all 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 36 points 1 year ago (1 child)

And we want you to fuck off, PP.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    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

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago

    Why is this guy still around?

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Valid point. Seeing it from that perspective almost makes me just as angry, but am refusing to πŸ˜…

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Polievre still doesn't understand how a blind trust works eh?

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child 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)
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    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.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    And that's exactly my point. So go on, answer the question please?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago

    Carney was kind enough to let you squat in Stornoway, Pierre. Pretty ungrateful.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago

    Ok but only if PeePee gets security clearance!

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    This is the most significant nit he can find to pickβ€½

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago

    It is a blind trust fuckwit.... What is wrong with you... Just go away loser...

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    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)

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (8 children)

    And when will that be? Will that happen while he is PM? Carney knows, and we don't. And that's the problem!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    So why doesn't Carney disclose this? Do you agree he should?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    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?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    If he cashes out of his investments, then what does PP expect him to do, hold a massive cash position, and eat inflation?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    He's already holding his investments in a blind trust. If he CASHED out his blind trust, then what is he supposed to do?

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

    And why would the chosen investment strategy be any different from what he already had....? Like, whoever he chooses to manage the trust is going to be aligned with whatever Carney's preferred investment strategy is... and if that hasn't changed, the portfolio is going to look quite similar. Adding an extra step where you cash out and buy back similar assets... it's silly.

  • source
  • parent