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

Canada

10141 readers
936 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
[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day 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.