SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

May/31/23 2:31:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is encouraging an insidious culture of secrecy; China is too. David Johnston is making a game out of hiding secrets from Canadians and Quebeckers, like China would. The Liberals' entire strategy is now obvious: to divert attention from the close ties between Liberal power brokers and China, possibly even to protect the interests of investor friends in China by devising a strategy for accessing secret documents that keeps them secret. It is not up to David Johnston to determine what I can or cannot see. It is not about me. An independent judge will set the terms of reference of a public inquiry.

108 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

May/31/23 2:42:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are entitled to the facts. That is why we want a public inquiry. We know that Beijing gave $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation. We know that when the scandal broke, he named Mr. Rosenberg to look into it. Rosenberg is with the Trudeau Foundation. When the scandal exploded further, he named Mr. Johnston, also a member of the Trudeau Foundation. What did he do? He named another judge from the Trudeau Foundation to look into the conflict of interest. Is the Prime Minister afraid of a public inquiry because he has run out of members of the Trudeau Foundation to run it?

107 words

Context: House Hansard - 203 - May/31/23

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Leader of the Opposition, CPC)

May/31/23 2:44:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are entitled to the facts. When Beijing gave $140,000 to the Trudeau Foundation, a scandal broke. To investigate, the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Rosenberg, a member of the Trudeau Foundation. The scandal exploded further. He then appointed Mr. Johnston, who is a member of the Trudeau Foundation. To ensure that there was no conflict of interest, Mr. Johnston appointed Mr. Iacobucci, who is a member of the Trudeau Foundation. Does the Prime Minister not want a public inquiry because he has run out of members of the Trudeau Foundation to run it?

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 203 - Jun/1/23

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/1/23 12:05:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would start by noting the original question asked in the House that has produced this follow-up at this point had nothing to do with David Johnston despite the fact the member has suddenly introduced David Johnston into the topic. He had a great display there. I am sure it will turn into a good fundraising opportunity later on. However, let us just reflect on what is really going on in this scenario. We have the Prime Minister's last name attached to a foundation, a foundation that was created in the name of his father. It is a foundation that accepts donations, and those donations are utilized for the following. This is straight from the Trudeau Foundation's website, which states: Through its Scholarship, Mentorship and Fellowship programs, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation focuses on the leadership development of our Scholars. The Foundation’s leadership program aims to empower Scholars to have meaningful impact in their institutions and communities. It does so by equipping Scholars with key leadership skills, instilling in them values crucial for Engaged Leaders, such as engagement with a plurality of perspectives, service to the community, audacity and innovation. This is an organization that the Prime Minister has not been involved with in over a decade. Conservatives know that, but Conservatives also know there is an opportunity to jump on here in that the Prime Minister's last name is also referenced in the Trudeau Foundation. The Conservatives would like to paint a picture that the Trudeau Foundation is some fundraising arm for individual donations, political or not, that somehow make it into the Prime Minister's own personal bank account. That could not be further from the truth. What they are trying to do here is cloud the issue and try to suggest there is some form of personal benefit to the Prime Minister, which quite frankly is not true. Everybody knows that, everybody who can look at the facts in a manner that is unbiased and does not come from this cloud of conspiracy theory we see from the other side of the House.

354 words