This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 17 wordstoday we are looking at Bill C-28, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other acts. Procedure · 25 wordsBefore I even get into this bill on Canadian space launches, I would say that things may already be going off track. Let me explain.Procedure Claims · 79 wordsOn March 21, Marie Lumsden, who lives in the small community of Canso, Nova Scotia, woke up early.1 She lives three kilometres from the famous launch site, 2Off pointwhich is, I imagine, the first of the major projects we are looking at today.Partly on point She put on her boots and grabbed her camera to go see what had been announced with such great fanfare.Off point There was talk of a $200-million investment and a site that the government was so proud of.3Partly on point Positioning · 8 wordsIt was the dawn of a new era.Positioning Claims · 52 wordsWhen Marie Lumsden arrived at the site, what she found was a gravel road, two sea cans, and a concrete pad measuring 25 feet by 35 feet, 4which is roughly the size of a campsite for a 21-foot trailer.Off point All of this cost the government $200 million, as it so proudly announced. Procedure · 15 wordsI am not talking about this here to be oppositional or to create a narrative.Procedure Reasoning · 30 wordsI am talking about this because Quebeckers and Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent. When $200 million is spent on a concrete slab, that raises questions. Claims · 29 wordsFor many weeks now, citizens, journalists, financial analysts and, now, parliamentary committee members have been asking the same questions.Partly on point What we saw yesterday in the House was quite something. Positioning · 6 wordsWe have questions. Canadians have questions.Positioning Claims · 19 wordsGovernment Motion No. 9 was adopted, curtailing our ability to ask the government these questions and hold it accountable.5 Positioning · 18 wordsOnce again, we have a fine example of what is coming our way over the next few years.PositioningOff point Reasoning · 8 wordsThe questions are serious and they deserve answers.Partly on point Claims · 26 wordsCanadians pay taxes, and they are seeing the government spending their money on projects like this, to the tune of $200 million for a trailer pad. Reasoning · 5 wordsI think Canadians deserve answers.Partly on point Procedure · 21 wordsToday, I am just going to present some facts and ask the government if it has anything to say in response.Procedure Claims · 22 wordsLet us talk about Maritime Launch Services, the publicly traded company responsible for this $200-million launch site.6 The financial statements are public, Procedure · 7 wordsso we are not making this up.Procedure Claims · 61 wordsThis information is public, and the company is registered with SEDAR+.7 For those tuning in who would like to check it out, SEDAR+ is Canada’s official securities registry.8Off point The financial statements tell us three things. First, in 2025, Maritime Launch Services generated $14,900 in revenue—not $14 million in revenue, 9but $14,900, with no extra zeros. We are talking about nearly $15,000. Reasoning · 10 wordsThat is a figure that, I think, is highly significant. Claims · 18 wordsSecond, that same year, the company posted a loss of $47 million.10 It had nearly $70,000 in cash.11 Reasoning · 6 wordsThose figures are not exactly impressive. Claims · 17 wordsThese facts are public knowledge, and I think that is what is drawing attention to the issues. Procedure · 1 wordsThird, ProcedureClaims · 102 wordsand I believe this is the most important point, the company’s auditors, the accountants who conduct the analysis and are tasked with auditing the books, said that there is material uncertainty as to whether the company will have the financial ability to continue as a going concern.12 That tells me this is not a company in great financial shape. I am not the one saying it is on the brink of bankruptcy; Partly on pointthe company’s own accountants are saying that. Despite this seemingly precarious situation, our colleagues opposite, the members of the Liberal federal government, decided to invest $200 million in this company. Positioning · 5 wordsThey decided it made sense.Positioning Claims · 162 wordsThat is $20 million for 10 years.13 To pick up where I left off with Marie Lumsden, her experience that morning and the photos she took blew the story wide open. She has spent the past seven years trying to talk to the community, asking questions, and sifting through piles of data and pages of ATIP requests. She contacted the municipal, provincial and federal governments. She even contacted the Minister of Justice, who would later make the announcement with great fanfare in Nova Scotia.14 She has spent seven years asking questions, but no one seemed interested in listening. However, she found something astounding in the documents, something that I think should raise some important questions.Partly on point This infamous launch site is the future of Bill C‑28. The government wants us to trust it on this bill. The thing is, Maritime Launch Services leases the land from the provincial government. It is a lease. It does not belong to the company; it is leased. Positioning · 12 wordsHow much does the company pay the government to lease this land?PositioningPartly on point Procedure · 4 wordsThat is the question.Procedure Claims · 48 wordsThe company pays $13,500 a year plus taxes because, of course, there are always taxes.15 The company leases the land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million a year.16 The company does not own the land. Procedure · 3 wordsThink about it.Procedure Claims · 70 wordsIf the company does this for 10 years, that amounts to $200 million dollars. The company leases the land from the province for $13,500 and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million. Some might say that the opposition parties are always complaining, that they are always opposing everything, that surely there is a return on the investment and that the Liberals made a logical and informed decision, Partly on pointReasoning · 9 wordsbut that does not seem to be the case. Claims · 107 wordsThe government did not get any shares in the company in return for its investment.17 It has no ownership rights to the land. It has no equipment. It has nothing. We are talking about $20 million per year for 10 years, or $200 million, and Canada has nothing to show for it except a concrete slab about the size of a trailer pad. Marie Lumsden has spent seven years trying to tell elected officials that. She has spent seven years trying to make her voice heard. Today, I can say that, here in Parliament, we talking about what she discovered and about the work she has done.Partly on point Reasoning · 28 wordsTo be fair, I recognize that Canadian space sovereignty is a legitimate objective. It is important. I recognize that Canada needs to develop its own domestic launch capabilities. Procedure · 7 wordsThat is not what I am criticizing.Procedure Claims · 8 wordsCanada has a rich history of space exploration.Partly on point Positioning · 32 wordsWhat I am criticizing is the fact that the government is going to use this as a pretext to help well-connected people instead of using it to build on that rich history.Positioning Procedure · 5 wordsWe will have to see, ProcedureClaims · 26 wordsbecause the sovereign wealth fund was just announced yesterday.18 The Liberals are drawing inspiration from some very flashy buzzwords and are following Norway’s example in particular. Positioning · 7 wordsDoes the Liberal plan exist anywhere else?PositioningPartly on point Procedure · 7 wordsLet us look at what Norway did.Procedure Claims · 67 wordsAndøya Space, based in Norway, has the infrastructure needed to carry out successful launches.19 It cost the equivalent of $46 million Canadian.20Partly on point The Norwegian government owns 90% of the company.21 That is a quarter of what the government is spending here, and 90% of it is owned by the Norwegian government. That is not the case here. We own 0%, and it is costing us $200 million. Positioning · 7 wordsWe are talking about public funds here.Positioning Claims · 10 wordsThere have been successful launches in Norway.22 It is working.Partly on point Reasoning · 8 wordsWe should look to this model for inspiration. Procedure · 27 wordsI am not saying this as a complaint. That is not it at all. I am simply suggesting what should be done. Ultimately, what should be done?Procedure The ask · 65 wordsFirst, the government has to publicly disclose all the contracts. We want to know how bids were made, what criteria were applied, and whether other candidates were in the running for the much-touted launch facility or whether this was the only location the Canadian government could access. Second, the government has to explain why Canada received zero equity in return for 200 million taxpayer dollars. Claims · 14 wordsNorway has a 90% ownership stake in the Norwegian company. Canada has zero stake. Procedure · 8 wordsThird, and I want to emphasize this point, ProcedureClaims · 33 wordsbecause it makes us really skeptical about Bill C-28, the chair of the board of Maritime Launch Services sold three million shares of the company on April 9, 24 days after the announcement.23 Positioning · 26 wordsThat is serious. Someone is making a lot of money on the backs of taxpayers, on the backs of Canadians, with help from the Liberal government.Positioning The ask · 26 wordsQuestions need to be asked. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner needs to be formally seized with this issue now, not a year from now. Claims · 108 wordsSome weeks ago, the minister proudly announced that this was a historic investment.24 He talked about Canada’s sovereignty, Canada’s future and Canadian ambition.Partly on point However, there is zero ownership, zero control and zero transparency. Now, the government wants us to pass Bill C‑28, which would give the minister sweeping, discretionary powers to be wielded behind closed doors. I experienced this yesterday at an in camera committee. The Liberals took control of the committee and decided to go in camera to make sure that people would not hear what was being said and that Canadians would not have access.25 They took complete control so that we would stop asking questions.Partly on point Reasoning · 13 wordsThat is not how a government should act. Democracy is all about transparency. Positioning · 8 wordsClearly, the current government does not understand that.PositioningOff pointUnearned certainty Claims · 68 wordsIt wants to decide who can go into space without clear criteria, without going through Parliament. In an industry as strategic as space, the risk of regulatory capture is real. This bill does nothing to reduce that risk. On the contrary, it concentrates power in the hands of ministers. It allows decisions to be made behind the scenes, as usual. It is shutting Parliament out of the process. Positioning · 21 wordsWhy are parliamentarians being asked to approve a regulatory framework after $200 million was spent? Why were rules not established beforehand?Positioning Procedure · 6 wordsI will close with this question: ProcedurePositioning · 15 wordsWhy is there no transparency, when that is what all Canadians expect from the government?Positioning
Analysed on