MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Marilyn Gladu

Follow by RSS

Gladu presses for affordability measures, major energy and trade projects, and local goals such as housing, apprenticeships and jobs in her riding, and urges quick passage of justice bills like bail reform. Her speeches drift into asides, as when she pauses a bill on measuring fuel to say, “I am super happy about that.” A chemical engineer for 32 years, she leans on that experience in debate.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
82 / 100 over 42 statements
Signal 77 / 100
Relevance 79 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 90 / 100
Averaged over the 42 of 59 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Statements 59

Government Orders ·

Safe Social Media Act

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“I want this bill to go to committee, and I want to see the member's changes. We should put more details in the law itself instead of leaving them to bureaucrats.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as an engineer, I am very detail-oriented in general. I would say the more detail we can put in the bill and not leave to regulators or bureaucrats, the better. I look forward to the amendments the member opposite will bring to committee.

In response to a question from Marianne Dandurand

“Earlier versions of this bill let people be sent to prison for up to 25 years just because someone thought they might commit a hate crime in the future. That went against the Charter of Rights. I am glad it was taken out.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there was something unacceptable in the previous versions. The first two versions said that if somebody thought a person was going to commit a hate crime in the future, that person could be put in prison for up to 25 years. That seemed, to me, very much like the movie Minority Report. It is certainly not charter-compliant, so I am glad to see that it was removed.

In response to a question from Gabriel Ste-Marie

“I do not know enough about how this works in Quebec, but Quebec has more experience with this issue. I would welcome changes to the bill when it goes to committee.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not sufficiently familiar with the situation in Quebec. I believe that Quebec has more experience with this issue, and I would be very pleased to see amendments tabled in committee.

In response to a question from Amarjeet Gill

“I am not a lawyer, so the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola should answer the question about the legal definition. Bullying can involve sexual images, and people can look at what is posted about me online to see what bullying looks like.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer, so I highly recommend having a discussion with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola because he will know the answer to that, but I believe there is a bullying definition used in the law. I would reiterate that some of the types of bullying we see use sexual images, for example, as in the Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons examples. I would point the member to the Twitter feed about me this past year if he wants to see what bullying looks like.

“I support this bill to protect people, especially children, from online harm. It makes things that are already illegal in real life illegal online, too. A new commission will make sure social media companies follow these rules, without letting the government look at your private data. We can work out smaller details, like how to check users' ages, at committee.”
  • A repeated line

    “Content that induces a child to harm themselves.”

