“The government's plan to launch a rocket by 2028 is unrealistic. This space bill is also missing rules on national defence. It does not protect Canadian technology or stop foreign countries from interfering. How can the government support this bill when it has no security checks?”

“Mr. Speaker, 2% GDP, NATO spending compliant, successful recruiting and now a 2028 rocket launch are all Liberal illusions. It is a ridiculous promise unless they are referring to a model rocket. I have heard enough hot air to launch a rocket. My question is specific to the components of this legislation. What parts would allow parliamentary review for security screening to protect from foreign interference, hostile state use and the theft of Canadian IP? There is none of that in there. This is all critical. Also, there are components that are missing from the legislation around defence. Could member speak to that?”

“The Liberals are not taking this space bill seriously. It gives the government too much secret and heavy-handed control instead of following clear rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice earlier when one of my Liberal colleagues shouted the famous Buzz Lightyear line, “To infinity and beyond” in response to today’s space bill. That seems to be the level of seriousness this Liberal government has when it comes to such an important issue. This sort of trivialization raises a serious question. When Canadians see this kind of attitude, they wonder whether our legislation is being approached with the rigour it deserves. Why are we seeing, in this bill, a shift away from disciplined, rules-based decision-making toward something far more secretive and heavy-handed under this Liberal government?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 23 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 →

“Conservatives support a space program for Canada, but this bill is too vague. It leaves out basic rules and safety details and hands too much power to the minister. That hurts investment and opens the door to corruption.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I will be splitting my time with the spectacular member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. I have to move on to a brief but very sad note. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the tragic incident that happened in my riding in the town of Cobourg yesterday. An OPP officer in my community died in the line of duty in a tragic accident. I want to take a moment to remember Sergeant Brandon Malcolm’s memory and send our thoughts and prayers to his family. Godspeed, my friend. I will start the speech in earnest. Canada has a proud space past. We have numerous accomplishments. Look at the satellites we have built and put into space. There is the Magellan company, which the member for Winnipeg North mentioned. We are all very proud of that. We are proud of great astronauts like Chris Hadfield and Roberta Bondar, and Jeremy Hansen most recently. I am a “space‑phile”. I love two academic subjects. One is space and the other is politics. I was glued to the television, watching Jeremy Hansen. I had the Artemis II app as they made it all the way around the moon. It is the farthest humans have ever been. A Canadian was not just a part of that, but a big part of that. He was leading the charge. I will warn that criticism of the legislation is coming forward, but let there be no doubt that Conservatives are full‑throated supporters of Canadians taking their rightful position in the lead in the next space race. Let me talk a little about some of the concerns that come from this legislation. It purports to create a legislative framework for the launching of rockets into space from Canada. That is a notable and laudable objective, and it is something we all should aspire to. The challenge is what is actually in the legislation or, more accurately put, what is not in the legislation. If I can, I will go over some of the things that are not in this legislation. When we look at a piece of legislation that purports to create a framework for the launching of rockets into space, one would think a key term included in it is the word ”launch”. It is not included. “Launch vehicle” is also something one would think we would want to define in the legislation. It is not included. “Re‑entry vehicle” is another important piece. It is a descriptor and another important definition that one might want to include in that legislation. Let us go over some of the broad topics now that are not included in the legislation, such as permitting an authorization system, the certification and operation of launch and re‑entry sites, safety requirements, financial responsibility and insurance, liability and indemnification, zoning and land use, the application of international agreements and standards, emergency powers and stop orders, administrative enforcement matters, exemptions and exclusions. I know the members across will ask Conservatives how we are going to vote on this. My question is, what are we going to vote on? Where is the beef, as they say? The legislation might as well be two lines, saying the minister shall grant, on the terms that they wish, a launch pad wherever they want, whenever they want, and we shall just trust them. I have something I would like to share with all Canadians. If a politician comes up to them, regardless of whether they are a Liberal, a Conservative, from the NDP, a Green or from whatever party, and says to just trust them, do not do it. Here is a real challenge that comes from the uncertainty and the overreliance on regulation in the legislation. The challenge is the two Cs. One is certainty and the other is corruption. When we are looking to invest in an economy, when we are looking to invest in a business and when we are looking to buy anything, we want certainty. When an investor is looking from around the world and the trillions of dollars that float around in the global economy, they ask where they are going to put that money. They could put it into a country that has a defined regulatory system and prescribed legislation that allow people to understand with full certainty how their money will be utilized and whether or not a launch will be permitted, or they could invest in Canada, where, at some point, there will be some regulations about something regarding a launch that will, no doubt, help Liberal insiders. If I am sitting outside of Canada and I have billions of dollars to invest, I am thinking, “Canada has many great things.” We have some of the leading research scientists in the world. We have great people. We have great resources and great universities, like Waterloo, that are leading the charge. What we do not have from this legislation is certainty, and without certainty, we really do not have anything. It is a challenge, because we do not know how that is going to be interpreted and what the minister is going do. The minister, in response to my colleague’s question, actually said he just copied his homework, and in the U.S., they do the same. When he says that about the U.S., I hope he is not copying Russia or China. That would be troublesome for its own reasons, but he said they are copying the homework. That is not even entirely true, because in the U.S., the licensing of launch pads is actually done by independent professionals that operate at arm’s length from the government, such as the FAA and other professionals. In Canada, with this legislation, we would put it directly under the minister, which then opens us up to the other troublesome C, which is corruption. When given absolute power, it corrupts absolutely. That was said many years ago. We have certainly seen it over the last 10 years. Whether we are talking about the WE scandal, SNC-Lavalin, the billions of dollars blown on consultants or the Canada Infrastructure Bank, these ministers have a penchant for making bad decisions. As I said earlier, if any politician of any stripe comes up to a Canadian and says, “Just trust me,” that is the key for all Canadians to know not to trust them. There is a reason why we put the rule of law in place. It is that it creates a level, equal playing field for all Canadians. There is perhaps a reason that we have seen $1 trillion of capital flowing out from our country during the Trudeau and Carney eras of government. This is challenging.”

