Michael Cooper
St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee. The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provid…”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since legislation was passed to establish a foreign influence registry. Two years later, the Liberals have missed every deadline to get the registry up and running. On what date will the foreign influence registry finally be fully operational?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25 , an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome.”
“(2235) I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the…”
“This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that.”
“to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates.”
The complete record
Every one of 343 lines we hold for Michael Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Now, through the back door, it has brought in this bill on the pretense of saving mandatory minimums, when in fact what it is doing is completely dismantling them. It demonstrates that the government is blinded by ideology. It is a government that time and time again puts the rights of criminals ahead of public safety and the rights of victims. This bill is a total disgrace in that regard.”
“For nearly 30 years, until 2015, not a single mandatory minimum had been struck down by the Supreme Court. It was not until 2015. Therefore, a government worth its salt, a government that was committed to standing up for victims and putting away violent offenders, would have reasserted Parliament's constitutional authority in this domain, including in egregious instances such as in the Senneville decision and the Bissonnette decision, which struck down the discretion afforded to judges to impose mandatory consecutive parole and eligibility periods to mass murderers, and invoked the notwithstanding clause. Of course, the current government has not done that. It has refused to do that.”
“Indeed, Justice Cory wrote, as recently as 2010, in the Supreme Court Nasogaluak decision, that mandatory minimums are “a forceful expression of governmental policy in the area of criminal law.” Back in 1990, the same Justice Cory held that a mandatory minimum sentence would only be disproportionate as to violate section 12 on “rare and unique occasions”, and that the test would be “stringent and demanding.” It is true that in recent years we have seen that mandatory minimums have been subject to greater constitutional challenge in the face of the Nur decision, for example, of 2015, which constitutes, in my opinion, judicial overreach. I say that because the first time the Supreme Court struck down a mandatory minimum was in the Smith decision in 1987.”
“Mandatory minimums reflect the constitutional authority of Parliament to make laws with respect to criminal justice, including sentencing, and reflect Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to warrant a minimum floor, while having regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence and the need to separate certain offenders from society.”
“It does not clarify or provide direction to the courts on how Parliament believes mandatory minimums should be treated. Instead, it invites judges to disregard mandatory minimum laws that, I would add, have not been found to be unconstitutional. Therefore, what this will almost certainly result in is that mandatory minimums and their application at sentencing will be litigated as a matter of course. This bill completely eviscerates mandatory minimum sentences. The Liberals will say they had no choice as they have these court decisions. They had a choice. No court has said that, writ large, mandatory minimums are unconstitutional. Certainly, the Supreme Court has not said that. Indeed, mandatory minimum penalties have been on the books since the 1890s, when the Criminal Code was passed.”
“Instead, they endorsed and gave the green light to the Supreme Court's Senneville decision, completely washed their hands clean of responding legislatively and, once again, surrendered the law-making power of this place to the courts. (1310) Even worse, the Liberals have very conveniently and very deliberately used a divided court decision as a pretext to dismantle virtually every other mandatory minimum law in the Criminal Code, save for murder and treason. They have done so with a so-called escape valve that would apply to every mandatory minimum in the Criminal Code except murder and treason. The escape valve, as it is drafted, is broadly worded. It is not targeted. It does not contain, for example, an exceptional circumstances provision.”
“In the face of a problematic and unjust decision by the Supreme Court, a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner, and the Supreme Court specifically pronouncing that child sexual crimes are among the most immoral, Conservatives called on the Liberals to do the right thing and invoke the notwithstanding clause to override the decision and reinstate the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography. Not surprisingly, given their soft-on-crime record, the Liberals did not do that. Failing to invoke the notwithstanding clause, they could have come back with a bill that brings in a modified mandatory minimum sentence by clarifying the definition and the application of the offence, but the Liberals did not do that either.”
“The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Wagner laid out, in very clear terms, the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum with respect to the distribution and possession of child pornography specifically. More broadly, in no uncertain terms, it reaffirmed Parliament's constitutional authority to pass laws with respect to sentencing, including fashioning mandatory and maximum jail time.”
“The Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, applying a so-called reasonable hypothetical, determined that the one-year mandatory minimum for the distribution and possession of child pornography was grossly disproportionate and therefore contravened section 12 of the charter, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. While the Supreme Court thought it was cruel and unusual punishment to impose a measly one-year mandatory jail term for child sexual predators, I think most Canadians find the sexual exploitation, rape, brutalization and defilement of children to be cruel, unusual, evil and sadistic. It should be noted that the Senneville decision was far from a unanimous decision of the court. There was a strong dissenting opinion written by Chief Justice Wagner and a five-four split on the court.”
