MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

John Brassard

Follow by RSS

Brassard presses the government on conflicts of interest and accountability: as ethics committee chair he seeks the Prime Minister’s divestment of Brookfield holdings, presses to return a CRA security contract to the Commissionaires, the country’s largest employer of veterans, and opposes the part of Bill C-39 that would let ministers override collective bargaining. He argues through colourful analogies and pointed rhetorical questions—“How much do the Prime Minister and Brookfield stand to make off the backs of taxpayers?”—often quoting pop culture, from Star Wars to The Sopranos, to frame his case.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
82 / 100 over 56 statements
Signal 78 / 100
Relevance 74 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 89 / 100
Loses points more than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.1.8 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.8 Averaged over the 56 of 63 statements graded so far.

Statements 63

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

“Many people in my town are upset that the Snowbirds are cancelled. I worry they might never fly again. I want to know what the member would do to keep them flying.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Snowbirds, because this past weekend, the Barrie Airshow was held. There were 150,000 people who attended the air show. I was fortunate that I had the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan come to Barrie, because he has been leading the fight to keep the Snowbirds flying. He heard from a lot of people how disappointed they were that the Snowbirds have actually been cancelled. The main concern is that this five-year hiatus may turn to six years, to 10 years and then to their never returning. I am wondering what the hon. member would do to keep the Snowbirds flying.

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“The Prime Minister's policies caused our recession and hurt Canadians. Millions of people are struggling to buy food and pay their bills, while rich friends of the government do well.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada’s decline did not start last April. It was catalyzed six years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Trudeau’s economic adviser. The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are all over the failed policies that have caused Canada to be the only G7 country in a recession. While well‑connected Liberals and corporate buddies are doing well, the crumbs the Liberals feed to families, seniors and young people cannot mask the fact that 60% of Canadians feel anxious about their finances, 40% are losing sleep, 38% have food insecurity and 2.2 million Canadians visited food banks last year. Does that sound like everything is working well?

“Liberal policies have pushed Canada into a recession. Canadians and businesses are worried about their money and their future. I want the Prime Minister to change these costly policies.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, if we talk to anyone on the street or to businesses suffering from 11 years of failed Liberal policies, they will tell us that Canada is in a recession, no matter how the Liberals or the media try to spin it, and that things are not getting any better. Families, seniors and young people are anxious about their finances and their future. The worst of all scenarios have crept into the minds of Canadian business: doubt and uncertainty. The Liberal Prime Minister has the distinction of walking into the G7 meetings as the only leader to push their country into recession. Will he rethink his costly policies, which have caused this recession?

Oral Questions ·

Aerospace Industry

“The government gave $200 million to a struggling company run by Liberal insiders for three failed rocket launches. One insider made $1.8 million from this deal. I want the Prime Minister to admit this money was just given to help Liberal friends.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what Liberals gave a near-bankrupt company of well-connected Liberal insiders and family members for now three failed launches from a concrete slab spaceport. While Canadians pay for the most expensive science fair project in history, the only successful thing taking off is the bank accounts of Liberal insiders such as Sasha Jacob, who turned worthless shares of the company into a $1.8-million personal windfall after Liberals lit the fuse. Will the Prime Minister just admit that this was all about greasing the palms of well-connected Liberal insiders?

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

In response to a question from Arnold Viersen

“The government gave a lot of taxpayer money to a failing company that only built a gravel road and concrete pad. We need real answers and accountability about this spending, and we will keep pushing for them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is really not much to compare, because we have, as I said, a gravel road with a concrete pad. Compare that to Cape Canaveral. Members can see it if they fly over it. If anybody has been there, it is very well established. There is no question about it. The issues here are transparency, accountability and the fact that so many taxpayer dollars were given to this company that was on the verge of bankruptcy. There are a lot more questions than we are getting answers to right now. We need to keep pushing on this.

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“Businesses in my riding are hurting because of tariffs and government rules. We should cut this red tape and let businesses succeed on their own.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in the same boat. Many businesses are suffering right now because of the tariffs, but also because of the rules and laws imposed during this Liberal government’s 11 years in power. I think we should support businesses. We need to support businesses in our ridings. There is no question about it. One of the ways we can greatly support businesses is by ensuring that with much of the legislation, many of those regulations and policies that are in place right now and the red tape that exists among businesses, we get the government out of the way and let these businesses flourish on their own. Of course, we should always be there to support businesses as well, but the government creates the environment for success. It does not actually create that success—

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“We keep talking about Liberal corruption because insiders keep getting rich while Canadians suffer. Conservatives want clear answers and honest oversight on this project before we can support it.”
  • 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, the reason corruption, cronyism, well-connected Liberal insiders and well-connected lobbyists come up all the time is that we see them all the time, and they benefit while Canadians are suffering at great cost because of the Liberal government. This is why they are brought up all the time. The second part of the member’s question was on the support of this project. What Conservatives are looking for, and I think what most Canadians would want, are some accountability and transparency over this project. As I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of questions that need to be raised. We are trying to highlight some of those concerns, not just to make Canadians more aware, but also to make sure that we are providing accountability and transparency on this project.

“The government is wasting $200 million on a failing spaceport in Nova Scotia. The project makes no sense and only gets public money because its leaders have close ties to the Liberal Party.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. First of all, let me say what a thrill it was to meet Kevin White’s brother-in-law today, astronaut Jeremy Hansen, here on Parliament Hill. Kevin White is the fire chief in the city of Barrie, and he is married to Jeremy’s sister. I thought I would mention that for Kevin’s benefit. During World War II, when Allied aircraft would be flying over the targets, ready to bomb, they would be hit with flak. In this place, we know we are over the target when Liberals start justifying and making excuses for things that absolutely make no sense, and they speak in a louder tone to try to make their point. What is important about this debate tonight is that Canadians are watching the government spend $200 million on a politically connected spaceport project in rural Nova Scotia. The more we learn about it, the less sense it makes. As the finance minister suggested in committee of the whole two weeks ago, this is not a story about innovation or economic stewardship. It is a story, in fact, about Liberal insiders, political connections, well-connected insiders and taxpayers who, once again, are being asked to foot the bill for a project that should have never received this level of government backing in the first place. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 every single day for this project. What exactly are they getting for that money? They are getting a gravel road, two sea cans and a concrete slab that has launched exactly two rockets, neither of which have reached space. One of those launches was conducted by a York University student rocketry club. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 a day for what amounts to be the most expensive science fair project in the country, and yet somehow, despite this lack of infrastructure, lack of revenue, lack of launches and lack of any proven commercial success, the federal government decided to give this company $20 million a year for the next 10 years. The debate and argument tonight is that Canadians deserve to know why the numbers alone make absolutely no sense. Maritime Launch Services reported less than $15,000 in annual revenue. At the same time, the company reported tens of millions of dollars in losses and had only about $70,000 in cash on hand. Independent auditors openly warned that there was material uncertainty about whether the company could even continue operating. In plain English, this company was on the verge of financial collapse. Instead of walking away, what the Liberal government did was attach itself to this project even more aggressively. Canadians have seen this pattern before. When ordinary Canadians struggle financially, the Liberals tell them to budget better, but when politically connected companies struggle financially, the Liberals suddenly open up their wallets. The insider connections surrounding this project are impossible to ignore. Former Liberal premier Stephen McNeil publicly supported the project before the environmental review had even been completed. Then later, after championing the project politically, he conveniently joined the company’s advisory board. Canadians are tired of this revolving door where Liberal politicians help projects while in office and then later somehow attach themselves to the same companies benefiting from that government support. MLS’s chief lobbyist was reportedly a former senior staffer to the justice minister, and the company reportedly lobbied the justice minister 14 separate times, more than the current or former local MP for the area. Canadians do not need a conspiracy theory to see what is happening. The pattern is clear. Former Liberal politicians, former Liberal staffers and well-connected political insiders are all orbiting around a company that is now receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer support. Despite all of these political connections, the project itself still makes no practical sense. The original business model was based around launching the Cyclone-4M rocket. The problem is that the rocket has never actually been built. Imagine spending $200 million to build an airport for planes that do not exist yet. Canadians would never, ever tolerate that level of incompetence in any other sector, yet somehow the government saw no proven rocket, no proven market, no regulatory framework, no meaningful revenue and massive financial instability and still thought this is exactly where 200 million hard-earned taxpayer dollars should go. The government did not just ignore the warning signs. It practically sprinted past them. The company’s founding partner became tied to a NASA false claims case involving allegations of false billing and ignored safety protocols. The chair of the board faced sanctions from Canada’s investment regulator over failures involving compliance and supervision. The Ukrainian aerospace partner behind the project had already been surrounded by allegations of corruption, failed international projects and major financial disputes. Any one of these should have triggered caution, but instead, Liberal insiders continued to attach themselves to this project. The most unbelievable part of it all is the land arrangement that is in place. Maritime Launch Services does not even own the land. It leases Crown land from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $13,000 a year, and somehow, through this federal government agreement, taxpayers are paying massively inflated amounts connected to the exact same land, resulting in a 1,300% profit margin. Canadians are struggling. They cannot get mortgages approved. Young people cannot afford homes, families are cutting back on groceries and seniors are struggling with bills, but somehow, the Liberal government found a way to guarantee politically connected insiders with what appears to be a 1,300% return tied to publicly owned land. That is not to mention that effectively worthless shares of what was an effectively bankrupt company were sold for a profit of $1.8 million. That is not economic development, nor is it innovation, as the finance minister would say. It is absolute cronyism. Why is the federal government attaching itself so aggressively to a project that still lacks even the most basic foundations for success? Canada does not even have a fully developed regulatory framework for commercial orbital launches. The environmental assessment was minimal. The project dramatically changed its entire business model. The site itself is underdeveloped. There were two launches, and both were unsuccessful. Still, the government wants to invest $200 million in it. At some point, Canadians will stop seeing this as a business decision and start seeing it for what it looks like: a politically protected project kept alive by well-connected Liberal insiders using taxpayer money. Canadians deserve governments that invest based on merit, viability and public interest, not on who knows which minister, former premier or Liberal staffer. Right now, Canadians are paying $50,000 a day for a failed science fair, while the only things truly taking off appear to be the profits and connections of Liberal insiders.

“Maritime Launch Services was losing millions of dollars and almost out of money before the government gave it $20 million. A shareholder then cashed out nearly $2 million. Did the government just rescue a failing company that was about to go bankrupt?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at Maritime Launch Services’ financials. I think this is very revealing because its condition appeared to be extremely weak before the government’s injection of money. In its 2025 financial statements, the company had $47 million in losses, $14,980 in revenue and approximately $70,000 in cash on hand at the end of 2024. We have heard numerous times tonight that a shareholder actually cashed in what were effectively worthless shares after the $20-million injection, which gave him $1.8 million. Is it not true that the government effectively rescued a failing company and subsidized an enterprise on the verge of bankruptcy?

Oral Questions ·

The Economy

“Canada is in a recession. People cannot afford their mortgages, bankruptcies are up, and most people have almost no money left at the end of the month. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent thousands of dollars on luxury food in Rome. I want an honest answer from the government: are we in a recession?”
Official Hansard

We will do the whole PCO next week for them, Mr. Speaker, and you will get a kick out of that. Canada’s the only G20 country that is in a recession. While it may be a laughing matter to them, Canadians are missing mortgage payments, bankruptcies are up and nearly 60% have little or no money left over at the end of the month. The Liberal Prime Minister spent money in Rome: $4,213 on crème brûlée, $3,800 on chocolate and $593 on luxury Normandy buttercups, whatever that is. Canadians deserve an honest answer. Are we in a recession or a technical recession? Tell us the truth.

“The Prime Minister spends too much money on luxury food for flights while everyday Canadians struggle. I want him to tell us if Canada is in a recession.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the only things they build are debt, deficit and a Liberal Prime Minister who has made Canada the only G20 country in a recession. While Canadians are told to make sacrifices, do members know who is not making sacrifices? It is the Prime Minister, as well as his well-connected Liberal insiders. Recently released documents show $200,000 spent on food for just three flights, including $18,000 for salmon for just one flight alone. That is more than the average family will spend in groceries in 2026. As seniors line up at food banks and families pay the price, will the Prime Minister finally tell us whether we are actually in a technical recession or a recession?

Statements by Members ·

Terry Fox Humanitarian Award

“Tonight I am co-hosting the Terry Fox Humanitarian Awards. Fifteen great young Canadians are getting this scholarship for helping their communities. I want to congratulate all of them, especially Pania Ghaneian and Caleb Small from my riding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will have the honour of co-hosting the annual Terry Fox Humanitarian Awards, where 15 exceptional young Canadians will be recognized for receiving one of our country’s most prestigious scholarships. From Surrey, B.C., to St. John’s, Newfoundland, the 2026 cohort represents communities across our country united by a shared commitment to service, compassion and leadership. These students carry Terry Fox’s spirit forward through leadership in community service, academics, athletics and humanitarianism while the award is supporting them through their undergraduate studies so they can continue making a difference in their communities and abroad. To the 2026 cohort and graduating recipients, I say that Parliament recognizes and commends their remarkable leadership and dedication to serving others. They reflect the very best of Canada and serve as an inspiration to Canadians across the country. I would also like to recognize award recipient Pania Ghaneian and award graduate Caleb Small from my riding of Barrie South—Innisfil. On behalf of the community, I say that we are incredibly proud of all they have already accomplished and are excited to see all they will continue to achieve in the years ahead.

Government Orders ·

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

“The government is cutting off debate on this bill after only three hours. They are silencing nearly half the members of Parliament. I want to debate the extra $30 billion in deficits and the growing debt.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the transactional majority strikes again. It was not too long ago when the Liberals seized control of committees, and now they are seizing control of this Parliament. I will remind members that, over a year ago, a minority government was elected in order to hold government to account, to make sure that there was transparency, and to make sure that there was oversight as well. Here we are, with the government seizing control through this closure motion. Actually, what the Liberals are doing is silencing the voices of nearly 50% of members in the House, including mine, who have something to say about this budget, particularly on the $30‑billion increase in deficits and the upward trend of $2.4 trillion in additional debt that could be added by this fall economic statement going into the future. They are silencing not just my voice, but the voices of many other MPs in this place representing Canadians who are fearful that they will be left picking up the scattered pieces of what is left of this government when they are done with it. Does three hours of debate actually reflect the importance of this issue? That is my question for the finance minister.

Private Members' Business ·

Criminal Code

“I want the House to pass this bill. It gives harsher punishments to people who assault health care workers and first responders. These workers face too much violence on the job and need the law to protect them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the words of the great Yogi Berra, “It’s like déjà vu all over again.” Here we are again, debating a bill that was first introduced by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George on March 9, 2023. This is a problem that has been escalating across the country: violence against emergency health care workers, first responders and others. I personally want to thank Senator Housakos and Senator Yussuff for bringing this bill back, because it is an important piece of legislation, one that this Parliament could have approved years ago, if not for delays with respect to prorogation and such. I often get asked, as a former firefighter, what is the one thing I find frustrating about being an MP and a parliamentarian. My answer is, how long it takes for things to happen and how long it takes for decisions to be made. I can think back to my career and to others I worked with. What if we responded to a house fire, and we sat outside that house fire and said, “You know what? I think we’re going to come back next week, after we have a few meetings on how to deal with this situation”? We identify the problems, we mitigate them, we solve them, and then we move on to what will inevitably be the next problem. That is how things work in real life, but around this place, everything gets delayed and obstructed. This is an important piece of legislation, as I said earlier, to protect the health and safety of health care workers and first responders. One only has to look at the headlines, and I did look at some of them. There are thousands of headlines across this country about assaults that are taking place on health care workers and frontline first responders. On Sunday, May 3, a headline read, “Man, 59, charged after multiple health-care workers sexually assaulted, threatened at Grace Hospital”. Another states, “Charges pending after health-care worker assaulted at Edmonton hospital: 2 patients involved in alleged attack on Christmas Day”. Another headline states, “In a rare move, two Manitoba hospitals declared unsafe for nurses: Staff describe being punched, kicked, and sexually assaulted. The union is discouraging members from the facilities.” The union is discouraging them and asking them to stay away from their workplace because of the assaults that are going on. Other headlines read, “Teen charged during hospital visit after nurses and police officers allegedly assaulted: The 17-year-old had been brought to the St. Thomas hospital for treatment”, and “Stabbing of health care worker outside [Vancouver General Hospital] the latest in long list of attacks”. An article entitled “Firefighters say they face increasing rates of violence while on duty” stated the following: In a survey of over 117 fire departments in Canada, 40 per cent of firefighters have experienced an assault within the last five years, says Edward Kelly, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Kelly also...believes incidents of violence are under-reported. “We had a Toronto firefighter bitten by a patient,” Kelly said in an interview last month. “In Winnipeg, we’ve seen a severe rise; we’ve had 58 reported incidents in Winnipeg this year alone.” I would suggest that Winnipeg is the epicentre of this violence. “Violence against Winnipeg firefighters escalates” is another headline, as is “3 assaults against first responders in 1 week ‘unacceptable,’ paramedic chief says”. One story reports, “A Kamloops, B.C., paramedic was assaulted while refuelling her ambulance at a gas station on Sunday evening.” Another headline says, “Brampton man charged after female paramedics sexually assaulted in Peel Region”. Even CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, came out and talked about the increasing assaults that are happening on its members. There is a deeply troubling pattern that is underlying many of these incidents: repeat violent offenders cycling endlessly through the justice system. On September 29, 2024, a Barrie police officer was stabbed while on duty by a violent repeat offender who was on probation at the time of the attack. Over the previous two years, that individual had reportedly been arrested and released 17 times and had more than 100 interactions with Barrie police. Still, despite all those warning signs, an officer was stabbed. Canadians are increasingly asking themselves very reasonable questions: How many chances does the system have to give someone before innocent people, including first responders, pay the price? How many warning signs must exist before meaningful consequences follow? It is not the politicians or the bureaucrats who are facing this danger. It is the police officers who answer the calls. It is the paramedics who enter chaotic scenes. It is the nurses working overnight shifts in emergency departments. It is the firefighters responding to dangerous and unpredictable emergencies. They are the ones placed directly in harm’s way when the system fails to deal with violent offenders. After 10 years of failed Liberal bail reform, the least the government can do is stand behind the first responders and health care professionals who keep our communities safe despite the cards they have been dealt by it. Why does Bill S-233 matter? It recognizes a simple and profoundly important principle, that an assault against a first responder or health care professional is not just an assault against an individual but an assault against the people of our communities who rely on them in moments of crisis. These are the people who run toward danger when everyone else is running away. These are the people who arrive at the worst moments in a person’s life, such as accidents, overdoses, domestic violence incidents, mental health crises, fires and medical emergencies, in an attempt to restore safety and hope. For that service, they deserve more than just our simple gratitude. They deserve the protection of the law and the clear support of this Parliament. Bill S-233 sends a message that Canada will not normalize violence against those who dedicate their lives to protecting others. It says clearly and firmly that violence is not part of the job description. The truth is that repeated exposure to violence changes people. It wears them down emotionally. It creates anxiety. It creates fear. It contributes to burnout, trauma and psychological injury. Ultimately, it drives people out of the professions our country desperately needs them in. Across Canada, we are already facing a shortage of nurses, paramedics, firefighters and police officers. We cannot afford to create working conditions where the people we rely on the most feel abandoned, unsupported and unsafe. Bill S-233 matters because laws do more than punish conduct after the fact. They also reflect the values of our nation. This legislation says clearly that Canada values and respects those who protect, rescue, heal and care for others. It says that when a person assaults a first responder or health care worker, the justice system must recognize the heightened seriousness of that offence. Most importantly, it says to every frontline worker in this country that Parliament sees what they are enduring, recognizes the sacrifices they make and will not accept violence against them as simply part of the job. I started off by saying that this is like déjà vu all over again. On March 9, 2023, the member for Cariboo—Prince George put this bill on the table, but because of prorogation it fell off. We are back at it again because of a Senate bill. I appreciate Senators Yussuff and Housakos for bringing this back. This is a cascading problem happening right across the country. We need to send a message to not just our frontline health care workers but our first responders that Parliament has their backs. This would also act as a deterrent to those who normalize violence against our first responders. I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his continued advocacy to ensure the safety of our health care workers and frontline officers. This is an important piece of legislation. Today, we must make sure we pass it so that our frontline health care workers, paramedics, firefighters and police officers can continue to do their jobs in safety across communities in this country. We must stand with them.

