50
submitted 3 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 38 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Kyle@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 24 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Kyle@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 36 points 3 weeks ago

And we want you to fuck off, PP.

[-] teppa@piefed.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] MyMotherIsAHamster@lemmy.ca 31 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

[-] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 weeks ago

Why is this guy still around?

[-] tleb@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Thalion@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] teppa@piefed.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

"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 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] grte@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Daryl@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 weeks ago

Poilievre just wants to get his name in the news media. Any excuse or frivolous point will do.

[-] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 weeks ago

Ok but only if PeePee gets security clearance!

[-] Binturong@lemmy.ca 13 points 3 weeks ago

Just put the fries in the bag, Peter Polliver. Oh wait, your non-existent skill-set makes you ineligible for even that sort of job.

[-] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 weeks ago

It is a blind trust fuckwit.... What is wrong with you... Just go away loser...

[-] nyan@lemmy.cafe 9 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 weeks ago

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)

[-] NSAbot@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

It’s a blind trust. Maybe they’ve already been sold. He doesn’t know. And because it’s in a blind trust, if he did want them sold he:

  1. Doesn’t get to tell the person managing what to do (buy or sell)
  2. Couldn’t be told by the manager whether they had been sold

This is as stupid as the excuses to not get a security clearance

load more comments (19 replies)
[-] DancesOnGraves@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago

His quote is one sentence, and if you hold on to the end (I know, it's hard) you'll see your answer.

"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," Poilievre said.

I wish people would stop rushing to shit their opinions out based on headlines

[-] DancesOnGraves@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

He's already holding his investments in a blind trust. If he CASHED out his blind trust, then what is he supposed to do?

[-] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 days ago

I think Pierre's goalpost moving is stupid and I don't agree with him but he's saying that it be converted to cash and then reinvested so that Carney doesn't know what's in it.

Handing your existing assets to a trust, you don't generally expect them to randomize your entire portfolio, so of course it'll be similar to what you put in at the time you get it back

Nobody else has ever been expected to do this and it's a bullshit bad faith argument, but that's his reasoning

[-] DancesOnGraves@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

And why would the chosen investment strategy be any different from what he already had....? Like, whoever he chooses to manage the trust is going to be aligned with whatever Carney's preferred investment strategy is... and if that hasn't changed, the portfolio is going to look quite similar. Adding an extra step where you cash out and buy back similar assets... it's silly.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
50 points (91.7% liked)

Canada

10267 readers
976 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.

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


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS