If he cashes out of his investments, then what does PP expect him to do, hold a massive cash position, and eat inflation?
His quote is one sentence, and if you hold on to the end (I know, it’s hard) you’ll see your answer.
“We’re calling on the Prime Minister to sell his investments, turn them into cash, hand them to a trustee who can invest them in a way that is completely blind to him so that he does not have any knowledge of what he owns,” Poilievre said.
I wish people would stop rushing to shit their opinions out based on headlines
Basically yeah, or Carney gives it all away and pp cries bRibEs!!!1!
Just put the fries in the bag, Peter Polliver. Oh wait, your non-existent skill-set makes you ineligible for even that sort of job.
Poilievre just wants to get his name in the news media. Any excuse or frivolous point will do.
Guy living in the government funded house for the leader of the official opposition, even though he is not the leader of the official opposition, suggests the PM isn’t being ethical.
This isn’t an endorsement for Pierre, but treating this as an controversy is misleading and ingenuine.
The leader of the opposition literally told Pierre to stay there. I watched this interview live when parliament resumed in May:
“Given that Mr. Poilievre hopes to be re-elected as a Member of Parliament in a few months and Prime Minister Carney promised to hold the byelection quickly, it would be more costly to taxpayers to move the family out and then right back into the residence,” Scheer said in a statement to CBC News."
Given the treasure trove of criticisms to bring to light about Pierre Pollieve’s policies, this obfuscates the importance of the real issues and makes people who oppose Pierre look foolish at best.
I get it. I also get that the reason this is an issue is because he lost a seat he held for 20 years and needs help from others to keep his job and house. He talks about personal responsibility and then asks for handouts when he loses. He talks about government elites and then uses his political status to get special treatment. It is an example of his hypocrisy.
It’s almost comical that his election tagline was, “vote for change”, and then he refused to accept the change his constituents voted for.
Valid point. Seeing it from that perspective almost makes me just as angry, but am refusing to 😅
Thing is, the hypocrisy is invisible and meaningless to his voters. But if you ever have the chance for respectful dialog with them, maybe there will be an opportunity to change some views.
And we want you to fuck off, PP.
This is Canada, oligopoly and corruption is a part of our heritage.
And I want PP to fuck off, but sadly he doesn’t seem like he’s gonna stop suckling at the taxpayers’ teat anytime soon.
Edit: a typo
It is a blind trust fuckwit… What is wrong with you… Just go away loser…
Ok but only if PeePee gets security clearance!
Why is this guy still around?
This is the most significant nit he can find to pick‽
Carney was kind enough to let you squat in Stornoway, Pierre. Pretty ungrateful.
Polievre still doesn’t understand how a blind trust works eh?
He understands it perfectly well, but he knows a large chunk of his base doesn’t
“We’re calling on the Prime Minister to sell his investments, turn them into cash, hand them to a trustee who can invest them in a way that is completely blind to him so that he does not have any knowledge of what he owns”
I assumed this was what a blind trust is, can you educate me what a blind trust actually is?
Rather than having a fire sale (selling all investments, which implies in the short term), the trustee sells and buys investments as he sees fit without consulting the owner. It’s just Poilievre adding a step that seems obvious to the ignorant and harms the person he’s attacking.
How is the portfolio manager selected? Surely the best risk/reward would be a fully diversified etf fund which would require some liquidation, but many managers try to actively trade but the majority also fail.
I don’t know how Carney was managing his investments previously, and switching to a different fund has the same issues I raised before, but ask yourself this question. How is this more relevant for Carney than all the other politicians, and why are these demands being made of only him? I’m don’t have a problem with limits on how politicians invest, but I expect the investment advantages are similar for most politicians at a given level of politics, especially for the senior politicians. So why is Poilievre banging on this drum, and not broader anti-corruption measures?
I assume because hes a green guys who has written books on it, worked as a director of ESG at Brookfield, and is now seen as potentially giving green subsidies. Obviously it looks better if he doesnt own a vast leaning towards Brookfields when he dishes out subsidies to for-profit corporations. I agree that whenever a politician has obvious conflict of interests it should be rectified and incentives neutralized.
So we should stop having politicians from having investments in housing, right?
I would love to have that terrible pick for housing minister be liquidated, that is a prime example of blatant corruption.
google is free.
I don’t like that I agree with Poilievre here.
But it’s unclear what the vesting schedule for Carney’s Brookfield stock options is. Meaning that whoever is administering the ‘blind’ trust may not even have the ability to decide whether to exercise those options while Carney is in office.
I can’t see how that’s not a problem tbh
Edit: if you’re gonna downvote this, then go ahead and tell everyone what a vesting schedule is, and what the vesting schedule for Carney’s stock options is. I’ll wait.
What exactly do you want done with unvested shares?
Carney could, for instance, sign away any future claim to them.
At the very least, Canadians deserve to know what the vesting schedule is. But he’s a rich man already. If he was really in politics for the greater good (doubtful!), and if he cared about not having conflicts of interest or even appearing not to (also doubtful!), then he’d have zero qualms about giving up these Brookfield options.
Instead, he gets mad at anyone who questions the arrangement, and continues to push projects in sectors that Brookfield is heavily invested in.
google is free
And that’s exactly my point. So go on, answer the question please?
go use google is the answer…
Not sure what you think I meant.
I know what a vesting schedule is. Do you?
And Carney has not disclosed what the vesting schedule for his Brookfield stock options is.
Fine by me. Most of the policies Carney proposed will support big companies and people with stocks.
If Carney sells his stocks and doesn’t have investments he’ll be like a significant proportion of Canadians.
Join us, rich boy.
(And Poilievre can sell his ten rental properties and donate his parliamentary pension to cats or something)
It’s a blind trust. Maybe they’ve already been sold. He doesn’t know. And because it’s in a blind trust, if he did want them sold he:
- Doesn’t get to tell the person managing what to do (buy or sell)
- Couldn’t be told by the manager whether they had been sold
This is as stupid as the excuses to not get a security clearance
The problem is, his stock options may not have vested, and Carney would be aware of the vesting schedule. It could be years before he (or whoever is managing the trust) could exercise those options and/or sell those shares.
In other words, the trust may not be ‘blind’ in practice.
This was the original criticism from reporters such as Rosie Barton, and many of Carney’s supporters never bothered to try to understand the issue.
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
And when will that be? Will that happen while he is PM? Carney knows, and we don’t. And that’s the problem!
When they vest? Generally stocks vest to a schedule like x% per month over 4 years from when they were issued.
So why doesn’t Carney disclose this? Do you agree he should?
He could I guess, but it’s pretty standard stuff so the outrage over it seems manufactured to me.
