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

And we want you to fuck off, PP.

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

Why is this guy still around?

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)

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

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 is Canada, oligopoly and corruption is a part of our heritage.

“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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

It’s almost comical that his election tagline was, “vote for change”, and then he refused to accept the change his constituents voted for.

This is the most significant nit he can find to pick‽

Ok but only if PeePee gets security clearance!

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?