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.
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.
His reaction isn’t great and agreed he should find a way to placate people who see it as a problem but IMO his reaction is separate from whether unvested stocks are an issue or not. When he took the job, taking a loss on his unvested stocks wasn’t part of the ethics screen, so presumably he’s annoyed at the goalposts having moved after he took the job.
The only equitable solution I can see is if the taxpayers wanted to pay Carney his unvested stocks at current market value (or as they were valued the day he took office), and then sign ownership of the stocks themselves over to the public. I can’t see that going over well with anyone so it just looks like a lose-lose situation.
If there are other solutions that don’t end up in such a quagmire I would like to understand them, but so far all the solutions sound worse to me than the problem
I mean, he didn’t have to run for the Liberal leadership on the first place. I heard one commentator describe it as the ‘opportunity cost’ of running for PM.
Am I surprised that someone who sets up funds in the Caymans is trying to use the letter of the rules as a get out of jail free card? No.
But he must have known it would look terrible. If all this was a surprise to Carney, then we should be very worried about his ability to govern this country.
Dude that’s crazy. As I said I didn’t vote for the guy but be realistic here. Asking someone to pay money to become PM is not a good precedent. Especially when we are talking about one of the world’s most prominent economists, taking a position like you have just makes you seem like you hate the person and nothing will make you happy.
We are going in circles now, but keep in mind that we are talking about unvested stocks. In my opinion the only way to have an equitable solution is to find a way of transferring the current market value of the unvested stocks into Carney’s blind trust. I can’t think of how to do this in a way that I would be happy as a taxpayer and he would be happy as a (former) shareholder, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution.
The complexity of the problem is one of the reasons why I don’t feel it is worth solving immediately.
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.
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.
His reaction isn’t great and agreed he should find a way to placate people who see it as a problem but IMO his reaction is separate from whether unvested stocks are an issue or not. When he took the job, taking a loss on his unvested stocks wasn’t part of the ethics screen, so presumably he’s annoyed at the goalposts having moved after he took the job.
The only equitable solution I can see is if the taxpayers wanted to pay Carney his unvested stocks at current market value (or as they were valued the day he took office), and then sign ownership of the stocks themselves over to the public. I can’t see that going over well with anyone so it just looks like a lose-lose situation.
If there are other solutions that don’t end up in such a quagmire I would like to understand them, but so far all the solutions sound worse to me than the problem
I mean, he didn’t have to run for the Liberal leadership on the first place. I heard one commentator describe it as the ‘opportunity cost’ of running for PM.
Am I surprised that someone who sets up funds in the Caymans is trying to use the letter of the rules as a get out of jail free card? No.
But he must have known it would look terrible. If all this was a surprise to Carney, then we should be very worried about his ability to govern this country.
What solution would you suggest?
He should waive his right to exercise those stock options. Or step down if he values the money more.
This is why a PM gets a good salary and pension: they’re giving up things to be in a position of immense power. That’s the trade.
Dude that’s crazy. As I said I didn’t vote for the guy but be realistic here. Asking someone to pay money to become PM is not a good precedent. Especially when we are talking about one of the world’s most prominent economists, taking a position like you have just makes you seem like you hate the person and nothing will make you happy.
Lol I figured you’d say that.
Why is it “crazy” to want to ensure the leader of a country doesn’t have multi-million dollar conflicts of interest?
Sorry, but I don’t think we should be casual about this stuff. He’s making decisions that affect 40 million people.
If Carney doesn’t want to be PM then he can step down. If he does, then he has to accept limitations on what counts as a “blind” trust.
I don’t think this is unreasonable in the slightest.
We are going in circles now, but keep in mind that we are talking about unvested stocks. In my opinion the only way to have an equitable solution is to find a way of transferring the current market value of the unvested stocks into Carney’s blind trust. I can’t think of how to do this in a way that I would be happy as a taxpayer and he would be happy as a (former) shareholder, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a solution.
The complexity of the problem is one of the reasons why I don’t feel it is worth solving immediately.