Bill C-28

Canadian Space Launch Act

An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other Acts

This enactment amends the Aeronautics Act to establish a legislative framework for space launch and re-entry activities in Canada. It amends certain definitions to take into account new terms, such as launch vehicles and re-entry vehicles, and authorizes those terms to be defined by regulation. It also removes certain decisions related to launch and re-entry from review by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. It expands the regulation-making powers, including in relation to launches and re-entries and the operation of launch and re-entry sites, as well as in relation to the application of certain international agreements and standards.
This enactment also introduces new authorities related to liability and indemnification for launch and re-entry activities. It authorizes the Minister of Transport 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, and to require the owners and operators in certain circumstances to indemnify the Government of Canada for any liability to third parties for loss or damage caused by their activities. It establishes regulatory authority to create a distinct financial responsibility regime that includes the ability to grant exemptions or adjustments in specific cases. It provides for emergency authorities to allow the Minister to stop launch or re-entry activities for reasons of safety or security. Finally, it establishes a scheme related to the development of zoning regulations for certified launch and re-entry sites.
It also amends the Carriage by Air Act , the Canada Transportation Act and the Secure Air Travel Act .

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for Canada to debate this bill. As we know, Canada has a long history of space exploration, a history of which we should be very proud. From Alouette 1, which made us only the third country in the world to launch a satellite into orbit, to the Canadarm, to the achievements of our astronauts, Canadians have always led the way to the stars.

We have built a reputation as a trusted partner in space exploration. We are recognized for our excellence in robotics, earth observation, satellite communications and bold science missions. However, history alone will not secure our future. Countries around the world are in a mad dash to secure their share in a rapidly expanding space industry. Businesses are investing billions of dollars and demand for launch services is skyrocketing, while governments, researchers and private companies are deploying satellites at an unprecedented pace. Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.

Today, Canada is the only G7 country without its own sovereign space launch and re-entry capabilities. Right now, Canada has to rely on other countries to launch our satellites into orbit, even though the satellites support our infrastructure, our defence and about 20% of our economy. Canadian expertise, investments and jobs in this rapidly growing and important sector are leaving to go elsewhere, but today this would change, with the Canada space launch act.

The legislation would deliver sovereign launch capabilities for Canada, attracting billions of dollars in investments, creating good-paying jobs, strengthening our sovereignty and building on Canada's proud history of innovations in space. The global space economy is currently undergoing a rapid transformation and expansion. In just the next six years, the global space economy will grow by more than 215% and be worth $1.5 trillion. We must urgently act to advance the legislation, because if we delay, Canadians will miss out on this enormous economic opportunity. With the passage of the legislation, we could create thousands of jobs and build our own domestic industry that is projected to be worth $40 billion.

Sovereign space launch capabilities are not a partisan issue. They are a nation-building opportunity. I encourage all parties and all members of the House to support the Canadian space launch act, not just for our sovereignty and not just for our economy but for every Canadian who relies on the technologies and services that space enables.

The truth is simple. In 2026, space is no longer a distant frontier. It is an important part of our daily lives, our economy and our national security. Space is essential for our future. When Canadians tap their phone for directions, satellites guide them. When farmers optimize their crops, satellites provide the data. When we monitor wildfires, track marine traffic or respond to natural disasters, satellites are the backbone of our response. When planes cross the North Atlantic, satellites keep them connected and safe. When remote communities access broadband, satellites increasingly bridge the gap. When our armed forces operate at home or abroad, satellites provide the communications, navigation and intelligence they rely on.

Satellites are critical infrastructure. They are as essential to our economy and our well-being as roads, ports and power grids, but satellites are only as reliable as our ability to launch, maintain, defend and replace them.

This is why it is essential to have sovereign launch capability. By taking the appropriate steps, Canada will become a country capable of conducting commercial space launches, which will serve our national interests and support our allies.

An important first step is to implement the Canadian space launch act. This legislation is urgently needed to support new economic growth, acquire a sovereign launch capability and prevent Canada from being left behind. Without launch capability, our country and our space industries will remain dependent on foreign nations for access to space. This increases costs, lengthens timelines and creates greater uncertainty for the sector.

If we do not establish a modern and comprehensive framework for launches and re‑entry, we risk losing investment, talent and our competitive advantage. We risk seeing Canadian companies exporting their innovations abroad because they cannot launch them here at home. We risk becoming dependent on foreign launches at a time when access to space is becoming a matter of national security. We cannot let this happen any longer.

The Canadian space launch bill is about ensuring that Canada can seize the economic opportunity, while also keeping our investments at home and repatriating our world-leading Canadian expertise. It is about strengthening our competitiveness, our economy and our national security.

Now, some would ask: Why launch from Canada? The answer is simple, Canada has unique strengths that the world increasingly values. We have a long coastline that allows for safe launch corridors over open water. We have a stable political system, a predictable regulatory environment and, indeed, a highly skilled workforce.

As existing global launch infrastructure approaches capacity, international companies are actively seeking alternative launch sites in stable, trusted countries. Canadian space launches are a competitive advantage that we must capitalize on now. Other countries are already moving to develop their own capabilities. If we do not act now, we risk watching investment flow elsewhere, to jurisdictions that move faster, with clearer rules and stronger incentives.

Space is no longer a benign environment. It is increasingly contested, and our allies are investing heavily in space-based defence capabilities. They are strengthening their resilience against threats to satellites and ground infrastructure. They are ensuring they can quickly replace damaged assets, if required. Canada must do the same. A sovereign launch capability would strengthen Arctic domain awareness, support NORAD modernization, enhance our ability to monitor wildfires, floods and maritime activity, and ensure continuity of critical satellite services. It would contribute to NATO investment-sharing and capability targets.

It would also allow Canada to support its allies' launches, thereby strengthening our security partnerships and reinforcing our role as a reliable partner.

This bill lays the essential groundwork for safe, secure and responsible commercial space launches and re-entries directly from Canada. It establishes a modern framework that accounts for risks, aligns with international best practices and is backed by robust oversight.

This bill also recognizes that responsible authorization for space launch and re-entry operations requires that potential financial liabilities be properly managed and safeguards be established before they are needed. These amendments will establish an insurance and indemnification system tailored to the specific risks associated with space launches and atmospheric re-entry. This system would require operators to demonstrate financial accountability in order to protect Canadians and would reinforce Canada's commitment to act as a responsible space-faring nation. This bill allows us to establish such a framework in a manner consistent with international best practices and in a way that provides our space sector with the clarity and certainty it has long sought.

The Canadian space launch bill is built, therefore, on six core pillars: number one, clear authority to regulate launch and re-entry; number two, a modern licensing framework that reduces duplication and closes regulatory regulatory gaps; number three, safety and security requirements tailored to launch and re-entry activities; number four, a financial responsibility and indemnification regime aligned with international norms; number five, structured land use and site authorization processes; and six, oversight, compliance and enforcement tools to maintain public confidence.

Together, these pillars form the foundation of a safe, competitive and future-ready launch sector. Across the country, Canadian innovators are already stepping up. NordSpace, based in Ontario and expanding into Newfoundland and Labrador, is developing one of Canada's first commercial space ports, creating jobs, attracting investment and inspiring the next generation.

Reaction Dynamics, a Quebec-based company, is developing cutting-edge launch vehicles that require limited infrastructure, which could place Canada at the forefront of launch technologies.

For Telesat, a domestic launch capability would offer an additional reliable pathway to orbit for their lightspeed constellation, which aims to deliver high-speed Internet access to remote areas in Canada and around the world by 2030. These companies, and many others, are ready to grow in Canada and to compete globally. What they need is a modern legal framework that supports their ambitions, and that is what this legislation would deliver.

Again, this is not a partisan issue. It is a nation-building opportunity. Supporting this legislation means supporting economic growth, job creation, innovation, national security and sovereignty. It means ensuring that Canadian companies can compete on a level playing field. It means giving our researchers, our entrepreneurs and our armed forces the tools they need to succeed. It means positioning Canada as a space-faring nation, one of only a handful in the world. It means telling the world that when it comes to the new space economy, Canada intends to be a builder, a partner and a leader.

I encourage all parties to support this bill so that Canada can seize the unique opportunity that we have before us and strengthen our sovereignty in an increasingly complex world. Once the bill is passed, we will be able to develop detailed regulations and work with the provinces and industry to coordinate our efforts to support the development of launch sites and related infrastructure. This is the next chapter in Canada's space history and we cannot miss it.

Canada has a proud history in space, but history alone will not secure our future. We must act. We must modernize. We must seize the opportunity before us. The Canadian space launch act is our chance to do exactly that to build a stronger economy, a more resilient country and a more sovereign future. Let us take this step together.

Let us go down that road together. Let us be ambitious. Let us provide scientific and economic opportunities to young people who dream about space.

Let us ensure that, when Canadians look to the stars, they see a future built right here by Canadians, for Canadians and for the world.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives agree that Canada has a proud history in space and that we have great talent and great opportunities in space. However, we have to set aside the past and future in terms of our idealism because what the minister was speaking about was sovereignty. We must be real. We must look at the bill as it is, right here and right now.

In the bill, the minister has not even defined what launch and relaunch are. The minister has not introduced a bill that would protect our sovereignty. There is no national security screening of payloads. A firm from another country could use any rocket launch as an ability to put a dual-use satellite into orbit, undermining our sovereignty, particularly when satellites are looking at the north. I would like the minister to address these subjects.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, where am I to begin?

I suppose if we wanted to contemplate a number of things, like the member just did, we could. This bill would permit the establishment of a regulatory framework for space launches from Canada. I have outlined the scientific, the economic and, yes, the sovereignty rationale for putting in place this regulatory framework. What would follow are, indeed, rules.

Now, just to take but one example of what the member evokes, the Canadian Space Agency would be involved in examining payloads. I think the member underestimates the role of our own Canadian Armed Forces in launching satellites and enabling their launches from Canada, launching Canadian security material from Canadian spaceports. That is an important part of it. I will have the ability to go on further as we continue with questions.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his speech and on introducing this bill. I do not know whether he drafted it himself, but in any case, I believe it was something that needed to be done. As we know, humans have been exploring space for 60 years now, yet Canada still did not have any framework legislation on this matter. Now that gap will be filled.

With this bill, the minister is aiming to exempt projects from being subject to certain laws, including the Canadian Transportation Agency Act, which would not regulate space travel. While I can understand that not that many people will be travelling into space, that does not change the fact that this is part of a trend where the government is constantly trying to exempt certain projects or initiatives from certain laws.

In the future, it may be necessary to reinstate the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency if space travel becomes very popular and there are a significant number of travellers. Does the minister see this as something that is intended to be permanent?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out that the safety of our communities, the safety surrounding space launches, is central to our process. We propose to create regulations specifically designed to reassure these communities that launches like these can occur safely.

Of course, the transportation-related work of the Canadian Transportation Agency involves what we might term “conventional transportation”. However, we think that specific regulations ensuring everyone's safety under this bill would be the best solution.

No, I did not draft the bill, since we have a space industry in Canada that was able to assist in drafting this bill, and I am very proud to introduce it on its behalf.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, a year ago today, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and that Prime Minister talked about the importance of securing Canada and making Canada a stronger, healthier country. I think it is significant that today we are going into an area in which Canada has not been before, which has the potential to create thousands of jobs. It would put us with other G7 countries, recognizing that the ability to launch is necessary.

I appreciate the legislation. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in terms of, when the Prime Minister talks about making Canada more secure, building jobs and creating opportunities, how the legislation plays into the agenda of the Prime Minister and the government.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague hits the nail right on the head. This is a part of building Canada strong. This is about carving out a place to serve Canadians using Canadian hands, Canadian minds, Canadian ambition, Canadian technology and a Canadian supply chain that stretches right across this country. This would give Canada the ability to control end to end. We are already world leaders in satellites, robotics and space. Let us take our space assets and get them to the stars on our own.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the minister needs to talk about exactly why he has chosen the bill to give himself so much power. He would be approving permits and re-entries, launches, etc. The list goes on. Indemnification is essentially where the taxpayer offers insurance to private operators for indemnifying their launches. The way the bill is written, the minister could give special treatment to one firm and a different set of rules for another.

How can the minister look at this Parliament in the eye and say that he is trying to attract capital with such an opaque system that would be so arbitrary in how it will be applied? If we want to do well in space, we need to have the rule of law, not the rule of one minister, where he can pick and choose winners and losers.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would encourage my hon. colleague to look around the world where space launches are permitted. Canada would do essentially what those other countries have done in terms of an insurance scheme and an insurance regulatory infrastructure. I would stress that private companies that are looking to launch satellites or other payloads would be required to have insurance that would protect from risks. The Government of Canada would, of course, assess their insurance and their coverage as it assesses the appropriateness of all of these launches.

The Minister of Transport regulates a lot of things in this country. The number one thing that we regulate is safety. We are here to protect Canadians, and the powers we deploy are specifically and principally in service of that objective of keeping Canadians safe.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians are being told that this is about building a space industry for the future, and of course, we all want to see Canada succeed in that space. However, they are also looking at this and asking a very basic question: How does a government end up committing $200 million of taxpayer money to lease a launch pad that is not even operational?

Is this what happens when we move away from a rules-based, accountable framework, like the one that was built under Stephen Harper, and toward a discretionary, cheque-writing approach that looks a lot more like a Liberal‑style “enriching close friends” type of government?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting one. I want to acknowledge the member's, and perhaps that of other members of the opposition, devotion to following conspiracy theories online.

Let us talk about economic impact. In one of the great places in Canada, which is Nova Scotia, it could add 16,000 jobs and add $300 million to our GDP alone. It is currently under construction and set to be completed in 2028.

I will read a quote: “We are proud that Nova Scotia is home to Canada’s first commercial spaceport and recognize the critical role Maritime Launch [Services] will play in offering a satellite launch facility to the global market.” That was Premier Tim Houston in 2023.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to participate in debate, particularly when the official opposition has the opportunity to apply serious scrutiny to legislation that asks Parliament to hand broad authority away from itself and to the executive.

Bill C-28 deals with space launch and re-entry. It is not ideological. Most Canadians support the idea of Canada having a domestic space capability. They understand its importance to innovation, economic growth and, increasingly, national security. I support that goal as well, but ambition does not excuse poor design. Supporting the objective does not mean giving the government a blank cheque, especially in a sector that involves public safety, national security and potentially significant taxpayer exposure.

We are entering a period of rapid growth in space-based activity. Satellite deployment, re-entry technologies and launch infrastructure are expanding quickly. Canada does not want to be left behind, and it should not be. The government argues that Bill C-28 is needed because Canada lacks a clear legislative framework for space launch and re-entry. That is true. These activities have been managed through aviation law and ad hoc decisions. That approach is no longer adequate.

What is troubling is that Bill C-28 would not replace uncertainty with a clear law. It would replace it with discretion. Rather than having Parliament define rules, the bill asks Parliament to approve a framework and trust that the real decisions would be made later through regulation and ministerial judgment. The hardest questions are deferred. The risks are obscured. Parliamentary control is weakened.

When one reads this bill carefully, the pattern is unmistakable. Launch permits, re-entry approvals, site certification, emergency stop powers, land use restrictions, financial responsibility requirements, exemptions from those requirements and the indemnification of private operators would all be placed within the discretion of the Minister of Transport. This is where the bill starts to drift from concerning to almost surreal. This entire regime assumes that the minister would personally oversee permits, exemptions, indemnification decisions, emergency stop orders, land use restrictions and national security judgments in one of the most complex and high-risk emerging sectors of the economy.

That might sound reassuring until we remember that as of this moment, Canada does not even have a full-time Minister of Transport. We are being asked to believe that a part-time minister already juggling multiple portfolios would somehow have the time, the capacity and the sustained focus to personally weigh launch permits, re-entry approvals, liability thresholds, indemnification decisions and national security considerations, sometimes under time pressure, sometimes under political pressure, while taxpayers carry the downside risk.

This is not a governance model. This is wishful thinking dressed up as legislation, which leads to a very practical question that the government has not answered and cannot avoid. When this industry scales up, and the government insists that it will, who exactly is supposed to manage all of this? Who is reviewing each permit? Who is assessing each re-entry? Who is recalibrating liability exposure? Who is deciding whether an operator qualifies for indemnification and when it does not? Under this bill, almost all the responsibility would flow upward to one political office, not to an independent regulator, not to a transparent statutory process, but to the discretion of the minister.

Good policy depends on systems, not personalities. Bill C-28 gives us neither. Nowhere in this design flaw is that more serious than in the indemnification and liability provisions of the bill. Bill C-28 would remove space launch and re-entry activities, which, by the way, are not even defined in the act. It would take those activities from a normal aviation insurance framework and replace them with a new concept called “financial responsibility”. Parliament would not be told what those minimum levels would be. They obviously would be left to regulation, to be answered by the minister and his officials at their discretion.

The bill then goes much further. It would allow the minister to reduce or waive those requirements and to indemnify private operators against third party liability, entirely at ministerial discretion. Let us be clear about exactly what that means. Indemnification is not a technical detail. It is government-backed insurance. It transfers risk from private companies onto taxpayers.

If one operator is indemnified and another is not, the indemnified operator enjoys a powerful competitive advantage. Its risk profile drops, its financing costs fall, and its tolerance for failure increases. Its competitor, facing full commercial exposure, is placed at a structural disadvantage. Nothing in this bill would require indemnification to be offered on equal terms. Nothing would require similar risks to receive similar treatment. Nothing would require advanced disclosure to Parliament. Nothing would require public reporting afterward. This is not flexibility. That is state‑authorized market distortion.

The political consequences of that structure are enormous. We already have a company operating in this space that has demonstrated financial instability and operational uncertainty. Under Bill C‑28, the same company could benefit enormously if indemnification is loosened or be severely harmed if that protection is tightened or withdrawn. In either case, the impact would be dramatic, but the decision would not be governed by rules set by Parliament. It would be by the politics of the day. If indemnification is loosened, taxpayers could be exposed to substantial and unquantified liability without ever knowing or realizing it. If it is withdrawn, a company could become commercially unviable almost overnight. In both cases, the consequences would be profound, yet the decision would occur behind closed doors.

Taxpayers would not know what risks they were carrying. Parliament would not know what exposure it had approved. Only the minister would know. This is not transparency and accountability, and it is not responsible governance in a strategic sector involving public safety, national security and public money. When indemnification decisions are left entirely to ministerial discretion, they inevitably become political decisions. They are influenced by timing, urgency, pressure and optics. None of those is a substitute for law.

This bill would effectively ask Parliament to assume that every minister under every political circumstance would exercise his or her power perfectly. History suggests otherwise. Laws exist precisely because judgment is imperfect and politics change. Taxpayers should never bear catastrophic risk as the result of decisions they cannot see, cannot measure and cannot challenge.

The weakness in this bill extends beyond indemnification. The government speaks often about sovereignty and security when promoting Bill C‑28, yet the legislation fails to embed basic national security safeguards in statute. There would be no statutory requirement for foreign ownership or control screening of launch operators or payloads. There would be no requirement for beneficial ownership transparency. There would be no statutory test for payload mission profiles or end use. There would be no mandatory integration of intelligence or national security assessments into the approval process. Instead, these issues would be left to regulation or the discretion of the minister in the public interest.

I have served on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we have seen, time after time, what happens when the use of the term “public interest” is exercised without any details from Parliament as to what is in the public interest in this narrow set of circumstances. What happens is uncertainty. What would happen under this bill? That uncertainty would be either a yes or a no from the minister, with no explanation given other than a denial. The minister could say, “It is not in the public interest to give you this permit. I'm revoking it.” We could ask what the public interest is, but the minister would not have any responsibility to say what it is.

Usually, in the Aeronautics Act, someone would go to an administrative tribunal that has a specialty in this, but guess what. The minister has exempted this act from that tribunal's auspices. Essentially, a company would have a window, based on weather conditions, to get a payload through the atmosphere. Suddenly, it would have to go to court to challenge a decision, which would inevitably cost the taxpayer money because the justice department now would have to say what is in the public interest, but it is not defined by law. This is a recipe for uncertainty, and for the minister to say it would give certainty to a market that has yet to exist is a big warning sign flashing. I want to say, “Ottawa, we have a problem here.”

The result here is a convergence of risk that includes broad executive power, opaque indemnification authority, reduced independent review, large financial commitments and no hard-wired national security screening. This, like space, is a vacuum, a vacuum of accountability. The reasons the minister could give to deny a permit would be as black as space. We would not be able to see transparently why it was denied. This is a problem, considering that there is so much to be said about the Liberal government's penchant for insiders.

We know of the MLS launch. We know of the public record, which has been widely distributed, about it not being a going concern, then 158 conversations with the PMO and different ministers later and, wow, suddenly there is a $200-million lease for a property that was previously leased from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. It is now $55,000 a day.

Again, opaque processes, uncertainty and the discretion of one individual are not a recipe for the rule of law. It is a recipe for inside activity. I have said a lot about these things because I am concerned and because I am a proud Canadian. I believe in innovation. I believe in progress. I believe we have Canadian know-how, and we have proven it, time and time again, but this is not a bill for our times. This is a bill for insiders.

Let me be very clear. I have not been speaking about Canadian space launch capacity. This is an argument against governing it badly. Canada needs domestic launch and re-entry infrastructure. I am sure we can all agree on that. We also need clear, predictable and competitive rules, or else we are only going to track businesses that we will end up identifying, and we will not innovate because there will not be a sphere of competition that drives innovation, reduces costs and sees new ways and approaches come forward. This is because, under this act, there would not be the incentive to do so.

It would be more incentive to get a better lobbyist than to get a better rocket. That is not the rocket fuel this industry needs or wants. We need taxpayers protected from unknowable exposure. We need national security safeguards that are automatic and non-negotiable. Once a satellite is in orbit and it does not use Canadian spectrum, the government has no responsibility or power over that satellite. That satellite, as I said, could be at the behest of a state actor and, let us be mindful, the People's Republic of China does require its companies, under its national security laws, to comply with whatever they are asked of by the authoritarian government in Beijing. The Russians also have an interest in the north and its surveillance of the north.

These are questions that the official opposition members are asking for some accountability on and some better answers. With what I heard today from the minister in his responses to me on national security and indemnification, it is clear that he has either not done the work or is silent on purpose.

We need Parliament, not a minister, setting the rules for this space. We do not need legislation that privatizes reward, nationalizes risk and leaves Canadians in the dark. Space policy, I would argue, is too important, too expensive and too sensitive to be governed this way. Again, capital flows to stability.

The minister is right that Canada has some wonderful attributes. We are a country that is politically stable. We have, most of the time, the rule of law, but if a large company were looking to make a strategic investment in Canada and seize this regime, and unless they have an inside track with a lobbyist who has the ability to get them what they want, I question that this is the right approach.

If the government is serious about our sovereignty, it should be serious about accountability. If it is serious about security, it should put it right into the statute, right into Bill C-28. If it is serious about market activity, it should stop designing laws that reward discretion over discipline. Parliament should not approve a framework that asks Canadians to trust what they cannot see.

I would like to say that it is always a pleasure to be here and to debate these important topics on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I urge my colleagues to take the time to look into Bill C-28 to see with their own eyes not only what is there, which is the fact that almost all of the power would be given to one person, but also the large gaps in the bill that this Parliament could and should address.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, no one could accuse the Conservatives of being visionary.

At the end of the day, this is substantive legislation in an area Canada needs to go into. We have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building and expanding our economy and ensuring that we get the type of security that is necessary, and then we have the Conservatives. I am not too sure exactly what it is they are hoping to achieve.

I do have hope, and the question I have for the member is, does the Conservative Party of Canada support the principle of Canada having a launch site?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada believes in Canadians and their know-how.

We have a strong record, from Diefenbaker and the Alouette I, the first Canadian satellite to be launched. Brian Mulroney created the space act, which is the framework for much of the Canadian missions where we partnered with other countries, to the great success of Canadarm, among other projects. It was Stephen Harper, in 2014, who created a space sovereignty framework that this government, in this new legislation, seems to be ignoring completely.

When we talk about sovereignty, it is non-negotiable, yet under this particular bill, it is discretionary.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the most part, we agree on implementing such a system, as we said earlier. However, my concern is that there seems to be a tendency to waive application of the law every time new measures are introduced. It is tiresome.

As we all know, Bill C‑5 became an act that enables the government to designate projects of national interest. It allows the government to override all existing laws. We also know that Bill C‑15 took away citizens' rights with respect to expropriation. The government also got rid of the environmental assessment for the high-speed rail project. Now it is pushing to exempt certain launch-related decisions from Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada review.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. The government seems to view laws as obstacles to progress, but laws are the legislative framework we have established over decades to provide the public with safety and stability.