“Canada needs its own space launch program, but this bill is weak on national security. It leaves rules about foreign ownership and security screening to the minister instead of putting them into law. I want the ministers in charge to answer my security questions before we move forward.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauce. Before I start, I want to again acknowledge the unfortunate terrible tragedy in Wainwright this past week and send out my condolences and prayers to all the families of those fallen soldiers, but in particular to all the injured families and those injured soldiers who are still recovering. It is my understanding there are still approximately a dozen of them who are in critical condition and fighting for their lives. Any thoughts and prayers that we can send to them would be of the utmost importance as they continue to carry on. Those thoughts are a reminder to the House and all Canadians listening that we know our soldiers are required to train as they fight. They still have to get out the door. Those soldiers who were implicated in this terrible tragedy are set to deploy in the coming months to Latvia in service to our nation. We are here to debate Bill C-28. Really, the debate has just started. I think we are only on the second day. There has barely been any debate on this, so I am looking forward to ensuring all members of the House who want to speak to this piece of legislation will have the opportunity. What is Bill C-28? It is an enactment that would amend the Aeronautics Act to establish a legislative framework for space launch and re-entry activities in Canada. It would amend certain definitions to take into account new terms, such as “launch vehicles” and “re-entry vehicles”, and authorize those terms to be defined by regulation. It would also remove certain decisions related to the launch and re-entry from review by the Transport Appeal Tribunal of Canada. It would expand the tribunal’s regulation-making powers, including in relation to launches and re-entries and the operation of launch and re-entry sites, as well as in relation to the application of certain international agreements and standards. This enactment would also introduce new authorities related to the liability and indemnification for launch and re-entry activities. Here is a bit of my own background. I spent 25 years in the military. When I was at university at the Royal Military College of Canada, I received an honours degree in space science. I had the pleasure of being exposed to this stuff, and I am going to date myself, back in the mid-nineties. In particular, we had a lecture or course, which I remember well, on space law. I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to understand what has evolved, but I remember the fascinating discussions and debates we were having 30 years ago on the challenges of space and how it applies to aeronautic laws, etc. It all comes to some of the challenges with the arming of space, how we protect it and how we maintain that international peace that is evolving around there. I do not think 30 years ago we could have predicted just how industrialized space has become. I want to talk specifically about why I personally think having domestic launch capability is important, but it needs to be done right. If we go back 20-some years ago, we had the XPRIZE. Elon Musk even competed in this competition and did not win, but we had Canadian companies involved in it. One in particular was the Canadian Arrow. As part of their requirements to launch their rocket as part of that XPRIZE competition, they needed a launch site with a coastal area with open water at least 100 feet deep with a range footprint of 40 miles by 30 miles. The team lead was Geoffrey Sheerin out of London, Ontario, and they started this back in 2000. As to their mission and goals, I will quote Geoff: “We entered the competition to build and fly a manned suborbital vehicle. The X PRIZE makes it possible under the umbrella of a race to motivate and consolidate help from industry. We hope to make Canada into the space shuttle capital of the world.” I have a personal connection to that team as well, because Gregg Mackay, the structural engineer and the vice president of engineering for Canadian Arrow, is on that team, and Gregg graduated from RMC with me in 1997. He is from Fenelon Falls here in Ontario, and he now resides in my beautiful riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. He is a high school teacher, and I know he is likely listening this morning, with 32 of his students, so I think we have actually likely tripled the number of normal watchers here for the House. It is great to have individuals and those students listening. I am going to quote Gregg here: ”We were a very proud Canadian team. The choice of the name ‘Canadian arrow’ was no mistake. (An obvious nod to the Avro Arrow). We were insistent on a Canadian vehicle, designed by Canadians, built in Canada, based in Canada, launched in Canada. Without the need to go suborbital, a very limited down range capability, and with a water landing, there is no reason why many locations in Canada would not have suited. As we neared completion of ground testing, and vehicle development, we started to look at launch sites. We were very quickly offered space at American launch facilities. It became equally obvious that we were up for a very enormous challenge in acquiring permission to launch from Canada. Despite months of negotiation with various departments, we were turned down for all our requested launch locations. With a slim possibility of a Churchill launch site. We had been leading the competition (in the eyes of many experts who were following the competition) but the delay in locating a launch test facility within Canada eventually played a major part in an American team winning the prize ahead of us. We never gave up on being a 100% Canadian team, but that ultimately cost us the prize.” I am saying that just to outline that this is something important, but we need to do it right. Here are my concerns with Bill C-28 as it is currently drafted. It does not address basic national security safeguards needed in statute. It does not address the possibility of foreign ownership. I do not see anything in law, even within the bill itself, that would allow for the screening of operators and payloads. I find it interesting that the government is constantly speaking about sovereignty and security while promoting this bill, yet the legislation, as I mentioned, would fail to embed basic national security safeguards into statute. There would be no statutory requirement for foreign ownership or control screening of launch operators or payloads. There would be no requirement for beneficial ownership transparency. There would be no statutory tests within the legislation for payload mission profiles or end use. There would be no mandatory integration of intelligence or national security assessments into the approval process. Instead, these issues would be left to regulation or at the discretion of the minister in the public interest. In a specialized industry like space, the risk of regulatory capture is high, so my question is really around this. This is why I am bringing it forth: Why would the criteria for approval and indemnity not be written into the law itself? Is it because the government, the Liberal government, wants to somehow reward insiders and take away the transparency and accountability that comes with parliamentary oversight? It is really hard for Canadian innovators, or any innovators, to invest the necessary capital in a black hole of uncertainty. How would this framework that is built on undefined future regulations give confidence to new Canadian start-ups or does the government really just want to keep this controlled within the industries and companies that are already tied in directly to the Liberal government? I would note we have one example with the Maritime launch site, I believe it was called, where the government committed $200 million to that project earlier this year, and included $20 million per year backdated for a year. I would note that the first $20 million was paid upfront, despite no operational milestones being met by the company yet. In principle, and in conclusion, I personally support the need for domestic space launch capabilities here in Canada. The example I provided of the Canadian Arrow is just one example of why this is so important. That being said, my initial analysis of Bill C-28 indicates that instead of setting the conditions for a transparent, accountable framework that would enable Canadian ingenuity and entrepreneurship, the Liberal government is actually asking Parliament to waive parliamentary oversight and fails to adequately address national security concerns. I am going to be listening intently to the many more days of debate on this bill, specifically for the speeches that I can expect from the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of National Defence, as I am anticipating they will be keen to provide answers to these important questions.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The risk of regulatory capture is high.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“We need better oversight in this space bill. The government must report to Parliament and write national security reviews into the law. We must properly check company ownership and any objects flying over Canadian territory.”

“Madam Speaker, I will first address the point of the member opposite about Geoff Sheerin, the founder of the Canadian Arrow team. It is great to hear that he is still here in Canada using his brilliance and his ingenuity to continue to grow Canadian innovation. If she was to ask Geoff, he would say that unfortunately many members of that team of Canadians actually had to go to the United States and moved to the United States in order to find employment opportunities going into the future. To specifically address the member’s question around the types of amendments I would suggest, I sort of highlighted some of them. This needs to be reported to Parliament. There needs to be better oversight. It needs to be written into what is going to trigger things like national security assessments on to the review process and for the government to make a firm commitment, so that for a payload or ownership of companies launching from Canada, we would have the appropriate oversight over anything that would be flying over Canadian national territory.”

“The government needs to be open about how it plans to work with the provinces on this. Some national defence issues must be handled federally, but hiding details will cause waste and problems for this plan.”

“Madam Speaker, I have my own cynical opinion of the government’s willingness to collaborate and negotiate with most organizations, including respecting provincial jurisdiction. At the same time, I acknowledge that when it comes to things like national defence, there is a time and place where sometimes we have to do things in the best interest of the country. The importance around this does have to be communicated. It has to be open and transparent about what the requirements are and how the provinces and the federal government can work together. We are in a position now where if the government does not provide that transparency, it is just going to create additional potential waste and challenges that will undermine the importance of an initiative like this.”

“I want the member to explain why it is so important to have laws for Canada to launch its own spacecraft.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his condolences for the fallen and their families and the injured in Wainwright, a training area he and I know well from our time in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is hard to imagine that our men and women who are preparing to go into the battle space are now having to deal with the recovery and the loss of their brothers and sisters in arms. On the legislation, I am just wondering if he can quickly tell us why he thinks it is so important for us to get the legislative framework right when it deals with our national sovereign launch capability.”

“We need to pass the right rules for space launches so our country can keep moving forward. Other countries or foreign companies will try to use this technology to do harm, and we must stop them.”

“Madam Speaker, it is very important to get this right because, ultimately, if we do not, it undermines our ability to continue to go forward. I talked briefly at the opening part of my speech about when I was studying this stuff 30 years ago and the laws around it. We know for a fact that there are other states or foreign-owned companies that are going to use that technology for nefarious reasons, so we need to make sure we have the measures in place to prevent that type of stuff from occurring.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this space bill. The government is wasting money, like spending $200 million to lease a launch site that was rented for just $13,500. This bill also lets the minister protect space companies from damage costs, which means taxpayers could pay if things go wrong. I want the government to make the terms of that $200-million deal public, set clear limits on financial risks for taxpayers, and make fair, clear rules for all businesses.”

“Madam Speaker, when families in Beauce sit down to make their budget, they naturally begin with the essentials: groceries, housing, electricity, car payments, school supplies, clothing and all the other basic necessities. Then they look at what is left in their wallet and, unfortunately, they are forced to make choices. There are always choices to be made. They may have to postpone a repair, delay a purchase or cut back in one area simply to make ends meet in another. Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the Liberals are asking Parliament to approve a costly space launch bill that will grant the minister broader powers that could ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers. The Liberals talk about ambition. I want to talk about accountability. Before asking Canadians to finance its ambitions in space, the government should first confront the realities here on Earth. The people of Beauce work hard for every dollar they earn. They have a right to know how their money is being spent. More importantly, they have a right to ask questions before they are handed the bill. Bill C-28 seeks to establish a legislative framework for space launch and re-entry activities in Canada. I believe that Canada has amazing engineers, researchers and businesses that are capable of doing great things. We can be proud of their work, and we do want to develop our capabilities, but an ambitious project must be based on sound rules. It has to pass a very simple test: Will taxpayers get good value for their money? Is the Liberal government managing the money properly? Take the case of Maritime Launch Services in Nova Scotia, which I have mentioned here before. The government announced a $200-million agreement over 10 years to lease a specialized launch site and related services before even introducing Bill C-28. I repeat: It committed $200 million. To understand why this announcement raises questions, let us come back to the issue that my colleagues from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources and Montmorency—Charlevoix and I raised here in the House before. The situation we described is based on observations made on March 21 by Marie Lumsden, a resident of Canso who went to the area with her camera. There is a gravel road, two shipping containers and a 25-foot-by-35-foot concrete pad. For reference, that is just about big enough to put a 21-foot trailer on. That is a striking image. Then there are the numbers. Maritime Launch Services, a company in which a former Liberal holds shares, is leasing the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. Those are the facts. The federal government approaches this company with the great idea of leasing the property from it for $20 million a year. That is a fact, not a joke. Let me repeat, a company that leased the property for $13,500 is leasing it back to the government for $20 million. I see one of my colleagues laughing, but the worst part is that someone had the bright idea to sign a 10-year, $200-million lease for a bit of land with a 25- by 35-foot concrete pad on it. That tells us everything we need to know about the Liberals’ financial management. Not a single business person in Beauce manages their money like that. If they did, they would soon go out of business. Why are the Liberals more careless with taxpayers’ money than a business person would be with theirs? Why are they not being transparent? We want to know the contract terms. Who set the price and evaluated the alternatives? Who signed the contract? Who is responsible? Was the minister aware? We all asked these questions. Who is responsible for this horrific expenditure of funds? A minister can call it a historic investment if they want, but every dollar still has to be justified, and $200 million is a lot of money. Ottawa has announced millions of dollars, while families in Beauce are counting every penny. That is why we are so keen to make sure public funds are managed properly. When families are having to defer necessary spending, they expect their government to exercise sound judgment before making new commitments. Families are not asking for handouts. They just want their efforts to be respected. People work hard. They are asking the government to respect their efforts and invest their tax dollars wisely. Bill C-28 raises another question. What other financial risks could taxpayers be expected to bear in the future? The bill gives the minister the power to indemnify certain owners and operators for their liability to third parties for damage, when the minister deems it in the public interest to do so. It also makes it possible to grant certain exemptions and reduce the minimum amount of liability insurance an operator is required to carry. It is a bit technical, but behind these provisions lie two very practical questions: If things do not go according to plan, who will foot the bill and how much could they have to pay? Will taxpayers end up footing the bill yet again? Are we going to put yet another expense on our grandchildren’s credit card? Canadians need to know the bounds of the commitments made on their behalf. They are the ones footing the bill, after all. They need to know how much of the risk falls on the company and how much may fall on them. If government protection is necessary, the minister must be able to justify it. He must share the terms and conditions and be accountable for his decision. He also needs to explain how the risk is assessed before offering such protection. If the government intends to make taxpayers foot the bill when things go wrong, then it needs to explain the risks to them before signing the agreement. Exercising this kind of caution is a normal part of everyday life for Canadians, Quebeckers and residents of Beauce. It should be normal for cabinet too. We also need to think about the businesses that would like to get involved in this industry. In Beauce, we are no strangers to taking risks. Sometimes business owners have to buy machinery, expand a plant, develop a product or seek out new markets. Before investing, they need to calculate their operating costs, purchases and expenses. Most importantly, they need to understand the rules. My colleague from Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna raised this concern. When financial protections depend on a minister’s discretionary decisions, different companies may find themselves in very different situations. What criteria will be used to determine whether protection is granted to one company and denied to another? How can a new operator verify whether it is being treated fairly compared to another company? The government must make these rules and criteria clear. A company must be able to plan its project knowing what requirements it will need to meet. Its competitors must be subject to comparable criteria. This is essential for attracting investment and enabling new players to establish themselves on an equal footing. An entrepreneur should succeed through hard work and good ideas. He or she should not need a contact at the minister’s office to secure contracts. Predictable rules instill confidence in businesses. Well-explained decisions and transparency instill confidence in citizens. The government has a responsibility to instill confidence in both of these groups. The Liberals also talk about sovereignty. We agree this is a serious issue. Space technologies can be used for communications, research and, above all, defence. The Conservatives are calling for more explicit guarantees when it comes to national security. Our demands are simple. First, the terms of the $200-million agreement must be made public. Second, clear limits on the financial risks borne by taxpayers need to be established. Third, the government needs to lay out the same criteria for all businesses so they can invest with confidence and be treated fairly. These are basic requirements when spending Canadians’ money. Personally, I would approach this issue with the same common sense that the people of Beauce apply to their own finances. Before spending money, we do the math. Before making a commitment, we read the terms. When using someone else’s money, we have to answer for how it is spent.”

“Members are calling each other names that are not proper parliamentary words. This causes disorder, and I want you to stop it.”

“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think you will find that ascribing labels to people in here that are neither proper nor recognized Parliamentary terms is going to continue to create disorder, and I encourage you to—”

“We support national sovereignty, but the government needs to spend money carefully. Spending $200 million on a small concrete pad makes no sense. The government must be held accountable for its choices.”

“Madam Speaker, you will have to excuse him. He is new here and is struggling this morning. We are all in favour of national sovereignty. That is clear. We are just asking the government to exercise discipline, but it never does. I want to come back to the decision to spend $200 million on a 24- by 35-foot concrete pad. It makes no sense. That should not happen. The government should be accountable for its decisions.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government needs to be more open and careful about how it gives out these contracts. People should not get them just because they know someone in power. We are wasting too much taxpayer money.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question. I mentioned this in my speech. I asked what the criteria are. Does a bidder have to know someone in the ministers’ offices to get a contract? It should not be that way. There needs to be a lot more transparency on this file. Far too much taxpayer money is being spent haphazardly. There needs to be more discipline.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“A company pays $13,500 to lease a site, but charges the government $20 million. At the same time, the government focuses on dental care while people cannot afford food. I am asking my colleague if this government is acting responsibly with our money.”

“Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Beauce, and I found it interesting when he talked about responsibility. He explained how the provincial government is leasing the site to the company in question for $13,500, while that company is billing the Canadian government $20 million. It is absurd. Does my colleague believe this government is acting responsibly? I heard the procurement minister say this week that dental care programs were being offered, while we were bringing up food banks and how much Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on whether this Liberal government is acting responsibly.”

“Canadians are struggling to buy food, but the government is spending 200 million dollars on a small concrete slab. We need to be more responsible with taxpayers' money. That spending is unacceptable.”

“Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my colleague. The words “responsibility” and “accountability” should be heard a lot more here in Parliament. As parliamentarians, we are taking action, representing taxpayers and managing public funds. While people are struggling to put food on the table, the government is spending $200 million on a 25- by 35-foot concrete slab. That is unacceptable.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 36 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 →
• Echo ×14

  A repeated line

  “Canadians are struggling to put food on the table.”

  Said 14 times by 12 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“We need launch capabilities for our national security. But Canadians are struggling to afford food while the government spends recklessly. We must manage public money responsibly.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is a great hockey player by the way. I have had to face off with him a few times. That is a good question. Yes, the purpose is national security, and yes, we need launch capabilities. However, as I have been saying all day, people are struggling to eat and yet money is being spent with reckless abandon. It is important to manage Canadians’ money responsibly.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  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 →

“The government is using tax money to help its friends. It gave $20 million to Maritime Launch Services for a lease worth only $300,000, and the company president made millions selling shares. The RCMP just raided another company that got money the same way. Can the member promise the RCMP will not have to raid this company too?”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to address what happened yesterday in relation to Maritime Launch Services. The RCMP raided an operation in Quebec, Lion, that has shown exactly the government’s template for how it actually funnels government money, taxpayer money, to individuals it favours. How this relates to Maritime Launch Services is that it has taken two years for Lion to be investigated by the RCMP. Maritime Launch Services is doing exactly the same thing. The government, in arrears, gave $20 million of rent to Maritime Launch Services, before it even occupied it, for a $300,000 lease that it actually had. It was $20 million, for nothing at all, to give to the government’s friends. The minute it did that, the president of Maritime Launch Services took a whole bunch of his shares and sold them, as they were pumped up to 60¢ a share, putting almost $2 million in his pocket. The government is continually using mechanisms through which it is funnelling Canadian dollars, almost illegally, as the RCMP showed yesterday, to its friends in their chosen fields. Can the member tell us that we will not see the same repeat of a raid from the RCMP on this operation?”

• 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 →

“Maritime Launch Services was a penny stock before the government gave it hundreds of millions of tax dollars. The market showed this company was very risky. The government is bad at investing in private businesses. How can anyone be sure taxpayers will ever get their money back?”

“Madam Speaker, before the government announced this sweetheart deal with Maritime Launch Services, the stock for this company was trading at around four cents a share. Following this government announcement, it went up to 60¢, and today it is at about 46¢. What that tells me is that this was an extremely risky proposition the company was putting forward, and the market did not ascribe a lot of value to it. How can the government be so confident that it knows better than the free market how to allocate scarce financial resources, when a company that is essentially a penny stock is getting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding? The current government does not have a good record of investing money in the private sector. How can the member be confident this penny stock is going to get a return for Canadian taxpayers?”

“It is very important for our security and economy that Canada can launch its own rockets. But the opposition must ask questions to make sure the government makes these deals fairly, openly, and without giving special favours.”

“Madam Speaker, there seems to be a bit of a trend when the official opposition does exactly what oppositions are supposed to do: ask questions that bring accountability to bear on the government with respect to things such as the sovereign launch capabilities for our country. I have not heard anyone in the opposition say it is not important for Canada to have sovereign launch capability. I think it is tremendously important. I think there are security imperatives. I think there are economic imperatives. However, would the member agree that it is also appropriate and important to ask questions to make sure it is done in the right way, so the public can have confidence in the deals that are being done and so that when we move forward, they understand that it was fair and transparent, that there was no preferential treatment given, and that this really was all about creating sovereign launch capabilities and the benefits that come with it?”

“Canada should build up its space industry, but I do not trust this government to be open and honest about how it spends money. I worry this bill gives unchecked power that could let Liberal insiders profit. As the opposition, we will keep questioning this bill to hold the government accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, before I make my comments, as some of the other speakers have done, I want to offer my condolences to and prayers for the people at CFB Wainwright. What happened on the base last weekend is so tragic. While many suffered, I do not think people always appreciate, as in this House, the families behind the injured individuals and those who lost their lives. I also want to say a prayer for the families that have to deal with the uncertainty of those who are still sick and of whether and how those people are going to recover. The same thing happens here. We are here all week. We are doing our thing and we are off to events, but there are always family members back home who are the ones holding down the fort for us. I think it is appropriate that every chance we get to stand up in the House, we thank our spouses and families for the ultimate sacrifice they make. As we talk about this bill, and I know it has been mentioned in a couple of comments, it is not that we are saying we should not be dealing with space and an opportunity for people to create a great industry. Our problem comes from the fact that the government does not have a great track record on transparency. Part of the challenge we have right now is what we find when we start looking at what is going on and things that have come before. The government will announce a bill, and parts of the bill will be excellent and we will be supportive of it, and then what ends up happening is that this small piece called “transparency” seems to be an issue. I could rhyme off 100 instances of things right now. We could talk about the green slush fund that happened last year, or others from recent times. They were programs that seemed to make sense. Of course, we are transitioning and trying to figure out some of these things, so maybe we should be spending money on them. However, the problem that happens as we are dealing with them is that there is a huge disconnect when it comes to accountability, how we are we going to follow up and how we are going to make sure that these things are follow through on. Our challenge is not that we should not be looking at doing more in space. I think all my colleagues around the House would agree that that seems reasonable. Our challenge is always that what we see happening more and more with the Liberal government is that Liberal ministers and those who have the ability to write cheques are the ones making sure that insiders profit, with little transparency. That is our challenge as we look at these things and as the Liberals announce program after program. We can go back to the WE sponsorship scandal. There are so many things that have happened over the years that I think most Canadians should be concerned about when we start talking about legislation. Maritime Launch Services in Nova Scotia has been mentioned by my colleagues before. The question is, with all the Crown land available and everything that is made possible, how did it happen to be that particular piece? Why was that piece picked and not anything else? That is what we are talking about here. As we look at the process of what happens in this House, the challenge is not that the idea is a good idea or a bad idea. The challenge is how we are going to be accountable and transparent. The government has not been very transparent in recent years. As we look at these things, we are looking at how we deal with them. We see more and more power. We see more and more Liberal insiders seemingly doing better as a result of that while Canadians are struggling. We see that food bank use is at an all-time high in this country. We see that and think to ourselves, “How do we have money for all these things?” I am not talking about this one thing in particular, but we are writing all kinds of cheques all around the world. We spend money on foreign aid. Not all foreign aid is bad; we are not saying that is the case, but the challenge is that we have struggles here at home that we need to deal with. We have struggles here at home that need our attention. When we look at bills like this one, our challenge is not that we should not be looking at space travel in Canada. It is about who should be dealing with it. How should it be brought forward? Parliamentarians should also have opportunities to look at these things. Canada has a proud history of exploring space; there is no question about that. We have launched satellites, like the Alouette I, which was launched under the Diefenbaker Conservative government, making Canada the third country to design and build satellites. As mentioned in the House already, we have had astronauts like Chris Hadfield, Roberta Bondar and Jeremy Hansen. We have also had technology like the Canadarm. We have definitely had a proud history in this country of being able to deal with and work in space. When we look at these things, we have to keep going back to how we are going to make the government accountable. How are Canadians going to make sure that we have an opportunity to see what has gone on and see what has happened? We realize there is a real market for space launches; there is no question about that, but when decisions are made behind closed doors, that is the challenge we have. We can look at other programs. We can look at some of the things that have gone on so far in terms of censorship. There have probably been at least a dozen bills since COVID through which the government has tried to introduce some form of censorship in what it is doing, whether it is looking at metadata or setting up different types of things to keep an eye out and do more around that. We will look at the challenges as we continue to question legislation. That is our job as opposition: to question legislation. We should not be challenged, we should not be chastised and we should not be given a hard time for wanting accountability. As we move forward on this, one thing we need to constantly remind people of is that we are definitely in favour of enhancing our sovereignty and space capabilities, but we are certainly not supportive, and never will be supportive, of laws that could potentially give Liberal insiders and foreign agents blank cheques. I would just like to remind people that we were all sent here for a reason, and that is to do the best job we can when it comes to legislation in this House. As the opposition, we are required to ask questions. We are required to scrutinize bills. We should never have to worry about being challenged because we are asking too many questions or are not asking the right questions. I said at the start of my speech that the Liberal government does not have a great track record when it comes to transparency, so we are going to continue asking questions on this side of the House. We are going to keep challenging legislation. As I said, it is our duty as opposition to make sure that we are able to do that. In closing, once again, as we look at other legislation that is going to come forward over time, we are not going to slow down. We are not going to stop challenging. We are not going to stop asking questions. We are going to continue to do our job, which is our due diligence. We were sent here by Canadians to ask questions and to challenge the status quo. As long as we are here in opposition, we will continue to do just that. I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for giving me time here. I see my time is almost up, so I will just finish with that. I appreciate the opportunity to speak once again in the House.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  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 →