you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    So we should stop having politicians from having investments in housing, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Well, there's nothing stopping Poilievre and his wife from selling the rental properties they own, which should help remove some conflict of interest they may have in this issue which is so important to many Canadians, and he doesn't even have to get the approval of anyone but his wife to make it happen (and that only for one of them).

  • source
  • parent