this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
50 points (91.7% liked)

Canada

10137 readers
1041 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DancesOnGraves@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Bane_Killgrind@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 20 hours ago

Basically yeah, or Carney gives it all away and pp cries bRibEs!!!1!

[–] Binturong@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 days 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.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 15 points 3 days ago

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

[–] Ulrich_the_Old@lemmy.ca 11 points 3 days ago

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

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 days ago (1 children)

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 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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 days 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 days 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.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 days ago

Ok but only if PeePee gets security clearance!

[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 36 points 3 days ago (1 children)

And we want you to fuck off, PP.

[–] teppa@piefed.ca 5 points 3 days ago

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

[–] MyMotherIsAHamster@lemmy.ca 31 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 9 points 3 days ago

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

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 21 points 3 days ago

Why is this guy still around?

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 17 points 3 days ago

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

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 days ago (9 children)

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

[–] Thalion@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 days ago

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

[–] teppa@piefed.ca 7 points 3 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 3 days ago (6 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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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 2 days ago (19 children)

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)
load more comments
view more: next ›