MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Steven MacKinnon

Follow by RSS

MacKinnon spends his time defending Bill C-39’s one-year review deadlines for major projects, the Alto high-speed rail line, the Churchill Falls hydro agreement, and plans to regulate airport fees. In debate he often mocks the questioner rather than the argument, calling opposition points “spaghetti at the wall” and telling one member he “lives with regret,” while his commitments frequently come without dates or measures: “We will continue to be world leaders in oceans protection.”Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
C+
66 / 100 over 221 statements
Signal 69 / 100
Relevance 53 / 100
Respect 99 / 100
Clarity 81 / 100
Loses points more than most for Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.2.9 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.9 A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.2 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×2.0 Talking about something other than the matter at hand: the question asked, or the bill, motion or speech under debate.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 221 of 266 statements graded so far.

Statements 266

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“I want this bill to pass. It creates safety rules for rocket launches to protect nearby communities. The Canadian space industry helped write it.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the safety of our communities, the safety surrounding space launches, is central to our process. We propose to create regulations specifically designed to reassure these communities that launches like these can occur safely. Of course, the transportation-related work of the Canadian Transportation Agency involves what we might term “conventional transportation”. However, we think that specific regulations ensuring everyone’s safety under this bill would be the best solution. No, I did not draft the bill, since we have a space industry in Canada that was able to assist in drafting this bill, and I am very proud to introduce it on its behalf.

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“This bill sets up rules for space launches in Canada. It helps our science, our economy, and our national control. It lets our military launch its own security satellites from Canadian spaceports.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 46 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, where am I to begin? I suppose if we wanted to contemplate a number of things, like the member just did, we could. This bill would permit the establishment of a regulatory framework for space launches from Canada. I have outlined the scientific, the economic and, yes, the sovereignty rationale for putting in place this regulatory framework. What would follow are, indeed, rules. Now, just to take but one example of what the member evokes, the Canadian Space Agency would be involved in examining payloads. I think the member underestimates the role of our own Canadian Armed Forces in launching satellites and enabling their launches from Canada, launching Canadian security material from Canadian spaceports. That is an important part of it. I will have the ability to go on further as we continue with questions.

“I want the House to pass this bill to set up rules for launching rockets and satellites from Canada. Right now, we have to rely on other countries to launch our satellites. Making our own launch industry will create jobs, grow our economy, and protect our national security.”
Official Hansard

moved that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for Canada to debate this bill. As we know, Canada has a long history of space exploration, a history of which we should be very proud. From Alouette 1, which made us only the third country in the world to launch a satellite into orbit, to the Canadarm, to the achievements of our astronauts, Canadians have always led the way to the stars. We have built a reputation as a trusted partner in space exploration. We are recognized for our excellence in robotics, earth observation, satellite communications and bold science missions. However, history alone will not secure our future. Countries around the world are in a mad dash to secure their share in a rapidly expanding space industry. Businesses are investing billions of dollars and demand for launch services is skyrocketing, while governments, researchers and private companies are deploying satellites at an unprecedented pace. Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. Today, Canada is the only G7 country without its own sovereign space launch and re-entry capabilities. Right now, Canada has to rely on other countries to launch our satellites into orbit, even though the satellites support our infrastructure, our defence and about 20% of our economy. Canadian expertise, investments and jobs in this rapidly growing and important sector are leaving to go elsewhere, but today this would change, with the Canada space launch act. The legislation would deliver sovereign launch capabilities for Canada, attracting billions of dollars in investments, creating good-paying jobs, strengthening our sovereignty and building on Canada’s proud history of innovations in space. The global space economy is currently undergoing a rapid transformation and expansion. In just the next six years, the global space economy will grow by more than 215% and be worth $1.5 trillion. We must urgently act to advance the legislation, because if we delay, Canadians will miss out on this enormous economic opportunity. With the passage of the legislation, we could create thousands of jobs and build our own domestic industry that is projected to be worth $40 billion. Sovereign space launch capabilities are not a partisan issue. They are a nation-building opportunity. I encourage all parties and all members of the House to support the Canadian space launch act, not just for our sovereignty and not just for our economy but for every Canadian who relies on the technologies and services that space enables. The truth is simple. In 2026, space is no longer a distant frontier. It is an important part of our daily lives, our economy and our national security. Space is essential for our future. When Canadians tap their phone for directions, satellites guide them. When farmers optimize their crops, satellites provide the data. When we monitor wildfires, track marine traffic or respond to natural disasters, satellites are the backbone of our response. When planes cross the North Atlantic, satellites keep them connected and safe. When remote communities access broadband, satellites increasingly bridge the gap. When our armed forces operate at home or abroad, satellites provide the communications, navigation and intelligence they rely on. Satellites are critical infrastructure. They are as essential to our economy and our well-being as roads, ports and power grids, but satellites are only as reliable as our ability to launch, maintain, defend and replace them. This is why it is essential to have sovereign launch capability. By taking the appropriate steps, Canada will become a country capable of conducting commercial space launches, which will serve our national interests and support our allies. An important first step is to implement the Canadian space launch act. This legislation is urgently needed to support new economic growth, acquire a sovereign launch capability and prevent Canada from being left behind. Without launch capability, our country and our space industries will remain dependent on foreign nations for access to space. This increases costs, lengthens timelines and creates greater uncertainty for the sector. If we do not establish a modern and comprehensive framework for launches and re‑entry, we risk losing investment, talent and our competitive advantage. We risk seeing Canadian companies exporting their innovations abroad because they cannot launch them here at home. We risk becoming dependent on foreign launches at a time when access to space is becoming a matter of national security. We cannot let this happen any longer. The Canadian space launch bill is about ensuring that Canada can seize the economic opportunity, while also keeping our investments at home and repatriating our world-leading Canadian expertise. It is about strengthening our competitiveness, our economy and our national security. Now, some would ask: Why launch from Canada? The answer is simple, Canada has unique strengths that the world increasingly values. We have a long coastline that allows for safe launch corridors over open water. We have a stable political system, a predictable regulatory environment and, indeed, a highly skilled workforce. As existing global launch infrastructure approaches capacity, international companies are actively seeking alternative launch sites in stable, trusted countries. Canadian space launches are a competitive advantage that we must capitalize on now. Other countries are already moving to develop their own capabilities. If we do not act now, we risk watching investment flow elsewhere, to jurisdictions that move faster, with clearer rules and stronger incentives. Space is no longer a benign environment. It is increasingly contested, and our allies are investing heavily in space-based defence capabilities. They are strengthening their resilience against threats to satellites and ground infrastructure. They are ensuring they can quickly replace damaged assets, if required. Canada must do the same. A sovereign launch capability would strengthen Arctic domain awareness, support NORAD modernization, enhance our ability to monitor wildfires, floods and maritime activity, and ensure continuity of critical satellite services. It would contribute to NATO investment-sharing and capability targets. It would also allow Canada to support its allies’ launches, thereby strengthening our security partnerships and reinforcing our role as a reliable partner. This bill lays the essential groundwork for safe, secure and responsible commercial space launches and re-entries directly from Canada. It establishes a modern framework that accounts for risks, aligns with international best practices and is backed by robust oversight. This bill also recognizes that responsible authorization for space launch and re-entry operations requires that potential financial liabilities be properly managed and safeguards be established before they are needed. These amendments will establish an insurance and indemnification system tailored to the specific risks associated with space launches and atmospheric re-entry. This system would require operators to demonstrate financial accountability in order to protect Canadians and would reinforce Canada’s commitment to act as a responsible space-faring nation. This bill allows us to establish such a framework in a manner consistent with international best practices and in a way that provides our space sector with the clarity and certainty it has long sought. The Canadian space launch bill is built, therefore, on six core pillars: number one, clear authority to regulate launch and re-entry; number two, a modern licensing framework that reduces duplication and closes regulatory regulatory gaps; number three, safety and security requirements tailored to launch and re-entry activities; number four, a financial responsibility and indemnification regime aligned with international norms; number five, structured land use and site authorization processes; and six, oversight, compliance and enforcement tools to maintain public confidence. Together, these pillars form the foundation of a safe, competitive and future-ready launch sector. Across the country, Canadian innovators are already stepping up. NordSpace, based in Ontario and expanding into Newfoundland and Labrador, is developing one of Canada’s first commercial space ports, creating jobs, attracting investment and inspiring the next generation. Reaction Dynamics, a Quebec-based company, is developing cutting-edge launch vehicles that require limited infrastructure, which could place Canada at the forefront of launch technologies. For Telesat, a domestic launch capability would offer an additional reliable pathway to orbit for their lightspeed constellation, which aims to deliver high-speed Internet access to remote areas in Canada and around the world by 2030. These companies, and many others, are ready to grow in Canada and to compete globally. What they need is a modern legal framework that supports their ambitions, and that is what this legislation would deliver. Again, this is not a partisan issue. It is a nation-building opportunity. Supporting this legislation means supporting economic growth, job creation, innovation, national security and sovereignty. It means ensuring that Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field. It means giving our researchers, our entrepreneurs and our armed forces the tools they need to succeed. It means positioning Canada as a space-faring nation, one of only a handful in the world. It means telling the world that when it comes to the new space economy, Canada intends to be a builder, a partner and a leader. I encourage all parties to support this bill so that Canada can seize the unique opportunity that we have before us and strengthen our sovereignty in an increasingly complex world. Once the bill is passed, we will be able to develop detailed regulations and work with the provinces and industry to coordinate our efforts to support the development of launch sites and related infrastructure. This is the next chapter in Canada’s space history and we cannot miss it. Canada has a proud history in space, but history alone will not secure our future. We must act. We must modernize. We must seize the opportunity before us. The Canadian space launch act is our chance to do exactly that to build a stronger economy, a more resilient country and a more sovereign future. Let us take this step together. Let us go down that road together. Let us be ambitious. Let us provide scientific and economic opportunities to young people who dream about space. Let us ensure that, when Canadians look to the stars, they see a future built right here by Canadians, for Canadians and for the world.

Oral Questions ·

Oil and Gas Industry

In response to a question from Patrick Bonin

“We are investing in all parts of Canada, despite what the Bloc Québécois says. We are putting money into ports in Quebec, into our mining sector, and into new technology in the Laurentians.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    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, contrary to what the Bloc Québécois claims, we are going to build up all the regions of Canada and all the regions found within Canada. That is why we are taking part in developing our ports, like Contrecœur and the Port of Québec, as announced last Friday. We are going to invest in our mines and in our mining sector. Yes, even against the member for Mirabel’s wishes, we are going to invest in regions like the Laurentians, where our four members from the Upper and Lower Laurentians are going to get involved in building technology and diversification—

Oral Questions ·

Finance

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“Money we have not spent yet cannot cause inflation. We plan to build high-speed rail. I want the Leader of the Opposition to say which of our programs he thinks causes inflation.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “Is it the Canada child benefit?”

    Said 7 times by 3 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, even for the Leader of the Opposition, it is pretty hard to say that money that has not been spent yet is inflationary. We have not done it yet, although we will be building high-speed rail as part of our plan to build Canada strong. Let me keep going down the list. Is the Canada workers benefit inflationary spending? Is it the national school food program? Is it the Canada student loans? What exactly, in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition, is inflationary spending? Will he—

In response to a question from Pierre Poilievre

“Inflation is back down to normal levels. I want the Leader of the Opposition to tell us clearly which government programs he thinks cause inflation. Does he mean help for children, people with disabilities, dental care, groceries, or seniors?”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this answer addressed the specific question that was asked.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “Is it the Canada child benefit?”

    Said 7 times by 3 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, inflation has been in the Bank of Canada’s target zone for some time, but we are continuously intrigued by the notion of inflationary spending. I want to ask, and have the Leader of the Opposition answer with absolute clarity, is it the Canada child benefit that is inflationary? Is it the Canada disability benefit? Is it the Canadian dental care plan? Is it the groceries and essentials benefit? Is it old age security? Exactly what is inflationary spending in the eyes of the Leader of the Opposition?

Government Orders ·

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

“We did not change the number of committee seats for the Bloc Québécois, so we did not need to consult them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, since we have not altered the Bloc’s representation on the committees in any way, there was no reason to consult them.

In response to a question from Kelly DeRidder

“Canada does not have supermajorities. Every majority government is just as valid as any other, no matter its size. We are all elected as individuals, and Canadians want us to work together to solve problems.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as a supermajority. That is an American term. Parliaments with a certain number of members do not have more power than Parliaments with a lower number of government members. What I would say in response to my hon. friend is that the current majority is no less legitimate than any other majority that has existed in Canadian history. We elect members of Parliament to the House. The member, my colleagues on this side of the House, and I are all elected as individuals. Yes, we wear a party label and we have a party banner, but we are elected to exercise our conscience and our judgment as we approach the House. The member knows, because I am sure she is living it, that many Canadians in opposition-held ridings expect their member of Parliament to be part of a positive solution for the country.

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“Our plan for committee members keeps the opposition at the same size. It also stops committee chairs from having to break tie votes all the time.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my hon. colleague, who comes from a region of this great country that is very special to me. The committee composition that the government is proposing does two things. It ensures that the chair of each committee will not have to routinely cast tie-breaking votes, because committee chairs, like the Speaker of the House, should not be settling debates. They should be called upon to do so only in exceptional circumstances. That is why we proposed the membership that we did. It is also because the other option would be to remove an opposition member from each committee, and we did not want to do that. We wanted the opposition parties to have the same level of representation as they do now.

In response to a question from Scot Davidson

“I agree that committees must hold the government accountable by studying laws, asking hard questions, and demanding answers. Today's debate does not change that. Committees will keep all their powers to call witnesses and get documents.”
  • 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, in fact, I think we agree on much more than we disagree on. We believe as well that, as my hon. colleague points out, the essence of this Parliament, of its institutions and of its committees is to hold governments to account and perform these kinds of examinations of laws, budgets, estimates and differing matters in terms of public policy, to ask probing questions and to demand accountability. That is the essence of our parliamentary democracy. None of that changes, of course, with the proceedings today. Committees retain the same powers, the same abilities and the same privileges that they have to call witnesses and compel documents and testimony. All of that continues, and we would argue that it is in our best democratic traditions that we are debating this matter today.

In response to a question from Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

“I support this proposal. It respects voters and rebuilds trust by following the traditions and rules of Parliament.”
  • 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, my hon. colleague and I have very different views on what it means to respect the people. I think that respecting the electorate, respecting the people, means respecting the traditions, precedents, norms and rules of our democratic institutions. I think that fighting the public cynicism that he mentioned means standing up and standing together for our democratic institutions. I think that today’s proposal is a step in that direction.

In response to a question from Andrew Scheer

“House committees are not split into two ranks. They have different jobs, but each committee controls its own work and makes its own choices.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it may be a semantic debate, and it may be a pointless one, but there are no two tiers of committees. There may be committees with different job descriptions, as there should be when there are some 30 total committees of the House of Commons and joint committees with the Senate. Of course, committees are masters of their own agenda and their own destiny. They decide what to take up and they decide what to debate, and I am sure members on those committees would individually examine the merits of all proposals that come forward, whatever the source of those proposals, opposition or government, and make their own decisions on the merits of what is being proposed.

In response to a question from Connie Cody

“Committees work best when members work together. Having committee membership match the party numbers in the House follows our traditions and is democratic.”
  • 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, for much of Canada’s history, we have helped build the best country in the world by having committees, as the member points out, be the workhorses of Parliament, but they have done so collegially, cooperatively and by working together, and whatever the composition of the House of Commons, none of that is going to change. In fact, I would argue that we are maintaining and respecting the rules, the norms, the conventions and the traditions that the people who came before us have built together, and the composition of the House also being the composition of committees is the democratic way to get things done.

In response to a question from Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

“We respect our democracy and our traditional rules. Voters recently told us they support our government's plans, and we plan to follow through with them in this Parliament.”
  • 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, quite the opposite. We believe that respecting democracy and our institutions means respecting the standards, conventions, traditions and rules that have been established over the years as we have built the best country in the world. I believe that the people of Rimouski, just like those of Gatineau, expect us to respect and uphold the finest traditions of our democracy. I would add that just recently, we were able to ask the people of Terrebonne what they thought. They clearly told us that they wish to continue along the path proposed by this government, and that is what we intend to implement with the new composition of the House of Commons.

In response to a question from John-Paul Danko

“We need to get results here to show people that government works. We must respect our democracy and get on with doing the job Canadians elected us to do.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Hamilton puts his finger on something very, very important, which is the need to fight cynicism. We must produce results in this place. Part of producing results in this place is respecting our traditions, respecting our democracy, respecting the institutions we have built together across party lines and over the years, and then implementing the plan we were sent here in election to implement. Indeed, our Prime Minister is having much success around the world and throughout our country in proposing measures and implementing our plan. We just want to get on with the job.

In response to a question from Shelby Kramp-Neuman

“Canadians want their members of Parliament to follow the rules and respect our traditions. That is how we keep people's trust in our democracy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 38 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the member’s constituents nearly as well as she would, but my bet is that the people of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga want to send members here who respect, uphold and cherish the democracy we have built, one that has served our country so well and has helped build the best country in the world. That member’s constituents, like my own in Gatineau, believe we should respect the rules. It is to fight cynicism that we uphold these principles and uphold these traditions and these conventions that we and the people who have come before us have put in place. Upholding them, respecting them and following the rules is how we build and maintain trust in our democracy and in our Parliament.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“Parliamentary committees should match the makeup of the House of Commons. We should agree on this simple rule and get back to work for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we believe there is a very fundamental, yet incredibly simple principle at play here, which is that the institutions of our Parliament, including the committees of the House of Commons and obviously the committees we share with the Senate, be reflective of the composition of the House of Commons. This is a reasonably simple debate. We appreciate that there can be different perspectives, different arguments. We have heard those articulated during the first portion of this debate. I am sure we will hear them articulated throughout the course of today, but we believe that this is a reasonably simple principle and that Canadians expect us to get on with our normal work, which is building Canada strong.

“Canadians face big global problems like wars, trade threats, and climate change. People living in Conservative areas want their MPs to help fix these problems. Our government is offering real solutions, and opposition MPs should work with us.”
Official Hansard

He may be leaving himself open on that one, Mr. Speaker. I would say that Canadians who live in Conservative ridings are increasingly asking their members of Parliament to be a positive part of the solution and a positive part of meeting these major and converging international crises, wars, supply chain issues, obviously, trade threats and climate change. All of these threats are converging, and Canadians are demanding a comprehensive and comprehensible response to them. We believe that is what this government is offering. It should be no surprise that many opposition MPs and their constituents want to be a positive part of the solution.

In response to a question from Jean-Denis Garon

“I support this motion. It follows our best traditions and keeps our democracy strong.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 41 of 100

    Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 20 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, I would argue that this morning’s motion is consistent with our finest parliamentary traditions, the ones we always uphold and to which we swear an oath about respecting our institutions, their precedents, their customs and their traditions. This has served our country very well. We believe that Canada is the best country in the world. The only thing we are giving ourselves is the right to continue to ensure that Canada remains a model democracy and that our democratic institutions reflect our finest traditions.

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I disagree with the member's suggestion. In our system, the majority in the House should hold the majority on committees. All committees are equal, and the committees that check our work still have all their usual powers.”
  • 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 respect my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, but her suggestion would offend the very principles of the Westminster tradition that we are all sworn to uphold, whereby a majority in the Commons would represent a majority in the institutions of the Commons. All committees are equal. There are no tier one or tier two committees. Indeed, there are committees that provide oversight. Those functions are vital to the functioning of Parliament. Members on those committees, including the chairs, who the member correctly points out are members of the official opposition, retain all of the rights, all of the privileges and all of the abilities to send for witnesses, papers and evidence that they had previously. Suggesting that there has been a change in those committees’ status would not be factual.