“Canada imports billions of dollars in foreign oil while making it harder to use our own oil from Alberta and Saskatchewan. If we had built our pipelines, our economy would be much better off. I want to know if the minister thinks this is fair.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was another speech made today, probably a little more watched than this one, from our leader, in Calgary, talking about national unity. When I look at the financial situation facing Canada today, one of the things I cannot help but think about is how different things would be had pipelines, which were already under way in 2015, been built to completion. Right now, we are in a circumstance where our country is bringing in billions of dollars’ worth of oil from countries like Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, to the east coast, and the regulations at play are not nearly as rigorous for that oil as they are for oil coming from Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am wondering if the hon. minister thinks that is fair and if he has some thoughts on the impact that has on the Canadian economy.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“The government is spending $50 billion on new military equipment, but it has no national defence strategy. Our allies are criticizing us for this. Without a real plan, this spending will fail.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member is from Halifax, where I served many years in the navy. This is $50 billion for the “most ambitious defence rebuild in a generation”, ships, submarines, fighter jets, the Defence Investment Agency and the defence investment strategy. It all sounds impressive. Here is the reality. The Liberals have left Canada with no national security strategy or national defence strategy. Experts, and even worse, our allies are calling us out. Indeed, the Liberals’ own “Our North, Strong and Free” plan, which is not a strategy, calls for Canada to have a national security strategy every four years, yet we have none. Does the member for Halifax agree that they are putting the cart before the horse and that, without a national security strategy, the DIA and the DIS are doomed to fail?”

“Nova Scotia rents land to Maritime Launch Services for about $13,500 a year, but the federal government gives the company $55,000 a day. I want to know if the member thinks that is a good use of tax dollars.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Province of Nova Scotia leases the Maritime Launch Services land for approximately $13,500 per year, yet through the federal agreement that we are going to be debating tonight, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 a day. That is a 400,000% increase. Does the member think that is really, truly good value for money?”

“I do not support spending $200 million on Maritime Launch Services. The government is giving public money to a private company without owning the facility or protecting taxpayers from the risks.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes. I want to begin where we should always begin, with judgment. Archibald Lampman, a Canadian poet who worked right here in Ottawa, once wrote, “The pulse of the great machine goes on forever, dead and blind, and no voice or sound of human will disturbs its deep and ceaseless grind.” The reason I share this is because Canadians are watching the decision about Maritime Launch Services in such bewilderment. They are asking if this is an actual attempt at Canadian space sovereignty or something else altogether. Many who have looked into this decision closely have questions. The more they look and the more they research, the more this looks like a decision that was hastily made and that just happens to support well-connected Liberal insiders and lobbyists surrounding Maritime Launch Services. The Liberal members will stand in this House and argue this $200-million expenditure is a necessary investment to secure Canada’s place in a global space economy. They will justify this spending, just as Liberals always justify deficit spending, to grow the economy, meet the moment, invest in our future and protect our sovereignty. We have heard it all before, over and over again, with the superclusters, the SDTC green slush fund, planting billions of trees and subsidizing EV battery plants. I could go on and on. Liberals will always find new ways to burn tax dollars on projects that benefit Liberal friends and insiders, but these projects always fizzle out and leave nothing but debt and unanswered questions behind. Let us look at the so-called space sovereignty spending, the $20 million in this allocation. If this was truly a national investment, we would, of course, be building a national asset. As an example, when Norway decided it needed its own sovereign launch capacity, it acted with the discipline of a sovereign state. It built its own infrastructure, it owns the land, it owns the pad and it owns the capability. It has an asset directly under its control. Who owns NASA? The people of the United States through the U.S. government. Who will own Maritime Launch Services, the spaceport that we are talking about? This is where it gets a tad murky. At the present time, online information suggests that 26% of the ownership is held by individuals, close to 12% is listed as institutional owners and the remaining balance of 60% is unknown. This is for a national asset, something that the Liberals tell us is necessary for our space sovereignty. In other words, the Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what other democratic countries are doing when it comes to protecting and creating space sovereignty. This means we are not building a true national asset. Instead, we are building a private company’s balance sheet. We are paying $200 million for the privilege of using a facility we do not own, under terms that strip away our sovereign leverage and hand it to a private entity. That is the difference between acquiring an asset and assuming an obligation. They are not the same thing. Make no mistake, this is giving away public tax dollars to create private equity, a scheme that a Brookfield investor would no doubt approve of. The government claims this is about growing the economy, yet the math reveals a different reality. This is not a market player; it is a public dependency. When 97% of a company’s revenue is derived from a single taxpayer-funded contract, that is not a commercial enterprise. That is a ward of the state. We are told that this is a burgeoning spaceport, yet look at the reality at Spaceport Nova Scotia this week. We are being asked to cheer for suborbital test flights that generate zero revenue and serve only as public relations demonstrations for a foreign firm. In this case, we have a launch happening very soon with T-Minus Engineering testing their technology on our soil. Who is T-Minus Engineering? It is a privately held Dutch company. The government’s position relies on the claim that we are buying capability, but are we really? How can this Liberal government claim to be buying capability when the regulatory framework to govern that very capability does not even yet exist? Now, the Minister of Transport had admitted in this House that we needed Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, to establish a proper framework. Meanwhile, the Liberals are bypassing the legislative process, stretching the outdated Aeronautics Act to fit rocket science and pushing the machine forward without the very safety, environmental and financial guards they admit are necessary. Let me just say this again. Two foreign-owned, Dutch Barracuda rockets will be tested suborbitally, and they are paying no revenue to Maritime Launch Services. Through public disclosure, we can see that this is, again, a company 90% of whose revenue is from one single contract with the Government of Canada. The government claims this arrangement protects the national interest, but it is also ignoring that with these tests it is putting on right now and the launch pad, the Government of Canada bears the ultimate legal and financial liability. As proposed within Bill C-28, the minister gets to pick what private operators are indemnified and what public taxpayers will pay in case of a catastrophic accident or spill over the ocean. Those things do happen. This would fall on the Government of Canada. Again, if these rockets fail, cause damage or contaminate our water, the responsibility does not reside with the public firm, which is the Dutch company I was mentioning, nor with MLS itself, but with the Canadian taxpayer. We are socializing the risk of catastrophic failure while privatizing the potential gain for shareholders and lobbyists. Let me address now the financial absurdity at the heart of this deal. The provincial government lets this land for roughly $13,500 per year, yet, through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year. This is not an investment. This is an excessive, indefensible transfer of wealth. While the public carries the liability, the corporate structure shows all the hallmarks of a venture designed to enrich the insiders rather than to launch satellites. We have seen massive share dilution, with hundreds of millions of shares issued while insiders reduce their own exposure. The Liberals have been totally silent about this. This is not how a healthy, productive market behaves. This is an inversion of market principles, where the government is using public money to insulate a company from the rigours of competition, or from the risks that come from the business itself. The government’s position is that we must pay this price to play this game. My position is that we are paying a premium so private corporations like MLS can play the game. Some might ask why Conservatives are not ambitious enough, why we are not for the type of investment this represents for our space sovereignty. Well, ambition is not the issue here. We all want a robust Canadian space sector, but ambition without discipline is a policy of failure. By the government’s own test, the capability is not demonstrated. The value is not realized. Ownership is absent, and the risk is entirely public. This is not an investment. This is an obligation with downside exposure. Canadians are paying up front, bearing the risk and carrying the liability for a capability that does not yet exist. We are being asked to trust the great machine as it grinds onward, indifferent to the taxpayer. As Conservatives, we refuse to participate in this gamble with other people’s money. For these reasons, we cannot support this allocation. Again, I would just remind the government that this is not a case of problem and solution, where the problem is a lack of space sovereignty and the solution is MLS. This solution has been imposed on the Canadian taxpayer. Conservatives will not support it, and we will fight against a government that puts its own needs and those of insiders before our sovereign ability to advance this field in a proper fashion.”

