Skip to content
0
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
  • Home
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Sketchy)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Wandering Adventure Party

  1. Home
  2. Canada
  3. Poilievre wants Carney to cash out blind trust, says ethics screens insufficient

Poilievre wants Carney to cash out blind trust, says ethics screens insufficient

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Canada
canada
61 Posts 23 Posters 158 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

    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.

    N This user is from outside of this forum
    N This user is from outside of this forum
    nsabot@lemmy.ca
    wrote on last edited by nsabot@lemmy.ca
    #47

    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.

    P 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • N nsabot@lemmy.ca

      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.

      P This user is from outside of this forum
      P This user is from outside of this forum
      patatas@sh.itjust.works
      wrote on last edited by
      #48

      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.

      N 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

        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.

        N This user is from outside of this forum
        N This user is from outside of this forum
        nsabot@lemmy.ca
        wrote on last edited by nsabot@lemmy.ca
        #49

        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

        P 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • N nsabot@lemmy.ca

          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

          P This user is from outside of this forum
          P This user is from outside of this forum
          patatas@sh.itjust.works
          wrote on last edited by
          #50

          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.

          N 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

            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.

            N This user is from outside of this forum
            N This user is from outside of this forum
            nsabot@lemmy.ca
            wrote on last edited by
            #51

            What solution would you suggest?

            P 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • D dancesongraves@lemmy.ca

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

              B This user is from outside of this forum
              B This user is from outside of this forum
              bane_killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              wrote on last edited by
              #52

              Basically yeah, or Carney gives it all away and pp cries bRibEs!!!1!

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • N nsabot@lemmy.ca

                What solution would you suggest?

                P This user is from outside of this forum
                P This user is from outside of this forum
                patatas@sh.itjust.works
                wrote on last edited by
                #53

                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.

                N 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                  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.

                  N This user is from outside of this forum
                  N This user is from outside of this forum
                  nsabot@lemmy.ca
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #54

                  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.

                  P 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • N nsabot@lemmy.ca

                    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.

                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                    P This user is from outside of this forum
                    patatas@sh.itjust.works
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #55

                    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.

                    N 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • P patatas@sh.itjust.works

                      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.

                      N This user is from outside of this forum
                      N This user is from outside of this forum
                      nsabot@lemmy.ca
                      wrote on last edited by nsabot@lemmy.ca
                      #56

                      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.

                      P 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • N nsabot@lemmy.ca

                        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.

                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                        P This user is from outside of this forum
                        patatas@sh.itjust.works
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #57

                        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.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • D dancesongraves@lemmy.ca

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

                          L This user is from outside of this forum
                          L This user is from outside of this forum
                          leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #58

                          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

                          D 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • L leftytighty@slrpnk.net

                            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

                            D This user is from outside of this forum
                            D This user is from outside of this forum
                            dancesongraves@lemmy.ca
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #59

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

                            L 1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            • D dancesongraves@lemmy.ca

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

                              L This user is from outside of this forum
                              L This user is from outside of this forum
                              leftytighty@slrpnk.net
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #60

                              I think Pierre’s goalpost moving is stupid and I don’t agree with him but he’s saying that it be converted to cash and then reinvested so that Carney doesn’t know what’s in it.

                              Handing your existing assets to a trust, you don’t generally expect them to randomize your entire portfolio, so of course it’ll be similar to what you put in at the time you get it back

                              Nobody else has ever been expected to do this and it’s a bullshit bad faith argument, but that’s his reasoning

                              D 1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • L leftytighty@slrpnk.net

                                I think Pierre’s goalpost moving is stupid and I don’t agree with him but he’s saying that it be converted to cash and then reinvested so that Carney doesn’t know what’s in it.

                                Handing your existing assets to a trust, you don’t generally expect them to randomize your entire portfolio, so of course it’ll be similar to what you put in at the time you get it back

                                Nobody else has ever been expected to do this and it’s a bullshit bad faith argument, but that’s his reasoning

                                D This user is from outside of this forum
                                D This user is from outside of this forum
                                dancesongraves@lemmy.ca
                                wrote on last edited by dancesongraves@lemmy.ca
                                #61

                                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.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                0

                                Reply
                                • Reply as topic
                                Log in to reply
                                • Oldest to Newest
                                • Newest to Oldest
                                • Most Votes


                                • Login

                                • Login or register to search.
                                Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                                • First post
                                  Last post