You mentioned precedent before.

What precedent would it set if someone could work for a company, be handed millions in stock options, and then run for office with the secret but explicit understanding that the stock options were arranged as a way to incentivize certain policy positions?

I wouldn't be totally opposed to what you're suggesting, but as you say, there's no mechanism for doing it.

So, too bad for Carney, he should have thought of this before he agreed to be paid in stock options and then run for PM. This is his own mess!

And frankly I'm kind of shocked that anyone is defending a multimillionaire who's doing something so brazenly counter to the spirit of our ethics rules.

Well, I'd expect it from Trump or Poilievre supporters, sure.