“My community cares about space launches, but we also need help cleaning up abandoned boats along our coast. The government ended the program to remove them. I want to know when they will reopen it.”

“Mr. Speaker, in communities like mine there is a lot of ambition around space launches. Communities like mine are still waiting to know when we are going to get a chance to clean up derelict vessels around the coastline. I have proponents in my communities who want to remove the boats, but the Liberals defunded and closed the program. When are you going to reopen it and deliver relief to my communities?”

“This bill has big goals for a Canadian space program, but it has very few details. It leaves too many decisions to the government instead of explaining the plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss this important bill. It is a real opportunity to talk about issues that are important to our communities. The government has been incredibly ambitious with this bill, talking about the possibility of launching rockets into space from Canada and developing a national space program by 2028. Yet, in front of us we have a bill that is very easy reading because, at only 10 pages, it sketches out the briefest of details around what that program might look like. It is going to be a challenge for the transport committee to think about how to operationalize this and how to think about asking the government where it is heading on this. One of the characteristics that is emerging from this government, which we really see in this bill, is a trend towards creating a new organization, putting together very thin details around it and then leaving it to the executive branch of government to sort out, with an incredible amount of discretion. What that does under these circumstances is create a real conundrum. It creates a situation where, as constructive members of a loyal opposition, we want to work with this government to realize the ambitions of Canada and to build Canada into the kind of country that we can all be proud of. However, we find ourselves facing these situations without a lot of guidance from the government about where it wants to go. The ambitions associated with this bill are galactic, but the realities are closer to an abandoned—”

“This space launch bill needs more details and better oversight. The government is spending a lot of money to lease land in Nova Scotia for rocket launches, and we need to look into that deal. The bill also leaves too many decisions to ministers instead of Parliament, and it does not do enough to address national security.”

“Mr. Speaker, this is actually a wonderful opportunity to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix. I was starting to talk about the fact that the bill is incredibly ambitious. It has ambitions of galactic proportions, in fact, looking to be able to launch Canadian rockets into space and to enhance our ability to participate in a space program. However, one of the challenges is that right now, the program looks like a gravel pit or a gravel-covered lot in Nova Scotia. I am sure the site was selected for a good reason. I am sure it provides an optimal location to be able to launch from, but I think it is going to be important from an oversight perspective to be able to look at and examine the economics of this deal. We have a very unusual set of circumstances. In this particular case, there was no need, it looks like, from the reports, to actually expropriate this great location. It looks like there was in fact an entity that got there. This was originally, I believe, Crown land and was in fact being leased out to someone who has made what might be a deal of galactic proportions, to be able to lease that space back to the government for a very large amount of money. What I struggle with under these circumstances is that the need to examine this transaction comes at a time when the Liberal government has actually taken steps in the House, in the last 24 hours, to make it harder to do that. I was in the ethics committee last night for several hours, listening to some of my colleagues from across the aisle speak at great length and with incredible lung capacity to the reasons the committee should not, in fact, get access to documents that the members of the committee were seeking in order to examine matters related to the Prime Minister’s schedule, to conflicts of interest and to other matters that Canadians really deserve to be able to see into. Under the conditions we are in, in this country, if we really are, as the Prime Minister says, in a time of rupture, it is so important for the best ideas to rise to the top. There is only one way for us to get the best ideas, and that is to subject them to detailed questioning and analysis. It is in that spirit that we approach our duties with respect to the ethics committee. Of course, everyone knows the government wants to live up to its expectations, but the reason that conflict of interest screens exist and committees like the ethics committee exist is that we are all human. This oversight, and the knowledge that this oversight is there, enables us to be crisp in our adherence to the law and to really have it on our minds all the time, which is so important when we are dealing with taxpayer dollars. That takes me back to the bill and to the fact that already, within hours, frankly, of the initiative being announced, we have some questions as to the financial circumstances around the selection and lease of the site. On top of that, what we layer onto that is a bill that is really and truly quite thin in terms of its regulation. It does not answer some really important questions around how decisions are made, preferring instead to leave them to the discretion of the executive branch of the government. The thing about the executive branch of the government is that it does not operate in this place. It operates across the street and in various other buildings around the parliamentary precinct. It is so important to have that parliamentary oversight, as we think about questions around the safety and security of something as important as a space program, and as we think about the intelligence implications and the other matters that need to be taken into account when we are launching an ambitious program such as this. We are examining the bill at a time when the government has taken some steps, in the last 24 hours, to establish sort of an iron control over committees, which it would be able to use to, quite frankly, stifle debate on these issues. Earlier, one of my colleagues pointed out that in answer to a question about this act, one of the government members involved in transport, I think it might have even been one of the parliamentary secretaries, was discussing how they would be getting information like this. They would be working things out with the Canadian Space Agency. That is of great concern to us because the Canadian Space Agency, while a very important organization, is not an organization that has its focus on security and intelligence matters. There are defence implications to a space program like this. There are commercial implications. There are procurement implications. It really is one of those areas where the more I think about it, the more I see the need for a whole-of-government approach. That is not to create additional bureaucracies but to make sure the legislation is precise and clear enough that different parts of the government, different agencies, understand what their roles and responsibilities are and so that regulations around this program can be developed in a sensible and efficient way that would make sure Canada gets the most out of this program at this very important time. If we are going to build our country in a way that creates good jobs for the next generation, then it is so important to handle this initiative in a responsible way. It is going to be up to the transport committee, and I know my colleagues will do a good job in thinking the bill through. With that, I thank all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, who have contributed to making this important program launch in a good way. I look forward to answering questions about my remarks.”

“This bill is a good opportunity, but it does not have enough detail. We want to study it in committee and add more to it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for both his ambition and his optimism around this. If the bill does speak for itself, it does so very quietly, because it is quite thin on detail. Yes, we agree with the members across the aisle that there is an opportunity here, and we look forward to probing that opportunity in committee and being able to put some substance on the bill.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government says this space bill matches laws in the U.K. and the U.S. But the U.K. requires checks on national security, and the U.S. lets lawmakers decide who gets financial protection. Why does this bill do neither?”

“Mr. Speaker, the government has said multiple times that this would align Canada with other G7 countries, like the U.K. and the United States. The legislation in the U.K., the Outer Space Act 1986, literally says that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impede national security. In the United States, Congress decided that the giving of indemnification to participants in the space industry should be decided by Congress and not by the administration itself. Why would this legislation do neither?”

“This space bill promises big things, but it is missing too many important details and rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I was a little girl, I thought these spaceships went to the moon and beyond through magic and that it was a wonderful, amazing illusion. As I look at this bill, I see yet another example of bills that are magic and illusion in the sense that they purport to put us on even ground with the G7 and to do wonderful and amazing things to propel Canada ahead in the world, but there is an awful lot missing when we look under the covers, including the kind of regulation and detail my colleague just outlined.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  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 →

“This bill gives the minister too much power and ignores Parliament. I want to know if the member thinks giving the minister full control without our debate is a good idea.”

“Mr. Speaker, what we see here is yet another attempt by a Liberal minister, and the Liberal government, to consolidate power around the office of the minister in giving full discretion to the minister and overlooking the importance of parliamentary oversight, debate and listening to other opinions, which, of course, leads to questions of transparency. I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks it is a good idea to consolidate power in the hands of the minister and not allow parliamentarians to have a fulsome debate on an important issue like this.”

“The government makes big promises with this space bill and other laws, but leaves out the details. They ask Canadians to just trust them. I am worried they are taking too much power for themselves and will not use it well.”

“Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I really respect the fact that the government and my colleagues across the way are struggling to meet the world where it is and to find a good response for Canada in that context. However, there is a disturbing trend, and it does not just come through Bill C-28. It has also shown up in other legislation, like in the acts enabling the Major Projects Office or Build Canada Homes, where there is an ambitious, big, splashy announcement made and promises made that are pie in the sky, sky-high and into orbit, but when we look at the details, the message is, “Just trust us. We have your back.” In a circumstance where the government is undeniably popular right now, that is one thing, but I hope Canadians do not end up with buyer’s remorse down the road when they find out that power has been consolidated in a group of people who do not know how to wield it wisely.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 19 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 →

“The government is spending $200 million on a space launch site in Nova Scotia, but all that exists is a small concrete pad. The company building it is in deep financial trouble, yet the government bought no ownership in it and leases the land at a huge markup. I want the government to make all the contracts public, explain why taxpayers got no shares in the company, and have the ethics commissioner investigate.”

“Mr. Speaker, today we are looking at Bill C-28, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other acts. Before I even get into this bill on Canadian space launches, I would say that things may already be going off track. Let me explain. On March 21, Marie Lumsden, who lives in the small community of Canso, Nova Scotia, woke up early. She lives three kilometres from the famous launch site, which is, I imagine, the first of the major projects we are looking at today. She put on her boots and grabbed her camera to go see what had been announced with such great fanfare. There was talk of a $200-million investment and a site that the government was so proud of. It was the dawn of a new era. When Marie Lumsden arrived at the site, what she found was a gravel road, two sea cans, and a concrete pad measuring 25 feet by 35 feet, which is roughly the size of a campsite for a 21-foot trailer. All of this cost the government $200 million, as it so proudly announced. I am not talking about this here to be oppositional or to create a narrative. I am talking about this because Quebeckers and Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent. When $200 million is spent on a concrete slab, that raises questions. For many weeks now, citizens, journalists, financial analysts and, now, parliamentary committee members have been asking the same questions. What we saw yesterday in the House was quite something. We have questions. Canadians have questions. Government Motion No. 9 was adopted, curtailing our ability to ask the government these questions and hold it accountable. Once again, we have a fine example of what is coming our way over the next few years. The questions are serious and they deserve answers. Canadians pay taxes, and they are seeing the government spending their money on projects like this, to the tune of $200 million for a trailer pad. I think Canadians deserve answers. Today, I am just going to present some facts and ask the government if it has anything to say in response. Let us talk about Maritime Launch Services, the publicly traded company responsible for this $200-million launch site. The financial statements are public, so we are not making this up. This information is public, and the company is registered with SEDAR+. For those tuning in who would like to check it out, SEDAR+ is Canada’s official securities registry. The financial statements tell us three things. First, in 2025, Maritime Launch Services generated $14,900 in revenue—not $14 million in revenue, but $14,900, with no extra zeros. We are talking about nearly $15,000. That is a figure that, I think, is highly significant. Second, that same year, the company posted a loss of $47 million. It had nearly $70,000 in cash. Those figures are not exactly impressive. These facts are public knowledge, and I think that is what is drawing attention to the issues. Third, and I believe this is the most important point, the company’s auditors, the accountants who conduct the analysis and are tasked with auditing the books, said that there is material uncertainty as to whether the company will have the financial ability to continue as a going concern. That tells me this is not a company in great financial shape. I am not the one saying it is on the brink of bankruptcy; the company’s own accountants are saying that. Despite this seemingly precarious situation, our colleagues opposite, the members of the Liberal federal government, decided to invest $200 million in this company. They decided it made sense. That is $20 million for 10 years. To pick up where I left off with Marie Lumsden, her experience that morning and the photos she took blew the story wide open. She has spent the past seven years trying to talk to the community, asking questions, and sifting through piles of data and pages of ATIP requests. She contacted the municipal, provincial and federal governments. She even contacted the Minister of Justice, who would later make the announcement with great fanfare in Nova Scotia. She has spent seven years asking questions, but no one seemed interested in listening. However, she found something astounding in the documents, something that I think should raise some important questions. This infamous launch site is the future of Bill C‑28. The government wants us to trust it on this bill. The thing is, Maritime Launch Services leases the land from the provincial government. It is a lease. It does not belong to the company; it is leased. How much does the company pay the government to lease this land? That is the question. The company pays $13,500 a year plus taxes because, of course, there are always taxes. The company leases the land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million a year. The company does not own the land. Think about it. If the company does this for 10 years, that amounts to $200 million dollars. The company leases the land from the province for $13,500 and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million. Some might say that the opposition parties are always complaining, that they are always opposing everything, that surely there is a return on the investment and that the Liberals made a logical and informed decision, but that does not seem to be the case. The government did not get any shares in the company in return for its investment. It has no ownership rights to the land. It has no equipment. It has nothing. We are talking about $20 million per year for 10 years, or $200 million, and Canada has nothing to show for it except a concrete slab about the size of a trailer pad. Marie Lumsden has spent seven years trying to tell elected officials that. She has spent seven years trying to make her voice heard. Today, I can say that, here in Parliament, we talking about what she discovered and about the work she has done. To be fair, I recognize that Canadian space sovereignty is a legitimate objective. It is important. I recognize that Canada needs to develop its own domestic launch capabilities. That is not what I am criticizing. Canada has a rich history of space exploration. What I am criticizing is the fact that the government is going to use this as a pretext to help well-connected people instead of using it to build on that rich history. We will have to see, because the sovereign wealth fund was just announced yesterday. The Liberals are drawing inspiration from some very flashy buzzwords and are following Norway’s example in particular. Does the Liberal plan exist anywhere else? Let us look at what Norway did. Andøya Space, based in Norway, has the infrastructure needed to carry out successful launches. It cost the equivalent of $46 million Canadian. The Norwegian government owns 90% of the company. That is a quarter of what the government is spending here, and 90% of it is owned by the Norwegian government. That is not the case here. We own 0%, and it is costing us $200 million. We are talking about public funds here. There have been successful launches in Norway. It is working. We should look to this model for inspiration. I am not saying this as a complaint. That is not it at all. I am simply suggesting what should be done. Ultimately, what should be done? First, the government has to publicly disclose all the contracts. We want to know how bids were made, what criteria were applied, and whether other candidates were in the running for the much-touted launch facility or whether this was the only location the Canadian government could access. Second, the government has to explain why Canada received zero equity in return for 200 million taxpayer dollars. Norway has a 90% ownership stake in the Norwegian company. Canada has zero stake. Third, and I want to emphasize this point, because it makes us really skeptical about Bill C-28, the chair of the board of Maritime Launch Services sold three million shares of the company on April 9, 24 days after the announcement. That is serious. Someone is making a lot of money on the backs of taxpayers, on the backs of Canadians, with help from the Liberal government. Questions need to be asked. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner needs to be formally seized with this issue now, not a year from now. Some weeks ago, the minister proudly announced that this was a historic investment. He talked about Canada’s sovereignty, Canada’s future and Canadian ambition. However, there is zero ownership, zero control and zero transparency. Now, the government wants us to pass Bill C‑28, which would give the minister sweeping, discretionary powers to be wielded behind closed doors. I experienced this yesterday at an in camera committee. The Liberals took control of the committee and decided to go in camera to make sure that people would not hear what was being said and that Canadians would not have access. They took complete control so that we would stop asking questions. That is not how a government should act. Democracy is all about transparency. Clearly, the current government does not understand that. It wants to decide who can go into space without clear criteria, without going through Parliament. In an industry as strategic as space, the risk of regulatory capture is real. This bill does nothing to reduce that risk. On the contrary, it concentrates power in the hands of ministers. It allows decisions to be made behind the scenes, as usual. It is shutting Parliament out of the process. Why are parliamentarians being asked to approve a regulatory framework after $200 million was spent? Why were rules not established beforehand? I will close with this question: Why is there no transparency, when that is what all Canadians expect from the government?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The risk of regulatory capture is high.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →

“The Liberals make big promises about major projects, but they never build them. They talk about huge spending while families cannot afford basic things like groceries.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was taking notes because that is a good question. The frustration is very real. The member mentioned long-term vision, but people have been waiting for 11 years and are still waiting. The Liberals are very good at making announcements that end up being empty promises. There are no shovels in the ground. They just talk about huge, multi-billion dollar projects, while families are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals keep unveiling major projects that they say are on their way and telling us how wonderful they will be, but there are no results. Unfortunately, it is all smoke and mirrors. That is the result. A recent report states that Canadians were impressed with the Prime Minister’s trips, which cost over half a million dollars in in-flight catering alone, but that they are extremely disappointed that he has failed to deliver on affordability issues. That is people’s real-life experiences talking. When my colleague talks to his constituents, he should take a look at the Angus Reid report, which says that people were pleased to see the Prime Minister travelling but that they are extremely disappointed that they cannot afford groceries despite working so hard.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 22 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “People are struggling to make ends meet.”

  Said 13 times by 10 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“The government gives too much money to a space company. This bill also gives the minister full power to choose who gets permits. I worry this will only help government insiders and lobbyists.”

“Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the member’s big contribution on this topic today, particularly about the uneasy relationship the government has with MLS. It seems crazy to me that something that is rented for $13,500 per year is effectively receiving $55,000 a day from the Government of Canada. Bear in mind that this property is owned by the Province of Nova Scotia. There are other key elements in this bill that would allow the minister to use total discretion in who he can give permits to and under what terms. Does the member feel that this will benefit insiders, well-connected Liberals and lobbyists?”

“I want the government to be transparent about its land deal with Maritime Launch Services. A piece of land leased for $13,000 a year is now being subleased for $20 million a year to people connected to the government. This bill hurts the public's trust.”

“Mr. Speaker, we agree that what we are experiencing here is unbelievable. A piece of land that was being leased for $13,000 a year is now being subleased for $20 million a year. If we look up the owners of Maritime Launch Services, it turns out that they are all well connected to the government. All we are asking for is transparency. Clearly, there has been no transparency from the start of this Parliament. There has been no collaboration either. Just yesterday, we witnessed an unprecedented total breakdown in collaboration and a refusal to answer questions. The answer is that Bill C-28 is not paving the way for greater trust in our institutions. On the contrary, it is undermining trust, because paying $20 million for a piece of vacant land that is being leased for $13,000 a year and is not owned by the federal government is bound to sap the public’s trust.”

“The Liberals only want things done their way. They accuse anyone who disagrees with them of blocking their work.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. It is simple. The Liberals just want things to happen how they want, when they want and the way they want. Anyone who does not think like them is guilty of obstruction. That is my answer, and that is what the government has been showing us for almost a year now.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 0 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 →