this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
49 points (91.5% liked)

Canada

10141 readers
1022 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Misinformation is not welcome here.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 18 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] Thalion@lemmy.ca 20 points 4 days ago

He understands it perfectly well, but he knows a large chunk of his base doesn't

[–] teppa@piefed.ca 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

"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?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago (1 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.

[–] teppa@piefed.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 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?

[–] teppa@piefed.ca 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I assume because hes a green guys who has written books on it, worked as a director of ESG at Brookfield, and is now seen as potentially giving green subsidies. Obviously it looks better if he doesnt own a vast leaning towards Brookfields when he dishes out subsidies to for-profit corporations. I agree that whenever a politician has obvious conflict of interests it should be rectified and incentives neutralized.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] teppa@piefed.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days 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).

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago

google is free.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works -3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 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.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What exactly do you want done with unvested shares?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca -1 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

go use google is the answer...

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago

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.