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.

google is free.

google is free

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

go use google is the answer…

Not sure what you think I meant.

I know what a vesting schedule is. Do you?

And Carney has not disclosed what the vesting schedule for his Brookfield stock options is.

As soon as they vest, they are entered into the blind trust and Carney will have no knowledge or input into what happens with them

Unvested stocks can’t really be part of a blind trust because the holder can’t do anything with them until they have vested, and the vesting schedule being known means that the “blind” isn’t there in the blind trust

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

When they vest? Generally stocks vest to a schedule like x% per month over 4 years from when they were issued.

I would love to have that terrible pick for housing minister be liquidated, that is a prime example of blatant corruption.

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).

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

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

He could I guess, but it’s pretty standard stuff so the outrage over it seems manufactured to me.

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?

If Pierre wants to go get a job and succeed to the point where he gets stocks, good luck and more power to him.

IMO this hasn’t really been an issue in Canada before because generally we elect lawyers or career politicians. If we want a higher bar for divestment then let’s get that into law so that it applies either later in Carney’s term or for the next PM. In the meantime I am happy that Carney has fulfilled the requirements of the ethics commissioner and don’t believe that we have any clear mechanisms today to deal with unvested stocks owned by our politicians.

It is IMO very unlikely that a large percentage of Carney’s net worth will be from (currently) unvested stocks. He’s entered everything that can be into a blind trust and once vested these currently unvested stocks will go to the blind trust. Until that happens this grey area seems like much ado about nothing.

And to be 100% clear I did not vote Liberal in this latest election.

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.

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.

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.

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