“That is where my compliments to the government end, because there are serious concerns and problems with the bill, starting with how the government has responded to the troubling and problematic Supreme Court decision in Senneville, which struck down the mandatory minimum sentencing law for the distribution and possession of child pornography. The facts in Senneville are truly appalling and horrific. They involve two sadistic sexual predators who had hundreds of images of small children, made from the sexual brutalization and defilement of these innocent children.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-16 , omnibus legislation brought forward by the government. There are some measures in the bill that are supportable to the extent that they strengthen Canada's criminal justice system and take into account and strengthen the interests of victims. Many of those measures were literally copied and pasted from private members' bills introduced by Conservative members. If the government wants to take good Conservative ideas, we welcome it doing so. There are also some additional measures in the bill that we wholeheartedly support.”
“Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House. Motion for concurrence If the House gives its consent, I move that the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is all talk. This is a prime minister who says one thing and does another. He says that he is all for major projects, yet he has kept on the books anti-development laws, including the “no pipelines” bill, Bill C-69 . This week, he voted against a Conservative Canadian sovereignty act, which would reduce barriers and get shovels in the ground. Again, not a single major project has been approved. How does the Prime Minister square his rhetoric with his record?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister broke his promise to “build big, build bold and build now”. His big solution was Bill C-5 to establish the Major Projects Office, yet here we are and not a single major project has been approved, let alone built. This is a clear case of a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. What exactly is the holdup?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition with respect to the approval and accessibility of brain cancer treatment and therapies. The petitioners observe that an estimated 27 Canadians are diagnosed with a brain tumour each day. Canada is years behind the United States in approving new drugs and treatments, and even when new brain cancer therapies are approved, they are not always made equally accessible to patients across the country. Accordingly, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with the provinces and territories to ensure that drugs, medical devices and new therapies are accessible to brain cancer patients nationwide, and to remove unnecessary red tape so that brain cancer drugs can be approved more quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Prime Minister set up three multi-billion dollar investment funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and it is a fact that he stands to make tens of millions of dollars in future bonus pay from one of those funds. Those are facts, not a conspiracy theory, as the member across the way suggested. It is typical of the Liberals, who have nothing but contempt for the truth, nothing but contempt for accountability and nothing but contempt for transparency. They have contempt for taxpayers who work hard and pay their taxes in Canada. Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who is a tax dodger. Why will the Prime Minister not simply come clean and tell Canadians exactly how much he has in offshore tax havens? Why will he not do that?”
“Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has the audacity to tell Canadians that they need to sacrifice more. I have news for this arrogant and out-of-touch Prime Minister. Millions of Canadians get up every day, they work hard, they play by the rules and, yes, they pay their taxes in Canada. Why will he not? He has a responsibility to do so, and in the meantime, he has a responsibility to come clean and tell Canadians how much he has in offshore tax havens.”
“Analysis reveals that, of Canada's 123 largest corporations, there is no bigger tax dodger than Brookfield. Brookfield managed to avoid paying a staggering $6.5 billion in taxes in Canada in only five years, and I want to emphasize that the Prime Minister was not a bystander to Brookfield's tax dodging. He was an architect, including setting up and registering three multi-billion dollar investment funds in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, which of course are notorious offshore tax havens. Not only that, the Prime Minister stands to profit from one of these funds that he registered in Bermuda in the way of future bonus pay. In short, this is a Prime Minister who stands to make tens of millions of dollars as a direct result of his tax-dodging scheme. So much for Captain Canada and so much for Mr. Elbows Up.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is a total and complete hypocrite. During the recent federal election campaign, he presented himself as Captain Canada. He wrapped himself in the Canadian flag with his elbows up. He wove a story of having resigned as chair of the multi-billion dollar investment firm Brookfield to come to Canada's rescue at a time of crisis. Of course, this self-serving narrative is pure fiction, because what the Prime Minister did not tell Canadians is that, as chair of Brookfield, he played a key role in helping Brookfield avoid paying billions of dollars in taxes in Canada through Brookfield's shady use of offshore tax havens. In fact, the Prime Minister has the dubious distinction of being chair of Canada's biggest corporate tax dodger.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is just more of the same with the government. It is part of the failed economic legacy of the government, which has seen declining productivity, flatlined growth, unacceptably high unemployment and Canada falling further and further behind peer countries. I think the numbers today, having regard for that record, are not surprising, but they are concerning.”
“Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the misplaced spending priorities of the government. Simply put, never has a government spent so much and delivered so little for Canadians. By the way, speaking of spending, the Prime Minister said he would spend less, but spending has in fact gone up by 7.2%, when he promised to bring it down by 7.5%. I would just add that as another promise made and broken by the Prime Minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, if Canadians were to listen to the member for Kingston and the Islands , they would be led to believe that they have never had it so good. He talks about job numbers. How many of those jobs are part-time jobs? The youth unemployment rate is over 13%. That is hardly a figure to celebrate. Is the member for Kingston and the Islands celebrating the fact that two million Canadians, a record number, are lined up at the food banks?”
“In short, the budget is not a blueprint for a generational shift. It is a blueprint for a government that is presiding over and managing decline. It is a budget that does not meet the mark, and it ought to be defeated.”
“This was after we saw a flight of half a trillion dollars of investment out of Canada under the Liberals over the past 10 years. Instead of seeing more investment in Canada, we have seen, over the past six months, $50 billion of investment go directly to the United States. In the face of that, what is the Liberal government's solution? It is more spending, more debt, more interest costs and no tangible measures to make life more affordable for Canadians who are facing an affordability crisis. Canadians, after all, have seen housing costs double, rent double and food prices double. We saw inflation at a 40-year high. The budget does nothing to address the cost of living pressures Canadians are facing. In fact, under the Liberals, overall, taxes have gone up on Canadians by 32%. Canadians are paying more and getting less under the Liberals.”
“What do the Liberals have to show for all of the spending, all of the deficits and all of the debt? They have a flatline in growth. Look at the GDP. At present, Canada's GDP per capita is 75% of the U.S.'s GDP per capita. When the Liberals took office, Canada's GDP per capita, relative to that of the United States, was about 90%. As the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North detailed, we have seen declining productivity. In fact, productivity grew at about half of the rate it did under the Harper Conservative government. In recent years, it has not increased; in fact, it has declined. It is no wonder that we see a productivity gap between Canada and the United States that is now at 30%. The Prime Minister said that, under his watch, he would bring investment home to Canada.”
“This is at a time when Canadians face record wait times, when six million to seven million Canadians do not have access to a primary care doctor and when somewhere in the neighbourhood of 17,000 to 30,000 Canadians are dying on a wait-list for specialist care. The government is spending more on servicing the debt than it is on health care. (1045) If anything, it speaks to the completely misplaced priorities and the misplaced focus of the government. It speaks to how it has so badly screwed things up over the past 10 years. If we think that $55.6 billion is a big number, after the government throws in the $330 billion of new debt it is going to rack up over the next five years, that debt servicing cost is going to increase to $76.1 billion, but with the Liberals, who is counting?”
“We have seen the debt climb to $1.35 trillion. For a lot of Canadians, it seems like 10 long years, but in Canada's 150-year history, it has been 10 short years that the government has been in office. In those 10 short years, the Liberals have managed to add more debt than all of the previous governments combined. They have managed to more than double the debt they were left with when they took office in 2015 from the previous Conservative government, which delivered, in fact, a balanced budget. In the face of this sea of red ink, it is not surprising that debt servicing costs continue to increase. The debt servicing costs for the fiscal year 2025-26 are $55.6 billion. To put $55.6 billion into some perspective, that is more than the government collects in GST. It is more than the government spends on health care.”
“However, here we have the so-called financial genius coming to the rescue, and he delivers a $78-billion deficit. It is not only a $78-billion deficit; it is the largest deficit in Canadian history, outside of COVID. It is quite an accomplishment, but for all the wrong reasons. The so-called new government and the so-called new Liberals, just like the old Liberals, are delivering a sea of red ink. They plan to rack up one-third of $1 trillion of new debt over the next five years. They plan $330 billion in new debt, deficit after deficit, year over year, without any meaningful plan. There is no plan at all to get to a balanced budget and no plan to restore any semblance of fiscal responsibility with the so-called new Prime Minister and new government. It is Justin Trudeau 2.0. It is Justin Trudeau, but even worse.”
“The Prime Minister said he was going to get the deficit under control and that he would preside over a government that reduced the level of debt. As recently as September 17, the Prime Minister said in the House, “We are going to have a declining level of debt.” In the face of that unequivocal statement, people would have expected to see some follow-through in this budget, but if they guessed that, they are wrong. Instead of a declining level of debt, the Prime Minister delivered with this budget a deficit that is an eye-watering $78 billion. It is double last year's deficit, which was $36.3 billion. By the way, the deficit of $36.3 billion under the big-spending, debt-addicted Trudeau Liberals was too much for the then Trudeau finance minister, the member for University—Rosedale . She resigned in protest.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15 , the budget implementation act. The best that can be said of this budget is that it is not as advertised. The finance minister advertised the budget as a generational shift. The Prime Minister advertised the budget as bold. This budget does not represent a generational shift, and it most certainly is not bold. If anything, it is completely underwhelming. It represents more of the same. There are more of the same failed policies we have seen over the past 10 years from the Liberals, more spending, more debt and more broken promises. Indeed, just about every fiscal and budgetary commitment the Prime Minister made to Canadians a few short months ago during the federal election has been broken with this budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Liberals call an inconvenient truth a personal attack. It is a fact that the Prime Minister was chair of Canada's biggest tax-dodger through its use of offshore tax havens. It is a fact that the Prime Minister set up an investment fund in the offshore tax haven of Bermuda. It is a fact that the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars from that fund, from investments that are shielded from paying taxes in Canada because he set up the fund in Bermuda. Again, how much does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens?”
“This is a fund the Prime Minister registered in Bermuda, a fund that the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars from in carried interest payments, in other words, future bonus pay based upon the performance of that fund. What we have is a Prime Minister who stands to profit, who stands to make tens of millions of dollars, from investments that are shielded from paying taxes in Canada because he set up the fund in Bermuda. Canadians deserve to know exactly how much the Prime Minister has in offshore tax savings.”
“The Prime Minister 's company managed to avoid paying more in taxes than the Prime Minister's government spends on Canada's national police force. Brookfield has managed to dodge paying taxes through a complex and opaque web of shell companies set up in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, primarily. So brazen is Brookfield's tax avoidance that three Brookfield entities worth $50 billion are registered to a bike shop in Bermuda. The Prime Minister was not only the chair of Canada's biggest corporate tax-dodger, but also an architect of Brookfield's offshore tax avoidance scheme. This is a prime minister who set up three multi-billion dollar investment funds in the notorious tax havens of Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. One of those funds is the Brookfield global transition fund.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the government: How much does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens? After all, the Prime Minister has a notorious track record of using offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes in Canada. Before he ran for the Liberal leadership earlier this year, the Prime Minister served as chair of Brookfield. Brookfield happens to be Canada's biggest corporate tax dodger. According to analysis from the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, Brookfield managed to avoid paying a staggering $6.5 billion in taxes in only five years. To put $6.5 billion in perspective, that is more money than the government spends on the RCMP. That is right.”
“It would also, of course, address the abuse of the process and all the costs associated with these hearings in respect of murderers who, frankly, have no hope because they are not releasable. I was pleased to learn, based on the speech from the member for Bourassa , that the government supports the intent of the bill, and therefore, it sounds like the government will be supporting the bill at the second reading stage to go to committee. The member for Bourassa cited three amendments—”
“Their parole would only be considered at the time of the statutory review that occurs every five years rather than every year. I am grateful to the member for Edmonton Griesbach for introducing Brian's bill in this Parliament, Bill C-243 . It is at the second reading stage. I hope it passes. It is common-sense legislation, just as this is common-sense legislation. This legislation would go a long way toward sparing the families of victims from frequent parole hearings. It would stop convicted murderers from being able to, in many instances, take advantage of hearings to deliberately try to cause trauma to the families of victims, because they sadistically enjoy revictimizing and continuing to revictimize the families of their victims.”
“It would be entirely at the discretion of the trial judge having regard for the specific facts, the specific circumstances and the specific offender. I would say that is common sense. That is just. It does right for the families of victims who were murdered. Speaking of frequent parole hearings for convicted murderers, that is why I offered Brian's bill in honour of the late Brian Ilesic, who was brutally murdered along with Michelle Shegelski and Eddie Rejano at the University of Alberta's Hub Mall. Matthew Schuman survived but lives with injuries that are life-altering. Brian's bill would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that murderers who apply for parole and are turned down cannot apply again and again.”
“Depending on the age of the offender, the murderer, that could mean dozens of parole applications and parole hearings over the course of the lifetime of the murderer. In the process, the families of victims are punished by the process. They are victimized again and again, retraumatized by having to go through parole hearings in which the application has virtually no chance of success. Having regard for that, I ask if it is really that unreasonable to give a judge the discretion, in the case of the worst of the worst, to determine that a murderer ought not to be eligible for parole at 25 years, or for a longer period of time, anywhere up to 40 years. It could be 30 years. It could be 35 years.”
“The Library of Parliament could not find one case where a murderer in that category was granted full parole, and it found very few cases where temporary absences or day parole was granted. (1410) Simply put, our correctional system has deemed murderers who fall into this category, who rape and brutalize their victims in the course of murdering them, to not be releasable. I would submit, therefore, that this underscores the reasonableness of the bill. While such murderers are not releasable, they can apply for parole after 25 years. In fact, they can apply in year 23. When their application is turned down, as it almost certainly will be, they can apply again and again, year after year.”
“Frankly, however, there are some murderers who are so vile, so sadistic, so evil and so irredeemable that they really fall into their own separate category. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford listed some of those murderers with whom, unfortunately, Canadians are familiar. For those types of sadistic murderers, there is really only one thing that can be done, which is to separate them from society for the rest of their life. That is precisely what the Parole Board has done in cases of murderers who abduct, rape, torture, brutalize and murder their victims. Those murderers are almost never provided with parole. In fact the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman asked the Library of Parliament to undertake research to determine how often murderers who fit into that category receive parole.”
“That reflects the gravity of the offence and the fact that murder is the worst, the most serious, offence in the Criminal Code. I would submit that it follows that a life sentence ought to mean something when considering the length of time a convicted first-degree murderer who rapes and kidnaps their victim should spend behind bars before they have the privilege of applying for parole. Second, I would note that while murder is horrific and evil, not all murderers are equal, yet the Criminal Code treats them equally in the case of first-degree murderer, insofar as they are eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. I certainly agree that anyone convicted of first-degree murder should not be able to apply any earlier than 25 years.”
“The bill would amend section 745 of the Criminal Code to give judges the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period for first-degree murderers who sexually assault or kidnap their victim in the course of the same criminal event or series of events. As it presently stands in the Criminal Code, all first-degree murderers are eligible to apply for parole after 25 years. All the bill would do is provide that, in the case of the worst of the worst offenders, a judge would have the discretion to increase the parole ineligibility period from anywhere from 25 years all the way up to 40 years. I will make a few observations. First, as the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford noted, in the Criminal Code, the automatic sentence for murder is life.”
“Madam Speaker, as the seconder of the bill, I rise to speak in strong support of Bill C-235 , the respecting families of murdered and brutalized persons act, introduced by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford . I want to thank the member for his leadership in bringing the bill forward. It is legislation that would help spare the families of murder victims from being retraumatized with frequent parole hearings brought by some of the worst and most sadistic murderers in our correctional system. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman , who has been a tireless and consistent champion for the rights of victims and has championed the bill in previous Parliaments. In fact, I recall speaking to the bill in a previous iteration in 2019.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill narrowly targets some of the most sadistic murderers; they are murderers who rape, brutalize and abduct their victims. The Library of Parliament looked into how many murderers who fall into this category received parole. The answer is that it could not find a single instance in which the Parole Board granted full parole, and there were very rare circumstances in which temporary absences and day parole were granted. Does that not underscore the reasonableness of the bill?”
“Madam Speaker, this is not a conspiracy theory. The Ethics Commissioner told the Prime Minister not to meet with Brookfield and then he did so. This is a Prime Minister who was the chair of Brookfield and who stands to make tens of millions of dollars in future bonus pay and from stock options. Not only did the Prime Minister clearly violate the direction of the Ethics Commissioner, but he attempted to cover it up by not disclosing the meeting. Is this the Prime Minister 's idea of ethics?”
“Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has vast conflicts of interest with Brookfield. That is why the Ethics Commissioner specifically told him not to meet with Brookfield. Despite this, the Prime Minister secretly met with the chief operating officer of Brookfield in October. I have a simple question. Why did the Prime Minister violate the clear direction of the Ethics Commissioner?”
“Mr. Speaker, the very Brookfield fund that the Prime Minister stands to make millions of dollars from in future bonus pay invested $300 million in Entropy. In the face of that, can the government provide the assurance that the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister will in no way benefit Entropy and, by extension, the Prime Minister's financial portfolio?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the government's MOU with Alberta includes a multi-billion dollar investment in carbon capture with Pathways Alliance. The premier carbon capture company connected with Pathways Alliance is none other than Entropy, which is owned by none other than Brookfield. Is the reason it has taken the government so long to get a deal with Alberta that the Prime Minister has been busy getting a deal for Brookfield?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's conflicts with Brookfield are everywhere. Yesterday the COO of Brookfield said that when Brookfield does well, the Prime Minister does well, so is it any wonder that the government is helping Brookfield do well, including fast-tracking a Brookfield-owned LNG project and handing half a billion dollars to a foreign space agency partnered with Brookfield? Why will the Prime Minister not end his conflicts and fully divest himself from Brookfield?”
“It is discretionary. It will go a long way to protect the interests of victims in our criminal justice system. For Bret McCann, for the McCann family and for all the victims' families who are going through what the McCanns have gone through, let us do the common-sense thing and pass McCann's law.”