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

Oral Questions ·

Public Services and Procurement

In response to a question from Shelby Kramp-Neuman

“Our government buys goods and services in ways that support Canadian jobs and materials. The Conservatives should stop blocking our high-speed rail projects between Quebec City and Toronto, and between Edmonton and Calgary.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have given a number of examples of how we are supporting Canadian jobs, Canadian materials and Canadians throughout our procurement process. If the Conservatives want to support perhaps the most quintessential of Canadian investments, they could get out of the way of Alto high-speed rail going from Quebec City to Toronto and now also studying very closely the possibility of high-speed rail between Edmonton and Calgary. Will the Conservatives stand up for— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Oral Questions ·

The Environment

In response to a question from Christine Normandin

“Making decisions faster does not mean lowering our standards. We are here debating this bill fairly. The member should share her views in the debate, and then we should vote.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, making decisions faster does not mean we are lowering our standards. I am a little perplexed by the Bloc Québécois’s line of questioning. We are here in this democratic chamber debating a government bill designed to build and strengthen our country. Why is the member calling that undemocratic? She should participate in the debate, express her views and take a position. Then we can vote.

Oral Questions ·

The Environment

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“I want the Bloc members to support the high-speed train and the Churchill Falls project. Both projects will cut pollution, create thousands of jobs, and help the economy.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have two pieces of advice for Bloc members today. First, if they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Quebec, Canada and around the world, they should get on board with the high-speed train, which will slash greenhouse gas emissions. Second, they could enthusiastically get behind the Churchill Falls project. The federal government brought Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador together to reach an agreement on a project that will create 23,000 jobs, meaning employment opportunities for Quebeckers, and that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the economy.

Oral Questions ·

Labour

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“The opposition is making baseless claims. This bill sets clear rules and limits for government intervention in labour disputes. We do not want to interfere in talks. We want to help workers and employers reach their own deals.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 26 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, honestly, they just keep throwing spaghetti at the wall. What we are doing is setting limits and guidelines for the use of section 107. The Government of Canada does not want to meddle in collective bargaining. We want to support the parties, both labour and management, so they can finalize their collective agreements, agreements—

Oral Questions ·

The Environment

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“Our federal regulators serve the whole country and rely on good science, no matter where their offices are. The Bloc Québécois is making baseless claims. We want to pass this bill to speed up project approvals and create jobs for all Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first, the energy regulator in Calgary is the Canada Energy Regulator, just like the space agency in Saint-Hubert is the Canadian Space Agency. Regardless of where these organizations are located in the country, we have regulators that make us the envy of the world and that have access to sound evidence and science. The Bloc Québécois keeps throwing spaghetti at the wall, but unfortunately, none of it is sticking. We are going to move faster and provide jobs and economic opportunities for all Quebeckers and Canadians.

In response to a question from Yves Perron

“The Bloc Québécois is wrong. We are not meddling in Quebec's affairs, and we are not skipping environmental reviews. We will still do strong environmental reviews for pipelines and other federal projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois said that we were meddling with Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. Of course, none of that is true. Today, it is saying that we are going to ignore environmental assessments. That is not at all the case. There will be very robust environmental assessments when it comes to pipelines and any other process or project that is federally regulated.

Oral Questions ·

Business of the House

In response to a question from Andrew Scheer

“Here is the House schedule. We will debate the infrastructure bill today, tomorrow, and on Monday and Wednesday after our break. Next Tuesday and Thursday will be opposition days. Next Friday, we will debate the First Nations clean water bill. Our government will keep working to make life affordable, but I will answer the question about major projects later.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Signal 16 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
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Clarity 19 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 want to extend my own welcome back to Parliament to my colleague across the floor. I know that this particular slot in the week keeps people on the edge of their seats rapt, as we do the Thursday question at this time every week. This is season two, episode one, and we do have to leave some cliffhangers, in the best TV tradition. I have taken careful note of the requests of my friend, the opposition House leader. He can be sure that we will continue to find ways to make life more affordable for Canadians, and prolonging the excise tax relief is an important step. As for the war in Iran, any increase in revenue that the government may have derived from it, we are returning to Canadians. With respect to major projects, that is where we will leave the cliffhanger. As we return for the next episode, the opposition House Leader may have a different question to ask. This afternoon and tomorrow, we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. When we return after spending a week in our ridings, we will resume consideration of that bill on Monday and Wednesday. I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday, October 6, and Thursday, October 8, shall be allotted days. Finally, Friday will be devoted to the second reading debate of Bill C-37, the first nations clean water act. Thank you and welcome back, Mr. Speaker. It is good to see you again, too.

Oral Questions ·

Transportation

In response to a question from Jenny Kwan

“The government still owns the port lands and port authorities manage them. These authorities have always leased the land to private companies, and that is not changing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, she lives in a community that hosts Canada’s largest port by far, and we want to thank the hard-working men and women at the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and everyone who works in the port of Vancouver ecosystem. Port lands are just that. They are federally owned lands run by port authorities that report, obviously, through the Minister of Transport to Parliament, and they lease that land to private operators. It has been that way since everyone can remember and will continue to work that way.

Government Orders ·

Building Canada Strong Act

“The Bloc always opposes plans that make Canada stronger. An official report recommended using special mediators to solve labour disputes, and this bill does that. I want the member to explain how that would hurt labour relations.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 78 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The member, who seems to know it all”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it will surprise no one that the Bloc Québécois is opposing something that is meant to build Canada stronger. The Bloc systematically opposes any proposal to build a stronger country. No one will be surprised by this decision by the Bloc Québécois. My question is on labour relations. The member, who seems to know it all, has certainly read the report of the industrial inquiry commission, which recommended the establishment of a special mediator system. What does the member think of these findings? How could this cause labour relations in Canada to deteriorate, since she seems to think that will be the case under this bill?

“We have started five major national projects, five more are coming, and we secured $500 billion in investment promises. The Leader of the Opposition only attacked the Prime Minister. I want to know if he has any real thoughts on the bill itself.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 80 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “yet another very Justin Trudeau-obsessed piece of rhetorical flourish from the Leader of the Opposition”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition knows that we have started on five significant major national projects. I know he knows that there are five more in the queue. I know that he knows we have $500 billion in investment commitments as a result of the Prime Minister’s investment summit last week. That speech was yet another very Justin Trudeau-obsessed piece of rhetorical flourish from the Leader of the Opposition. We have heard a lot of it before. The one thing I did not hear, and I would like the Leader of the Opposition to have the chance to answer this, is whether he actually has comments, criticisms or other observations of the bill.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I want the House to pass this bill. It lets us review major projects faster, giving a yes or no within a year. It speeds up the process without lowering our scientific standards or our duty to consult First Nations.”
  • 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

Mr. Speaker, this bill, as Bill C-5 did, sets out a process that helps investors, project proponents, those who assess independently or otherwise each individual project, and applies the best possible scientific and other expertise, in addition, of course, to the duty to consult first nations, to the proposal that is before that regulator. This process can go faster without having any standard lowered or any other Canadian standard or ability to evaluate diluted. We can make these projects get evaluated quicker: a yes or a no within a year.

In response to a question from Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

“Our government is guided by science. We have a chief science advisor to help set our policies. Our independent regulators also use the best experts in energy, nuclear power, and transportation to do their work.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we are proud to have a chief science adviser, because we are always guided by science. It helps us define a science policy for the entire government. As for regulators and regulatory agencies, they obviously have access to the best expertise available in the fields of energy, nuclear power and transportation so they can carry out their respective independent roles.

In response to a question from Blaine Calkins

“The government is reviewing 27 major building projects right now. You can read about them in official notices. The team working on these projects has done a great job over the last year.”
  • 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, the first thing I want to say to my hon. friend is, “Stay tuned.” There have been projects in the Canada Gazette. I would invite him to read the regular distribution of the Canada Gazette. There are 27 major nation-building projects under consideration by the Major Projects Office. While I am on my feet, I want to thank Dawn Farrell and the entirety of the Major Projects Office, who have done heroic work in building our country over the past 12 months.

In response to a question from Heather McPherson

“The government does not want to get involved in labour disputes. We want workers and employers to reach deals on their own. Right now, the labour minister has very broad powers to step in. This bill adds clear limits, so the minister can only step in after mediators and other steps have been tried first.”
  • 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, as my colleague well knows, we have in the Canada Labour Code today section 107, which is relatively unfettered. This bill would put in place specific guardrails that would govern its use, and only after special mediators and other processes designed to assist parties in particularly difficult labour–management relationships to actually reach a collective agreement. The government has no interest in getting involved in labour disputes. We want parties to solve disputes at the table, and this bill would put in place measures that would help them do that.

In response to a question from Élisabeth Brière

“Workers have a constitutional right to strike. Most labour disputes get settled on their own, but we are setting up a special mediator to help both sides agree in the hardest five percent of cases.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke, who is also calling for a more secure future for local businesses and entrepreneurs in her riding. Canadian workers have a constitutional right to strike. In that context, we have proposed measures, such as appointing a special mediator. This process is tailored to particularly challenging cases. We know that 95% of disputes are settled, but for the remaining 5%, we think there should be a special mediator to help both parties come to an agreement without—

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“Our energy and nuclear regulators are independent experts. We need to let each regulator handle its own field and make faster decisions. This will give investors confidence to build projects across the country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Energy Regulator is a world leader in this area and has access to the best expertise and all the science. It operates independently. We think that those responsible for regulating energy should regulate energy, nuclear should regulate nuclear, and so on. We want projects to be approved or rejected faster so that investors can feel confident, regardless of whether the project is happening in Quebec, in renewable energy, elsewhere in the country or in another sector. We will take action, and we will do so quickly.

In response to a question from Steven Bonk

“We are cutting red tape, not creating it. Our work has already created an office that is reviewing 27 major projects. We need to use that successful model across the whole government.”
  • 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, this is a legislative body, and we intend to legislate. Let me challenge virtually everything the hon. member said. First of all, we will be reducing bureaucracy, not creating it. We will be streamlining processes, not expanding them. As for Bill C-5, a bill we are very proud of, it created the Major Projects Office, which today is actively examining 27 nation-building projects. The model and the success of the Major Projects Office need to be replicated across the Government of Canada.

“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to committee. It updates our trade and shipping systems so we can sell more goods to other countries and rely less on the United States. It speeds up project approvals to one year, switches trade paperwork from paper to digital, and helps ports and transport networks run better without lowering safety or environmental rules.”
Official Hansard

moved that Bill C-39, An Act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to this important bill, the most important piece of economic legislation in decades. Canada’s prosperity has always depended on our ability to transport goods over long distances. It is in our DNA, an inherent part of who we are, because of the very nature of our geography. Today, our ability to move goods at the speed and scale necessary for prosperity is being tested. Global supply chains are shifting. Competition is intensifying. Long-standing trade relationships can, unfortunately, no longer be taken for granted. For Canada, that means something fundamental. As an open economy, we must respond. We must become more resilient, more diversified, more globally competitive and more capable of standing on our own. We must respond by strengthening our economic sovereignty, while continuing to be a strong and reliable partner to countries around the world. In this new environment, the old ways of thinking, the old ways of doing business and the old ways of looking at the world are no longer enough. They are not fast enough, big enough, resilient enough or reliable enough. In fact, they must be reimagined sometimes in their entirety. As Canadians, we must take control of our own destiny and build the capacity to stand on our own, while strengthening the partnerships that matter most. We succeed as a country, one and all, today and tomorrow, by building the supply chains of the future. Ports; railways; roads; airports; trade corridors; the way we work, make decisions and process our information; and the speed at which we build will all have to change. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to travel across our country and speak with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I have also met with chambers of commerce, councils and businesses. I have spoken with workers at length about the challenges we are facing. We came up with some proposals together, and, most importantly, I took the time to listen carefully to what people across Canada had to say. Earlier this year, Transport Canada released two discussion papers that outlined proposals, and we listened once again. Bill C‑39 is the result of all that work, a whole-of-government effort involving numerous discussion papers across various departments. This bill is one of the most important economic pieces of legislation in a generation. It is the result of a number of departments coming together, and it explains exactly how we are going to turn those advantages into opportunities. Let us get into the specifics of the bill. I would like to begin with what we call trade corridors. We are an export nation. Canada’s transportation system is the backbone of our export nation, enabling the safe, secure and efficient movement of goods. It gets key products onto shelves at home and abroad and others to ports for overseas shipping, and it directly impacts affordability for Canadians. Over the past few years, our government has worked hard to improve that infrastructure. Through the national trade corridors fund, we have invested more than $4 billion in over 200 projects across the country. Our goal in doing all of this has been simple: to scale up and improve capacity so that there is less waiting, smoother flow and faster results. This important work has continued with the trade diversification corridors fund and the Arctic infrastructure fund, as well as the new Canada strong fund, which will be used to make commercial equity investments in major nation-building Canadian projects and companies, alongside private sector investors. With Bill C-39, we are going further, with the ability to designate specific geographic areas or important routes as national trade corridors and then set clear performance goals. The overall goal would shift from increasing capacity to improving efficiency and reliability. In other words, we would be helping different parts of the system, such as ports, railways, airports, trucking and warehouses, work together better and then track how well things are running. A national corridor council would also be created to find problem areas that cause delays and suggest ways to improve the system, improve efficiency and help different players make more coordinated decisions. Overall, these changes would move goods faster from where they are made to ports, reduce delays at these busy points and make shipping more reliable for exporters. That reliability is about more than efficiency. It is about giving Canadian businesses options. Last year, the Prime Minister set an ambitious goal for Canada to double its non-U.S. exports within a decade. That goal has inspired this piece of legislation. It is no small feat, but it is absolutely necessary if we are to make our economy more resilient and less vulnerable to the risks that come with relying too much on a single market or country. Canada has what the world is looking for. While that is true, we also need to take action. We need to make our country so accessible and predictable that other countries want to expand their trade with us. That means that trade hubs, especially ports, must operate at the speed of business. They need to be able to make decisions and raise capital more flexibly. They need to work together better, move goods faster and track them better to reduce bottlenecks and cut costs, making Canada a much more attractive economic partner. Here is how we are going to do that. The proposed legislative amendments would strengthen the governance of port authorities by requiring regular assessments and third-party assessments that would be submitted to the minister. Other provisions would require regular updates to land use plans and business plans and would modernize the way fees are fixed for ports owned and operated by Transport Canada. Ports would benefit from greater financial flexibility and new revenue-generating opportunities. This would, of course, be accompanied by increased oversight and the creation of a regulatory authority that could require operators to provide data so that we can more accurately gauge the performance of our supply chains. However, it is not enough for one port or port authority to act alone. These changes must be coordinated, and port authorities must strengthen their collaboration along trade corridors to scale Canada’s trade gateways up enough to compete internationally and to strengthen our domestic supply chains. I want to be very clear. Canada is not privatizing its ports. Canada owns the land. Our port authorities are independent, self-funded bodies that have been given the responsibility for managing these lands on behalf of the Government of Canada. They basically act as landlords who then lease plots of land to private terminal operators. These operators build and operate the essential infrastructure on which our Canadian farmers, producers and manufacturers depend. What this bill does is increase the flexibility that our port authorities have to pursue new trade opportunities and to adapt to the changing landscape of international trade. Our ports must be agile, reliable and efficient. They must have the resources they need to meet our goal of doubling our trade with partners other than the United States over the next 10 years. We are therefore proposing to establish a national trade corridors council, which will be responsible for consulting with indigenous peoples, provinces, territories, municipalities and other stakeholders and for making recommendations to strengthen collaboration among ports within each designated trade corridor. Roughly 80% of Canada’s trade by volume with countries other than the U.S. moves by sea. This measure would help ports expand, plan for the long term and meet growing global demand. We also want to talk about regulatory certainty and red tape reduction. A clear and simple regulatory system will bring a consistent foundation to support businesses to invest, grow and stay competitive while keeping strong safety and environmental standards. This bill proposes legislative changes to improve efficiency, cut time-consuming administrative burdens, reduce costs to businesses and support a more competitive transportation system. The proposed changes would simplify rules and approvals while maintaining Canada’s world-leading standards. For example, we would remove many duplicate reviews where other processes already apply. We call it a “one project, one review” approach, with a streamlined process, parallel assessments and clearer timelines. We would also align more quickly with international standards, speed up approvals for lower-risk projects, reduce some unnecessary reporting requirements and provide flexibility during emergencies. Finally, to complement efforts being led by the Major Projects Office, Transport Canada would establish a transportation project office within the department to strengthen federal permitting, coordination and Crown consultation for some transportation projects. Taken together, these measures aim to support competitive and resilient supply chains, improve system flexibility and help move key goods more efficiently at a reduced cost to businesses and Canadians. Next, I want to address our plan to improve the digitization of trade. This is one of the greatest opportunities available to us. Many Canadian exporters still rely on paper-based systems, which is slowing the movement of goods and increasing costs. Customs forms, bills of lading and certificates of origin are often processed sequentially by several different authorities. That is an outdated way of doing things. In some cases, red tape can add days to the customs clearance process. Meanwhile, our competitors, including Singapore, Japan, South Korea, the Netherlands and New Zealand, have embraced the future and already have end-to-end digitized trade systems. A 2025 report by Access Partnership estimates that paperless trade in Canada could reduce trade costs for businesses by up to 4.2%. Documents are sent just once and are passed along simultaneously. Goods clear customs in a matter of hours, rather than days. The bill would change that. Its measures would support trade digitization. In many cases, this would enable companies to provide information only once and share it securely across multiple federal departments and agencies, in accordance with the “tell us once” principle. The legislation would also clarify the legal validity of transferable electronic documents, such as bills of lading, to encourage their use in international trade processes. These digitized trade processes would allow goods to move faster, providing businesses with greater predictability and strengthening Canada’s competitiveness and reputation. The shift to digital would reduce documentation errors and administrative delays while promoting more efficient supply chain management. Crucially, this kind of efficiency could help unlock up to $100 billion in economic potential. Perhaps nowhere is that potential more evident than in the Major Projects Office, which must accelerate and streamline the federal approval process for high-priority infrastructure projects and nation-building projects. By creating a single entry point for all these projects, we would reduce the timeline for federal review and decision-making to no more than one year. Other changes would allow us to have a single project authority and a single project decision. The associated regulatory environment would become streamlined and efficient. I have already pointed out that transportation and our supply chains are the backbone of our country’s economy, but without a stable and skilled workforce, supply chains cannot function. Dozens of work stoppages in recent years, including major rail shutdowns, have shown how quickly instability can ripple across the economy. That affects workers, that affects businesses and that affects Canada’s reputation as a reliable trading partner. When these shutdowns occur, hundreds of thousands of unionized jobs in manufacturing locations, in factories, in coal mines and in energy projects are all put at risk as well. That is why we would strengthen labour stability to keep supply chains moving, with well-paid workers with solid collective agreements. Practical solutions within this bill would offer things like better dispute resolution, improved labour mobility, skills training and workforce development. We need long-term solutions for recruitment, retention and resilience, because building and operating modern supply chains require people with world-leading skills, like Canadians have, and require those people to be deployed in the right places. We need to be building that workforce now. I reject the criticism that this bill would not contribute to stability in our supply chains. This government is investing and putting in place measures to support workers, to support employers and to reach agreements where they are best reached, which is at the table. We will continue to invest in processes and regulations that allow getting collective agreements and getting the people we need. The best people in the world work in our national supply chains in many of Canada’s leading labour unions, and we should help them stay on the job. They want to be on the job, and they are proud to do the jobs that they do. The changes we are proposing will help establish a more modern and responsive transportation network that can withstand economic pressures, improve the performance of our trade corridors and unlock new capabilities. As the Prime Minister said, the world will not go back to the way it was. The old order is not coming back. We need to respond, adapt and move forward. As I was saying, we need to build the country and the systems that are behind the best country in the world, including supply chains. We need to build the supply chains and systems of the future. We need to build a Canada that is more connected to the world, more competitive, safer, less vulnerable to a single market and better able to stand on its own. We must act. We must act now as we move toward this new horizon. In conclusion, this bill is an important piece of economic legislation. It gets at the very foundation of our economic system, which is our transportation networks, which is the way we deal with investment proposals and projects of all sizes, from one end of the country to the other. It streamlines processes but does not lower standards. It helps labour and employers reach collective agreements and does not look to labour conflict. It helps to make our transportation systems more efficient and more effective and to reduce costs for businesses, for exporters and, especially, for Canadians on the grocery shelves and everywhere. I am so proud to recommend to this House Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and I look forward to the debate we will have in this chamber.

Oral Questions ·

Air Transportation

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“Airlines already charge fees to pay for airport upgrades, and these fees are not regulated right now. We plan to put rules in place to regulate them.”
  • Government answer in Question Period

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as part of the ongoing process, we have discovered that there are indeed fees in the current system, including funds for airport infrastructure improvements, that are recouped through airfares, prices and flat rates. This is not currently regulated. We fully intend to subject these types of fees to regulation.

In response to a question from Dan Albas

“I already answered the question. These fees are not regulated right now, and we plan to regulate them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I know the member’s leader writes the questions, but he really should listen to the answer and kind of make an adjustment after he hears the first answer. I just told him those fees are currently unregulated. We intend to regulate them.