    Said 6 times by 6 members since October 28.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House. Today, I will be speaking about Bill C-34, but before I begin, I want to take a moment to honour the memory of Chief Warrant Officer Ron Nutt, from my riding, who served in the 1st Hussars for over 30 years and sadly passed away at age 67. Taken too soon, he was a quiet, gentle man, but a really intelligent, forceful human being. He will be sorely missed. When it comes to Bill C-34, I can tell members that I have been in Parliament for quite some time, and this is the third version we have seen of the bill. I am really happy. The first two were terrible, but this one is much better. My colleague, the member for Calgary Nose Hill, tabled a private member’s bill on this topic, because I think we all agree that we need to protect children from online harms. That private member’s bill, Bill C-216, informed a lot of the work of this one, which is definitely helpful. What the bill would do is make what is illegal today in the real world illegal in the digital world. That is a simplification, but it is essentially what is happening. We really need to protect our children and ourselves because the rise in online harm has been unbelievable. In 2023, half of students were experiencing online bullying. In 2024, police reported 19,516 instances of online child exploitation, an increase of 59% over the previous year and an increase of 500% since 2014. In terms of harms, we see that they are not just online. They are becoming physical and mental harms. I am still struck and saddened by what happened to Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons. We studied this the first year I was elected. These girls had, without their consent, intimate images of them put up on Facebook, and as a result, they both took their own lives. It is just terrible. This is where online harm can become physical harm. We also see the impact on our children. The pandemic was a time when many people spent more time online and could not go outside. Young people’s depression doubled. Their anxiety quadrupled. The suicide rate among young people doubled as well. Online harms are a real deal for our kids, and we all want to protect our kids. Each parliamentarian in the House has probably experienced online vitriol aimed at them. Certainly I have. It was awful when I started, but I have seen nothing like what I saw in the last year. These are harms. These things are illegal, and we have to address them. When it comes to online harm, people will ask what it really is. The things that are defined in the bill include content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor, intimate content communicated without consent, content that induces a child to harm themselves, content used to bully a child, content that foments extreme hatred, content that incites violence, and terrorism or violent extremism content. Essentially, those things would be covered. There have been concerns expressed about the freedom of expression and some of the charter rights. Everyone will know that I am a passionate defender of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and certainly the government is well aware that people are concerned about who is going to determine what can be said and what cannot be said. We have a good definition of hate speech, which has been recently improved, but we need to make sure that everything is clear and that we not have overreach happen. In terms of privacy, I have also heard the concerns there. Bill C-36 would address many of the concerns that I have heard raised in debate today. In addition to that, people have talked about the need for transparency. I want to be clear about the digital commission that would be put in place. Obviously, if we are going to try to do something about online harms, we need somebody whose job it is to respond when bad behaviour is pointed out and come up with a remedy. That is why we want to take the idea from Bill C-216 to put the onus on service providers to make sure they are enforcing the standards. However, this digital commission, which would have three to five experts in the area, would be responsible for enforcing the laws that are described, and every year it would report to the minister and produce a report that would be tabled here in Parliament. Then Parliament could have oversight to make sure that it is working, that there are no abuses and that we are comfortable with where it is headed. There have also been discussions about under-16 age verification. Different techniques can be used, and I look forward to the discussions at committee reviewing what other countries have done and reviewing what people think is a better method to ensure age verification. There is everything from uploading an ID, which some people think is a privacy violation, to using AI to guess how old someone is. That is getting very accurate, but I do not want it to guess how old I am, so I will stop there. The other thing we have to do is be realistic. We know that when Australia implemented this, 70% of kids under 16 found a way around the system, so this will probably happen. It is important to say what is bad behaviour, say it is illegal and put mechanisms in place to enforce the rule of law, but we will have to deal with how we as parents and legislators encourage kids not to expose themselves at a young age to what is really the wild west of the Internet, where content that they should not be seeing is showing up. We know it is harmful to them. I think about when I grew up. I did not even have a TV until I was eight. I never had a cellphone until I was 30. There would be some advantage to not having the social harms that kids have to deal with when their maturity and the confidence they have in themselves are not yet developed. Let us talk a bit about what the safety commission would do. It would review the safety plans that are prepared and published for the different social media AI chatbot services. It would evaluate whether the age verification mechanism that the services are using is adequate. It would maintain transparency from both social media and chatbot platforms in publishing their policies and thresholds for notifying the RCMP, police or other law enforcement. Let us keep in mind that what is illegal in the real world would be illegal digitally, but the people who would follow up on that would not be in the digital safety commission; they would be the police of jurisdiction in that area. The commission would also provide support for victims of online harms and users of online services, and it would have the ability to issue fines to platforms of up to 3% of their global revenue. I have a lot of respect for the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. He has encouraged the government to consider more serious sentencing, especially in cases of child luring and sexual exploitation. I think the government should take that into consideration. There are some potential myths we have heard about this bill because of some of the previous versions that were not great. Let me just quickly look to those. One is that the government would get access to our private data. That would be specifically excluded; that would not happen. I already talked about the freedom of speech and already talked about the other concerns. I have also heard from the Bloc the concern that this bill would violate provincial jurisdiction. I look forward to hearing those discussions at committee. They have implemented something with age 14, so the discussion of what age it should be is a very good discussion. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.

“The member had many questions about this bill. I want to know if he has specific changes he wants to bring to committee.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had a lot of questions in his speech about details that should come forward. I wonder if he has any specific amendments he would like to see brought to committee.

“This bill makes anything that is illegal in the real world illegal online too. How can we make sure people follow our laws?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this bill does something very important: Anything that is currently illegal in the real world will also be illegal in the digital world. How can we ensure compliance with our laws?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Our economy needs help right now because of U.S. tariffs and high gas prices. During the 2008 recession, the current Prime Minister worked with Stephen Harper to invest in projects that kept the economy moving. He is using that same approach today. I want the member to agree that creating jobs, finding new trading partners, and strengthening our defence are good things.”
  • 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
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are at a critical moment in our country’s history. We see the unjustified tariffs from the U.S., and the price of oil and gas going up, and we know that action is needed. If we look back at the last world economic recession, in 2008, it was the current Prime Minister who worked with then prime minister Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty to invest in infrastructure and projects here at home in order to keep the economy going, and it worked. The Prime Minister is applying that experience now, and I think it is the right approach. Would the member not agree that building projects in the national interest to create jobs, protecting ourselves by diversifying our trade and bolstering our defence are all good things?

“Our government has introduced measures to help with costs and create jobs. Given the global crisis, does the Bloc Québécois agree this spending is justified?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, our government has introduced a number of affordability measures. At the same time, we have a plan to build projects of national interest to create jobs. Given the ongoing global crisis, does the Bloc Québécois not think that this is justified?

“In 2008, spending money on infrastructure kept our economy strong. The Prime Minister is doing that again today, along with expanding our trade, and it is working. I want my colleague to share more proof that things are getting better.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for all of his work. In 2008, when we had the world economic recession, it was former prime minister Stephen Harper and former minister Jim Flaherty who put together a plan to infuse money into infrastructure and build to keep the Canadian economy strong, and it worked. We now see the Prime Minister taking that experience and having us build nation-building projects and infrastructure and diversify our trade. All of these things are working. Can my colleague expound a bit on the evidence we are seeing that things are moving in a better direction?

Private Members' Business ·

Weights and Measures Act

In response to a question from Leslyn Lewis

“I want the opposition to vote for this bill. It keeps rules for big energy companies, but excuses small and seasonal businesses so they do not face extra paperwork.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this update to the regulations and the law allows exemptions for small businesses, seasonal businesses and people who would be overburdened with that kind of bureaucracy, while at the same time maintaining the requirements for large suppliers of electricity and gas, etc. I think the bill strikes the right balance, and I hope the members opposite will support it.

In response to a question from Jeff Kibble

“The Senate studied this bill carefully. Businesses already pay the costs of checking their measurement tools, so this bill will not raise prices for consumers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this was drafted in the Senate. We should take some confidence from that because they meticulously looked through what has been hanging around for years that needed to be put into the bill. In terms of protections to make sure prices are not going to go up for consumers, I think, despite the costs they are experiencing today, all those industries that already have measurement have those costs built in. New businesses coming forward will incorporate the same kinds of costs. It would not be a reason to increase prices for consumers.

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“Our laws already cover grocery stores. The scales they use are checked to make sure they are accurate.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is raising an excellent point. The reality is that, in all of the grocery stores, they are using scales. We order our deli meat and say we want 100 grams. They have the scale that is going to promote that. Those things are calibrated. I do not know if any of us have ever stood on the scales to weigh ourselves and thought that we lost 10 pounds, and then we find out that the scale was not really calibrated. When we recalibrate it, nothing has changed. There are measures in place to address the grocery industry, as it is one of the ones that are covered under the regulations and the legislation.

“I support this bill. It lets the minister test new rules with temporary exemptions and cancel them if problems come up. This helps us become more competitive while protecting against mistakes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as he mentioned, my colleague is also an engineer. In fact, we have so many engineers in the Liberal caucus that we could have our own engineering caucus. As we have said, we ourselves are already optimized, so we prefer to work on the others. When it comes to the changes, he talked about protecting the roads. As changes happen, sometimes there are unintended consequences. That is the beauty of the minister having the ability to make a temporary exemption, to implement a change, and then, if there is a problem with it, to remove that exemption. I think that allows us to, in real time, be able to improve, become more competitive and, at the same time, walk it back if it looks problematic.

“Giving these powers to ministers is not a problem. Businesses and industries ask for these changes themselves. Giving ministers this power lets the government act faster, and that is the right choice.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that granting powers to ministers is inherently problematic, because proposals relating to things like changes, flexibility or exemptions come from the sectors themselves. They do not come from the minister. He consults with sector stakeholders. Flexibility can be introduced, exemptions can be implemented more quickly, and I believe that is the right choice.

In response to a question from Greg McLean

“I support this bill. As we build our electricity grid, we do not need to inspect every single meter. This bill lets us focus inspections where the risks are highest, which saves money and makes things run better.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that our government was the one that finally got rid of the carbon tax, which I was going on about for 10 years. I am super happy about that. I am really happy as well that the government is listening to my voice, having invited me into the tent. Certainly, I am speaking out on efficiency as an engineer, which is always my number one, and ways to reduce prices. We have seen the government’s ability to take the tax off fuel to help the affordability situation for Canadians, so I think its ears are open. We are changing as we go along, and we are learning. As we build our electricity grid and start to see all of the things that we are building, as well as the need, we are going to have to make decisions. That is why it is really good to have a provision in Bill S-3 that would allow it to not do a 100% inspection on everything, but to reduce it based on risk.

“I want Parliament to pass this bill. Our measuring laws have not been updated since the 1980s. This bill lets businesses use new technology, cuts red tape, and still protects shoppers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see you in the Speaker’s chair. It is a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act, the Electricity and Gas Inspection Act, the Weights and Measures Regulations and the Electricity and Gas Inspection Regulations. Now, those here in the House today may not think this is the most exciting topic, but I could probably speak on this topic all day long. This topic affects every sector in Canada and is incredibly important. The laws governing how measured goods are bought and sold were enacted in 1970 and 1980 and have not been updated since. They do not reflect the current market environments in the digital business age. Moreover, the acts are not all aligned, so there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in their operational and enforcement-related provisions. The proposed legislation would create a framework that is flexible, agile and more outcome-based. It would help reduce barriers to business, remove impediments to innovation, protect consumers and allow the government to deliver services effectively. In terms of the sectors that are impacted by this legislation, there are many, including forest products businesses, oil and gas, and natural resources. I will try to provide some examples as I go along. We can think about how this affects people in their everyday life. When someone fill their tank with gas, there is a measurement there of how many litres they get. Those measurements are controlled. The meters are calibrated and verified. There are a lot of standards that have to be complied with to make sure people get the right amount that they pay for. I have a lot of experience in this area over the years. I was a chemical engineer for 32 years, as many know, in different industries. Trucks that are taking products and services across the country have to go on weigh scales. I have actually constructed and implemented weigh scales, so I can tell members that there is a lot of technology that goes into that. It is incredibly important in commerce to have exactly the right knowledge of how much weight is in that truck or that rail car. These are practical examples of where these kinds of things are important. I was also director of engineering at a Suncor refinery. As with many refineries, there are pipelines taking raw materials backwards and forwards. They are shipping products out. There are a lot of meters there to look at what volume has actually gone, so they know how much money has to change hands between those selling and those buying. All of these things are legislated. Measurement Canada has a whole army of people who are then responsible for making sure things are calibrated, inspected and audited. If things are failing, there is some kind of investigation. There is a whole process behind all of this. As members can appreciate, with the electricity standards we are talking about today and the government’s new electricity strategy, there are going to be huge changes in the amount of electricity we are going to build. Members have heard about the Churchill project. Let us think about the number of devices that will need to be calibrated and audited, etc. It is a huge thing. We are doing all these nation-building projects, and every one of those is going to have things that fall under this act, which has not really been updated since the 1980s. Technology has moved on. At the same time, we are going to want to do business with more and more other countries as we diversify our trade. Every country has developed its own methods for sampling and its own methods and laws to talk about how it measures things. How we do things is not necessarily going to be harmonized with how they do things. Today, there is no flexibility in complying with what is here. One thing in the legislation that I think is really important is the ability for the minister to give somebody temporary permission or a temporary exemption, if needed, or to allow a different technology. All of these things are going to be very important as we see technology increasing over time. At the same time, there are going to be improvements in productivity and differences in the way countries do business. To start off talking about some of these things, I think members should know a bit about what Measurement Canada does. Every year, it approves about 300 new prototype measuring devices and technologies. It also certifies about 1,529 standards of mass, volume, temperature, electricity and gas, as well as test equipment to certify measuring devices. It accredits, audits and oversees 230 authorized service providers and 700 registered technicians to inspect and certify about 95% of the measuring devices used in trade. In addition, it conducts about 10,000 inspections of measuring devices. It is also involved in auditing and investigating when there are failures and, when people do not comply with legislation, enforcing those rules with consequences. It is responsible for a lot of things. The innovations that are currently being limited are many. I will give one example from my riding. I have a dairy farm in my riding, Forbesvue Farms, that is very well known. The owner owns Blue Water Milk Transport, which transports 19% of the milk used in Ontario. It is a substantial operation, but right now, under the requirements that exist today, it is only allowed to use these two-inch lines and a really manual sampling method that takes a long time. There is a development using a three-inch hose and meters to sample the milk, and it would like to implement that. It would save a huge amount of time and a huge amount of money. We all know we want to bring the cost of everything down, so it would be a great thing to do. Today, with the lack of flexibility in the regulations and the law, it cannot be done. The changes in Bill S-3 would allow the minister to grant permission to try this out and, if it works out, to actually be able to put it in place full-time, and also to remove the permissions to do it if it does not work out or if there is some level of concern. That is just one of many examples of why we need to have this. In terms of the need for flexibility, one thing I saw very often when we were trying to ship to other countries or bring things in was a different level of specification. There is no way to really resolve that because countries have their laws and we have our laws. It takes a long time to change the law. We can think about how long it takes for a bill to come through the House, with first and second reading, committee, etc., and then over to the other place for consideration and, finally, royal assent. It can take 18 months to two years. It is not a flexible process. With the rapid pace of technology, especially as we start to see artificial intelligence coming into play and we see changes and advances in digital technology, all of these things are going to cause us to need some flexibility, and not just flexibility but agility. We have to do it faster. We are talking about doing things at speeds never before seen, but in some cases, the laws and the regulations are tying our hands. The electricity plan is going to involve a lot of different locations where we are going to be building new capability in electricity of different kinds. These regulations were put in place before green energy was a thing. We need to think about all of the different technologies that have come forward that have devices associated with them that are not covered in the existing legislation at all. We definitely need to update this to put it in line with our plans to electrify the grid and to provide different sources of green energy as we lead the world in that sector. At the same time, we need to think about all the growth in oil, gas and LNG. All of these things are going to have more meters, more things to calibrate and more things to inspect, and we have a limited resource. With all of the things that Measurement Canada does already, we need to think about increasing that load hugely. How are we going to do that with the existing number of people? The easier answer is that there are other organizations and companies across our country that do these types of activities as well, and currently, the law does not allow the government to get them to help out. That is one important thing to note. If we are going to service all this extra growth, we have to be able to certify other services that can calibrate, audit, inspect, etc. Another thing that needs to be looked at is the fact that right now it is all 100% inspection. That is sometimes warranted. For example, in the businesses I have been involved in, there are types of welding where 100% X-ray has to be done. It would be catastrophic if there was a failure. As one can imagine, anything could cause an explosion if there was a leak. These kinds of things demand 100% inspection, but not everything demands 100% inspection. As such, there is an opportunity for this government, under this framework, to look at a risk-based approach and do 100% inspection where it is needed, but to reduce inspection in other areas to free up resources to try to address the capacity issue that is being faced. At the same time, we have to make sure we protect consumers. One thing about doing change more quickly is trying to make sure there are safeguards in place so that we do not do something that has an unintended and harmful consequence. There are measures in Bill S-3 that talk about the protection of consumers. Some of the protections are to align with the Criminal Code today regarding inspectors. Sometimes people who are not complying with the law want to prevent them from accessing their property or inspecting their device as needed, so there are measures in Bill S-3 that would allow people to enter properties, but not without a judicial warrant. There are some good safeguards there. If people suspect that there is a compliance issue, there are powers in the bill for the inspectors, but all of them are in line with what would be required by law. There are some other updates in the bill that I thought were pretty interesting. In the existing legislation and regulations, inspections have to be done in person, and we cannot do anything else. There is no telecommunications capability allowed. How many of us FaceTime with people who are across the country, or try to inspect something while somebody is on the phone asking us to take a picture of it and send it to them or show them what it looks like? The bill would allow access by means of telecommunication, which I think opens up some efficiencies and cuts down on the travel back and forth. There was one other thing that I thought was quite interesting. I actually read the bill. Some people may not find weights and measures super exciting. If someone has problems with insomnia, they may want to turn to Bill S-3 and read it very carefully. One of the other good things in here is trying to make sure we do not get ourselves in another situation where the law and regulations have not been updated since 1980. Think about that. That is 46 years ago. There is a provision in here that says that every 10 years, the minister has to look at how things are working out and table a report here in Parliament so we can keep an eye on whether this thing needs to be reviewed and updated again more quickly. That is an excellent measure as well. At the end of the day, this is about the balance of power of the inspectors, the amount of inspection we are doing, the use of new technologies in the way that Measurement Canada conducts its work, and the flexibility that would allow a greater number of innovations to come forward. It would allow us to more rapidly accommodate trade differences. Those things are all important in this bill. We must also look at aligning all of these regulations. There are a lot of government regulations and laws, as members may be aware. This is a Senate bill, and somebody from the Senate meticulously went through and collected all of this information on things that have been outstanding for years and put it together in one bill. I want to thank them for bringing this bill forward, because although not everyone is interested in the bill, the good that it would do for every sector across the country is quite impressive. There are some amendments that are interesting. The bill would provide a temporary permission for organizations to introduce emerging technologies to market without delay while awaiting approval. That is another good thing to build speed. The bill would also allow for sampling as a means to inspect devices, thereby increasing the efficiency in the oversight. The bill would create exemptions from burdensome requirements for small and seasonal businesses that sell electricity and natural gas. As we can imagine, for the programs that have to be put in place, to have records for calibrations, inspections, audits and everything else is an onerous bureaucracy for a very small business. There are permissions to exempt people, as we do not have to inspect and audit people all the time, especially when they have shown good behaviour. I think that is a good measure. One amendment would allow for preventive control plans to help prevent non-compliance. If businesses start to see that new technology has been implemented, and there are rules in place regarding that, but there is no compliance, and that non-compliance is chronic in that they are seeing a lot of examples, this bill would allow them to put together a preventive action plan so they could fix the problem. Some of the sectors involved in this bill are the following: electricity and natural gas, and we have talked about those; retail; food; retail systems; wholesale petroleum; fishing; forestry; grain and field crops; mining; and construction. Let us think about the breadth of what this legislation will do when it is applied to all of those businesses and starts to free them up to introduce new technology, become more productive and become more competitive. That is what Canadians want. Certainly, that is what we want. Some of the technologies that are described in the existing legislation are obsolete now, so we have an opportunity to do a little cleanup and get rid of all of the things that are mentioned that no longer exist or are used. I think that would be important for everybody. In summary, Bill S-3 intends to take all of these different acts and align them with all of the things Measurement Canada does to give some power to allow the minister to make temporary exemptions and introduce new innovative technologies. Plus they could make them permanent if the technology works out. At the same time, there are protections in here for consumers. There are guardrails to make sure that the inspections that are done are aligned with the risk of not inspecting, and there is some flexibility in the bill. In addition, we are going to make sure we review the situation every 10 years with a parliamentary report. That is going to be critical with respect to identifying when it is time to update it again so we do not get ourselves back in a situation where it is more than 40 years and we have not updated the regulations. With that, I would be happy to take questions.

Government Orders ·

Canadian Space Launch Act

“Canada only has two places where we can launch these kinds of satellites. The $200-million contract pays to build launch pads, not just rent the land. Can the member explain why it is so important for Canada to be able to launch its own satellites?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, with respect to the $200-million contract that is being spoken about, I asked questions about this as well because I was concerned. I found out it is not just for the lease, but it is also for the construction of several launching pads at that site. The reality is that there are only two locations in Canada, one in Newfoundland and this one in Nova Scotia, that are able to launch these kinds of satellites. Can the member reinforce why it is so important for Canada to have sovereignty in this area?

“The member mentioned gaps in this space launch bill. What changes would he like to see made to it in committee?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his service to our country and for his speech, and echo his condolences to the families of those who lost their lives at Wainwright, or are injured and recovering. Interestingly, I did not know that the member had a degree in space. I always knew he was smart, but now I know he is a rocket scientist. I also know Geoff Sheerin, who the member talked about in his speech, because he now lives in my riding. He is a real rocket scientist. What he is working on now with AlumaPower is a battery-powered portable kit that can be taken to the front lines of the battle to power the medical tents with no heat signal and no noise. It is just a super invention. I love to see technology move forward. The member talked about the gaps that he sees. Could he summarize the kinds of amendments that he would like to see brought to this bill when it goes to committee.

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

“Our last budget supported the arts and culture sector across Canada, and I hope the next budget does too. What does my colleague think of that support?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, our government introduced a number of measures in budget 2025 to support the cultural sector in Quebec and across the country, and I hope we will do the same again in budget 2026. Could my colleague share her thoughts on those measures?