The Conservative leader contends that the prime minster could still benefit personally from decisions he is now making.
        • patatas@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          11 months ago

          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?

            • patatas@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              11 months ago

              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.

                • patatas@sh.itjust.works
                  1·
                  11 months ago

                  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.