“The Prime Minister isn't really blind to his assets. He put them in a trust but he'll still get money from them. I demand he sell them for real like the committee says.”
What they said. What they meant.
Plain-language translations from the House of Commons.
Recent debates
8 latest topics
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
57 statements
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
19 statements
Arab Heritage Month Act
5 statements
The Economy
15 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Government Priorities
2 statements
Housing
12 statements
The Environment
2 statements
Oral Questions
Ethics
A debate about the Prime Minister's potential conflicts of interest and whether he is truly following the rules around blind trusts for his assets. The Conservatives accused the PM of improperly benefiting from Brookfield investments and setting up offshore tax havens while he was an economic advisor there. The Liberals simply repeated that the PM follows very strict rules without addressing the specific allegations.
“The Prime Minister followed the rules like we're all supposed to. He put his assets in a blind trust. He did it right away. The other guy didn't get a security clearance.”
“The Prime Minister set up tax dodging schemes. He will make millions from his blind trust. He should sell his assets to stop this conflict.”
“The Prime Minister put his assets in a blind trust. The Opposition Leader didn't get a security clearance for 20 years. Those accusations are ridiculous.”
“The Ethics Committee says the law should change so a prime minister can't make money from his own decisions. The Prime Minister will make money because his decisions help Brookfield. Will the Prime Minister fix this loophole so Canadians know he makes decisions for them, not himself or Brookfield?”
“I don't want to answer that. I want to make fun of these questions and talk about a conspiracy instead.”