“I want the government to put clear details in this space bill before we vote on it. It leaves too many rules to be decided later. The government should define key terms like launch vehicles right in the bill, publish the draft rules now, and let experts make the final decisions instead of the minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should say “the Prime Minister”. It is 10 years of Liberal rule, and I appreciate the ability to underline that. It is another Liberal, one might say. In the last decade, we have seen $1 trillion of capital flowing out. It is precisely what this legislation would embody that is the problem. Here we are. Now we are sitting here and we have to make a legislative decision. We have to decide whether or not we support this. What Conservatives are really asking for is to know what we are voting for. Nancy Pelosi famously once said they will pass the bill and then read the bill. The Conservatives believe the opposite should be true. We need to know what is in this legislation. My hon. colleague has posed a number of great questions about security and the screening of the payloads that will go up. We need to know what is in the legislation. I have two constructive suggestions for the members opposite. One is to include necessary things, such as a definition of a launch vehicle in the legislation. Amend it so that we know what is in the legislation. The second, if they really wish to go forward with regulations, is that there is nothing in law to stop them from publishing today draft regulations that would demonstrate to all Canadians exactly what their intent is going forward. Take some of the ministerial discretion and put it onto the people who are the professionals who are able to objectively review it and provide us with objective decisions on it. Those are a couple of things that would certainly help Conservatives make a decision.”

“We should slow down and rethink this bill. The government is trying to regulate space rockets with an old law meant for airplanes.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think in this case, it would make a ton of sense to go slow to go fast. We need to walk this legislation back to provide certainty going forward. To give an idea to those folks who are watching out there, the government did not even create a new piece of legislation. It is amending the Aeronautics Act, which is really there to regulate airplanes. When the government understands that there is a difference between airplanes and rockets, we will be well ahead.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill about space launches is too weak on national security. It leaves decisions to ministers behind closed doors instead of putting clear rules into law. I want strong rules to stop our foreign enemies from using Canada's space program.”

“Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear “space launches”, they think of rockets and satellites, but what they should really be thinking about is security, who is launching, what they are launching and who is behind it. This where the bill falls short. There is no clear national security test written into law. Instead, we are told to trust the ministers. They will figure it out later, behind closed doors. This is an object being launched into orbit over Canadian territory, over our Arctic and over our infrastructure in our communities. Why is the government asking Canadians to trust discretion, instead of putting clear and enforceable security laws into rules that would guarantee that foreign adversaries cannot exploit Canada’s space sector?”

“Launching rockets into space is very important for Canada's economy. The government rushed this bill and did a poor job. We should have made a separate, well-thought-out law instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, having the ability to launch rockets into space is incredibly important for our Canadian economy. This is why it is that much more critical that it be done correctly. I do not understand why the government has created this slapdash job of legislation. It really would not have been difficult to create a separate piece of legislation that would have understood and contemplated the complexities of space travel and put Canada on the right foot going forward.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill in its current form. It is too short and simple for space travel, which makes investors worry they will lose their money.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling, but more importantly, so do many Canadians, including those who control the capital that would ultimately be used to build space launches and invest in rockets here in Canada. Because of this uncertainty, they would not know whether their investment will be returned to them. I agree 110%. A piece of legislation on something as complex as space travel should not be a couple of pages in length.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 97 of 100

  Of this reply, 96% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“This bill needed to be done, but it was not done well.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I talk to my son about doing his homework, I repeat a line that has been used for hundreds of years. Every job has two things in common: It has to be done, and it has to be done well. We have only the first accomplished here.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 14 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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Canada has the talent and geography to lead in the space economy, but this bill gives too much power to the minister behind closed doors. It is missing key details and lacks transparency. I want a committee to study and fix the bill so it actually helps businesses invest and compete.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. There are some subjects that still have the power to inspire wonder, and certainly space is one of them. For generations, it has sparked curiosity, discovery and the belief that the next great breakthrough may still be ahead of us. It reminds us that progress is not automatic but must be chosen, must be built and must be earned. Canada has long had the talent, the ingenuity and the industrial capacity to contribute to the space economy. Our laws have not kept pace with the opportunities before us. Canada is not a stranger to excellence in space, far from it. We gave the world the Canadarm. We became leaders in robotics, satellite technology, remote sensing, communications and advanced aerospace engineering. Canadian innovators have helped shape missions that reached orbit, the International Space Station, Mars and beyond. Our workers, engineers, technicians, researchers and manufacturers have earned global respect, and just recently, Canadians had another reason to feel proud: Commander Jeremy Hansen from southwestern Ontario, a Canadian astronaut, recently returned home as part of the Artemis II mission. That mission carried humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years and farther from earth than any people in human history. Think about that. A Canadian helping lead humanity’s return to deep space exploration is not only symbolic. It is a reminder that Canadian talent belongs at the front edge of great endeavours. The question before us is simple: Will our laws, policies and economic climate allow Canada to participate fully in the next era of space development, or will we once again watch opportunity leave our shores, as has happened too often after 10 years of the Liberals? The global space economy is no longer theoretical. It is real, and it is growing rapidly. It includes launch services, satellite deployment, communications, earth observation, defence applications, navigation, research, manufacturing, data services and technologies that we have not yet even imagined. The global space economy is expected to contribute in excess of a trillion dollars in just a few years and $1.8 trillion within a decade. It is an industry growing at nearly 10% a year. Countries around the world understand this, and they are competing for this investment. They are building launch capacity, they are creating clear regulatory pathways and they are moving with urgency. Canada also possesses natural advantages that many other countries do not. We are a vast nation with northern geography; we have access to remote corridors, coastal opportunities, strong aerospace clusters and world‑class research institutions such as universities that have been mentioned in the debate thus far; and we have the ingredients many countries would envy. The question is whether we have the policy environment to make use of them. Canada must understand this as well. When investors face uncertainty, as my colleague from Northumberland—Clarke just talked about, they go elsewhere. When approvals take too long, they go elsewhere. If governments confuse announcements with outcomes, they also go elsewhere. That is why regulatory certainty matters, and that is why it is puzzling that Bill C-28 would give the Liberal minister all the power to make decisions on what goes into space from behind closed doors. This would undermine transparency, and Parliament has every reason to be concerned. However, there are certainly positive elements in Bill C-28. It recognizes that launch and re-entry activities require a dedicated framework. What we are asking for is a draft of those details around that. The bill would address safety, liability, site certification and emergency powers, but legislation is only a beginning, and that is where there are gaping holes. The true test is execution, and that is a concern when the legislation would give all the power to one individual, the minister. Where is the regulatory framework? Can Canada approve projects in a timely manner? Can we attract private capital? Can we ensure public confidence? Can Canada build a reputation for competence and reliability? Those questions remain unanswered by the legislation. Another principle that must guide us from the beginning is transparency. Whenever governments are involved in strategically emerging sectors, and whenever public funds, public lands or public approvals are at stake, Canadians must know that decisions are being made fairly, openly and on merit. That principle matters all the more when recent contracts and infrastructure decisions have raised legitimate concerns, and when political connections and insider proximity to power seem to have trumped a framework brought about by professionals. Canadians are ambitious people. They support private sector growth, they support innovation and they do not want favouritism. A new industry must not become an old story. If Canada is serious about building leadership in the space economy, then procurement must be clean, selection processes must be credible and accountability must be absolute. Conservatives are in favour of enhancing Canada’s sovereignty and space capabilities, but we are not in favour of any framework that could become a blank cheque for Liberal insiders or foreign agents. Canadians have recently seen major public decisions raise legitimate questions. In Nova Scotia, the government announced a $200‑million agreement tied to the planned spaceport project, but it should be noted that the project’s proponent has publicly listed former Nova Scotia Liberal premier Stephen McNeil on its advisory board. At the transport committee, we also examined the Canada Infrastructure Bank loan connected to the Mersey River wind project and the concerns surrounding that process and its uneasy connection to Liberal insiders. These examples are exactly why emerging strategic sectors must begin the right way. Canadians should be confident that contracts are awarded on merit, public money is protected and proximity to power never outweighs public interest. This debate is also about something larger. It is about national confidence. Too often, Canada has grown comfortable thinking small. We should be a country that builds major projects, and certainly notwithstanding the record of the Liberal government, so let us not allow Bill C-28 to become a missed opportunity because it is too dependent on political will and not proper regulatory processes, administrative tribunals and the needed oversights. We should be a country that has the tax regulatory climate to set up a healthy private sector that invests in advanced industries. We should be a country that rewards innovators, engineers, tradespeople, entrepreneurs and workers who turn ideas into reality. We should be a country that looks forward. In communities like mine, we know what advanced industry looks like. We know the value of steel, precision manufacturing, logistics, defence, engineering and skilled trades. Those same capabilities can and should help power Canada’s next growth sectors, including aerospace and space technologies. That applies to ports, transportation corridors, energy and manufacturing as well. Bill C-28 now comes before Parliament with its gaping holes. It deserves careful study and thoughtful consideration at committee, because it needs much more detail. It deserves witness testimony from industry, regulators, legal experts, security experts, provincial partners and innovators on the ground. We should examine competitiveness. We should examine liability exposure. We should examine timelines. We should examine transparency safeguards. We should ensure that the final product would help Canada succeed in practice, not merely in press releases. Canada has the people, Canada has the talent, Canada has the geography, Canada has the industrial base and Canada has the history. What we need now is the seriousness to match it. I look forward to seeing the bill studied at committee, strengthened and judged by whether it helps Canada compete, build and lead in the years ahead.”