“The government is spending hundreds of millions of public dollars on space services from a private company instead of owning the equipment itself. Norway built its own space capacity for far less money. Canada should own this equipment directly or spend the money on other priorities.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are debating $20 million, one of 20 years’ worth of payments that are going to a private company for an asset that we would never own. As I mentioned, in Norway, when they wanted to create sovereign space capacity, for approximately $30 million, they did it themselves. Here, we would be giving $200 million. I would ask the member opposite what $200 million could do in this economy. There are so many other priorities that would be better suited from here, but perhaps, if the Department of National Defence needs this capacity, it should own the asset, operate the asset and get the benefits to Canadians, not to MLS.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 99 of 100

  Of this reply, 98% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The government wants to take $20 million from the military budget to help a private company that was near bankruptcy. I want us to talk about that choice instead of other issues. The government chose to help this company instead of helping seniors who are also struggling.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about $20 million that would be allocated from the Department of National Defence and given to a private company. As much as I appreciate the member’s concern for seniors, the fact is that if we as an opposition, whether the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Greens or the Conservatives, simply talk about anything other than what the government is actually doing, it is taking our money and giving it to a private interest. There are already signs of huge profits being taken for a company that, a year ago, disclosed to its investors that it was not a going concern, meaning it was close to bankruptcy. I recognize that under the Liberals, not only are seniors close to bankruptcy but MLS was too. Where did the government choose to put its money in bailing out MLS versus seniors? That is what we are here to talk about, and that is what I will be talking about here tonight.”

“The government is leasing land for $20 million a year that was previously leased for only $13,500. I want the government to release all the documents about this deal so Canadians can see what happened.”

“Mr. Speaker, what a weird day of events. Today we celebrated an astronaut who represents the pinnacle of the Canadian space program, and all members of the House were applauding that, as we should. However, Liberals are now trying to defend a tax boondoggle whereby a piece of land leased for $13,500 a year is being re-leased to the government for $20 million a year. My question for my colleague is this: How important is it that we get full transparency and that the government releases all the documents around this deal to show Canadians exactly what happened there?”

• Vague
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Clarity 44 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“The government is hiding the details on this project. Norway spent 40 million dollars to build and own their own system, but the Liberals want to give 200 million dollars of public money away. We need real answers, and a committee should order the government to hand over the documents.”

“Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying. The government has gone completely radio silent when it comes to transparency on this. It is claiming that MLS answers a problem it has not properly defined. As I said, in Norway they spent about $40 million to create their own infrastructure, which the people own. The Liberals would be giving $200 million of taxpayer money, financed by bondholders. We deserve answers. Maybe the member might want to go to the national defence committee and ask for a production order in relation to this.”

“I am moving to cut 20 million dollars from the budget. Canada should be able to launch its own rockets, but the government has not shown that this 200-million-dollar spaceport deal is a good use of tax money. It must answer basic questions about the contract and how the company was chosen.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to share my time with the hon. member, who so well articulated why this is an opposed item for His Majesty’s loyal opposition. I would like to start my remarks with a quote from the installation speech of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Louise Arbour, the 31st Governor General of Canada. This is a quote from the speech she gave in the other place this morning to assembled guests and dignitaries, as well as to all Canadians. She said: Humanity has always sought to go further, to push the boundaries. And to go higher, as our Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen did on his mission into space. How could anyone be anything other than awestruck by the thought that he set his eyes on places no other human being had ever seen before? I say this with confidence: let us not slow our momentum toward progress out of fear of differences. Extreme polarization is dangerous—but so is extreme consensus. It is through our differences, and our fundamental right to express them, that we will nourish critical thinking, creativity and innovation. It is through our differences that we will build our common future. As Canadians, we have the extraordinary privilege of living in a mature democracy. We benefit from strong institutions that allow different views to be expressed. I offer that excerpt from the remarks of Her Excellency because it is regrettable that some who are new to this place do not know and some maybe have forgotten what it is that we are to do here and who we are doing it for. The act of opposition exercised by His Majesty’s loyal opposition, and, in fact, by all members who are not in government, which is not the people in the governing party but members of the executive, is accountability. However, this discussion and debate, particularly around this $20 million annually or $200 million over 10 years, has been framed by some people, when Conservatives raise legitimate questions, as being an act of disloyalty, so let us get a couple of things clear. Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil. That is a legitimate objective. Canada has a proud history in space, as noted by Her Excellency, in the recent successful journey of Colonel Jeremy Hansen, but there are also the Canadarm or Canadarm2; Marc Garneau, who was the first Canadian in space, in the year I was born, I would note; Roberta Bondar, who was the first Canadian woman in space; Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut who commanded the International Space Station; and many men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to humanity’s continued reach for the stars. The Canadian Space Agency says that a commercial launch is “a natural evolution” for Canada’s space sector, and I agree with this objective. The question is not whether Canada should pursue sovereign launch capability, as my hon. colleague noted previously. The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability. When Conservatives vote against, for example, a budget that includes spending on national defence, we hear the cries from Liberal members, “They hate the military,” and, “Why don’t they love Canada?” That is an awful thing to hear. I believe the Liberals actually know better. We all ran and were elected to serve the people of this great country, and there are more than a few of us who have put on the uniform to serve our country. I thank the men and women who came before us, and the men and women today who serve, not the least of whom are those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. This is not about disloyalty to Canada. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is about us exercising our responsibility to get accountability for taxpayers. We are the representation for that taxation, and we have asked very simple questions about the $20 million. The government announced a 10-year, $200-million agreement to lease one dedicated launch pad for a spaceport in Nova Scotia. The government says it is going to support DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, the wider Government of Canada, our allies and our partners. It said the pad must reach its initial operational capability by the end of 2026 and that 90% of the funds must be spent in Canada. Those are important promises, but they raise basic accountability questions. Number one, how was the $200-million price tag determined? Number two, was there a competitive process, or was this a sole-source deal? Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026. Number four, what milestones, holdbacks, clawbacks or cancellation rights protect taxpayers if the site is not ready by the end of 2026? Number five, what due diligence was done on Maritime Launch’s financial position? Its 2025 annual filings refer to the spaceport as “under construction” and note that depreciation begins when the spaceport is available for use. I am not here today to say that the project is bad or that the— An hon. member: Yes, you are. Michael Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just came in, and he was not paying attention. He misses the entire point. He is the kind of person who comes in here and starts screaming about people being disloyal for doing their job of holding the Liberals accountable for $20 million. We love Canada. That is not something that they hold a licence on. We love this country. The hon. member, who put on a uniform for this country, knows better, and he should act better. I would not say that this project is bad, but I would say that the Liberals have to demonstrate basic due diligence to Canadians. That is their responsibility. Parliament has to make sure that the money was handled properly. If everything was done properly, the government and the company should be able to show that. We invite them to do it. I would welcome them to do that, but they have not. With that in mind, I move: That the motion be amended by replacing the amount of “$17,968,133,395” with “$17,948,133,395”.”

“I support Canada being able to launch our own payloads into space. But the government must show receipts for this spending instead of just handing 20 million dollars to Liberal insiders.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have woken up the parliamentary secretary from his nap, but he missed the part of my speech where I said, “Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil.” That is a legitimate objective. He completely missed the entirety of the point of what we are doing here. The guy has been here a long time and does not seem to understand what we are supposed to do. We have to hold you guys accountable. We keep catching you giving Liberal insiders money. Time and time again, we have caught these guys greasing the wheels with Liberal insiders. We support our Canadian Armed Forces. We support sovereign launch capabilities. They have got to show us receipts, not just hand $20 million out the door.”

“Nova Scotia leased land for $13,500 a year, but the federal government gives the company $55,000 every single day. I want the member to explain how paying so much more helps taxpayers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the question that my other colleague asked. The Province of Nova Scotia leased this land for approximately $13,500 per year, yet through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year. Will the member explain exactly how a 400,000% markup over the provincial lease rate serves the interest of the Canadian taxpayer?”

“We oppose spending this money. The government will not show what taxpayers are getting for it, or if it just benefits a private company instead of Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year’s use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here? We are in lockstep with Canada’s continued reach for the stars, but we have to see what we are getting for $20 million. Canadians expect that of us. In fact, it is not $20 million. It is $200 million. Are there improvements being made to the site? What continued services do we get for that money? Is it an investment for Canadians or is this an investment in a private company, which is going to have the equity, and not Canada? These are assurances that we need. We need to understand why and how, and for some reason, the government is refusing to demonstrate that to the House and to Canadians. That is why we oppose the expenditure.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to show proof of where its money goes. It should stop giving money to its friends and spend it on forestry, natural resources, and the military instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, what we are looking to reconcile, of course, is how the government prioritizes its expenditures and how we could support sectors like our forestry sector if the government was not spending money on what it cannot demonstrate to us is not the rewarding of well-connected insiders, which is a pattern that we have seen with the Liberals. We want the receipts. We want them to support Canada’s wonderful natural resources sector and also to support our military and launch capabilities.”

“The high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto is taking land away from people in Mirabel, and it is handling it very badly. What does it do to farmers when the government takes their land like this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He mentioned the Alto high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto. For years and years, there were plans for a high-frequency train, but then an outgoing prime minister waved a magic wand and suddenly it became a high-speed train. My colleague raised a very important point. Land is currently being expropriated in a place that already has an extremely painful history with expropriation: Mirabel. The folks at Alto could not have done a worse job of handling this than they are doing now. Can the member, who represents an agricultural riding, tell us what impact it has on farmers when the government irresponsibly expropriates land?”

“My colleague earned the respect of his voters and rightly pointed out this government's failures. I am glad he is excited about the future of the North. Can he talk about how important the Bagotville military base is to his region?”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he is lucky to represent the people of his riding, Lac-Saint-Jean. I would like to gently correct him. As far as I know, he did not win the lottery to get here. He has duly earned the respect and support of his constituents. My colleague highlighted how ineffective this government has been over the last 11 years, but looking forward, I was excited about the proposal he brought forward. It is great to hear a Bloc Québécois MP from Lac-Saint-Jean speak so enthusiastically about the future of Canada’s north. I find that very interesting. He also talked about the federal government’s impact on his region. I do not want to start a war between Lac-Saint-Jean and Saguenay, but could my colleague talk about the importance of the Bagotville military base, which Canada established during the Second World War precisely to protect the aluminum industry that made it possible to build the aircraft that would liberate the world from Nazism?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 →

“Seniors are being scammed out of their life savings. Banks often do not step in, and provincial laws make it hard for families to help without going to court. Will the member ask British Columbia to change its laws to fix this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this debate to the floor. It is a deplorable situation where people are exploited, particularly in their golden years, out of everything they have made and hope to pass on to their children. I appreciate the member doing that. One of the challenges is that bank officials do not necessarily understand, and when someone comes in who seems to have full use of their faculties, they are loath to either start asking questions or even stop a transaction. Provincial governments can make a big difference. Right now, if someone loses the ability to make good judgments for themselves, oftentimes a court order has to be received by family members who are concerned. Basically, it is like a light switch, saying that someone who had autonomy to make their own decisions is no longer able to do that. I know the member has Mr. David Eby’s number on speed dial. Is he prepared to talk to the province about changing the provincial laws so they are not like a light switch?”

“The Gordie Howe International Bridge is late and nearly half a billion dollars over budget, but Michigan told Canadians about its opening before this government did. Canadians cannot trust this government to manage the billions of dollars it wants to spend today.”

“Mr. Speaker, while we debate billions in government spending, Canadians and Windsorites learned today about the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, and from Michigan officials, no less. This government is still silent about it. This project, as my colleague knows, is years behind schedule and nearly half a billion dollars over budget. If the government cannot even tell us clearly about one of the largest infrastructure projects in our country’s history, which Canadians paid for, by the way, how can Canadians have confidence in the government that it can properly manage the billions of dollars the government is asking us to approve today?”

• Off topic
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Relevance 15 of 100

  None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“Canada is legally responsible if a space launch causes a disaster. Why must taxpayers take on all the financial risk while private companies keep all the profits?”

“Mr. Speaker, under international space law, Canada is the launching state and carries the full weight of legal and financial liability for any launch-related disasters. Why are Canadian taxpayers being forced to socialize the risk of a catastrophic failure, while the potential financial gains are privatized for the benefit of corporate lobbyists and shareholders?”

“I want the government to stop a $20-million payment to Maritime Launch Services. The government is spending $200 million over 10 years to rent a gravel lot for a spaceport from a tiny, failing company tied to Liberal insiders.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to stop the payment of 20 million tax dollars that would otherwise flow to Maritime Launch Services, pursuant to the government’s main estimates. These 20 million tax dollars are part of the 10-year, $200-million lease the Liberals entered into with Maritime Launch Services to lease land that consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. “Do not worry,” say the Liberals. “It is not just any gravel parking lot. It is not just any concrete slab. It is the site of Canada’s new sovereign spaceport.” Needless to say, there are all sorts of questions surrounding this $200-million lease. They are questions that the Liberals have refused to be transparent about. In fact, the Liberals, at virtually every turn, have obstructed and refused to answer the most basic of questions. It is not only that. They have hidden the lease from Canadians. They do not want Canadians to know where 200 million tax dollars are going. What sorts of questions are there in relation to this $200-million lease? To begin with, the government could acquire land for the site of the spaceport in the Canso area for approximately $2.5 million, but instead, the government is leasing land for $20 million a year at a cost of 200 million tax dollars over the span of 10 years. How does that make sense? For Maritime Launch Services, it is a pretty good deal. Guess why. It does not own the land. It leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year and then flips it to Ottawa at a 1,300% profit. It must be nice to be Maritime Launch Services. It is not so nice for everyday taxpayers. One might say Maritime Launch Services brings a certain level of sophistication and a certain level of expertise in developing Canada’s supposedly first sovereign spaceport, but then the question becomes, “What is Maritime Launch Services?” It turns out that Maritime Launch Services is nothing more than a two-bit, six-person company. Despite its name, Maritime Launch Services does not have a history of launching much of anything. It has been in business for 10 years now and it has launched precisely nothing, zilch, into space. To be kind to Maritime Launch Services, in the span of two years, it has had two suborbital rocket launches, one of which was a model rocket from York University’s model rocket club. Again, it was a model rocket from a university’s model rocket club. This is the company the Liberals are entrusting to develop Canada’s first sovereign spaceport. They have to be kidding. The chair of the board is Sasha Jacob. He has a history, and it is not a pretty history, of securities infractions. Indeed, he has the dubious distinction of being fined $100,000 for securities infractions and securities irregularities. That is not good, to say the least. It begs the question: Why are the Liberals doing business with and handing $200 million to a company whose chair was fined $100,000 for securities infractions? Given that the scope of the business of Maritime Launch Services involves collaborating with university model rocket clubs, it is no surprise, perhaps, that Maritime Launch Services has not exactly been the most successful company and not the most successful business. In fact, their 2025 financial statements report a massive loss of $47 million and revenue under $15,000. In fact, the independent auditor’s report stated that “material uncertainty [exists] that may cast significant doubt as to whether the Company will have the ability to continue as a going concern.” In other words, Maritime Launch Services was on the verge of bankruptcy, that is, until the Liberals bailed it out with this sweetheart $200-million 10-year lease on land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own. It really begs the question: How is it possible that a company that has six employees, that has not launched anything into space, that has a chair of the board with securities infractions and that was on the verge of bankruptcy managed to land a $200-million lease with the federal government on land that they do not even own and which consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot? The answer to that, of course, with the Liberals, is that Maritime Launch Services is comfortably associated with none other than Liberal insiders. The chair of the board who I referenced, Mr. Jacob, is associated with major Liberal insider Gerald Butts. There is then Stephen McNeil, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, who conveniently sits on the advisory board of Maritime Launch Services. There is the chief lobbyist for Maritime Launch Services, who is none other than a former senior staffer to the Minister of Justice, whose riding happens to be situated next to the launch site. Perhaps that explains how Maritime Launch Services got this sweetheart lease. The lease is not about developing Canada’s first sovereign spaceport. It is about Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers foot the bill. That is precisely what has happened up until now. I say that because another question is that the subject lease, even though it was entered into on April 1 of this year, was backdated to April 1, 2025. Why was the lease backdated to 2025? The effect of backdating was for the Liberals to then immediately funnel $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, to bail out the nearly bankrupt company. Guess what happened? The chair of the board, Mr. Jacob, immediately turned around and sold $3 million of previously worthless shares, pocketing a cool $1.8 million. It must be nice to be Mr. Jacob. It must be nice to be a Liberal insider. It sounds like one big pump and dump scheme to me. Given the questions and the cloud that hangs over Maritime Launch Services, and the Liberals’ complete lack of transparency, it is important that $20 million of hard-earned tax dollars do not go to Maritime Launch Services until those basic questions are answered and the air—”

“Nothing has been built on this leased land, but a company boss still walked away with $1.8 million from selling shares. I want to know why the government let him take that money instead of protecting the public.”

“Mr. Speaker, let us look at what has happened since the lease was entered into. There has been no rocket launch and no construction. All there is is a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. However, someone got rich, and it happens to be Mr. Jacob, who sold three million shares, walking away with $1.8 million. Why did the Liberals not, for example, insist upon a lock-up agreement, which would be the standard practice, instead of allowing the chair of a nearly bankrupt company to walk away with $1.8 million?”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →