Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Michael Barrett

Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes 51 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Barrett presses the government on veterans’ benefits, sponsoring a bill to add service dogs to veterans’ rehabilitation services and demanding a date to clear a backlog of 10,000 overdue disability applications. He also pursues ethics questions on the Alto rail project and the $300-million PrescribeIT program, and argues safeguards for medically assisted dying. He asserts shared certainty in place of sources, saying “we can all agree” or “Canadians know” to carry a point.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A
91 / 100 over 37 statements
Signal 82 / 100
Relevance 87 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 94 / 100
Loses points more than most for Something stated as certain with nothing to back it.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.0 Averaged over the 37 of 51 statements graded so far.

Statements 51

Government Orders ·

Main Estimates, 2026-27

In response to a question from Burton Bailey

“We oppose spending this money. The government will not show what taxpayers are getting for it, or if it just benefits a private company instead of Canada.”

  • 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, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year’s use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here? We are in lockstep with Canada’s continued reach for the stars, but we have to see what we are getting for $20 million. Canadians expect that of us. In fact, it is not $20 million. It is $200 million. Are there improvements being made to the site? What continued services do we get for that money? Is it an investment for Canadians or is this an investment in a private company, which is going to have the equity, and not Canada? These are assurances that we need. We need to understand why and how, and for some reason, the government is refusing to demonstrate that to the House and to Canadians. That is why we oppose the expenditure.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I support Canada being able to launch our own payloads into space. But the government must show receipts for this spending instead of just handing 20 million dollars to Liberal insiders.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have woken up the parliamentary secretary from his nap, but he missed the part of my speech where I said, “Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil.” That is a legitimate objective. He completely missed the entirety of the point of what we are doing here. The guy has been here a long time and does not seem to understand what we are supposed to do. We have to hold you guys accountable. We keep catching you giving Liberal insiders money. Time and time again, we have caught these guys greasing the wheels with Liberal insiders. We support our Canadian Armed Forces. We support sovereign launch capabilities. They have got to show us receipts, not just hand $20 million out the door.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis

In response to a question from Alexis Deschênes

“I am moving to cut 20 million dollars from the budget. Canada should be able to launch its own rockets, but the government has not shown that this 200-million-dollar spaceport deal is a good use of tax money. It must answer basic questions about the contract and how the company was chosen.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to share my time with the hon. member, who so well articulated why this is an opposed item for His Majesty’s loyal opposition. I would like to start my remarks with a quote from the installation speech of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Louise Arbour, the 31st Governor General of Canada. This is a quote from the speech she gave in the other place this morning to assembled guests and dignitaries, as well as to all Canadians. She said: Humanity has always sought to go further, to push the boundaries. And to go higher, as our Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen did on his mission into space. How could anyone be anything other than awestruck by the thought that he set his eyes on places no other human being had ever seen before? I say this with confidence: let us not slow our momentum toward progress out of fear of differences. Extreme polarization is dangerous—but so is extreme consensus. It is through our differences, and our fundamental right to express them, that we will nourish critical thinking, creativity and innovation. It is through our differences that we will build our common future. As Canadians, we have the extraordinary privilege of living in a mature democracy. We benefit from strong institutions that allow different views to be expressed. I offer that excerpt from the remarks of Her Excellency because it is regrettable that some who are new to this place do not know and some maybe have forgotten what it is that we are to do here and who we are doing it for. The act of opposition exercised by His Majesty’s loyal opposition, and, in fact, by all members who are not in government, which is not the people in the governing party but members of the executive, is accountability. However, this discussion and debate, particularly around this $20 million annually or $200 million over 10 years, has been framed by some people, when Conservatives raise legitimate questions, as being an act of disloyalty, so let us get a couple of things clear. Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil. That is a legitimate objective. Canada has a proud history in space, as noted by Her Excellency, in the recent successful journey of Colonel Jeremy Hansen, but there are also the Canadarm or Canadarm2; Marc Garneau, who was the first Canadian in space, in the year I was born, I would note; Roberta Bondar, who was the first Canadian woman in space; Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut who commanded the International Space Station; and many men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to humanity’s continued reach for the stars. The Canadian Space Agency says that a commercial launch is “a natural evolution” for Canada’s space sector, and I agree with this objective. The question is not whether Canada should pursue sovereign launch capability, as my hon. colleague noted previously. The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability. When Conservatives vote against, for example, a budget that includes spending on national defence, we hear the cries from Liberal members, “They hate the military,” and, “Why don’t they love Canada?” That is an awful thing to hear. I believe the Liberals actually know better. We all ran and were elected to serve the people of this great country, and there are more than a few of us who have put on the uniform to serve our country. I thank the men and women who came before us, and the men and women today who serve, not the least of whom are those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. This is not about disloyalty to Canada. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is about us exercising our responsibility to get accountability for taxpayers. We are the representation for that taxation, and we have asked very simple questions about the $20 million. The government announced a 10-year, $200-million agreement to lease one dedicated launch pad for a spaceport in Nova Scotia. The government says it is going to support DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, the wider Government of Canada, our allies and our partners. It said the pad must reach its initial operational capability by the end of 2026 and that 90% of the funds must be spent in Canada. Those are important promises, but they raise basic accountability questions. Number one, how was the $200-million price tag determined? Number two, was there a competitive process, or was this a sole-source deal? Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026. Number four, what milestones, holdbacks, clawbacks or cancellation rights protect taxpayers if the site is not ready by the end of 2026? Number five, what due diligence was done on Maritime Launch’s financial position? Its 2025 annual filings refer to the spaceport as “under construction” and note that depreciation begins when the spaceport is available for use. I am not here today to say that the project is bad or that the— An hon. member: Yes, you are. Michael Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just came in, and he was not paying attention. He misses the entire point. He is the kind of person who comes in here and starts screaming about people being disloyal for doing their job of holding the Liberals accountable for $20 million. We love Canada. That is not something that they hold a licence on. We love this country. The hon. member, who put on a uniform for this country, knows better, and he should act better. I would not say that this project is bad, but I would say that the Liberals have to demonstrate basic due diligence to Canadians. That is their responsibility. Parliament has to make sure that the money was handled properly. If everything was done properly, the government and the company should be able to show that. We invite them to do it. I would welcome them to do that, but they have not. With that in mind, I move: That the motion be amended by replacing the amount of “$17,968,133,395” with “$17,948,133,395”.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Private Members' Business ·

Silver Alert National Framework Act

“I support this bill. It creates a national alert system to quickly find missing seniors with dementia, just like an Amber Alert finds missing children.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, a husband wakes up in the night to find that his wife of 50 years has left the house. A daughter goes to visit her father in his apartment but sees that he is gone. Immediately, police, volunteers and neighbours begin searching woodlots and side roads and checking behind buildings. Every minute counts. Canadians know that when a child goes missing, every minute counts. The lives of vulnerable people matter. This is true for children, and it is true for vulnerable seniors. Bill C-263, the silver alert national framework act, would create the opportunity for us to help protect vulnerable seniors. Right now there are growing numbers of seniors across our country. By 2030, just four years from now, there are expected to be more than a million Canadians living with dementia. When people with dementia go missing, the risks to them of bodily injury and death are great. A silver alert is a notification system that people would be familiar with for its similarity to an Amber alert, but in this case, instead of an alert for a missing child, an alert is issued when an adult, typically a senior living with dementia or another cognitive impairment, goes missing or is at risk. The establishment of a national framework would be done in partnership with all the provinces and territories. This collaboration is so important, as we are part of a larger community. The lives of seniors at risk in all provinces need to be protected. While there are individual programs and different alert mechanisms in different parts of the country, there is not a national standard. For example, a really great program in my community is Project Lifesaver. The Brockville Police Service, along with the Alzheimer Society of Lanark Leeds Grenville, has deployed Project Lifesaver to address this very situation: Someone with a cognitive impairment goes missing. The project participants wear a wristband, and the tracking signal it emits becomes life-saving technology in that instant. They go missing; their caregiver calls 911, reporting that their loved one is at risk; and specialized tools are then deployed by highly trained teams to mobilize and find them. The average time of a rescue with the technology in Project Lifesaver is 30 minutes. That is incredible. We are going to have a tough time getting a wristband on all one million Canadians whom I referenced who will be living with dementia four years from now. What can we do as a community when we see an alert on a highway sign, our mobile phones or the news ticker on TV that a vulnerable senior is missing in our community? How are we left to feel when we could have been in the same place, running our daily errands, living our lives, taking our child to dance practice, going to get groceries or on our way to work, had we known that the individual in the red jacket, wearing slippers, moving down the sidewalk on the other side of the street was actually a senior who had wandered off when seconds turn into minutes, minutes turn into hours, and the risk went up? On our way to live our lives, we are not on the lookout for just anyone wearing a red jacket and maybe wearing slides on their feet, but that national alert, that standard, would let us know that their loved ones are looking for them, that this individual suffers from a cognitive impairment and that they are in grave danger if they do not receive assistance or are not returned to the safety of their home. It really exemplifies who we are as Canadians. I know we have all had the experience of receiving an Amber alert and immediately memorizing the description of the car or the first four digits of the licence plate. It does not matter that it was first reported four hours before. My community is along North America’s busiest highway, the 401. People can get there pretty quick from some of the most-populated areas in Montreal or Toronto. My attention to a push notification on my phone could save a child’s life. It is incredible. To be able to do that for seniors as well speaks to our compassion. That speaks to who we are, and it would not be at a great cost. The technology exists. It does not require the physical deployment of those very effective and innovative tools like they are using with Project Lifesaver. I encourage folks living in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to contact the Alzheimer Society if a loved one in their family could benefit from participation in that program. What can we do as Canada’s Parliament, as federal legislators? When we look at those minutes that count, we can make our time here count. During the progression of, for example, Alzheimer’s, which is a disease that affects a great number of Canadians, 60% of individuals will wander away from home at least once. Those are staggering numbers. By those statistics, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people wandering away across this vast, complicated country we have. What can we do? Bill C-263 is inspired by a very moving story from my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, and we should reflect on the opportunity that we have to honour seniors. The month of June is Seniors Month, so let us do right by them. They have done right by us by building our country up and raising all of us, and now we need to look out for them. That is why I think this is the least we can do, and I very much look forward to supporting this important legislation.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Government Orders ·

Build Canada Homes Act

“Housing has gotten worse over the last 11 years under this government. Creating another government agency will not fix the problem or build more homes.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on what it tells us that, for the last 11 years, we have had the same Liberal government but the housing situation has not improved. In fact it has worsened, and the evidence of that is clear in my community and the communities of all members of this place. Why is another housing bureaucracy not the answer to getting homes built and getting dignity for Canadians?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“Canadians want fast action on housing without creating more government bureaucracy. Why is the government spending more tax dollars on a new agency instead of using the ones we already have?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Liberal government’s response to the housing crisis in our country, I believe that Canadians are looking to see steps that the government can take to immediately address this acute housing challenge without creating additional bureaucracies. Within the current remit of existing agencies, what additional powers do they hope to glean, at great additional expense to the taxpayer, that will more quickly resolve the very acute housing challenge that Canadians are facing?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis

Oral Questions ·

Rail Transportation

“The government is spending over $90 billion on a train project that takes land from farms, homes, and businesses. It also hurts the environment and ignores Via Rail. I want to know why the government will not invest in our existing services instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as a surprise to no one, the government House leader is lowering the decorum in the House at the same time that he is also unleashing devastation on communities across Ontario and Quebec, as well as the expropriation of farms, homes, businesses and the destruction of environmentally sensitive land like the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, with a program that will cost more than $90 billion, while they let atrophy Canadian infrastructure and services like Via Rail, which services the same communities that Alto will pass by while destroying. Why will they not invest in Canada instead of destroying it?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B– View analysis
“The finance minister said he would not take part in decisions about Alto because of a conflict of interest. He took part anyway, and his department even hired an Alto executive to write his budget speech. I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in a September letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance said that he would be in a conflict of interest if he participated in discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto. We now know he went on to do those things anyway. What we have learned this week is that the minister’s department hired an executive from Alto to write his budget speech and budget presentation. Why?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“A contractor worked for a company called Alto while also working on the government budget that gave Alto money. I want the minister to answer if this was a conflict of interest, if anything was done to stop it, and if the Ethics Commissioner was told.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the contractor worked for Alto and then worked on the budget presentation that included details about Alto, and money and implementation legislation for Alto. Does the minister recognize that this is a conflict of interest, and were measures taken to prevent that? Was the Ethics Commissioner informed that this contractor was also concurrently employed by Alto?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I want the minister to confirm if the government gave a contractor named Émond over $12,000 to help write the budget speech.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, this is a different question. The question is about a contractor who worked on the budget speech. My understanding is that this is separate from your letter in September. It was a contract worth $12,168. I would encourage you to use your officials who are here in the chamber with you. The contract identified a vendor. The vendor’s last name is Émond, and I am wondering if the minister can confirm that this contract was awarded. It is open-source. It is published online: $12,168 to help with the budget presentation and speech. Can he confirm that?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“I am just repeating what the minister said. Did Finance Canada hire an outside company to help with the 2025 budget speech and presentation, yes or no?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I have made no allegation. I have only repeated what the minister has said. Regarding what we have asked, and indeed one of the minister’s hon. colleagues asked me to repeat it outside the House, I am asking questions, and the questions are repeating exactly what the minister has said. Therefore, did Finance Canada hire an outside contractor to assist with the 2025 budget speech and presentation, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“The minister set up rules to avoid a conflict of interest with Alto. But his department hired a budget contractor connected to Alto. Did those same rules apply to this contractor?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, the minister told Canadians that he had a conflict of interest screen because he believed there would be one if he participated in debates, discussions, decisions or votes related to Alto, but the minister’s department then hired an outside contractor for the budget who appears to have been connected to Alto. Did a conflict of interest screen apply to that contractor?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis
“The minister will not say how he voted on the bill or share his letter about a conflict of interest. He shared that letter with a newspaper. I want him to share it with Parliament.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it is unbelievable that the minister will not even confirm how he voted on the bill. He will not provide the letter that he wrote in which he said there would be a conflict. We just want to provide transparency for Canadians. If he has nothing to hide, he certainly should be able to provide to members of the House of Commons the letter that he shared with Toronto Star. Why will he not share it?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“I want the minister to confirm if he voted on February 25 to remove a specific part of this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, on February 25, 2026, the minister voted on Motion No. 44, which would have deleted clause 191 from Bill C-15. Is that correct?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis
“The minister said it would be a conflict of interest for him to work on this issue. Did this part of the bill involve the project he had a conflict with?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, we take all hon. members at their word in this place, and it was the hon. minister who said there would be a conflict of interest if he were involved in discussions, debates or decisions. Clause 191 contained the High-Speed Rail Network Act. That was Alto-related legislation. Is that true?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“The minister has spent an hour avoiding our questions. I want him to answer whether his conflict-of-interest plan applied to this part of the bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it has been more than an hour that the minister has been here, and he has said an awful lot of things but has not answered our questions, and that trend continues. Did the screen that the minister said was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest apply to clause 191 of Bill C-15?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis
“The minister said himself that there would be a conflict of interest. Did his conflict-of-interest screen stop him from talking about Alto in cabinet meetings?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, It was the minister who said there would be a conflict of interest. Those were his words. Did that screen prevent the minister from participating in discussions about Alto in cabinet?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis
“The minister should share his conflict of interest letter with Parliament, especially since he gave it to the media. I want to know why his ethics rules did not stop him from taking part in decisions about Alto.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, it was the minister who said there would be a conflict of interest. The letter the minister provided to the Prime Minister should be furnished. Because we know it was shared with media, it should certainly be shared with parliamentarians. Why did the ethics screen the minister put in place not prevent him from participating in discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis
“I want the minister to admit he had to step away from decisions about Alto because he had a conflict of interest.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, this evening the minister has the opportunity to inform Canadians and the House about the conflict of interest he said he would be in if he participated in votes, decisions, discussions or debates on Alto. This is why the minister put in place a conflict of interest screen. Is that not correct?

View on ourcommons.ca View analysis
“I want the minister to release the letter he wrote in September 2025. I want him to give it to the House and to the ethics committee when he speaks to them on June 11.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. The question is about the letter the minister wrote in September 2025. Will the minister table that letter in the House, and at the ethics committee when he appears on June 11?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis