow. Consequently, the Trudeau government ran nine consecutive deficits and total federal debt per person (adjusted for inflation) is now at the highest point in Canadian history.

And according to projections, the state of federal finances will likely get worse. At its current trajectory of spending, the government will run six more deficits between 2024/25 and 2029/30 and accumulate substantially more debt. Of course, like households, government must pay interest on debt, and rising interest costs leave less money available for programs and services. By 2029/30, the government will spend a projected $69.4 billion on debt interest payments, which is significantly more than projected GST revenue that year.

To prevent this scenario, the next federal government—whoever that may be—should review in detail all areas of federal spending, find potential savings based on the Chrétien government’s successful approach in the 1990s, balance the budget and end the red ink.

A good first step would be to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy. Federal government employment (as measured in full-time equivalents) in Ottawa and across the country increased by 26.1 per cent between 2015/16 and 2022/23—growing nearly three times as fast as the Canadian population. Had the size of the federal bureaucracy simply grown in line with population growth, federal spending would be $7.5 billion lower than it is today.

Despite this sizeable increase in government, many Canadians remain frustrated with service quality. According to a 2023 poll, nearly half (44 per cent) of Canadians feel they receive “poor” or “very poor” value from government services. More administrators and managers in government has also failed to help produce higher living standards for Canadians. As of September 2024, per-person GDP, an indicator of incomes and living standards, was down 2.2 per cent compared to five years earlier (after adjusting for inflation). Reducing the number of federal bureaucrats would provide billions in savings for Ottawa to reduce the deficit and help pave a path back to budget balance, without sacrificing service quality.

The government could find additional savings by eliminating corporate welfare and subsidies to legacy media outlets, and abolishing the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which since 2017 has approved “investments” totalling $13.2 billion (as of the fourth quarter of 2023-24) and completed only two projects—the purchase of 20 electric buses in Edmonton and the construction of two solar facilities in Calgary.

Ottawa’s addiction to spending and debt cannot continue. Returning to balanced budgets must be a top priority in the next federal budget and for the next government.