• NSAbot@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    As soon as they vest, they are entered into the blind trust and Carney will have no knowledge or input into what happens with them

    Unvested stocks can’t really be part of a blind trust because the holder can’t do anything with them until they have vested, and the vesting schedule being known means that the “blind” isn’t there in the blind trust

    • patatas@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      And when will that be? Will that happen while he is PM? Carney knows, and we don’t. And that’s the problem!

      • NSAbot@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        When they vest? Generally stocks vest to a schedule like x% per month over 4 years from when they were issued.

          • NSAbot@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            He could I guess, but it’s pretty standard stuff so the outrage over it seems manufactured to me.

            • patatas@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Personally I’ve not heard of a PM having millions in unvested stock options before this one, so, not sure how standard it is.

              If Poilievre was doing the same, would you have the same response?

              • NSAbot@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                If Pierre wants to go get a job and succeed to the point where he gets stocks, good luck and more power to him.

                IMO this hasn’t really been an issue in Canada before because generally we elect lawyers or career politicians. If we want a higher bar for divestment then let’s get that into law so that it applies either later in Carney’s term or for the next PM. In the meantime I am happy that Carney has fulfilled the requirements of the ethics commissioner and don’t believe that we have any clear mechanisms today to deal with unvested stocks owned by our politicians.

                It is IMO very unlikely that a large percentage of Carney’s net worth will be from (currently) unvested stocks. He’s entered everything that can be into a blind trust and once vested these currently unvested stocks will go to the blind trust. Until that happens this grey area seems like much ado about nothing.

                And to be 100% clear I did not vote Liberal in this latest election.

                • patatas@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  We don’t have a clear legal mechanism, but we to have the power of public outrage.

                  The whole point of conflict of interest legislation is that politicians should not have, nor be seen to have, opportunity for personal gain.

                  Carney could easily clear this up to satisfy critics like myself. Choosing not to only makes it look worse, frankly.

                  People mad about Poilievre not having a security clearance should also be mad about this.

                  • NSAbot@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 days ago

                    I disagree. I think drumming up outrage over this is a ploy to manufacture outrage over him being rich. We all already know he’s richer than any of us could ever dream of. I just want the government to focus on keeping Canadians safe and stable while our former ally wages economic war against us. This is a distraction at best.

                    Pierre not having a security clearance on its own is odd and disappointing, but fine on its own. The problem is that he used not getting a security clearance as a way for him to spread conspiracies about the things he could not know without clearance, but would know about with clearance. It was a bad faith argument.