When asked why he doesn’t sell his Brookfield shares and unexercised options to avoid any conflicts of interest, Mark Carney claims he has complied with all ethics rules.

I am less concerned about his financial assets than I am about the destructive policies he's going to implement. Journalists keep focusing on things that don't matter. IMHO, of course.

Flash Shelton, an anti-squatting activist, reveals how squatters in California exploit tenant laws, blurring the lines between tenant rights and unlawful occupation. He shares strategies for dealing with squatters and the challenges homeowners face in reclaiming their properties.

The answer is simple. He stands to make a lot of money by shaping government policies to favor Brookfield's interests.

So he didn't answer. Non-answer answer which means he has significant exposure. Come clean

Who gives a damn about this though? Carney is ready to unleash on us; CBDC, the Digital Canadian Dollar, Social Credit, Climate restrictions, FULL firearms bans, fishing bans/quota reductions, hunting bans, build nothing, never own a home, along with INTENSE TAXATION!!

But he *could* absolutely avoid any conflicts of interests by selling, but he won't.

Video 1: @PierrePoilievre destroys Mark Carny and exposes his conflicts in developing nations and Canadian energy industries. Video 2: Mark Carney and Bill Gates explain their WEF “Carbon Market” redistribution scheme. Mark Carney is invested in Foreign Nations! He only wins if Canada loses!

Simple question of substance over form. He may be complying within the confines of ethics rules, but does that mean he is free of conflict of interest? He is basically saying he still has conflict of interest but just not an illegal one. Is that enough?

Liberals don’t have ethics

Selling all your assets would also comply with all the ethics rules. Carney has a choice: Sell the assets at arm’s length and avoid all conflicts. Hide the assets in a blind trust and take his chances.