“We should slow down and rethink this bill. The government is trying to regulate space rockets with an old law meant for airplanes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think in this case, it would make a ton of sense to go slow to go fast. We need to walk this legislation back to provide certainty going forward. To give an idea to those folks who are watching out there, the government did not even create a new piece of legislation. It is amending the Aeronautics Act, which is really there to regulate airplanes. When the government understands that there is a difference between airplanes and rockets, we will be well ahead.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill about space launches is too weak on national security. It leaves decisions to ministers behind closed doors instead of putting clear rules into law. I want strong rules to stop our foreign enemies from using Canada's space program.”

“Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear “space launches”, they think of rockets and satellites, but what they should really be thinking about is security, who is launching, what they are launching and who is behind it. This where the bill falls short. There is no clear national security test written into law. Instead, we are told to trust the ministers. They will figure it out later, behind closed doors. This is an object being launched into orbit over Canadian territory, over our Arctic and over our infrastructure in our communities. Why is the government asking Canadians to trust discretion, instead of putting clear and enforceable security laws into rules that would guarantee that foreign adversaries cannot exploit Canada’s space sector?”

“Launching rockets into space is very important for Canada's economy. The government rushed this bill and did a poor job. We should have made a separate, well-thought-out law instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, having the ability to launch rockets into space is incredibly important for our Canadian economy. This is why it is that much more critical that it be done correctly. I do not understand why the government has created this slapdash job of legislation. It really would not have been difficult to create a separate piece of legislation that would have understood and contemplated the complexities of space travel and put Canada on the right foot going forward.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“I do not support this bill in its current form. It is too short and simple for space travel, which makes investors worry they will lose their money.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling, but more importantly, so do many Canadians, including those who control the capital that would ultimately be used to build space launches and invest in rockets here in Canada. Because of this uncertainty, they would not know whether their investment will be returned to them. I agree 110%. A piece of legislation on something as complex as space travel should not be a couple of pages in length.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 97 of 100

  Of this reply, 96% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill needed to be done, but it was not done well.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I talk to my son about doing his homework, I repeat a line that has been used for hundreds of years. Every job has two things in common: It has to be done, and it has to be done well. We have only the first accomplished here.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 14 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“Canada has the talent and geography to lead in the space economy, but this bill gives too much power to the minister behind closed doors. It is missing key details and lacks transparency. I want a committee to study and fix the bill so it actually helps businesses invest and compete.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. There are some subjects that still have the power to inspire wonder, and certainly space is one of them. For generations, it has sparked curiosity, discovery and the belief that the next great breakthrough may still be ahead of us. It reminds us that progress is not automatic but must be chosen, must be built and must be earned. Canada has long had the talent, the ingenuity and the industrial capacity to contribute to the space economy. Our laws have not kept pace with the opportunities before us. Canada is not a stranger to excellence in space, far from it. We gave the world the Canadarm. We became leaders in robotics, satellite technology, remote sensing, communications and advanced aerospace engineering. Canadian innovators have helped shape missions that reached orbit, the International Space Station, Mars and beyond. Our workers, engineers, technicians, researchers and manufacturers have earned global respect, and just recently, Canadians had another reason to feel proud: Commander Jeremy Hansen from southwestern Ontario, a Canadian astronaut, recently returned home as part of the Artemis II mission. That mission carried humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years and farther from earth than any people in human history. Think about that. A Canadian helping lead humanity’s return to deep space exploration is not only symbolic. It is a reminder that Canadian talent belongs at the front edge of great endeavours. The question before us is simple: Will our laws, policies and economic climate allow Canada to participate fully in the next era of space development, or will we once again watch opportunity leave our shores, as has happened too often after 10 years of the Liberals? The global space economy is no longer theoretical. It is real, and it is growing rapidly. It includes launch services, satellite deployment, communications, earth observation, defence applications, navigation, research, manufacturing, data services and technologies that we have not yet even imagined. The global space economy is expected to contribute in excess of a trillion dollars in just a few years and $1.8 trillion within a decade. It is an industry growing at nearly 10% a year. Countries around the world understand this, and they are competing for this investment. They are building launch capacity, they are creating clear regulatory pathways and they are moving with urgency. Canada also possesses natural advantages that many other countries do not. We are a vast nation with northern geography; we have access to remote corridors, coastal opportunities, strong aerospace clusters and world‑class research institutions such as universities that have been mentioned in the debate thus far; and we have the ingredients many countries would envy. The question is whether we have the policy environment to make use of them. Canada must understand this as well. When investors face uncertainty, as my colleague from Northumberland—Clarke just talked about, they go elsewhere. When approvals take too long, they go elsewhere. If governments confuse announcements with outcomes, they also go elsewhere. That is why regulatory certainty matters, and that is why it is puzzling that Bill C-28 would give the Liberal minister all the power to make decisions on what goes into space from behind closed doors. This would undermine transparency, and Parliament has every reason to be concerned. However, there are certainly positive elements in Bill C-28. It recognizes that launch and re-entry activities require a dedicated framework. What we are asking for is a draft of those details around that. The bill would address safety, liability, site certification and emergency powers, but legislation is only a beginning, and that is where there are gaping holes. The true test is execution, and that is a concern when the legislation would give all the power to one individual, the minister. Where is the regulatory framework? Can Canada approve projects in a timely manner? Can we attract private capital? Can we ensure public confidence? Can Canada build a reputation for competence and reliability? Those questions remain unanswered by the legislation. Another principle that must guide us from the beginning is transparency. Whenever governments are involved in strategically emerging sectors, and whenever public funds, public lands or public approvals are at stake, Canadians must know that decisions are being made fairly, openly and on merit. That principle matters all the more when recent contracts and infrastructure decisions have raised legitimate concerns, and when political connections and insider proximity to power seem to have trumped a framework brought about by professionals. Canadians are ambitious people. They support private sector growth, they support innovation and they do not want favouritism. A new industry must not become an old story. If Canada is serious about building leadership in the space economy, then procurement must be clean, selection processes must be credible and accountability must be absolute. Conservatives are in favour of enhancing Canada’s sovereignty and space capabilities, but we are not in favour of any framework that could become a blank cheque for Liberal insiders or foreign agents. Canadians have recently seen major public decisions raise legitimate questions. In Nova Scotia, the government announced a $200‑million agreement tied to the planned spaceport project, but it should be noted that the project’s proponent has publicly listed former Nova Scotia Liberal premier Stephen McNeil on its advisory board. At the transport committee, we also examined the Canada Infrastructure Bank loan connected to the Mersey River wind project and the concerns surrounding that process and its uneasy connection to Liberal insiders. These examples are exactly why emerging strategic sectors must begin the right way. Canadians should be confident that contracts are awarded on merit, public money is protected and proximity to power never outweighs public interest. This debate is also about something larger. It is about national confidence. Too often, Canada has grown comfortable thinking small. We should be a country that builds major projects, and certainly notwithstanding the record of the Liberal government, so let us not allow Bill C-28 to become a missed opportunity because it is too dependent on political will and not proper regulatory processes, administrative tribunals and the needed oversights. We should be a country that has the tax regulatory climate to set up a healthy private sector that invests in advanced industries. We should be a country that rewards innovators, engineers, tradespeople, entrepreneurs and workers who turn ideas into reality. We should be a country that looks forward. In communities like mine, we know what advanced industry looks like. We know the value of steel, precision manufacturing, logistics, defence, engineering and skilled trades. Those same capabilities can and should help power Canada’s next growth sectors, including aerospace and space technologies. That applies to ports, transportation corridors, energy and manufacturing as well. Bill C-28 now comes before Parliament with its gaping holes. It deserves careful study and thoughtful consideration at committee, because it needs much more detail. It deserves witness testimony from industry, regulators, legal experts, security experts, provincial partners and innovators on the ground. We should examine competitiveness. We should examine liability exposure. We should examine timelines. We should examine transparency safeguards. We should ensure that the final product would help Canada succeed in practice, not merely in press releases. Canada has the people, Canada has the talent, Canada has the geography, Canada has the industrial base and Canada has the history. What we need now is the seriousness to match it. I look forward to seeing the bill studied at committee, strengthened and judged by whether it helps Canada compete, build and lead in the years ahead.”

“I support the space industry. But this space bill gives too much decision-making power to the minister. It lacks clear rules and transparency.”

“Mr. Speaker, we agree. There is incredible economic opportunity in the space economy and in sectors related to it. Conservatives have always agreed with that. I know that my colleague from Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna identified in his thoughts in the House, going back to Diefenbaker, Mulroney and Harper, how we have helped advance that. What we are saying and have said consistently in only the first two hours of debate on this piece of legislation is that there are the gaping holes in Bill C-28 that would rest all the power with the minister to make those decisions. That causes grave concerns around Liberal insider access. It certainly is not a matter of transparency. Where are the rules, where—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The space agency is not a security or spy agency. It does not have the legal power to do security checks on space cargo. I am asking the member if he is worried that the minister is relying on an agency that cannot do that job.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is an industrious member of the transport committee. I learn more each time I speak with him. Earlier today, the Minister of Transport told me in response to a question that the people at the Canadian Space Agency would help him make sure that payloads have national security screening. There would be no statutory duty to consult DND or CSIS. The Canadian Space Agency is not a security or intelligence body. It has no statutory mandate to conduct national security investigations. It has expertise but zero authority. Is the member concerned that the minister would depend on an agency to do something it is not meant to do?”

“We need intelligence and defence experts to study this space bill at committee. It spends a lot of money, but it does not protect us from foreign interference.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the vice-chair of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, for his great work on this project and on so many others. The member raises excellent points. The CSA is not the expert on defence, and that is why we need to hear from experts at committee, such as CSIS, as the member mentioned, and others, that can address it. If we are going to invest this kind of money into a project such as the one that is being proposed, where are the safeguards against foreign interference? Where are the safeguards against influence by others? Those questions have not been asked, nor does the legislation address how that would happen.”

• Little substance
  ?

  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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this space bill. It makes taxpayers pay if space launches fail, but lets rich private investors keep all the profits.”

“Mr. Speaker, the new Liberal space bill reads like yet another one-sided deal. Taxpayers would cover the risk, while Liberal friends and wealthy private investors would collect the reward. If launches fail, Canada pays. If they succeed, the profits are privatized. Why is the government proposing building a space program where the public carries the liability but the benefits are reserved for a select few?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 →

“This bill should not make taxpayers pay for everything if something goes wrong with a space launch. The committee studying this bill needs to add better rules and oversight for private companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is the crux of this. Why would all the liability be on the taxpayer if things do not go right? Those are the questions we want to ask as the bill is studied at committee. Those are the oversights, rules and transparency that need to be added. Do not get me wrong; there is obviously a role for the private sector. Conservatives have always believed there is a great role for the private sector. That has certainly been proven in the space economy throughout the years and in our leadership on the Canadarm and so many other programs, but there needs to be an equal weighting because the private sector will invest where there is certainty and regulatory oversight. That is what needs to happen.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not set clear rules. Instead, it gives the minister too much power to make decisions. Without clear rules, businesses will not invest in our space industry.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about transforming the great potential of the space economy into action. One of the things that we as Conservatives believe is that this bill has massive, gaping holes, in terms of no regulatory framework. It is certainly a blank cheque to the minister to make decisions. That lack of regulatory certainty is going to drive private sector investment in the space economy away. How do we attract private sector investment when there is no certainty? The private sector needs regulatory certainty in order to invest. Would the member care to comment on that?”

“This bill does not protect our national security. It leaves out security reviews, and the Canadian Space Agency does not have the job or power to keep us safe. Other countries protect themselves from these risks, but this bill does nothing to stop dangerous technology from falling into the wrong hands.”

“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary may or may not be aware, but the Minister of Transport, when I questioned him today about the glaring gaps in national security screening, said not to worry because we have the Canadian Space Agency. Well, the Canadian Space Agency has no national security mandate. In fact, the bill itself, Bill C-28, is completely silent on CSIS or any other national security review. If the Canadian Space Agency has expertise, maybe on a technological basis, but no authority when it comes to national security, who is in charge of making sure that our system is not going to be compromised? We can look at the United Kingdom and the United States: They have clear national security to make sure there are not dual-use technologies that can be applied against their people. There is nothing in this bill on that.”

“My community cares about space launches, but we also need help cleaning up abandoned boats along our coast. The government ended the program to remove them. I want to know when they will reopen it.”

“Mr. Speaker, in communities like mine there is a lot of ambition around space launches. Communities like mine are still waiting to know when we are going to get a chance to clean up derelict vessels around the coastline. I have proponents in my communities who want to remove the boats, but the Liberals defunded and closed the program. When are you going to reopen it and deliver relief to my communities?”

“This bill has big goals for a Canadian space program, but it has very few details. It leaves too many decisions to the government instead of explaining the plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss this important bill. It is a real opportunity to talk about issues that are important to our communities. The government has been incredibly ambitious with this bill, talking about the possibility of launching rockets into space from Canada and developing a national space program by 2028. Yet, in front of us we have a bill that is very easy reading because, at only 10 pages, it sketches out the briefest of details around what that program might look like. It is going to be a challenge for the transport committee to think about how to operationalize this and how to think about asking the government where it is heading on this. One of the characteristics that is emerging from this government, which we really see in this bill, is a trend towards creating a new organization, putting together very thin details around it and then leaving it to the executive branch of government to sort out, with an incredible amount of discretion. What that does under these circumstances is create a real conundrum. It creates a situation where, as constructive members of a loyal opposition, we want to work with this government to realize the ambitions of Canada and to build Canada into the kind of country that we can all be proud of. However, we find ourselves facing these situations without a lot of guidance from the government about where it wants to go. The ambitions associated with this bill are galactic, but the realities are closer to an abandoned—”

