“The Prime Minister gave a 2.3-billion-dollar contract to a company run by his friend. This is a clear conflict of interest. Did he discuss this contract with his staff, and why did he not follow the law and step away from the decision publicly?”

“Mr. Speaker, that was a yes-or-no question. The Prime Minister has a blatant conflict of interest in relation to his friend, the CEO of Telesat, which received a $2.3-billion contract. Again, did the Prime Minister discuss any aspect of this contract with his staff or anyone in government, and why did he not issue a public declaration of recusal as required by law?”

“I was interrupted before I could finish my statement.”

“Mr. Speaker, hello, everyone. It is nice to be here with all of us— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“The Prime Minister and a minister are close personal friends with the head of Telesat. The minister put this friend on his ethics screen to avoid conflicts of interest. I want to know why the Prime Minister will not do the same.”

“Mr. Speaker, the AI minister, the Prime Minister and the Telesat CEO are all buddies. They sent their kids to the same elite private school. They are in the same book and running club. They even ran a marathon together. The AI minister took the correct steps of adding Dan Goldberg to his ethics screen. Why will the Prime Minister not do the same? If the AI minister can do it, why can the Prime Minister not do it?”

“The government gave a contract to the Prime Minister's friend, Dan Goldberg, making him richer. Another minister already put this friendship on his ethics screen. I want to know why the Prime Minister will not do the same.”

“Mr. Speaker, we see another example of the Liberals deflecting and dodging a very important question about $2.3 billion of taxpayer money. What we are pointing out is that the AI minister took the correct steps of adding Telesat CEO Dan Goldberg to his ethics screen. The question is why the Prime Minister cannot do the same. Their personal friend Dan Goldberg has been personally enriched by a government contract and Canadians deserve to know why the Prime Minister will not acknowledge his friendship in his conflict of interest ethics screen.”

“Telesat owes over $3 billion in debt and says it cannot pay it back. Yet the government just gave the company a $2.3-billion contract without a competition. The head of Telesat is a good friend of the Prime Minister. I want the Prime Minister to explain how his friend's company got billions of dollars of public money without competing for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, Telesat has over $3 billion in debt that is coming due soon. The company itself is saying that it does not think it will be able to pay its creditors. Hold on a minute. They have a card up their sleeve. Mr. Goldberg, the CEO of Telesat, is a good friend of the Prime Minister. What is the result? The government just awarded Telesat the largest contract in the company’s history. This contract is worth $2.3 billion, and there was no competitive bidding process. Can the Prime Minister explain how a company led by one of his buddies can obtain billions of dollars from Canadians without any competition?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 70 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “one of his buddies”.

  See full analysis →

“The CEO of Telesat is close friends with the Prime Minister, and his company received a $2.3-billion government contract. It would be illegal for the Prime Minister to take part in that decision. I want the Prime Minister to guarantee that he was not involved in any discussions about the contract.”

“Mr. Speaker, there are other facts to consider. We know that the CEO of Telesat is a long-time friend of the Prime Minister. He attended the Prime Minister’s swearing-in and went to visit him in England. They even run marathons together. How nice for them. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence is also a buddy of Mr. Goldberg’s, but he had to recuse himself from matters involving Telesat to avoid a conflict of interest. Apparently, the Prime Minister is under no obligation to do the same. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that he never participated, directly or indirectly, in the discussions that led to a $2.3-billion contract being awarded to one of his buddies? If he did, that would be illegal.”

“Telesat was in deep financial trouble and about to default on its debt. The government gave its CEO, who is a friend of the Prime Minister, $2.3 billion of taxpayer money right before a massive debt payment was due. Regular Canadians are paying the price to bail out a well-connected insider.”

“Mr. Speaker, Telesat was not legally bankrupt, but it was facing severe financial distress, insolvency warnings and an immediate risk of defaulting on its massive debt obligations. The Prime Minister’s buddy Dan Goldberg, the CEO of Telesat, received 2.3 billion Canadian tax dollars just as $1.71 billion U.S., or roughly $2.3 billion Canadian, in debt was coming due on December 6. Is it a coincidence? Perhaps. To the Prime Minister, does “masters of our own destiny” apply only to his club of well-connected Liberal insiders taking care of themselves while those not in the clubs, such as hard-working families, seniors and single-income moms, pay the price?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 74 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The Prime Minister's buddy Dan Goldberg”.

  See full analysis →

“The government gave a $2.3 billion contract to Telesat, a company run by the Prime Minister's friend and Liberal fundraiser, right when it owed about that same amount in debt. I want the Prime Minister to explain why this money was given to this company and what rules were in place to stop public funds from bailing it out.”

“Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. Can the Prime Minister explain why hard-working, taxpaying Canadian families, seniors and single-income moms gave $2.3 billion to his CEO friend and Liberal Party fundraiser at Telesat with a big government contract just as a nearly identical amount of debt was approaching maturity? I would also love to have the Prime Minister answer this one. Can he also explain what safeguards were put in place to ensure that these tax dollars are not being used to relieve the company of his lifelong buddy, a well-connected Liberal insider and fundraiser for the Prime Minister, of its financial pressures near insolvency?”