• patatas@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 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
      3 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
          2 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
            ·
            2 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
              2 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
                ·
                2 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
                  2 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.

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

                    If this were simply a ploy to manufacture outrage, then Carney’s best move would be to neutralize that ploy, or ‘distraction’, by calling people’s bluff and actually being transparent.

                    Instead, he got angry at reporters for asking him about it, and denied that there could be any possible conflict.

                    Meanwhile he continues to pitch projects in sectors that Brookfield has tens of billions invested in.