“This space launch bill needs more details and better oversight. The government is spending a lot of money to lease land in Nova Scotia for rocket launches, and we need to look into that deal. The bill also leaves too many decisions to ministers instead of Parliament, and it does not do enough to address national security.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is actually a wonderful opportunity to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix. I was starting to talk about the fact that the bill is incredibly ambitious. It has ambitions of galactic proportions, in fact, looking to be able to launch Canadian rockets into space and to enhance our ability to participate in a space program. However, one of the challenges is that right now, the program looks like a gravel pit or a gravel-covered lot in Nova Scotia. I am sure the site was selected for a good reason. I am sure it provides an optimal location to be able to launch from, but I think it is going to be important from an oversight perspective to be able to look at and examine the economics of this deal. We have a very unusual set of circumstances. In this particular case, there was no need, it looks like, from the reports, to actually expropriate this great location. It looks like there was in fact an entity that got there. This was originally, I believe, Crown land and was in fact being leased out to someone who has made what might be a deal of galactic proportions, to be able to lease that space back to the government for a very large amount of money. What I struggle with under these circumstances is that the need to examine this transaction comes at a time when the Liberal government has actually taken steps in the House, in the last 24 hours, to make it harder to do that. I was in the ethics committee last night for several hours, listening to some of my colleagues from across the aisle speak at great length and with incredible lung capacity to the reasons the committee should not, in fact, get access to documents that the members of the committee were seeking in order to examine matters related to the Prime Minister’s schedule, to conflicts of interest and to other matters that Canadians really deserve to be able to see into. Under the conditions we are in, in this country, if we really are, as the Prime Minister says, in a time of rupture, it is so important for the best ideas to rise to the top. There is only one way for us to get the best ideas, and that is to subject them to detailed questioning and analysis. It is in that spirit that we approach our duties with respect to the ethics committee. Of course, everyone knows the government wants to live up to its expectations, but the reason that conflict of interest screens exist and committees like the ethics committee exist is that we are all human. This oversight, and the knowledge that this oversight is there, enables us to be crisp in our adherence to the law and to really have it on our minds all the time, which is so important when we are dealing with taxpayer dollars. That takes me back to the bill and to the fact that already, within hours, frankly, of the initiative being announced, we have some questions as to the financial circumstances around the selection and lease of the site. On top of that, what we layer onto that is a bill that is really and truly quite thin in terms of its regulation. It does not answer some really important questions around how decisions are made, preferring instead to leave them to the discretion of the executive branch of the government. The thing about the executive branch of the government is that it does not operate in this place. It operates across the street and in various other buildings around the parliamentary precinct. It is so important to have that parliamentary oversight, as we think about questions around the safety and security of something as important as a space program, and as we think about the intelligence implications and the other matters that need to be taken into account when we are launching an ambitious program such as this. We are examining the bill at a time when the government has taken some steps, in the last 24 hours, to establish sort of an iron control over committees, which it would be able to use to, quite frankly, stifle debate on these issues. Earlier, one of my colleagues pointed out that in answer to a question about this act, one of the government members involved in transport, I think it might have even been one of the parliamentary secretaries, was discussing how they would be getting information like this. They would be working things out with the Canadian Space Agency. That is of great concern to us because the Canadian Space Agency, while a very important organization, is not an organization that has its focus on security and intelligence matters. There are defence implications to a space program like this. There are commercial implications. There are procurement implications. It really is one of those areas where the more I think about it, the more I see the need for a whole-of-government approach. That is not to create additional bureaucracies but to make sure the legislation is precise and clear enough that different parts of the government, different agencies, understand what their roles and responsibilities are and so that regulations around this program can be developed in a sensible and efficient way that would make sure Canada gets the most out of this program at this very important time. If we are going to build our country in a way that creates good jobs for the next generation, then it is so important to handle this initiative in a responsible way. It is going to be up to the transport committee, and I know my colleagues will do a good job in thinking the bill through. With that, I thank all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, who have contributed to making this important program launch in a good way. I look forward to answering questions about my remarks.”

“This bill is a good opportunity, but it does not have enough detail. We want to study it in committee and add more to it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for both his ambition and his optimism around this. If the bill does speak for itself, it does so very quietly, because it is quite thin on detail. Yes, we agree with the members across the aisle that there is an opportunity here, and we look forward to probing that opportunity in committee and being able to put some substance on the bill.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The government says this space bill matches laws in the U.K. and the U.S. But the U.K. requires checks on national security, and the U.S. lets lawmakers decide who gets financial protection. Why does this bill do neither?”

“Mr. Speaker, the government has said multiple times that this would align Canada with other G7 countries, like the U.K. and the United States. The legislation in the U.K., the Outer Space Act 1986, literally says that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impede national security. In the United States, Congress decided that the giving of indemnification to participants in the space industry should be decided by Congress and not by the administration itself. Why would this legislation do neither?”

“This space bill promises big things, but it is missing too many important details and rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I was a little girl, I thought these spaceships went to the moon and beyond through magic and that it was a wonderful, amazing illusion. As I look at this bill, I see yet another example of bills that are magic and illusion in the sense that they purport to put us on even ground with the G7 and to do wonderful and amazing things to propel Canada ahead in the world, but there is an awful lot missing when we look under the covers, including the kind of regulation and detail my colleague just outlined.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“This bill gives the minister too much power and ignores Parliament. I want to know if the member thinks giving the minister full control without our debate is a good idea.”

“Mr. Speaker, what we see here is yet another attempt by a Liberal minister, and the Liberal government, to consolidate power around the office of the minister in giving full discretion to the minister and overlooking the importance of parliamentary oversight, debate and listening to other opinions, which, of course, leads to questions of transparency. I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks it is a good idea to consolidate power in the hands of the minister and not allow parliamentarians to have a fulsome debate on an important issue like this.”