Dan Albas · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

Canadian Space Launch Act

2026-04-28

“You say this bill aligns with other G7 countries, but it doesn't include their important parts. The U.K. makes sure space activities don't harm national security. The U.S. lets Congress decide on indemnification, not the administration. Why doesn't this bill do those things?”

“I'm asking you a pointed question about a big hole in this bill. The Minister of Transport brushed off my security concerns earlier. He said the Canadian Space Agency has it covered. But the Space Agency has no security role at all! I've read the bill carefully. It says nothing about national security screening. If the Space Agency can't do security and the bill says nothing on it, who does what the US and UK systems do? Who is in charge of stopping dangerous dual-use technology? I don't think this bill covers that. I think you left a big gap.”

Official Hansard

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

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want the minister to reassure me. Make sure the right people are checking space payloads. The space people aren't security people. They shouldn't do security checks.”

“The UK space law says space activities must not harm national security. Bill C-28 does not say that. This is a problem. Bill C-28 does not make the government check with our security agencies. The UK law does. Canada's bill has a gap that could put us at risk. The UK bill is better.”

“I want the government to pass my bill and create the right kind of market for satellite launches. Other people might take advantage if the government doesn't do this.”

“I think democracy dies when it's not transparent. It's bad that this bill gives one minister so much power. It's a market-distorting power grab.”

“I want the government to stop propping up one company with $200 million in subsidies. In a competitive market there could be many launch pads, but now we only have one. We need a properly functioning market to let businesses thrive on their own. If we had that we wouldn't need to pin all our hopes on one company.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, this is how far down the government has gone, that the members are referring to a launch pad. In a competitive market that is well-regulated, there could be multiple launch pads, but we have only one. We have only one because the government has given a $200-million lease over 10 years, $55,000 a day, to a company that had a lease for the same property from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. In its own corporate notes, it states that this company was not a going concern, which means to the average person that it would be going out of business. Then, miraculously, the company got this lease after lobbying, and suddenly we are all supposed to pin our hopes on it. The gentleman across the way mentioned a company in his riding. We are very supportive of that, but I will remind the member that, first, a properly functioning market would have probably more than one spaceport. Second, we would probably see individual money being brought in, which could create that. Last, those satellites do not miraculously sprout wings and fly off into the stratosphere from the space pad. They need rockets. How can we support our industry, and how can we encourage industries to come here? Right now, if this thing were put to test right away, it would be other countries' rockets.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I agree we need a law about space launches. The minister said the world wants what we have. Some countries don't share our values. The US, Russia, and China lead in rockets and might want to use our north. If we build rocket launch pads but not our own rockets, other countries will launch their rockets from our pads without screening. We need Canadian rockets, not just pads for other countries' rockets and payloads that serve their goals, not ours.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to acknowledge what the minister himself said. He said that the world will want what Canada could have here. Well, the world is a lot of people, and some of them do not align with our values or our goals as a nation, so it makes sense that, if there is a gap where there is no screening over who owns what technology and what that technology is used for, that could be circumvented. Right now, which countries lead the world in rockets? We have the United States, Russia and China, all of whom would have some sort of interest in our north. Again, Canadian rockets are the fundamental part to making this sovereignty happen. We need a legislative framework, sure, but we also need to have Canadian rockets, or else this launch pad would just be a launch pad for other nations' rockets and, without the proper screening, for payloads that are for their objectives, not ours.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm piling on this guy. I like that he said the government keeps passing laws to let it ignore laws. I agree the government grabs power by passing laws to give itself discretion. I think tribunals are good because they stop the government from just saying no to space projects whenever it wants. I want companies to be able to fix small errors without going to court. Why would the government want so much power to say no like that?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this member's intervention here today because it highlights that the government has a penchant for giving itself ultimate discretion at the expense of someone else. There is no greater sign of this than the government's actually removing access to a tribunal. Tribunals are there for administrative fairness. Let me give an example. If a space firm that is operating legally in Canada is not favoured by the government for whatever reason, maybe they used the wrong lobbyist, had an application come in with a tight time window, or has a spelling or technical error that could easily be rectified, the minister could simply say, “Sorry”. That launch would then be scuttled at great cost to that individual company. Being able to go to a tribunal to be able to rectify these things gives people confidence that they can move forward. If they have to take the government to court over something as simple as an error on a permit, that is ridiculous. One might ask why the government would want it this way. That is what we are asking. Why would the government be giving itself unfettered discretion unless it had a plan to do something with that?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Conservatives believe in Canada's space history! We had a space act. We had sucesses like Canadarm. Harper wanted space sovereignty. This bill ignores that.”

“I want Canada to have a space program. I don't want to give the government a blank cheque. This bill gives too much power to the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport doesn't have enough time to do this job. This bill doesn't have clear rules. The rules should be set by Parliament, not the minister. This bill could put taxpayers at risk. This bill could hurt companies. This bill doesn't have enough security safeguards. This bill rewards insiders and lobbyists. This bill could make it harder for businesses to innovate. This bill is bad for Canada.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to participate in debate, particularly when the official opposition has the opportunity to apply serious scrutiny to legislation that asks Parliament to hand broad authority away from itself and to the executive. Bill C-28 deals with space launch and re-entry. It is not ideological. Most Canadians support the idea of Canada having a domestic space capability. They understand its importance to innovation, economic growth and, increasingly, national security. I support that goal as well, but ambition does not excuse poor design. Supporting the objective does not mean giving the government a blank cheque, especially in a sector that involves public safety, national security and potentially significant taxpayer exposure. We are entering a period of rapid growth in space-based activity. Satellite deployment, re-entry technologies and launch infrastructure are expanding quickly. Canada does not want to be left behind, and it should not be. The government argues that Bill C-28 is needed because Canada lacks a clear legislative framework for space launch and re-entry. That is true. These activities have been managed through aviation law and ad hoc decisions. That approach is no longer adequate. What is troubling is that Bill C-28 would not replace uncertainty with a clear law. It would replace it with discretion. Rather than having Parliament define rules, the bill asks Parliament to approve a framework and trust that the real decisions would be made later through regulation and ministerial judgment. The hardest questions are deferred. The risks are obscured. Parliamentary control is weakened. When one reads this bill carefully, the pattern is unmistakable. Launch permits, re-entry approvals, site certification, emergency stop powers, land use restrictions, financial responsibility requirements, exemptions from those requirements and the indemnification of private operators would all be placed within the discretion of the Minister of Transport. This is where the bill starts to drift from concerning to almost surreal. This entire regime assumes that the minister would personally oversee permits, exemptions, indemnification decisions, emergency stop orders, land use restrictions and national security judgments in one of the most complex and high-risk emerging sectors of the economy. That might sound reassuring until we remember that as of this moment, Canada does not even have a full-time Minister of Transport. We are being asked to believe that a part-time minister already juggling multiple portfolios would somehow have the time, the capacity and the sustained focus to personally weigh launch permits, re-entry approvals, liability thresholds, indemnification decisions and national security considerations, sometimes under time pressure, sometimes under political pressure, while taxpayers carry the downside risk. This is not a governance model. This is wishful thinking dressed up as legislation, which leads to a very practical question that the government has not answered and cannot avoid. When this industry scales up, and the government insists that it will, who exactly is supposed to manage all of this? Who is reviewing each permit? Who is assessing each re-entry? Who is recalibrating liability exposure? Who is deciding whether an operator qualifies for indemnification and when it does not? Under this bill, almost all the responsibility would flow upward to one political office, not to an independent regulator, not to a transparent statutory process, but to the discretion of the minister. Good policy depends on systems, not personalities. Bill C-28 gives us neither. Nowhere in this design flaw is that more serious than in the indemnification and liability provisions of the bill. Bill C-28 would remove space launch and re-entry activities, which, by the way, are not even defined in the act. It would take those activities from a normal aviation insurance framework and replace them with a new concept called “financial responsibility”. Parliament would not be told what those minimum levels would be. They obviously would be left to regulation, to be answered by the minister and his officials at their discretion. The bill then goes much further. It would allow the minister to reduce or waive those requirements and to indemnify private operators against third party liability, entirely at ministerial discretion. Let us be clear about exactly what that means. Indemnification is not a technical detail. It is government-backed insurance. It transfers risk from private companies onto taxpayers. If one operator is indemnified and another is not, the indemnified operator enjoys a powerful competitive advantage. Its risk profile drops, its financing costs fall, and its tolerance for failure increases. Its competitor, facing full commercial exposure, is placed at a structural disadvantage. Nothing in this bill would require indemnification to be offered on equal terms. Nothing would require similar risks to receive similar treatment. Nothing would require advanced disclosure to Parliament. Nothing would require public reporting afterward. This is not flexibility. That is state‑authorized market distortion. The political consequences of that structure are enormous. We already have a company operating in this space that has demonstrated financial instability and operational uncertainty. Under Bill C‑28, the same company could benefit enormously if indemnification is loosened or be severely harmed if that protection is tightened or withdrawn. In either case, the impact would be dramatic, but the decision would not be governed by rules set by Parliament. It would be by the politics of the day. If indemnification is loosened, taxpayers could be exposed to substantial and unquantified liability without ever knowing or realizing it. If it is withdrawn, a company could become commercially unviable almost overnight. In both cases, the consequences would be profound, yet the decision would occur behind closed doors. Taxpayers would not know what risks they were carrying. Parliament would not know what exposure it had approved. Only the minister would know. This is not transparency and accountability, and it is not responsible governance in a strategic sector involving public safety, national security and public money. When indemnification decisions are left entirely to ministerial discretion, they inevitably become political decisions. They are influenced by timing, urgency, pressure and optics. None of those is a substitute for law. This bill would effectively ask Parliament to assume that every minister under every political circumstance would exercise his or her power perfectly. History suggests otherwise. Laws exist precisely because judgment is imperfect and politics change. Taxpayers should never bear catastrophic risk as the result of decisions they cannot see, cannot measure and cannot challenge. The weakness in this bill extends beyond indemnification. The government speaks often about sovereignty and security when promoting Bill C‑28, yet the legislation fails to embed basic national security safeguards in 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 test 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 the discretion of the minister in the public interest. I have served on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we have seen, time after time, what happens when the use of the term “public interest” is exercised without any details from Parliament as to what is in the public interest in this narrow set of circumstances. What happens is uncertainty. What would happen under this bill? That uncertainty would be either a yes or a no from the minister, with no explanation given other than a denial. The minister could say, “It is not in the public interest to give you this permit. I'm revoking it.” We could ask what the public interest is, but the minister would not have any responsibility to say what it is. Usually, in the Aeronautics Act, someone would go to an administrative tribunal that has a specialty in this, but guess what. The minister has exempted this act from that tribunal's auspices. Essentially, a company would have a window, based on weather conditions, to get a payload through the atmosphere. Suddenly, it would have to go to court to challenge a decision, which would inevitably cost the taxpayer money because the justice department now would have to say what is in the public interest, but it is not defined by law. This is a recipe for uncertainty, and for the minister to say it would give certainty to a market that has yet to exist is a big warning sign flashing. I want to say, “Ottawa, we have a problem here.” The result here is a convergence of risk that includes broad executive power, opaque indemnification authority, reduced independent review, large financial commitments and no hard-wired national security screening. This, like space, is a vacuum, a vacuum of accountability. The reasons the minister could give to deny a permit would be as black as space. We would not be able to see transparently why it was denied. This is a problem, considering that there is so much to be said about the Liberal government's penchant for insiders. We know of the MLS launch. We know of the public record, which has been widely distributed, about it not being a going concern, then 158 conversations with the PMO and different ministers later and, wow, suddenly there is a $200-million lease for a property that was previously leased from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. It is now $55,000 a day. Again, opaque processes, uncertainty and the discretion of one individual are not a recipe for the rule of law. It is a recipe for inside activity. I have said a lot about these things because I am concerned and because I am a proud Canadian. I believe in innovation. I believe in progress. I believe we have Canadian know-how, and we have proven it, time and time again, but this is not a bill for our times. This is a bill for insiders. Let me be very clear. I have not been speaking about Canadian space launch capacity. This is an argument against governing it badly. Canada needs domestic launch and re-entry infrastructure. I am sure we can all agree on that. We also need clear, predictable and competitive rules, or else we are only going to track businesses that we will end up identifying, and we will not innovate because there will not be a sphere of competition that drives innovation, reduces costs and sees new ways and approaches come forward. This is because, under this act, there would not be the incentive to do so. It would be more incentive to get a better lobbyist than to get a better rocket. That is not the rocket fuel this industry needs or wants. We need taxpayers protected from unknowable exposure. We need national security safeguards that are automatic and non-negotiable. Once a satellite is in orbit and it does not use Canadian spectrum, the government has no responsibility or power over that satellite. That satellite, as I said, could be at the behest of a state actor and, let us be mindful, the People's Republic of China does require its companies, under its national security laws, to comply with whatever they are asked of by the authoritarian government in Beijing. The Russians also have an interest in the north and its surveillance of the north. These are questions that the official opposition members are asking for some accountability on and some better answers. With what I heard today from the minister in his responses to me on national security and indemnification, it is clear that he has either not done the work or is silent on purpose. We need Parliament, not a minister, setting the rules for this space. We do not need legislation that privatizes reward, nationalizes risk and leaves Canadians in the dark. Space policy, I would argue, is too important, too expensive and too sensitive to be governed this way. Again, capital flows to stability. The minister is right that Canada has some wonderful attributes. We are a country that is politically stable. We have, most of the time, the rule of law, but if a large company were looking to make a strategic investment in Canada and seize this regime, and unless they have an inside track with a lobbyist who has the ability to get them what they want, I question that this is the right approach. If the government is serious about our sovereignty, it should be serious about accountability. If it is serious about security, it should put it right into the statute, right into Bill C-28. If it is serious about market activity, it should stop designing laws that reward discretion over discipline. Parliament should not approve a framework that asks Canadians to trust what they cannot see. I would like to say that it is always a pleasure to be here and to debate these important topics on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I urge my colleagues to take the time to look into Bill C-28 to see with their own eyes not only what is there, which is the fact that almost all of the power would be given to one person, but also the large gaps in the bill that this Parliament could and should address.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The space bill gives too much power to the minister. He decides everything. Private launches will get taxpayers' money. He can play favorites and change the rules for any company. That's not fair. Companies won't invest in Canada if it all depends on what one minister wants. We need real laws, not a minister who picks winners and losers.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the minister needs to talk about exactly why he has chosen the bill to give himself so much power. He would be approving permits and re-entries, launches, etc. The list goes on. Indemnification is essentially where the taxpayer offers insurance to private operators for indemnifying their launches. The way the bill is written, the minister could give special treatment to one firm and a different set of rules for another. How can the minister look at this Parliament in the eye and say that he is trying to attract capital with such an opaque system that would be so arbitrary in how it will be applied? If we want to do well in space, we need to have the rule of law, not the rule of one minister, where he can pick and choose winners and losers.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“You say this bill protects Canada's space sovereignty. But you haven't even defined what a launch is! There's no security check on what they send up. A foreign company could launch a satellite to spy on our north. You're undermining Canada's sovereignty, not protecting it. Don't distract with nostalgia while avoiding the real problems in this bill.”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives agree that Canada has a proud history in space and that we have great talent and great opportunities in space. However, we have to set aside the past and future in terms of our idealism because what the minister was speaking about was sovereignty. We must be real. We must look at the bill as it is, right here and right now. In the bill, the minister has not even defined what launch and relaunch are. The minister has not introduced a bill that would protect our sovereignty. There is no national security screening of payloads. A firm from another country could use any rocket launch as an ability to put a dual-use satellite into orbit, undermining our sovereignty, particularly when satellites are looking at the north. I would like the minister to address these subjects.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Strong and Free Elections Act

2026-04-24

“You said Canadians elect a prime minister. That's wrong. Althia Raj said the Prime Minister has an authoritarian streak. He called MPs his 'deputies'. I'm not the Prime Minister's deputy. I serve my riding.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in the earlier reply to my question, the member said that Canadians elected a prime minister. I think that is a misnomer that we need to correct. Canadians elect MPs. In fact, last night on a panel, Althia Raj said, “This Prime Minister definitely has an authoritarian streak. We've seen this with all types of legislation. I was struck after the by-election when he referred to his MPs in English as his ‘deputies’. At first he was saying that. I thought it was just an error in translation; he means ‘députés’, and then he was just saying it in English. But then he keeps repeating it, so I'm starting to wonder if he actually thinks members of Parliament are his deputies to do his bidding in the House of Commons, which is not their job.” Does the member believe he is the deputy to the Prime Minister, or does he serve his riding?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to blame you for not changing the rules earlier. You let Canadians down by ignoring this problem for too long.”

Oral Questions

Aerospace Industry

2026-04-23

“The government spends too much and gets little result. The programs they fund create waste. Companies with political connections get too much money. Too many Canadians are struggling. I want better value for the money we spend.”

“You spent $200 million on a gravel lot for a spaceport. A Liberal riding, a justice minister's staffer, and Liberal premiers were all connected to this. I think it's a boondoggle and Liberal insiders are getting rich off taxpayers.”