Government Orders ·

Military Justice System Modernization Act

“The government is relying on an old report to make changes to the military justice system. They are ignoring current advice from service members, veterans, and committee recommendations.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is another truly sad day for our democracy and our democratic institutions. The decline in democracy is continuing with the Liberal government. The defence minister keeps referencing the Arbour report. That report was established almost seven years ago and only five years ago did the government start implementing any of the recommendations in the report. We have had all this despite the fact that seven years later, things have changed significantly. We had CAF members, stakeholders and veterans all come to committee and talk about this, yet the government continues to ignore the voices of those who know better than government what types of systems should be in place and it is gutting every committee recommendation. Is it not true that the government only wants an audience, not an opposition?

Oral Questions ·

Ethics

“Our ethics laws let politicians make decisions that help them make money. The Prime Minister could make millions from his own choices. Will he promise to close this loophole?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee also recommended that the general application provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act need to change. That means that a public office holder, including a highly conflicted prime minister, can be involved in decisions they benefit from personally, even though they are in conflict. Brookfield’s COO again confirmed that the Prime Minister will make millions from public policy decisions that align with Brookfield’s strategies. Will this Liberal Prime Minister commit today to address this loophole in the law so Canadians have confidence that he is making decisions in the best interests of the country, not his own or Brookfield’s?

“The Prime Minister helped an investment firm hide billions in offshore tax havens before he took office. He can still make millions from that firm through his investments while he makes government decisions. Will he sell those assets so he no longer has a conflict of interest?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in a review of the Conflict of Interest Act, the ethics committee heard that while the Prime Minister was Trudeau’s economic adviser and chair of Brookfield, he set up one of Canada’s largest tax-dodging schemes by hiding $5.3 billion in offshore tax havens. Brookfield’s CEO also confirmed that the Prime Minister will make millions from what is in his blind trust by aligning public policy with Brookfield’s strategy. The committee recommended that the Prime Minister divest his holdings to ensure that he is acting in the best interests of the country and not his personal self-interest. Will the Prime Minister divest his Brookfield assets to eliminate his conflicts of interest?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 9—Changes to Standing Orders

In response to a question from Warren Steinley

“We will keep pushing the government to be open and accountable, even if it gets harder. The news media also needs to do its job and hold the government to account.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 38 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be increasingly difficult, but we are not going to stop. We are going to continue to ensure that we have accountability, transparency and oversight. I did mention that the role of the media is going to be that much more important now. If the media acts like it does in other western democracies and actually holds the government to account, then maybe we will get some action in holding it to account as well.

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“I oppose this plan to change committee rules. It takes away proper oversight and lets the Liberals pass whatever they want without committees having a say.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I already mentioned that in my speech. Following the election last April, the parties took part in negotiations regarding the number of members on each committee, but because some MPs have switched sides, we now find ourselves in this situation. We have to ensure we have accountability, oversight and transparency at our committees. This would do nothing to ensure that. In fact, I suggest that it would make it much worse, and the Liberals would run roughshod through everything. They would pass whatever they want to pass, and committees would not have a say in any of it.

In response to a question from Karina Gould

“I really care about government ethics and honesty. As chair of the ethics committee, I heard troubling evidence about weak rules and conflicts of interest. For example, some companies owe billions in offshore taxes, and contracts went to Liberal family members. I will keep standing up for these ethics rules.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member thinks that the passion I am showing for accountability and transparency, and for ensuring that the government acts in an ethical manner, is just theatrics. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am very passionate about this. As chair of the ethics committee, I am keenly aware of this topic. We just dropped a report today on the Conflict of Interest Act. Throughout the testimony on the Conflict of Interest Act, we heard some pretty disturbing things when it comes to blind trusts and ethics screens not being applied properly, like companies having $5.6 billion in unpaid taxes through offshore accounts. In the last little while, we have seen contracts, like the spaceport, handed out to Liberal family members. I will make no apologies for being passionate about defending the rights of Canadians and making sure that ethical standards are met in this country.