Canadian Space Launch Act

Bill C-28, Canadian Space Launch Act · Second reading · now at second reading in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-28 would do

The bill would create legal rules under the Aeronautics Act for space launches and re-entry activities in Canada. It would expand regulation powers over launch vehicles, re-entry vehicles, and the operation and zoning of launch sites. The bill would also let the Minister of Transport indemnify operators for third-party damages in specific public interest cases, or require operators to indemnify the government. Additionally, it would give the minister emergency powers to stop launches for safety or security reasons.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

52 statements

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“The government makes big promises with this space bill and other laws, but leaves out the details. They ask Canadians to just trust them. I am worried they are taking too much power for themselves and will not use it well.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 19 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I really respect the fact that the government and my colleagues across the way are struggling to meet the world where it is and to find a good response for Canada in that context. However, there is a disturbing trend, and it does not just come through Bill C-28. It has also shown up in other legislation, like in the acts enabling the Major Projects Office or Build Canada Homes, where there is an ambitious, big, splashy announcement made and promises made that are pie in the sky, sky-high and into orbit, but when we look at the details, the message is, “Just trust us. We have your back.” In a circumstance where the government is undeniably popular right now, that is one thing, but I hope Canadians do not end up with buyer’s remorse down the road when they find out that power has been consolidated in a group of people who do not know how to wield it wisely.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The government is spending $200 million on a space launch site in Nova Scotia, but all that exists is a small concrete pad. The company building it is in deep financial trouble, yet the government bought no ownership in it and leases the land at a huge markup. I want the government to make all the contracts public, explain why taxpayers got no shares in the company, and have the ethics commissioner investigate.”
  • A repeated line

    “The risk of regulatory capture is high.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, today we are looking at Bill C-28, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other acts. Before I even get into this bill on Canadian space launches, I would say that things may already be going off track. Let me explain. On March 21, Marie Lumsden, who lives in the small community of Canso, Nova Scotia, woke up early. She lives three kilometres from the famous launch site, which is, I imagine, the first of the major projects we are looking at today. She put on her boots and grabbed her camera to go see what had been announced with such great fanfare. There was talk of a $200-million investment and a site that the government was so proud of. It was the dawn of a new era. When 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, which is roughly the size of a campsite for a 21-foot trailer. All of this cost the government $200 million, as it so proudly announced. I am not talking about this here to be oppositional or to create a narrative. I 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. For many weeks now, citizens, journalists, financial analysts and, now, parliamentary committee members have been asking the same questions. What we saw yesterday in the House was quite something. We have questions. Canadians have questions. Government Motion No. 9 was adopted, curtailing our ability to ask the government these questions and hold it accountable. Once again, we have a fine example of what is coming our way over the next few years. The questions are serious and they deserve answers. Canadians 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. I think Canadians deserve answers. Today, I am just going to present some facts and ask the government if it has anything to say in response. Let us talk about Maritime Launch Services, the publicly traded company responsible for this $200-million launch site. The financial statements are public, so we are not making this up. This information is public, and the company is registered with SEDAR+. For those tuning in who would like to check it out, SEDAR+ is Canada’s official securities registry. The financial statements tell us three things. First, in 2025, Maritime Launch Services generated $14,900 in revenue—not $14 million in revenue, but $14,900, with no extra zeros. We are talking about nearly $15,000. That is a figure that, I think, is highly significant. Second, that same year, the company posted a loss of $47 million. It had nearly $70,000 in cash. Those figures are not exactly impressive. These facts are public knowledge, and I think that is what is drawing attention to the issues. Third, and 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. 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; the 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. They decided it made sense. That is $20 million for 10 years. 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. 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. 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. How much does the company pay the government to lease this land? That is the question. The company pays $13,500 a year plus taxes because, of course, there are always taxes. 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. The company does not own the land. Think about it. If 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, but that does not seem to be the case. The government did not get any shares in the company in return for its investment. 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. To 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. That is not what I am criticizing. Canada has a rich history of space exploration. What 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. We will have to see, because the sovereign wealth fund was just announced yesterday. The Liberals are drawing inspiration from some very flashy buzzwords and are following Norway’s example in particular. Does the Liberal plan exist anywhere else? Let us look at what Norway did. Andøya Space, based in Norway, has the infrastructure needed to carry out successful launches. It cost the equivalent of $46 million Canadian. The Norwegian government owns 90% of the company. 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. We are talking about public funds here. There have been successful launches in Norway. It is working. We should look to this model for inspiration. I 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? First, 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. Norway has a 90% ownership stake in the Norwegian company. Canada has zero stake. Third, and I want to emphasize this point, because 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. That 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. Questions 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. Some weeks ago, the minister proudly announced that this was a historic investment. He talked about Canada’s sovereignty, Canada’s future and Canadian ambition. 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. They took complete control so that we would stop asking questions. That is not how a government should act. Democracy is all about transparency. Clearly, the current government does not understand that. It 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. Why are parliamentarians being asked to approve a regulatory framework after $200 million was spent? Why were rules not established beforehand? I will close with this question: Why is there no transparency, when that is what all Canadians expect from the government?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The Liberals make big promises about major projects, but they never build them. They talk about huge spending while families cannot afford basic things like groceries.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 22 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “People are struggling to make ends meet.”

    Said 13 times by 10 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was taking notes because that is a good question. The frustration is very real. The member mentioned long-term vision, but people have been waiting for 11 years and are still waiting. The Liberals are very good at making announcements that end up being empty promises. There are no shovels in the ground. They just talk about huge, multi-billion dollar projects, while families are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals keep unveiling major projects that they say are on their way and telling us how wonderful they will be, but there are no results. Unfortunately, it is all smoke and mirrors. That is the result. A recent report states that Canadians were impressed with the Prime Minister’s trips, which cost over half a million dollars in in-flight catering alone, but that they are extremely disappointed that he has failed to deliver on affordability issues. That is people’s real-life experiences talking. When my colleague talks to his constituents, he should take a look at the Angus Reid report, which says that people were pleased to see the Prime Minister travelling but that they are extremely disappointed that they cannot afford groceries despite working so hard.

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“The government gives too much money to a space company. This bill also gives the minister full power to choose who gets permits. I worry this will only help government insiders and lobbyists.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member’s big contribution on this topic today, particularly about the uneasy relationship the government has with MLS. It seems crazy to me that something that is rented for $13,500 per year is effectively receiving $55,000 a day from the Government of Canada. Bear in mind that this property is owned by the Province of Nova Scotia. There are other key elements in this bill that would allow the minister to use total discretion in who he can give permits to and under what terms. Does the member feel that this will benefit insiders, well-connected Liberals and lobbyists?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“I want the government to be transparent about its land deal with Maritime Launch Services. A piece of land leased for $13,000 a year is now being subleased for $20 million a year to people connected to the government. This bill hurts the public's trust.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we agree that what we are experiencing here is unbelievable. A piece of land that was being leased for $13,000 a year is now being subleased for $20 million a year. If we look up the owners of Maritime Launch Services, it turns out that they are all well connected to the government. All we are asking for is transparency. Clearly, there has been no transparency from the start of this Parliament. There has been no collaboration either. Just yesterday, we witnessed an unprecedented total breakdown in collaboration and a refusal to answer questions. The answer is that Bill C-28 is not paving the way for greater trust in our institutions. On the contrary, it is undermining trust, because paying $20 million for a piece of vacant land that is being leased for $13,000 a year and is not owned by the federal government is bound to sap the public’s trust.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“People in my riding are tired of the government spending their tax money and leaving them with less. The government promises to send some money back, but people just want to keep their own money. They need it to pay for food, gas, and housing.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • 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
  • A repeated line

    “People are struggling to make ends meet.”

    Said 13 times by 10 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would love to share what my constituents and other Quebeckers are telling me. They are fed up with the empty promises they keep hearing from this government, which takes their tax dollars, spends it on all kinds of ideological projects and leaves them with less in their pockets. The Liberals then tell them not to worry, because they are going to get a bit of money back, to make things a little easier. Clearly, people are struggling to make ends meet, so they are going to take the cheque. In any case, it is basically their own money being returned to them. Can members guess what people really want? They want to keep their money in their pockets. They want to be able to make it through the month, paying for groceries, gas and their mortgage or rent. That is what they want.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The Liberals only want things done their way. They accuse anyone who disagrees with them of blocking their work.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Signal 0 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, that is a very good question. It is simple. The Liberals just want things to happen how they want, when they want and the way they want. Anyone who does not think like them is guilty of obstruction. That is my answer, and that is what the government has been showing us for almost a year now.

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“I want to know why the government wants this space law after already spending $200 million on a spaceport project. I am asking if this bill just gives money to government insiders while making taxpayers take all the risk.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, why is the government asking Parliament to approve a discretionary regulatory framework after it has already handed $200 million to a specific spaceport project on subleased land that could have been bought for a fraction of the cost? Is the principle of Bill C-28 really just about writing a blank cheque to Liberal insiders, while leaving taxpayers to cover the unlimited liability?

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“I agree that we should honour Marc Garneau. Even though we were in different parties, I think he is a hero for his service in the navy, in space, and in government.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 51 of 100

    Only 8% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned Marc Garneau. I think this is important, because many of us in the House knew him. In addition to his successful career in the navy, he ended up leading the Canadian Space Agency. Later on he became a Liberal member of Parliament and eventually a minister. I remember Mr. Garneau very well. When I first came to the House, we may have had our political differences, but I have always believed him to be a hero, and I do believe we need to honour our veterans and honour public service. I thank the member opposite for mentioning the service of Marc Garneau.

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“Why are the rules for space launch approvals and liability not written directly into the law? I worry the minister wants to help favored companies without any oversight from Parliament.”
  • A repeated line

    “The risk of regulatory capture is high.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in a specialized industry like space, the risk of regulatory capture is high. Why are the criteria for approval and indemnity not written in law? Is it because the minister wants the power to reward well-connected firms behind closed doors, without a single second of parliamentary oversight?

Dan Albas, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna

Conservative
“This bill has national security gaps. It does not include our intelligence agency or the RCMP, and the space agency does not handle security. Does the member agree the bill needs to be changed to fix this?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the minister earlier this morning about the gaps in the bill when it comes to national security, he said not to worry and that we would be working with the Canadian Space Agency. However, the Canadian Space Agency does not do national security or intelligence, nor does it have a mandate to do so. CSIS is not included in the bill, and neither is the RCMP. Does the member believe that there needs to be a solid reprisal or a change to the bill to address this?

Kurt Holman, London—Fanshawe

Conservative
“Canada should have its own space program, but I do not support this bill as it is written. It gives the minister too much power and leaves important rules to be decided later behind closed doors. It does not protect tax dollars or national security well enough.”
  • A repeated line

    “We have seen this movie before.”

    Said 6 times by 6 members since April 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my Conservative colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. Canada should be a leader in space. I will admit that this is something that has fascinated me since I was a kid. Like many Canadians, I grew up watching Star Trek and imagining what the future could look like beyond our planet. That sense of wonder is shared by many Canadians and has helped drive what we have achieved in space. In 1962, under former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, Alouette I made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite. Since then, Canadians have built on that legacy. Astronauts such as Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield have carried our flag into orbit. Canadian innovation gave the world the Canadarm. More recently, Canada played a key role in the Artemis II mission, with Jeremy Hansen taking part in the historic journey of circling the moon and returning to earth. It is a powerful example of what we can achieve through partnership, while also reminding us why strengthening our own capabilities matters. Let me be clear that Conservatives support building Canada’s space capabilities. We support sovereignty. We support protecting Canada’s national security. We support Canadian workers, engineers and innovators competing in a growing global space economy. Bill C-28 speaks to a real opportunity. Canada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability. That is a gap and a chance to lead. If done properly, this could strengthen our economy, reinforce our sovereignty and position Canada as a serious player in the next generation of space activity. One day, I would love to see places like the London International Airport play a role in that future. We have strong infrastructure and a skilled workforce. That may be further down the road, but it reflects the kind of ambition we should have as a country. However, ambition alone is not strong enough, because the question before us is not whether Canada should participate in space, but whether this bill would set us up to do it in the right way. That is where the concerns arise, because as it stands, Bill C-28 would put too much power in the hands of the minister without leaving key rules and safeguards to be worked out later. In plain language, it asks Canadians to accept the framework first and trust the rules, which will come later. That is not how we build durable policy. It is how we create a system that functions like a blank cheque. This bill would not even clearly define what a launch is. Instead, it would push those basic rules off to be decided later. At the same time, it would give the minister broad control over who gets approved, who gets denied and what conditions apply. It would allow the minister to change the financial rules and protect companies from liability. In some cases, it would limit the ways decisions could be appealed or reviewed independently. What we are left with is a framework that would be flexible where it should be firm and discretionary where it should be accountable. That would be concerning on its own, but Canadians are already asking a more immediate question: How is it that, what is, today, little more than a gravel lot and a concrete pad on Crown land, which was leased for $13,500 a year, adds up to a $200-million federal agreement before Parliament has even been asked to approve the framework governing it? At its core, this is a question about whether Parliament sets the rules or whether those rules are written later behind closed doors. Who set that price? What valuation was used? Was there a competitive process? What exactly are taxpayers receiving in return? Who carries the risk if this project does not deliver? Canadians are not funding a finished asset. They are funding a project still under development in a market that remains uncertain. That makes getting this right even more important. This is where the broader concern comes into focus, because this is not an isolated situation. We have seen this pattern before. With ArriveCAN, what began as a simple app, originally estimated at about $80,000, ballooned to nearly $60 million, which is roughly 750 times over budget. A well-connected firm benefited from a process that lacked transparency, and Canadians were left with the bill. More recently, we are seeing a $300-million e-prescribing program, PrescribeIT, come under serious scrutiny. After nearly a decade, it is used for less than 5% of prescriptions, and key questions remain about where the money went and who benefited. These are different files and different departments, but it is the same Liberal team and the same underlying problem, which is large commitments of public money, limited transparency and unclear outcomes. At the end of it, Canadians are left asking what exactly they paid for. These are just a few of the many examples Canadians have become used to. From the SNC-Lavalin affair, to the WE Charity scandal and the green slush fund, there is a reason Canadians are not comfortable handing any government a blank cheque. This matters because Bill C-28 is not being introduced in a vacuum. It is being introduced in a context where trust in how large public projects are managed has been eroded. When a bill proposes to give broad power to ministers, to leave key rules for later and to move forward without clear safeguards, Canadians are right to be cautious. This is also a national security issue. Space is no longer just about exploration. It is about communication, surveillance, navigation, defence and sovereignty. Any general launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions—

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 112

  1. Government Orders Canadian Space Launch Act 116 statements
  2. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  3. Oral Questions Natural Resources 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Transportation 2 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  6. Oral Questions Labour 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Seniors 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Housing 3 statements
  9. Oral Questions Finance 18 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Ethics 6 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Grocery Industry 2 statements
  15. Government Orders Canadian Space Launch Act 25 statements
  16. Oral Questions Pharmacare 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements