“I do not support this space bill in its current form. It gives the government too much power to make decisions in secret. The bill needs stronger national security rules, clear public spending details, and an independent review process written directly into the law.”

“Mr. Speaker, any Canadian launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions. If this bill is about sovereignty, then those protections must be written into the law, not left to chance. This is ultimately about balance. Canada can build a competitive space sector. Canada can support innovation. Canada can strengthen sovereignty. That is how previous generations succeeded. The achievements of Canada’s space program were not the result of vague rules or unchecked power. They were built on clear objectives, strong oversight and public trust. That is the standard we should be applying today. As we consider Bill C-28, the question is not whether we support Canada in space. We do. The question is whether the bill gets the framework right. In its current form, there are serious concerns. Let me be clear about what getting this right actually looks like. A serious bill would define the key terms clearly in the law so Parliament, not just cabinet, sets the rules. It would include clear criteria for approvals and rejections so decisions are not made behind closed doors without explanation. It would preserve independent review so Canadians can have confidence that decisions can be challenged when needed. It would also require full transparency around major financial commitments. If hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are involved, Canadians should be able to see the reasoning, the price and what they are getting in return. Most important, the bill would put national security safeguards directly into the law, not as an afterthought or something decided later but as a core requirement from the start, because once these systems are in place, once launches begin and international actors are involved, it becomes much harder to go back to fix gaps that should have been addressed from the beginning. These are questions that must be answered and issues that must be addressed, and this is where Parliament must do its job. Canada has the opportunity to get this right. We can build something that reflects our strengths and values, but that will not happen by default. It will require scrutiny, accountability and a willingness to improve what is in front of us, because the goal is not just to participate in space but to lead in a way that Canadians can be proud of. That means that when we act, we do so in the clear interest of Canadians, not behind closed doors and not without answers. Canada should lead in space, but Canadians should never be asked to sign a blank cheque for decisions made behind closed doors.”

“Conservatives support space businesses. But we are worried this space bill gives the government too much power to spend without proper limits. We want rules to keep government spending in check.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support space. Conservatives support the commercialization of space. The concern with regard to Bill C-28 is the blank cheque or a credit card that the current Liberal government may be offering to itself. We are just asking for checks and balances as Canada furthers the commercialization of space.”

• 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 gives the minister too much power over space launches and takes power away from the normal review board. The minister could treat different companies unfairly. Who really benefits from this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I homed in particularly on the fact that the member has mentioned the administrative, arbitrary nature of the minister’s power. First of all, it would all be concentrated in the minister. He would actually be taking it away from the transportation tribunal that usually handles these things. Again, there is very little specificity as to what is in the public interest. The minister could literally give one indemnification rate to one market participant, and another to a different performer, totally distorting the market. Could the member please comment a bit about who would benefit from a regime that is so opaque and arbitrary?”

“This bill gives the minister too much power to make secret decisions. I want the process for choosing space projects to be open and clear.”

“Mr. Speaker, right now there would be too much power for the minister with regard to Bill C-28, and therefore, with regard to decisions, there would be closed doors behind the scenes. Conservatives are asking for there to be more transparency with Bill C-28 with regard to decisions for procurement of opportunities for projects related to the deep commercialization of space.”

• 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 →

“The Liberals fail on national defense and this space bill has the same problems. It lacks detail and does not protect us from foreign threats. It gives power to one minister without proper oversight from Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have claimed success with military recruiting, when in fact they have managed to meet only their own artificially low thresholds, and the Liberals have claimed success with 2% of GDP spent with NATO, when they know full well that the spending fails to meet NATO’s criteria. The bill is short on detail and devoid of security considerations. It has not addressed potential hostile state interference. My question for my colleague is this: Does he agree that this parking-lot planned spaceport is a closed-door plan reporting to a single minister and not responsible to Parliament and Canadians, or is it another Liberal illusion?”

“I am worried this space bill will lead to another government scandal. It does not have enough checks and balances, and it could waste millions of dollars like past projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, my concern is the repeated pattern of Liberal boondoggles or possible scandals. We have seen it with the Trudeau government, and we are possibly seeing it with the Liberal government. Cases in point are ArriveCAN and also PrescribeIT. With the lack of checks and balances in Bill C-28, there could potentially be a Liberal scandal, such as possibly what is happening in Nova Scotia with $200 million spent for what is deemed a spaceport but for which so far the results have been very limited.”

“Canadians support space exploration and business in space. But this space bill must clearly show taxpayers how their money is being spent.”

“Mr. Speaker, ambition is very important. I think all Canadians have the ambition for space exploration and also for the commercialization of space. As I said earlier, all Canadians also want accountability and transparency about where their tax dollars are being spent, and that is needed in Bill C-28.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Clarity 23 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

“I do not support this bill. It gives ministers too much power to make space launch decisions in secret, without clear rules or oversight. The government is already wasting tax money on a flawed launch site project, and this bill makes that kind of insider dealing easier.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canada stands at a crossroads in the global space economy. This is no longer just about exploration or scientific curiosity. It is about sovereignty. It is about national security. It is about economic opportunity in a rapidly growing sector where other countries are moving decisively to protect their own interests. Canadians expect leadership in moments like this, leadership that is transparent, accountable and grounded in the national interest. Instead, what we have before us is Bill C-28, and it raises serious concerns about who will control Canada’s future in space and who will make those decisions. Canada has a proud and remarkable history in space. Under the leadership of John Diefenbaker, our country launched Alouette I, becoming the third nation in the world to design and build a satellite. We developed world-class technology such as Canadarm, and we inspired generations through astronauts like Chris Hadfield, Roberta Bondar and Jeremy Hansen. That legacy was built on trust and accountability, and it was built for all Canadians, not for the insiders behind closed doors. Bill C-28 would move us in the wrong direction. It would give sweeping powers to the ministers, who could decide who can launch, what can be launched and under what conditions. It would do so with vague definitions, limited oversight and broad discretion. In fact, it does not even clearly define what constitutes a launch. Instead of clarity, we get ambiguity. Instead of accountability, we get the concentration of power. When power is concentrated, transparency becomes essential. I want to share something from my own life. When I was a kid growing up on the farm, we had an old coach house, a small barn, that we had to move. I remember one day working with my father and his good friend. We jacked up that building and took off the siding. We had to replate it so we could slide some telephone poles underneath to make some skids. We had those telephone poles there and put another one across the front, chained it up and pulled the building with a tractor, moving it across our farm and setting it down in its new location. What I remember is that when I looked back at where the barn had originally stood, there was nothing more than a simple concrete pad. When I look at what is being described today as a spaceport in Nova Scotia, a gravel road, two sea cans and a small concrete pad, I cannot help but think of that farmyard. What Canadians are being told is a launch facility looks, by all accounts, strikingly similar to what was left behind when we moved that barn, yet we are talking about a reported $200-million lease over 10 years, a lease that was backdated, an agreement that describes the site as being capable of supporting orbital launches. Canadians are asking a very simple question: What launch site are we talking about? According to detailed reporting and first-hand accounts, all that exists is a gravel road, a couple of containers and a concrete slab. Nonetheless, this same project is being presented to investors as capable of supporting more than 150 launches per year. That is not just a gap between promise and reality. That is a credibility gap. Let us look deeper. The company involved has reported losses exceeding $47 million and revenue of just $15,000. The executive compensation for that company is approaching $1 million. What makes it worse is that the land it is on is Crown land, leased for roughly $13,500 annually, yet it is being presented as a multi-million-dollar asset, $14.8 million being the book value, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly. On any farm, in any small business and in any household across the country, those numbers do not pass the smell test, yet somehow in the House they do. Why is that? The concerns go much further beyond the numbers. The residents in the area, more than a thousand people within a few kilometres, have raised serious concerns about safety, environmental impact and the economic consequences to fisheries and to local livelihoods. They have spent years filing access to information requests, reviewing thousands of pages of documents and trying to be heard. What did they find? They found an environmental assessment process that many believe is inadequate and repeated requests for federal impact assessments rejected. They found that, even after years, key requirements for the project had still not been completed, and the regulatory framework for launches was not even in place, yet approvals and funding continued anyway. Let us think about that. We would be committing hundreds of millions of dollars to a project in a sector where the regulatory framework does not even exist. That is not leadership or competence, and Canadians have the right to question it. When we look at the broader picture, a troubling pattern emerges: a company with questionable financials, a project approved through a process many consider deeply flawed, lobbying and political connections appearing at multiple levels, and a massive federal commitment to taxpayer dollars despite all of these red flags. Canadians look at this and ask whether this is about the space sector or something else. Bill C-28 would take this kind of situation and make it easier, not harder, for this to happen. It would give even more powers to ministers to make decisions behind closed doors, reduce transparency, limit oversight and increase the risk that decisions are driven not by merit, but by access. Space is strategic. It affects our Arctic sovereignty, national defence and communications, yet this bill would not provide strong safeguards against foreign interference or influence or ensure robust national security screening. At the same time, Canada has a real opportunity in this sector. We have the talent, expertise and geography, but success requires clear rules, transparent decisions and investor confidence. Bill C-28 would risk undermining all of those. Conservatives support a strong Canadian space sector, innovation, investment and defending Canada’s sovereignty. We cannot support giving the government a blank cheque, legislation that concentrates power without accountability or a system that appears to reward insiders while asking taxpayers to carry all the risk. Canadians believe in ambition and building, but they also believe in common sense. When we see $200 million tied to what looks like a concrete pad at the end of a gravel road, we know something is wrong. From Alouette 1 to today, Canada’s space legacy has been built on trust. Let us not replace that with secrecy, insider arrangements and unchecked power. Let us build a space future that is transparent, accountable and truly in the national interest. Conservatives will stand for a strong Canada in space, a transparent government here on earth and a future that belongs to all Canadians.”

“I do not support this bill. Like past laws for oil and gas, it gives government ministers too much power to pick and choose projects instead of following a fair process.”

“Mr. Speaker, they say that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. Let us go through a few examples. We will not talk about the space industry for right now, but let us talk about the oil and gas industry, for example. We passed Bill C-5 this year, which gave the government extraordinary powers to circumvent its own bills that it put in place that stopped oil and gas exploration in this country. That is another example of where projects could not get done. Nothing could happen without the government ministers hand-picking projects. We are seeing the exact same thing when it comes to this bill. We are seeing that the Liberals do not want to go through a proper process; they want the ministers to have all the power.”

“A space company lobbied the government 158 times right before it got 200 million dollars. Its stock price then jumped from five cents to over 60 cents. I think people with inside knowledge made money from this, and I want to know what my colleague thinks.”

“Mr. Speaker, building on the point that my colleague was making, over the last couple of years, Maritime Launch Services lobbied the government 158 times, and most of that was in 2025, right before it got the $200-million payout. If we look at some of the stock activity going on, it was valued at five cents and it jumped to over 60¢. If we look at the incredible value that people who knew what was happening would have gotten because of that, we can clearly see the conflicts and the shenanigans that are going on here behind the scenes. I am wondering what my colleague thinks about that.”

“A company rented land in Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year and rented it back to the federal government for $20 million a year. This is a waste of taxpayers' money.”

“Mr. Speaker, someone does not have to be that good in business to understand that there is something wrong here. The land that this launch site is on is owned by the provincial government in Nova Scotia. It was leased for $13,500 per year. That company turned around and leased it to our federal government, in its incredible business acumen, for $20 million a year. That is some pretty good business for whoever owns this launch site. It is some very poor business if we are trying to be in support of the Canadian taxpayers who are actually footing the bill for this.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Businesses need predictable rules to invest. Right now, the government gives ministers too much power to pick winners and losers without enough oversight. This hurts our democracy and damages Canada's good reputation.”

“Mr. Speaker, we will even take a further step back from that. There are two things that private industry or private investors want more than anything. The number one thing they want is predictability. We have a system now where the government is not following its strict processes. It is allowing the ministers to pick winners and losers. We know that something is wrong. We have a democracy and we have a country like Canada that has had such a great reputation. I have had the great privilege of working all over the world and there was an open door wherever we went because we were Canadian and others knew that our system worked. We are seeing that eroded every day by giving the ministers more power and less scrutiny. This is a terrible slide in our democracy, as far as I am concerned.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not clearly define launch vehicles, and it leaves out safety, certification, and national security rules. If the government will not put these details in the bill, it should publish the draft regulations instead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something. The member earlier said that there are definitions in the bill for “launch”, “launch vehicle” and “re-entry vehicle”. The reality is that there is a transitional definition, and the minister can now call a “launch vehicle” anything. He could call it an orange if he wanted to. There is no real, permanent definition, in contrast to what he says. I would go forward to things that are absolutely not in there, which are the certification and operation of a launch re-entry vehicle, safety requirements and anything on national security. If the Liberals do not want to put it in the legislation, will they at least publish the draft regulations?”