Adjournment Proceedings

An adjournment debate on a 10-year, $200-million National Defence contract with Maritime Launch Services, a Nova Scotia space launch company. Greg McLean of the Conservatives said the company is nearly bankrupt, that taxpayers are paying $20 million a year to lease land the company rents for far less, that the money was paid out without Treasury Board oversight, and that insiders sold shares after the announcement. Mike Kelloway of the Liberals defended the contract as the fastest, lowest-risk way to build a sovereign Canadian rocket launch capability, noting that at least $180 million must be spent in Canada and that the project has local, municipal, First Nations, and provincial support. Kelloway said the investment was not about helping insiders, while McLean pressed for answers on what happens to the money if the company fails.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“The government gave a $200 million defence contract to a spaceport company that is almost bankrupt. We are paying the company $20 million a year to lease land that the company rents for only $13,500. This deal pumped up the company's stock, letting an insider cash out roughly $2 million in shares. This is a waste of tax dollars to help connected insiders, and the government must answer for it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on a question I asked in the spring about an issue called spaceport. The government awarded a 10-year contract for $200 million to fund a national defence company called Maritime Launch Services through National Defence. One of the egregious factors in this lease is that Maritime Launch Services does not own the land the government is paying for a lease on, but leases it from the Government of Nova Scotia for $13,500 per year. We are paying a $20-million lease on land that the company is leasing for $13,500, which is ridiculous in itself. Now, my colleagues across the way will say how much value has been added by the development of the site by Maritime Launch Services. That nonsense, of course, is completely defied by the company’s financial statements. In June 2025, the company had negative value and its paper assets, before considering any of its liabilities, were only $13 million. Again, that is $13 million, against which we are going to pay $20 million annual rent for the land. It is ridiculous again. The government had decided to pay this $20 million, but the second most egregious part of it, of course, is that it is paying a year in arrears when they were not even on the land. It is basically a grift, a gift to some of their connected insiders that is beyond what should happen with any responsible government. Let me read from Maritime Launch Services’ actual audited statement from the middle of 2025: “As a result, there is material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt as to whether the Company will have the ability to continue as a going concern.” It is almost a bankrupt company, and the government decided to give them $20 million from defence, in addition to a $10-million line of credit from none other than Export Development Canada. Now, we have seen Export Development Canada, of course, involved in so many other slush fund operations where the government is throwing Canadian taxpayers’ money out the door. We have got a few corporations in here. Now, what is Maritime Launch Services? Let us look at its role in this. It is really a sandwich organization between renting from one government and getting a big contract from the other government. It is a penny stock, a worthless company on the stock exchange, publicly traded, now doing the government’s bidding and getting paid egregious amounts of money for doing next to nothing. Now, we know there is a whole bunch that has to happen here, as far as spaceport goes, but this is an example of money being thrown out the door. If this is what the government is talking about, about how we spend money in defence procurement more effectively, it is completely wrong. This is a way to throw Canadian taxpayer dollars away, not actually trying to make sure it gets into the pockets of the right people. No sooner than it put $20 million into an almost bankrupt company than the principal of the company gets the lift from that, the $20 million onto a balance sheet, from five cents a share to 60¢ a share, and he unloaded almost 2 million dollars’ worth of his shares. That is a grift, through and through, and the government has to be held to account for it. It is the definition of pump and dump. I will let the government respond to that, and I will continue to push on this. This is not the way any democratically elected responsible government should be acting.

Greg McLean, Calgary Centre

Conservative
“The government gave 20 million dollars to a private company with no oversight. Company leaders took the money, sold their shares, and kept the profits. If this company goes broke, taxpayers will lose their money. I want the government to tell us what will happen with this money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answer. The $20 million in arrears, there is no excuse for. There is no Treasury Board Secretariat oversight of how that money was spent. It was spent in the year before the government threw the money out the door and immediately into the pockets of a private sector organization in order to get the ball rolling. It is exactly how government should not be operating, particularly when the people it is giving the money to flush the shares out and put the money in their pockets. I do not know if it even knows what a share lock-up agreement is, but it is a repetitive pattern, including with everything the government says is in urgency, much like with Lion Electric, which is being investigated by the RCMP this week because of what it did, in exactly the same format of funding the public companies and all of the principals taking the money out when they pump the stock up and running away. When this goes bankrupt, if this goes bankrupt, then the Canadian taxpayers are going to end up holding the bag again. Will my colleague tell us what is going to happen?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 158

  1. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 38 statements
  2. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 81 statements
  3. Oral Questions International Trade 18 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 14 statements
  5. Oral Questions Justice 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  7. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 8 statements
  9. Oral Questions Government Appointments 5 statements
  10. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 7 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Business of the House 2 statements
  17. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 23 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 42 statements
  20. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 4 statements
  21. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  22. Oral Questions Families, Children and Social Development 2 statements
  23. Private Members' Business National Strategy for Soil Health Act 16 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  25. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements