Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The government says this investment fund is independent. But the Prime Minister's Office gets to pick the projects first. I want to know if my colleague finds that reassuring.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. At times, we do agree with the Conservatives. When that happens, perhaps the government should listen. The government, as part of its Canada Strong fund—which it likes to describe as a sovereign wealth fund—has determined that project selection would be carried out by the Major Projects Office and that these projects would first be chosen by the Prime Minister’s Office. Does my colleague find it reassuring that a supposedly independent fund will ultimately have to select its investments from the Prime Minister’s choices?”

In response to a question from Dan Muys

“The government should not pick which businesses to fund. That puts risk on taxpayers instead of private companies. The government should focus on good services and let businesses take their own risks.”

“Mr. Speaker, what worries me the most is that the economy is looking more and more like a command economy, where the government picks which economic projects it will invest in. I would argue that the role of government is to create conditions conducive to business and deliver government services to the people. I find this very troubling, because the government is going to take on the risks associated with investments and projects, when those risks would normally be on the private sector. Lastly, this is being done with the money of ordinary people, who need that money to get public services and who hope they will not have to pay for their grandchildren.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government has not clearly explained how its new wealth fund works. It has almost the same goals as the infrastructure bank, but it will be even more political. The Prime Minister's Office will directly choose its projects instead of keeping them independent.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question is very interesting. He is saying that I do not know the difference between the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, and the sovereign wealth fund the government is proposing. It is difficult to really know the difference because the government itself does not know. It has not yet fully explained what the sovereign wealth fund will be used for or how it will work. However, according to the government announcement, their objectives are more or less the same. The difference lies in how the two mechanisms operate. One has $35 billion, and the other has $25 billion. What is happening with the CIB’s $35 billion? The investment objectives are based on policies issued by the government. There are guidelines regarding the investments the CIB should make. In the case of the sovereign wealth fund, the investments will be dictated entirely by the government because they will be decided by the Major Projects Office, which is administered by the Prime Minister’s Office. This is making things even less independent and more political. That is the reality.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“The government should not create a new wealth fund. We already have several public banks and funds to pay for projects. The government is just repeating what already exists for show.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague’s question is a good one because it gives me an opportunity to address some points I did not have a chance to discuss in my speech. The government is introducing a new gimmick, the sovereign wealth fund, even though we already have the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, on which I serve, did indeed recommend abolishing the bank because it became clear that it was a political gimmick the Liberal government was using as a revolving door. Michael Sabia went from the Department of Finance to the Prime Minister’s Office to chair of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. There are also plenty of ties to consulting firms that are close to the government, such as BlackRock. I am actually not sure it is BlackRock. Anyway, the point is that we should be asking ourselves if we really have to duplicate what already exists. Besides, there are other institutions already, such as the Canada growth fund, the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada. There are already several entities that can finance projects. The government is just adding new ones for marketing purposes.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support the Conservative motion to cancel the new wealth fund. The government is borrowing 25 billion dollars to create it. We do not have extra money to save, so this just adds more debt and interest payments for taxpayers. It also lets the Prime Minister pick risky projects that private companies already rejected.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Conservatives’ opposition motion on the new so-called sovereign wealth fund, or the Canada Strong fund, which the Liberals announced in their economic update. In short, the Conservatives’ motion, which is a page long, argues that this fund should not exist and that the government should abandon it to limit our debt load, rather than increasing it. There is one thing that I have to point out right away to those who are here today. It is not every day that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the Conservatives. In fact, that is a rather rare occurrence. I think the fact that I am announcing my intention to vote in favour of the Conservative motion really says something, and I think most members of my party intend to do the same. That is bad news for the Liberals, but it does not matter because they have a majority. That is unfortunate, because if the government did not have this much-vaunted majority, then perhaps it would avoid making mistakes like this one. The Liberals are introducing the sovereign wealth fund as though they just reinvented sliced bread. They are saying that there are plenty of other countries in the world that have sovereign wealth funds and that by setting up such a fund, Canada will be able to get rich like those countries. If I go to the bank and borrow $200,000 because I want to buy a bigger house or do renovations at home, I am not richer the next morning, because I took on $200,000 in debt. That is exactly what the Liberals just did. They just took $25 billion and are going to issue bonds, but they are forgetting something: the interest payments. There is something else they are forgetting. There is now a sovereign wealth fund, this $25 billion, and they are going to have to do something to pay the interest. That is the Liberals’ gamble. They tell us that, since we have $25 billion, we are rich. In fact, we are not rich, we just have debt. That is on top of the already monstrous debt that Canada has accumulated over the years, particularly under the previous Liberal government, which is still in power today. This government has been around for more than 10 years. I cannot wait to see which way this is going to go over the course of the next three years, because it is starting to be alarming. Things have reached a point where the entirety of the GST is being used to pay interest on the debt. Not only that, interest on the debt is going to exceed the amount that Ottawa spends on health transfers. Soon, no one will be able to go to the hospital anymore. Actually, people will still be able to go to the hospital, but Ottawa will be too deeply in debt to keep paying its share of hospital costs. What will the government do then? It will cut transfers to the provinces. Still, it has a sovereign wealth fund. Generally speaking,what is the point of a sovereign wealth fund? A sovereign wealth fund is often set up by countries that want to put money aside when they have surpluses in order to avoid creating hyperinflation in their country or in case certain resources currently being developed are no longer available in the future. As members know, certain resources such as oil are non-renewable energy sources. Once oil wells have been depleted, that is it for oil. Some countries have been smart enough to set money aside. When the day comes that there is no more oil, they will still have money, instead of having spent it all. They will be able to continue helping their citizens. For example, they will be able to embark on an energy transition, as well as an economic transition, simply by setting money aside in all sorts of ways to continue funding the public services they want to provide to their people. In this case, we are still wondering where all the cash reserves from Canada’s oil industry went. The answer is simple. Not a single penny was set aside. All of it got squandered. Now the government is finally waking up and realizing that maybe it should have set some money aside, but it is a bit late. When we compare Canada to other countries, it is pretty clear that those countries are in a better economic situation than we are. However, this raises a question. This sovereign wealth fund will have to be paid back. At the very least, if it is not paid back, the interest on the debt will have to be paid. How will the government pay the interest on the debt? If it cannot generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the debt associated with this sovereign wealth fund, what will ultimately happen? People will continue to get even poorer. What is the government’s plan for making money to enrich Canadians? What will the sovereign wealth fund be used for? It is going to be used to invest in Canada. That is rather broad. It could mean just about anything. The government is going to invest in Canada, but now it is telling us that it is going to invest to attract private capital. I find that interesting because, usually, when one wants to attract private capital, it is because private capital will make money. Why would private capital put money into investments that it does not currently want to invest in? That is the idea behind the sovereign wealth fund: take risky projects that the private sector is avoiding and ensure that investments are made and that the projects go forward. That is the exact same mandate as the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB. Now, the government has conveniently decided to duplicate that structure with an additional $25 billion, with another bureaucratic pyramid and with more people being paid big salaries to manage it, rather than just giving the CIB the mandate to manage those additional funds. There is a lot I could say about the CIB in general, but that is not the subject of today’s debate. What is the idea behind all this? What does it all boil down to? It is a charade. The idea is to put on a show, to announce the creation of a sovereign wealth fund similar to funds that other countries with money set aside have, when we do not have a penny to spare here. That is what is happening. The government is pretending to have something that it does not have. I was saying that this debt will have to be paid back, or at least the interest will have to be paid. How will we pay the interest on projects that the private sector did not want to invest in in the first place because they were too risky and because the private sector thought it could not make money on them? What classic device is being used? Public funds are used to reduce the riskiness of projects and thus absorb the risks and losses if the projects do not work out, or at least ensure that the project is profitable for the private sector. If there is no profitability to begin with, the public would absorb the loss. How are we supposed to make money on something the private sector said it would not turn a profit and, on top of that, pay off the interest on the $25‑billion debt we just incurred? I am having a hard time understanding how the government is going to do that. I am going to need some serious explanations from the people on the other side of the House. For now, it is not very impressive. It is especially worrisome when the government gambles with taxpayers’ money. All this government is doing is using marketing tactics to sell us all sorts of pipe dreams. That worries me because, on top of everything else, the decisions around which projects will receive investment will not be made independently. The government is saying there will be an independent board of directors. How is it actually going to work? The projects to be funded by this much-touted sovereign wealth fund will be referred by the Major Projects Office. Which projects will be referred by the Major Projects Office? The Prime Minister will decide which projects get referred. What we are being told, then, is that the Prime Minister will select the projects to be referred to the Major Projects Office, which will then refer them to the sovereign wealth fund. This is surprising, because that is exactly what is happening right now with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Someone will have to explain to me who is doing what, but that is another story. How are they going to make decisions independently if the selection process is politicized right from the start? What does a politicized process mean? It means that the Prime Minister will choose projects based on what he considers to be good projects. A project that is considered good and promising is not always one that will turn a profit right away. What is even more concerning is that ordinary people are being invited to invest in this sovereign wealth fund, with the assurance that there is nothing to worry about and that their investment will potentially be guaranteed. Generally speaking, an investment is guaranteed when the return is lower. How does the government plan to attract private capital when it is guaranteeing individuals’ investments and has to pay interest on a $25‑billion debt? The reality is that it could end up using accounting practices designed to ensure the public does not fully understand what is going on. I am fascinated by this sovereign wealth fund where all the projects are chosen by the Prime Minister. The government is calling it a sovereign wealth fund, but I think it should be called “the sovereign’s wealth fund”. We know we have a Prime Minister who draws a lot of inspiration from the monarchy, and I get the impression that is the direction we are heading in, a situation where the Prime Minister, all alone in his office, has complete control over what the future will look like and what will happen with people’s money, and that is particularly worrying.”

“Canada should not create a sovereign wealth fund using borrowed money. Other countries only do this when they have extra money.”

“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary’s argument is essentially that we should have a sovereign wealth fund here because other countries also have sovereign wealth funds. However, what he is forgetting is that those other countries use surpluses instead of debt to build up their sovereign wealth funds. It is a bit like if I were to buy a house that costs three times the price I can afford. Let us say I buy a house for $10 million and I make $50,000 a year, because I wanted to be like my neighbour, who makes $300,000 a year. Does it make sense to do something I cannot afford to do simply because my neighbour did it?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  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 →

“The government's wealth fund is based on debt, not savings. How much debt did Canada take on for it? How much will that debt cost taxpayers each year?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member opposite. The government talks about a sovereign wealth fund, but we know perfectly well that this fund is only masquerading as one. Sovereign wealth funds exist in almost every country of the world. They are based on savings and what people decide to put away for future needs. In this case, however, the fund is based on debt, not savings. My questions for my colleague opposite are as follows. How much debt has Canada taken on to create this phoney sovereign wealth fund? How much is this extra debt going to cost taxpayers annually?”

“The government said this wealth fund would be independent. It is not independent if the Prime Minister chooses which projects get funded.”

“Mr. Speaker, among other things, this so-called sovereign wealth fund—so called because that is the tagline the liberal government baptized it with—is tasked with investing in projects selected by the Major Projects Office. The thing is, the Prime Minister himself is the one who decides what projects to send to the Major Projects Office. We were told the sovereign wealth fund would be independent, but how can it be independent if the Prime Minister is the one choosing which projects to fund?”

“This bill is short and gives almost no details about what the government actually plans to do. It leaves all the rules for later regulations. Does the member think this is enough detail to make a real law?”

“Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on the bill with my colleague when we get to committee stage. My question for him is the following. We have a bill that is about 10 pages long and has almost no details on the government’s real intentions. We are being told that everything will come through regulations. Does my colleague find that reassuring and does he think that is enough to turn this bill into a real law?”

In response to a question from Costas Menegakis

“I am not convinced yet. This government often works in secret. I want the bill changed in committee to make it more open and accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, I am not entirely convinced. I need to have all the information before I can answer that, but if the past is any indication, it does not look good. We know that we have a government that likes to do things behind closed doors. To me, what matters is ensuring the highest possible level of accountability and transparency. I am hopeful that, during the committee review stage, amendments will be proposed that will allow us to ensure that going forward.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I hope this space bill moves quickly through the House so a committee can study the details. Canada does not have laws specifically for space yet, only for airplanes, so we need to hear from experts to get this right.”

“Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague’s question about how I see this moving forward, I would say that I hope it will progress fairly quickly in the House. We often focus on the big picture in the House. We tend to pay less attention to the details and concentrate more, shall we say, on the broader issues. As for how things will proceed at the committee stage, that will depend on the witnesses who are called to appear and on what we learn. At the moment, I think we are at the stage of sorting out the details. The government has admitted this itself, given that this is the first bill of its kind to be introduced. In fact, there is no legal framework specifically for the aerospace sector. At the moment, we are simply relying on the laws that apply to air travel and aeronautics. As the government itself is still in its infancy, we cannot claim to be any further ahead than the government. At least, I hope that is the case.”

In response to a question from Philip Lawrence

“I want the government to tell us what rules will come with this bill. We do not know what the government actually plans to do. That makes it hard for us to do our work on this bill.”

“Madam Speaker, that would be helpful because we are kind of in the dark at the moment. We are being told that regulations will be forthcoming. Do government members already know what will be in the regulations? If they know, why not put that in Bill C‑28? If they think the regulations are not fit to be included in the bill, why not tell us more so we have a sense of the government’s plans? My concern here is that we have, on occasion, seen the government make all kinds of program announcements. It announces wonderful things in the budget, and then it takes years for things in the budget to materialize as actual programs. Sometimes the government announces things without knowing what it is going to do or where it is going to go with them. If we had a sense of where it wanted to go, we could work more effectively in committee going forward.”

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“I do not trust the federal government on this. It ignores Quebec's talent, like when it bought planes from the United States instead of from Bombardier. Quebec would be better off on its own.”

“Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no reason to trust Ottawa on this issue because history has shown that Ottawa does not serve Quebec well in any regard. Let us look at a recent example, when relations with the U.S. were already strained and President Trump was already in office. Bombardier makes air surveillance aircraft that could have served our armed forces very well, and yet Canada decided to snub Bombardier’s aircraft and buy American planes. The government could have bought its aircraft from Quebec and strengthened the capabilities of our local industry, but for whatever reason that is beyond my comprehension, it always ignores Quebec’s talent. It is very frustrating. That is why we think that an independent Quebec would be better off showcasing its own expertise, rather than being constantly looked down on by the rest of Canada.”

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“I appreciate that my colleague asked her questions in French. This topic is broad, and I do not have all the answers right now. A committee needs to hear from many witnesses to properly answer her questions about this space launch bill.”

“Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for asking her questions in French. We always appreciate it when people make the effort to speak French in the House. We do not hear that very often. The presence of French is often forgotten in Canada, if not denigrated and repressed. My colleague’s question is like a burst of fresh air. As for her questions, I would say that the matter is fairly broad. That is precisely why it would be necessary to hear from many witnesses during the committee study of Bill C‑28 to ensure that we can properly address the concerns and questions my colleague has raised. At this time, I cannot claim to have all the answers to these questions.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I support this space bill, but I worry about giving the minister too much control. Quebec has over 40,000 aerospace jobs and great expertise. I want to make sure the government supports real talent fairly, instead of just picking who gets the money.”

“Madam Speaker, to answer my colleague’s question, yes, as we said, we welcome Bill C‑28. In Quebec, the aerospace industry accounts for more than 40,000 jobs—nearly 42,000 according to 2023 data. A lot of people work in this sector. I do not think Manitoba has 42,000 jobs in this sector. I am not saying there are no skilled people or people working on interesting things in Manitoba, but I do think Quebec has significant expertise that we have to retain. We have to leverage that, not spread our efforts thin. That is why I am concerned about putting so much discretionary power in the minister’s hands. I want to make sure we have a fair system that rewards excellence, not whoever Ottawa chooses to reward.”

“I support the idea of Canada having rules and sites to launch its own space rockets. Canada is far behind other countries. But this bill gives the minister too much power to make rules in secret. I want to study it in committee to make sure Quebec gets launch sites and support.”

“Madam Speaker, this morning we are talking about Bill C‑28, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other acts. Essentially, we are talking about this because the government wants to establish a legislative framework for satellite launches and space launches. Canada does not have a legislative framework for this type of activity. In addition, Canada is currently fully dependent on the Americans. They have been a historic partner we used to work with for this type of launch, relying on their facilities and expertise. That is why the government introduced this bill today. Does the Bloc Québécois see this in a negative light? I would say that it depends. In fact, we see it as more positive than negative, but we still have some questions. Space exploration was a hot topic in the 1950s and 1960s. At the time, it was mainly the U.S.S.R. and the United States that were competing with one another. However, that does not change the fact that all countries around the world had a vested interest in thinking about this issue and building their capacity. Today, we are seeing trends emerging on the international stage. Companies like SpaceX and Starlink are increasingly using earth’s orbit for all kinds of communications, such as the Internet. It feels like we are heading more and more in that direction in the future. There will be more launches. Under these circumstances, it would be beneficial for us to have our own launch capabilities here. On that point, I do not think I have any objections. The only question is, why is Canada 50 or 60 years behind? It is 2026. Today we are realizing that we are lagging behind the United States and the rest of the world. One might argue that the circumstances have changed. One could say that Canada was perhaps the most naive country in the world, because it is the only G7 country that does not have its own launch capabilities. That is quite surprising. Canada is waking up rather late. That being said, since we have to start somewhere, let us begin with the bill before us. We will study it carefully and examine what is being proposed. In essence, what does the bill do? It amends the Aeronautics Act. Obviously, spacecraft are not aircraft, but this legislation governs the use of airspace. It determines how launch and re-entry activities work, and it establishes definitions. For example, it defines what launch vehicles and re-entry vehicles are. It also provides that certain definitions will be created through regulations. However, it is extremely unfortunate that the bill contains so few definitions. There are few details on what purpose it all serves. It creates a legislative framework, but it gives the government maximum flexibility to decide how it will work, through regulations. This means that parliamentarians are not the ones who are going to study the issue. The minister’s office will be able to decide the more specific rules behind closed doors and in secret. That allows more flexibility to adapt to future developments without needing to go through Parliament again. That much is obvious. The downside, however, is that decisions can be made behind closed doors, without us parliamentarians being able to keep an eye on these matters and without the public and the media knowing what is going on. This can lead to abuses if there is no adequate oversight. We will have to see in committee what the oversight mechanisms will look like if all the power to establish the rules is concentrated in the hands of the minister. This would create a situation where it would become pretty easy for certain organizations or companies to get special treatment through lobbying or influence campaigns. That is not what we want. We also do not want the government to be able to decide to prevent the best and brightest from reaching their full potential, so we will be keeping a close eye on this. The bill also authorizes the minister: ...to indemnify owners and operators of launch or re-entry vehicles in certain circumstances, and when it is in the public interest, for their liability to third parties for loss or damage caused by their activities.... When someone wants to get into the space launch business and they go to see an insurer and say that they want to do business in this sector, the insurer will likely be extremely surprised and tell them that it will cost them a lot of money because very few people are in this business and the risks are quite significant. The bill enables the government to assume the risk, if it so desires, and to indemnify those who experience setbacks. That is not a terrible idea, because, if we want to encourage investment in extremely risky activities, if we want to encourage people to get involved in these sorts of activities when we do not have the expertise or companies that are as well established as those in the United States, for example, then it may help to tell them that the government will support them should any problems arise. However, here is the question: How will the government decide who to support and who not to support? Will that just be left up to the minister’s discretion? We have a lot of questions about that. There is also the whole issue of the public interest because some people will feel the effects of this. We need to ensure that we have proper protections in place for those who experience setbacks. We need to ensure that they are properly indemnified and that they are, at the very least, protected from the risks. I do not think that anyone will feel reassured if we tell them not to worry because we will buy them a new house if theirs burns down. People would rather we make sure that their house does not burn down in the first place. The bill before us today still needs work, but we are coming at it with a very open mind because this legislation is necessary and Canada is lagging far behind. It will be very interesting to hear what the witnesses have to say at committee. This is a highly specialized subject, and their expertise will help us. I am certainly no aerospace engineer, but I do know a few of them. It will be helpful to get input from industry people and from people who live in places that are potential launch sites. How are these launch sites selected? Are there criteria? Are the criteria objective, or is it all at the minister’s discretion again? There are a lot of unanswered questions at this point. It is important to note that the bill would amend a bunch of acts: the Carriage by Air Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Secure Air Travel Act. We will have to investigate the broader implications of amending those acts. Yes, the goal is to create a legislative framework, a space, a structure for the aerospace sector, but legislative amendments can have unexpected consequences, outcomes nobody anticipated because we do not necessarily have all the knowledge and expertise when the time comes to vote at second reading. We are going to take this seriously and give the government the benefit of the doubt. I think the government is trying to do something commendable. The question is how it goes about it. Unfortunately, the devil is often in the details. We are used to the Liberals slipping in little poison pills here and there, or proposing somewhat hidden plans designed to favour or help their cronies. There is nothing leading me to believe that that will be the case this time. Still, we have become so accustomed to these kinds of Liberal manoeuvres that we will certainly keep that in mind as we move forward with the process. Another issue we have questions about is the fact that there is currently only one launch site, located in Canso, Nova Scotia. Would it make sense to have others in the future? What exactly justifies the conclusion that this is the only place where one should be located? I have nothing against the existing site. I think we need more sites. At the very least, these are questions that need to be asked. It also remains to be seen what amendments will be proposed by the other parties, whether by the Conservative Party, which is represented at committee, or by the NDP, which is not. I do not know whether the NDP members will have the time, energy and resources to take an interest in this bill. The same goes for the Green Party. I do not know what its intentions are in this regard. Since I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, I obviously think that the Bloc has the best ideas and the best vision, but the other parties sometimes have good ideas too. That is less true of the Liberals, but we will still listen to what they have to say, especially since they are the ones in office and we do not have much choice in the matter. Is it time for Canada to develop its capabilities? I would say yes, definitely. However, there is one thing that is not very clear in this legislation and that I look forward to learning more about, and that is the fact that this type of aerospace launch facility often also has military uses, not just civilian uses. It has scientific and commercial uses, and this framework will have to regulate all of that. It would be nice to get an idea of the Liberals’ interests. What are their intentions moving forward? How do they intend to capitalize on the legal framework that we will soon be working on? I think that the question of research interest is obvious. The question of commercial interest is being discussed more and more. Awareness of this issue is growing. However, the question of defence interest should not be overlooked. It does not seem like it is being discussed publicly at present, but I think it should not be forgotten. It seems obvious to me that National Defence will want to use these sites for military testing. What types of military tests would be conducted? Where do Canada’s military capabilities currently stand, specifically in terms of defence autonomy? We see this elsewhere in the world. Investments in the aerospace sector can often have military applications, just as many investments in the military sector can also have applications in the aerospace sector. Just think of ballistic missiles. Is the purpose of this bill to support certain sectors? As I mentioned, there is certainly a military interest, from a defence perspective, and a commercial interest, but it would be nice to know which specific sectors the government intends to support and how it plans to use these tools. I believe that everyone deserves transparency, that everyone deserves to know the truth. Having as much transparency as possible will also allow us to move forward with as much confidence as possible. I do not think anyone wants to end up with nasty surprises in a few years because things were hidden from the public, because this was never properly debated and because the necessary legal framework was not established through the amendments this bill needed in case any blind spots were left unaddressed. We have important work to do on this bill, and we are going to approach it with the utmost seriousness. Obviously, we cannot fault the Canadian government for wanting to break free from its dependence on American facilities. However, the question that will always be asked, and that we must also always monitor, is who is going to invest in this? We are not divesting from American interests only to jump into the arms of other interests. Still, we have to take a serious approach if we sincerely want to achieve Canadian sovereignty and eventually Quebec sovereignty. That is what I want. We have emerging companies with potential. We have expertise in Canada. In fact, the Canadian Space Agency’s headquarters is located in Saint-Hubert, just a stone’s throw from my riding. The CSA has lots of expertise and great facilities. I am sure that its representatives will have things to say about this bill and interesting opinions to share. Why not have a launch site in Quebec, given that the CSA is based there? Logistically speaking, it would be much closer than having to travel all the way to Canso, Nova Scotia. Is there potential to develop something in Quebec? I can see the value in that. I think that, as Quebeckers, it is in our interest to have this type of expertise, even if it already exists here. Quebec has an aerospace industry, as I mentioned, with the space centre in Saint-Hubert, but we also have plenty of aeronautics expertise and knowledge. A great deal of aeronautics knowledge and expertise is applicable to aerospace. We have Bombardier, which is an important player in Quebec, but we also have the Airbus and Bell Textron facilities. People in the aeronautics sector are interested in what is happening in the space sector, and their skills often come in handy. Given that Quebec has this strength, I hope the federal government will be willing to recognize that we already have assets and strengths in Quebec. Why not build on Quebec’s strengths and assets rather than spreading our efforts all over the place and ultimately ending up with something that is less powerful, less interesting and less effective? Quebec has the expertise, and we must make the most of it. Unfortunately, the federal government still does not have an aeronautics policy, even though aeronautics is a leading industry that is very lucrative for Quebec. It is a cutting-edge field, and yet Ottawa has no vision for it. I think that is unfortunate. The same goes for the aerospace sector, as we now see. This is 60 years overdue. It is high time we developed a vision, but is this really a vision? I do not think it is. This is a framework. If the government has a vision, then it would be good to know what it is. Right now, it is unclear whether the government has one. Obviously, the current regulatory framework is inadequate. We will work on that, particularly with regard to rocket launches, satellite imagery and the full potential of satellites, which have a growing number of applications. We are discovering more every year, almost every month. We know that satellites are highly useful, including in the war in Ukraine. Were it not for these advantages, particularly those derived from the tools the Americans have put at its disposal, Ukraine would have already lost the war. That aspect is often underestimated. We often tend to overlook it, but it is very important. This has an impact in the military sphere, but there is also the issue of Internet access in the regions, in more remote areas. In the future, will technological developments render the entire wired Internet system we have today obsolete? Will our communications and telecommunications systems become outdated? I cannot say. What I do know is that we are increasingly seeing a trend toward satellite technologies when it comes to investments and that there is a lot of potential there. Earlier, I mentioned that Quebec is home to several companies in the aerospace industry. I am thinking about Héroux Devtek, which is in the landing gear business. We could also talk about Quebec companies that manufacture flight simulators. In addition, there is a new Quebec start-up company based in Longueuil, in my area. It plans to use the facility in Canso, Nova Scotia. This company is Reaction Dynamics, which is working on its own vehicle, the Aurora-8, which would be completely independent from what is being done in the United States. It is a great start-up that we want to encourage, because we think it has a lot of potential. We are proud of our homegrown expertise. We believe that the Canadian government must continue to have a vision. I say “continue”, but the government did not have a vision until now, so in fact, it needs to develop a vision. What matters to us is that Quebec’s interests are taken into account. Expertise in the satellite industry is important. Apparently, 20% of our economic activity is tied to satellites. That is huge. With digitization playing an ever-increasing role in almost everything, satellites are the future. That is why it is important to get on board. I have more to say, but I may get a chance to say it during the committee’s study.”