Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 47
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-06-19 14:38 [p.29387]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister believes that there is one set of rules for him and his friends and one set for everyone else in this country. For example, there are his well-connected friends at SNC-Lavalin. They have given over $100,000 in illegal donations to the Liberals, and they got unprecedented access to the Prime Minister and his office.
Will the Prime Minister admit that he inappropriately pressured the former attorney general just to help his buddies at SNC-Lavalin?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-16 14:21 [p.27945]
Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the House apologized to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, but as of yet the Prime Minister has not.
We all know very well that the House apologizing is vastly different from the Prime Minister apologizing. We know the Prime Minister has no problem apologizing, though. He has done so to Omar Khadr, a convicted terrorist.
Why in the world would he not apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has been wronged, maligned and almost bankrupted by the Liberal government? When can he—
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-16 14:22 [p.27945]
Mr. Speaker, we have learned that military regulations are preventing Vice-Admiral Norman from speaking freely about what the Liberals have been doing to him over the last three years.
Canadians deserve to know what the Prime Minister and his office did to Vice-Admiral Norman, but they will not know unless he is allowed to speak. Where have we heard that before?
Will the Prime Minister remove this gag order, or are we going to see another person with honour and integrity being told by the Prime Minister to just sit down, shut up and stay silent?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-13 14:18 [p.27679]
Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and his defence team have been clear. The Prime Minister and his office tried to interfere in the case against the vice-admiral, both prior to the charges being laid and during the proceedings. In fact, Marie Henein said,“you don't put your finger and try to weigh in on the scales of justice, that is not what should be happening”. She was talking about the Liberals.
Just exactly why did the Prime Minister try to weigh in on the scales of justice and interfere in the vice-admiral's court case?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-13 14:19 [p.27679]
Mr. Speaker, we are not questioning the independence of the public prosecutor. We know that the decision to stay the trial was theirs, but as Norman's lawyer said very directly, the decision to stay the charges was made independently, despite the attempts of the Liberals to interfere—not because of but despite their attempts.
Here we are five days later and still no answers from the Prime Minister. Will he get up today and answer this question, or will he appear before the defence committee and start answering some questions on this?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-05-13 14:20 [p.27679]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister engaged in political interference in this case from the beginning. Vice-Admiral Norman's defence counsel said, “No person in this country should ever walk into a courtroom and feel like they are fighting their elected government or any sort of political [interference]”. She was talking about the Liberal government.
Will the Liberals on the defence committee block the truth from coming out, or will they allow this to come before the committee, allow us to call witnesses, and get to the bottom of this, yes or no?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-05 10:07 [p.26725]
moved:
That, given the recent allegations of political interference against the Prime Minister and given that Canadians reject the Prime Minister’s excuse for his actions as simply routine government business, the House call on the government to show respect for the rule of law and immediately:
(a) comply with the letter and spirit of all court orders and requests in relation to the trial of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman;
(b) provide Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s defence with all records relating to his prosecution, including but not limited to, memos, letters, emails, PIN-to-PIN messages, SMS messages, and handwritten notes, including records that exist on personal electronic devices;
(c) require all current and former Cabinet ministers and their respective political staff and employees of the Privy Council Office since November 2015 to sign an affidavit affirming that no evidence or records related to the prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman have been destroyed, and that they have personally complied with all relevant court orders; and
(d) indemnify Vice-Admiral Mark Norman and provide legal assistance within 30 days of the adoption of this motion for any invoices that are in arrears, and within 30 days of the invoice date for any subsequent invoices.
She said: Madam Speaker, before I begin I want to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Durham.
This year has been a very troubling one for the rule of law in Canada. Of course the entire country is now familiar, and disgusted, with the disturbing case of the Prime Minister's political interference in the very serious corruption prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Shockingly, this is not the only case that we know of.
Highly respected and regarded Vice-Admiral Mark Norman is under criminal prosecution for alleged leaks of cabinet documents, and was suspended from his role as the number two officer in Canada's military. This prosecution appears to have been politically motivated and Conservatives have said this since the beginning, but it is not just Conservatives who have this concern.
During preliminary court proceedings in an Ottawa courthouse just a few blocks from here, very serious allegations of political interference in this prosecution have been made. Honestly, we should not be surprised. The Prime Minister said publicly, and before the RCMP even completed its investigation, that it looked like this would be “before the courts”.
How in the world would the Prime Minister have known that? As the SNC-Lavalin mess has exposed, the Prime Minister and his government have an obsessive, unhealthy and seemingly corrupt fascination with meddling in criminal prosecutions.
How did this all happen in the first place? Sadly, just like the SNC-Lavalin affair, it all comes down to “Who do you know in the PMO?” Back in November 2015, right after the last election, the Liberals were drunk on power and arrogance, and had one of the first cabinet meetings of the Liberal government. Former Treasury Board president Scott Brison took the unprecedented step of trying to stop or delay the contract with Davie shipyard for a much-needed interim supply ship for the Royal Canadian Navy.
Why would he do that? What was behind that? Scott Brison and other Liberals from the Liberal caucus were looking out for well-connected interests from their own neck of the woods in Atlantic Canada. They wanted the contract changed.
Then there was a leak about it all from someone to CBC reporter James Cudmore, the same James Cudmore who, really interestingly, became employed in the defence minister's office just weeks after this big military scoop. Wow, what a coincidence. The Liberals got very angry and decided that they needed to blame someone.
We have seen the news in recent weeks, recent days in fact, about other government leaks. It is really interesting how these government leaks happen and the result of the government leaks, the response from the Liberal government, depending on what the leak is about, who leaked it and whether it helps or hurts them.
As part of the recent Liberal smear campaign against the former attorney general, we saw that it did not matter whose reputation the Liberals were going to tarnish when they were trying to tarnish her reputation. In fact, we saw, and it was very disturbing and disrespectful to see, the government leaks about applicants to the Supreme Court of Canada.
There has to be an investigation into how in the world leaks, misinformation and such a disrespectful campaign was allowed to happen against Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, a highly respected individual, not only in Manitoba but across the country. As for the leaks around him, which were not true and which were disrespectful, the government is just saying, “That leak? Oh well, it happened. We'll make sure it never happens again.” However, there is no investigation from the current Attorney General.
Let us compare that to another leak. The National Post just ran a story about a PCO leak inquiring into finding the brave soul inside the government who let Canadians know about the $10.5-million deal cut with convicted terrorist Omar Khadr. That one has the government upset. That was something it wanted to hide. It did not come straight from its offices, apparently. That one, the government is going to get to the bottom of.
We can see how differently the government treats what it calls “leaks”, leaks that come from it and leaks that it thinks come from someone else. It would appear that whistle-blowers who blow the whistle on Liberals must be punished, if we read between the lines of what the government is doing.
The leak concerning the supply ship was also investigated. That investigation turned up six separate leaks from the cabinet committee meeting where the issue was discussed, and some 73 people having knowledge of the details of Scott Brison's meddling, yet it was Mark Norman who was charged under the Criminal Code.
Do members know what happened just before those charges were laid and a 30-plus year respected veteran officer of the Canadian Forces was suspended—
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-04 14:19 [p.26684]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been caught again, trying to deceive. On February 7, when he said the initial Globe and Mail story was false, he was not telling the truth.
Now we know that when he said the former attorney general never raised her valid concerns with him, he was misleading Canadians. Just yesterday, he accidentally admitted that on September 17, the former attorney general told him very directly to back off.
The Prime Minister cannot seem to keep his story straight. Is that because it is just not true?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-04 14:19 [p.26684]
Mr. Speaker, on February 15, the Prime Minister said that if anyone thought he was doing anything wrong, then it was their responsibility to come forward, but he said that no one did.
Yesterday he admitted that this just was not true. The former attorney general warned him several times, including on September 17, not to politically interfere in the SNC prosecution, but he refused to listen. He fired her, and he continues to spread falsehoods.
Why will the Prime Minister not simply tell the truth about his interference in a criminal prosecution?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-04 14:20 [p.26684]
Mr. Speaker, let us review the facts. The Prime Minister tried to politically interfere in a criminal prosecution. His former attorney general said no, so he fired her.
The truth comes out and he denies everything. The Prime Minister then shuts down the investigation and refuses the full waiver. A tape proves that the former attorney general has been telling the truth. The Prime Minister is furious, so he kicks the two women out of his caucus and runs a smear campaign against both of them.
It is time to end the cover-up. When will the Prime Minister tell the truth?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-03 14:56 [p.26624]
Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely cowardly response from the Prime Minister. By not denouncing those comments, the Prime Minister is endorsing the smear campaign levelled against the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board. These women are being punished for the crime of telling the truth and having the proof to back it up. They stood up to the Prime Minister and they refused to be silent.
Why did the Prime Minister punish these strong women for doing what was right, for telling the truth and for standing up to his good old boys club?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-02 14:43 [p.26589]
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the government House leader is hearing the question, so I will try again.
We have learned that the Prime Minister's Office is refusing to provide basic information to the Quebec paper La Presse on the SNC-Lavalin scandal until—get this—after the next election.
Now, by law, access to information requests are supposed to be responded to within 30 days, but the Prime Minister, in his desperation to cover up, seems to think he is above the law.
Why is the Prime Minister obstructing media access to information in order to cover up his deceitful behaviour?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-02 14:44 [p.26589]
Mr. Speaker, Gerald Butts, who is no longer in the Prime Minister's Office, seems to have unfettered and instant access to government texts, emails and documents as he continues his campaign to try to discredit the former attorney general, but when the media requests important information, it is nothing but refusals, obstructions and delays.
My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It is clear that the Prime Minister is abusing his power in order to stop important information from being revealed. The Prime Minister is moving heaven and earth to cover up his obstruction and his deceitfulness. Why?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-01 14:18 [p.26513]
Mr. Speaker, new information revealed in the tapes last week prove that the Prime Minister has not been telling the truth. The Prime Minister not only had knowledge of the pressure being applied to the former attorney general but he and his office were, in fact, orchestrating it. As the clerk said, the Prime Minister wanted his way, and he was going to get it.
I know I am not allowed to say that the Prime Minister lied, so my question is this. Why did the Prime Minister give deceitful and false information to Canadians regarding the pressure he and his office applied to the former attorney general?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-01 14:20 [p.26513]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are not buying the ever-changing saga the Prime Minister is trying to peddle.
First of all, he said there is nothing to see here and all allegations are false. Second, we all heard that it is Scott Brison's fault. Now the blame is being placed, and was placed, on the former attorney general. It was all her fault for not saying “no” loudly and clearly enough to the Prime Minister. When we heard the tapes, and all of us heard, she said “no” to the Prime Minister.
Why does the Prime Minister not stop telling us his perspective and tell us the truth?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-04-01 14:21 [p.26514]
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who instructed the Liberal MPs on the justice committee and the ethics committee to shut down the investigation, and they complied. Now, after we heard the tapes just yesterday, guess who said he has more information to give? It is Gerald Butts.
It is clear that there is much more to this scandal and there is more information. It comes right from the Prime Minister and his office.
Will the Prime Minister allow his Liberal MPs on the justice committee to reopen this important investigation?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-22 10:49 [p.26467]
Mr. Speaker, it is regarding the apology that is required.
The member for Winnipeg North has tried to say I was calling everybody childish, but he called our colleague, the member for Sarnia—Lambton, a child. He needs to unreservedly apologize and withdraw that insulting comment made to a woman who is accomplished, who is clearly an adult, and who is doing the mature thing right now—her job. That member should not be qualifying it if someone felt or experienced it differently. He should just stand up and apologize, as a man should.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-22 11:19 [p.26472]
Mr. Speaker, farmers do not need handouts from the government. They need their trading partners in China, and they need those relationships restored.
The House just finished over 30 hours of voting, where Liberal members continued the cover-up, over 30 hours of protecting the Prime Minister and his corruption, and over 30 hours of refusing to let the former attorney general speak. If these are the lengths the Prime Minister is willing to take to stop the truth from being told, then what he is hiding must be absolutely terrible.
If he has nothing to hide, why does the Prime Minister not come clean with Canadians and stop the cover-up?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-22 11:21 [p.26473]
Mr. Speaker, Canadians were watching last night throughout the 31 hours, and they saw exactly what the Liberal government and these Liberal caucus members were doing and the cover-up the Prime Minister continues.
In an explosive interview with Maclean's, the former president of the Treasury Board said there is much more of this story that needs to be heard. Canadians deserve to know the truth. Even after the former president of the Treasury Board said that more needs to be heard, the Prime Minister continues to cover up.
When will he stop the cover-up, allow these former members to speak and waive the client privilege that he has put on them? Stop the gag order. Let them speak.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-20 14:36 [p.26176]
Mr. Speaker, what has become abundantly clear with this cover-up is that the Prime Minister is nothing but a fake feminist. This all started when the good old boys at SNC-Lavalin were caught bribing and spending money on prostitutes and then the Prime Minister and his good old boys said to them, “Don't worry, we'll take care of it.” However, then a woman, the former attorney general, said no to the good old boys and she was promptly fired and silenced.
Why is the Prime Minister silencing women of principle while covering up for the actions of his corrupt friends?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-20 14:37 [p.26176]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is really good at yelling and screaming at women, as the member for Whitby knows. He is also a very good actor. However, he is a fake feminist. We know that after the principled resignation of the former president of the Treasury Board, another good old boy, the Minister of Finance, said she just quit because she was good friends with the former attorney general and that is just what girls do.
Why is the Prime Minister and his friends thinking it is so much easier to silence women and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-18 12:20 [p.26046]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few of my own comments to my colleague's request that you look at this as a point of privilege.
I want to begin by congratulating the member for New Westminster—Burnaby on his new position as House Leader for the NDP.
There are a couple of things that I think are important to note around this issue.
First, this issue is so important that the House will recall that two weeks ago, when I requested an emergency debate in the House on the issue of the SNC-Lavalin cover-up, the emergency debate was granted. The Speaker saw how important it was that we get to the bottom of this issue, that we, as parliamentarians certainly, and Canadians, understand and know the truth around the circumstances whereby the former Attorney General was pressured to interfere in a criminal prosecution. That pressure was brought to bear by the Prime Minister and his office.
The House will also recall that when this broke, the story from the Prime Minister changed continually. It first was denial. He said that nothing happened, that there was no pressure. He then blamed Scott Brison. He then said that her experiences were different from his. Overall, the story has changed continuously.
What has added not only to the confusion but what appears to be a massive cover-up are the different stories being presented by the current Attorney General, and the information, and as my colleague pointed out, the answers, given to the House by the current Attorney General, which we now know are not true.
We have had to have an emergency debate about it. The justice committee has been complicit in the cover-up, working with the Prime Minister's Office to help cover this up. We have seen the current Attorney General, the individual who is tasked with keeping the laws of this land, mislead the House, saying that he believes whatever the Prime Minister said and whose own story has been changing.
This is a crisis of moral authority in this country. This is not just a political discussion that happens in the chamber sometimes. This is not just a “he said, she said”, or “he said, he said”. This goes to the very fabric of our country and the moral authority to govern this country.
I appreciate that there have already been examples brought to the Speaker on previous times that the House was misled and a prima facia question of privilege was found. The one that was talked about was in 2002, when Art Eggleton, the then minister of national defence, was accused of deliberately making misleading statements.
In 2011, Bev Oda, the then minister of international cooperation, was accused of deliberately making misleading statements. That point was about the confusion created by the minister's contradictory statements. Speaker Milliken ruled that a prima facie question of privilege did exist, and the House agreed to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In 2014, former colleague Brad Butt from Mississauga—Streetsville was accused of making misleading statements to the House, and again the Speaker found that it warranted a prima facie question of privilege.
Those were both instances that, although important in terms of not making misleading statements to the House, did not go to the very fibre and fabric of our system of democracy and the independence of the judiciary.
I make those points because this is a gravely important issue, and I want to add one more comment.
Another angle to this could be that the Attorney General himself has been misled by the Prime Minister. He could have not been told the truth by the Prime Minister. There is also a precedent for that. Page 116 of Bosc and Gagnon explains the following:
Misleading a Minister or a Member has also been considered a form of obstruction and, thus, a prima facie breach of privilege. For example, on December 6, 1978, in finding that a prima facie contempt of the House existed, Speaker Jerome ruled that a government official, by deliberately misleading a Minister, had impeded the Member in the performance of his duties and consequently obstructed the House itself.
We do not know. Would it have been Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, who possibly mislead our current Attorney General? That is another question.
Either the Attorney General was misled by the Prime Minister and the Clerk of the Privy Council or their officials, or the Attorney General deliberately misled the House on an issue of grave importance, so grave that we had an emergency debate on it, so grave that we have been consumed with this.
The government, today by the way, just had its third cabinet shuffle in less than six or seven weeks. The government is not consumed with issues that are affecting the country, such as pipelines, canola exports to China, massive deficits and job losses. The Liberals are consumed with saving their own skins and moving cabinet around as they are constantly trying to fill holes that are being created by their own scandal and their own cover-up.
I fully support my colleague's request that a prima facie case be found, and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this. I would ask that if more information becomes available, we could be afforded the opportunity to address this again.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-18 14:37 [p.26061]
Mr. Speaker, on at least four separate occasions at the justice committee, the former attorney general said that she could not talk about something because of privilege restrictions. She could not talk about why she left cabinet, even though the Prime Minister, Gerry Butts and the Clerk of the Privy Council all did. To add insult to injury, the Liberals on the justice committee are clearly nothing more than PMO puppets who are part of this cover-up.
The justice committee meets tomorrow morning. Will the Prime Minister finally remove all the restrictions and let the former attorney general speak at the justice committee?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-18 14:38 [p.26061]
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to everyone watching that the justice committee is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office through the Liberal members on that committee.
Today, we just heard that the Prime Minister is going to be asking his Liberal friend Anne McLellan to apparently investigate. I guess his Liberal friends Gerry Butts, Kathleen Wynne and Sheila Copps were busy.
We do not need any Liberals investigating Liberals. What we need to have is the former attorney general being allowed to speak and to give her whole story. Will the Prime Minister let her speak?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-01 11:15 [p.26013]
Mr. Speaker, this morning's cabinet shuffle will not make the Prime Minister's problems go away. What the former attorney general said at the justice committee was shocking, showing political interference at the highest level of government, including by the Prime Minister himself.
While next week Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick will testify, they cannot take the fall for his actions. The Prime Minister needs to be held responsible. Rather than running scared, will the Prime Minister show even a fraction of the courage of his former attorney general and testify under oath at the justice committee?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-01 11:16 [p.26013]
Mr. Speaker, that is not true. The former attorney general was not allowed to fully share her story, and what she did share, the Prime Minister says he does not believe, because this so-called feminist Prime Minister does not like it when women tell the truth about him.
The Prime Minister is trying to discredit her. From not accepting her testimony at face value, to blaming her, to calling her difficult to work with, he is running a despicable smear campaign against the former attorney general and is still not allowing her to tell her full story, nor is he coming forward to tell the truth.
Will he stop attacking her and admit that she spoke the truth and own up to what he has done?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-03-01 11:17 [p.26014]
Mr. Speaker, how about this? Yesterday, five former attorneys general wrote to the RCMP asking it to investigate the Prime Minister for obstruction of justice under section 139(2) of the Criminal Code. In their words, “ordinary Canadians, who do not benefit from political connections, have been charged under these sections with much less evidence.”
Try as he might, the Prime Minister cannot just sweep this under the carpet and hope that it goes away. He needs to be honest with Canadians. Will he start by testifying under oath at the justice committee the House leader says she respects so much?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-02-28 10:21 [p.25890]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to seek leave for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter requiring urgent consideration pursuant to Standing Order 52.
Yesterday, we heard compelling, convincing and very credible testimony from the former attorney general at the justice committee. She told of unwanted, sustained and coordinated pressure that came to bear on her from the highest offices of this country, from the office of the Minister of Finance, from the Prime Minister's Office, from the Prime Minister himself, and from the Clerk of the Privy Council. She told of pressure that came to bear on her to interfere in a criminal trial.
This has caused a crisis of confidence in the Prime Minister and in his cabinet, certainly in the Clerk of the Privy Council, in the Minister of Finance and in the current Attorney General. Her testimony was meticulous. It was detailed. It was believable.
We have over the last three weeks been asking the Prime Minister about this. His response, from three weeks to yesterday, has not given us any confidence that he is being transparent. He in fact said yesterday that the former attorney general, whom he appointed and whom all of us have been trusting, he has been trusting for the last three years, his caucus has been trusting and the country has been trusting, was lying.
Somebody is lying, and I would say that it is not the former attorney general. We need to find out what has happened, and we need to get to the bottom of this.
We heard testimony that the Clerk of the Privy Council, in putting pressure on her, referred to board meetings of SNC-Lavalin. We heard that the Prime Minister, in putting pressure on her, referred to his own re-election. There were hours of very credible testimony given yesterday that begs that this chamber discuss this issue.
We are certainly at a crisis. As opposition, we will not have a day to bring anything forward for 19 more days. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we will be rising for a two-week constituency break, and we will not have an opportunity to address this.
This is a crisis, and that is why I am asking that we be given the opportunity to discuss this during an emergency debate.
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-02-28 14:30 [p.25923]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were told by the former attorney general that on September 17, in relation to the SNC-Lavalin affair, the Prime Minister told her that there is an election in Quebec and that “I am an MP in Quebec—the member for Papineau”.
Does the Prime Minister deny saying that?
View Candice Bergen Profile
CPC (MB)
View Candice Bergen Profile
2019-02-28 14:31 [p.25924]
Mr. Speaker, he does not deny it. Clearly, the former attorney general is telling the truth.
I have another question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the former attorney general also testified that Mathieu Bouchard, a senior adviser in the Prime Minister's Office, tried to pressure her in regard to the SNC-Lavalin deal by saying, “We can have the best policy in the world but we need to get re-elected.” Again, does the Prime Minister deny that this was said?
Results: 1 - 30 of 47 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data