AGM

This is the Canadian way. Nice rules on paper, but terrible enforcement. I would welcome a change that brings in enforcement that actually works to maintain the sanctity of nice-sounding regulations, but I'll believe it when I see it. The system has welcomed just the type of activity you describe for a long, long time. It's in the DNA of the system, and it won't change overnight.

What Canadian is asking for this? Anybody? Wow... Gross.

It seems like a good tool to have in doctor or other healthcare professional's toolbox for delivering complex care, as long as complex care is provided and it's not treated as a simple solution to a complex problem. Canada certainly has healthcare professionals with the skills and knowledge to provide complex care. As long as we have provincial systems that support and enable them to provide that care, and providers who choose that path, having this as a generic drug seems like a win to me.

That's probably fair when talking about the electorate broadly, but also leaves out the powerful special interests contributing to shaping and manipulating the movement, and which have much more direct and influential access to provincial government than your average Jane or Joe. Those interests, and the stakeholders to which they're most responsive, need to be included as part of any discussion of how this movement is developing.

It's has nothing to do with the US? Did you read the article?

The TPP was never merely a tariff-reduction exercise. It was a strategic initiative—one conceived in large part as a counterweight to China’s growing economic dominance in the Asia-Pacific region and its serial violation of the rules-based international trading order. Let us be honest about that, even if diplomatic convention sometimes discourages saying it plainly.

Wtf do you think that actually means? If you don’t get this being very much related to the US, you're completely unfit to comment on the topic.

Posts link to Epoch Times source. Immediately claims "I post credible sources!" You are good for a laugh, Scotty.

Everyone knows what your account is.

Yeah, we don't want to financially punish someone for taking up public office, but we definitely need a better mechanism for preventing conflict of interests, especially in cases where someone is stepping into office from such a significant private sector life. That's what I was getting at elsewhere in this discussion with my other comment about creating special funds for this purpose

That's a bit silly. Assuming his portfolio was well designed before it went into a trust, the asset manager is not going to entirely rebalance the portfolio. It would actually be irresponsible gor them to do so because of the size of costs it would incur to him via forcing realized taxable gains. Also, things like stock options aren't tradable assets in the same way as simple equities. It's true he won't know exactly the composition of his portfolio now, but he'll have a decent idea of it, and when he has to pay taxes on any asset sales he'll have an idea of movesthat were made. He's the opposite of a financial neophyte. And, wrt the ethics screen, it's really silly to think it's actually going to prevent him making decisions that would affect Brookfield or businesses owned by Brookfield. Brookfield is just too big with fingers in too many pies not to be affected by economic and trade policy.

You don't have to assume any negative intent or abuse to recognize that the blind trust and the ethics screen are not sufficient.

Scotty only posts to drive specific narratives while lashing out in accusatory ways against anyone who disagrees with them and claims everyone who does is a propagandist.

Then he posts links to bullshit sources like the Epoch Times.

It's vile, but I also can't help laughing at how obvious and dumb it is.

There's more than one way to read "I expect to see guillotines before accountability."

It would be interesting to explore something like requiring a PM to liquidate assets they hold beyond things like a primary residence but making it free of any capital gains tax, then have a separate fund that tracks a basket of assets designed to be representative of the wealth and wellbeing of Canadians broadly but having an adjustable RoR based on broad measures of wellbeing. Could even make that available to all MPs and requiring ten years before divestment or something.

Totally just spitballing, but interesting to think of different ways of aligning incentives.

Carney also has a conflict of interest screen designed to prevent him from being involved in any decisions that could affect Brookfield Asset Management, Brookfield Corporation and Stripe.

Didn't previously know about this, but how is that even supposed to be possible? Brookfield is massive. The idea that someone could lead foreign policy on trade and economics for Canada without affecting Brookfield just doesn't make any sense. There's no way to make important decisions and act as a leader on these types of topics without having an impact on Brookfield.