Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

Adjournment Proceedings

The debate focused on allegations that the Prime Minister has a conflict of interest related to government decisions benefiting Brookfield. Conservatives asserted that the Prime Minister’s personal investments benefited from government actions and argued that his blind trust and stock holdings were inadequately managed. Liberals responded that the Conservatives were engaging in personal attacks rather than discussing policy, noting that rules regarding financial transparency have been consistent for Prime Ministers across different administrations.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text

4 statements

Michael Cooper

Conservative
“The Prime Minister has conflicts of interest because government decisions give billions of dollars to Brookfield, a company that makes him richer. His blind trust is not really blind because he chose the investments himself and still owns stock options. The ethics committee told him to sell all his ties to Brookfield, and he should do that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I posed regarding the ethical cloud surrounding the Prime Minister in respect of decisions that his government has made to the benefit of Brookfield and, by extension, his personal financial portfolio. It is an undisputed fact that the Prime Minister has vast conflicts of interest with respect to Brookfield. Indeed, he has acknowledged more than 100 such conflicts of interest. Notwithstanding this, he has dismissed concerns about these conflicts on the basis that his assets are in a blind trust. The problem with that, of course, is that his blind trust is not truly blind because he knows exactly what went into it. Let us look at some of the facts. The Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars in future bonus pay from a Brookfield investment fund that he set up when he was the chair of Brookfield. Accordingly, he knows exactly what companies the fund has invested in because he hand-picked the companies. What exactly is blind about that? Then there are the Brookfield stock options for which the Prime Minister stands to make millions. What is blind about that? All of this to say that there is nothing blind about his so-called blind trust. Since the Prime Minister took office, time and again we have seen Brookfield at the front of the line, doing very well under the government. I will provide some examples. The government funnelled half a billion dollars to the European Space Agency. Why the European Space Agency? Could it be because Brookfield has a 50% ownership in the space agency’s headquarters? Could that be the reason or part of the reason? Then, there is the Pathways Alliance carbon capture scheme, involving billions of dollars of investment in carbon capture. The leading carbon capture company connected to Pathways Alliance is Entropy. Who owns Entropy? None other than the same Brookfield investment fund the Prime Minister’s future bonus pay is directly tied to. What a coincidence. Then there is the $50-billion maple fund that ties the retirement savings of millions of Canadians to Brookfield, and on it goes. Billions of dollars are flowing to Brookfield as a result of decisions made by the government. When Brookfield does well, the Prime Minister does well. That is verified by none other than the chief operating officer of Brookfield. What we have amounts to one big conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister. In the face of that, the ethics committee issued a report in the spring calling on the Prime Minister to end these conflicts of interest by divesting himself fully from Brookfield. Why has he not?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal
“The Conservatives only care about personal attacks and conspiracy theories instead of real policy. Our government makes good policy choices to build a stronger economy, and we work well with other leaders across the country. We will keep focusing on Canadians instead of these attacks.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 13 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis

  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 33 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, what the member clearly demonstrates is that the Conservatives are more focused on personal attacks and character assassinations than they are on public policy and the many things this government has done. I remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons. When Justin Trudeau was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives started personal attacks against him, and from day one after he became prime minister, consistently that is all they did. It is somewhat sad, because at the end of the day, it is this thing here, that thing there and this thing here, and then they line it all up, and oh my God we have a conspiracy. We call that a tin-hat theory. The Prime Minister was the the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England, and he was an economist extraordinaire. He is very well respected around the world. Through his leadership, the government has made numerous decisions to build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy. What we just saw is something we saw a bit earlier, when Conservative members stood up and said that the Crown corporation on military procurement is all about corruption. That is what some of them tried to imply, but it is good public policy. The Conservatives can continue to try to do character assassinations and try to paint everything as being corrupt. They can do that all they want, but at the end of the day, I can assure the member that our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, and this government are going to continue to be focused on Canadians and not the Conservative agenda. If I were to put on a conspiracy hat, I could ask members to imagine all the Conservatives, when they were in government, voting for farm protection procedures or enhancements, or those who argue here for getting discounts on diesel. I could say they are trying to fill the pockets of their families and so forth because they are farmers: How can a person be a farmer and vote for something that is going to benefit a farmer? I do not do that. I do not question their integrity. I do not question the ethics of that, because we have an Ethics Commissioner. I have more faith in the Ethics Commissioner than I do in what I have witnessed from the official opposition over the last number of years, because its sole focus far too often seems to be on character assassination. I do not hear other entities outside of the House of Commons, such as NDP governments, Conservative governments, different stakeholders, and indigenous community leaders, talking about corruption in Ottawa. Sure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively, but I believe that as a government, we have been reaching out and working collaboratively with all levels of government in numerous areas. We will continue to do so because it is the right thing to do. It builds a stronger and healthier Canada for all.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade D– View analysis

Michael Cooper

Conservative

Linked statement

“The Prime Minister makes money when Brookfield makes money, and Brookfield has made billions under his government. He broke his ethics rules by meeting with Brookfield, and his trust is not truly blind. He also refuses to share the times he made decisions despite clear conflicts of interest. I want the parliamentary secretary to tell me which of these facts is wrong, and why the Prime Minister is hiding these conflicts.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me spell it out for the parliamentary secretary. The Prime Minister has significant financial interests in Brookfield. He elected not to divest himself of those interests. Consequently, he does well when Brookfield does well, and Brookfield has done very well under his government, to the tune of billions of dollars. Which of those facts does the parliamentary secretary dispute? In addition to the so-called blind trust, which is not a blind trust, the Prime Minister set up an ethics screen, which he has repeatedly defied, including by meeting with Brookfield on multiple occasions in direct contravention of the screen the Ethics Commissioner set up. Also, he refuses to disclose times when conflicts were identified but he made a decision anyway. Why is the Prime Minister hiding those potential conflicts?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal
“The rules about blind trusts for prime ministers have been in place for a long time. Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, and our current prime minister have all followed the same rules. The prime minister works with ethics officers to follow these rules, just as Stephen Harper did.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the system we operate under today, in terms of blind trust and what the expectations are for prime ministers, is something that was in place long ago. In fact, I believe it was Stephen Harper who put it in place. The same rules have applied to Stephen Harper, to Justin Trudeau and to our current Prime Minister. Our current Prime Minister has gone out of his way in working with the independent officers of the House of Commons, either directly or indirectly, to ensure that there is integrity in the system, including blind trust. I think it would have been the same for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 155

All 43 items ·
  1. Private Members' Business An Act to Repeal Certain Restrictions on Shipping 7 statements
  2. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 52 statements
  3. Statements by Members Tribute to Men of Terrebonne 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions Finance 8 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 7 statements
  9. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  11. Oral Questions Child Care 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  18. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 67 statements
  19. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 8 statements
  21. Oral Questions International Trade 5 statements
  22. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 4 statements
  23. Government Orders Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act 34 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements