Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We've just had a good 18 minutes of introduction to this proposed motion, which has covered a lot of ground. I appreciate Mr. Barrett's comments about, in particular, how Canada should be supporting our sovereign space launch capacity. When this issue has arisen, my colleagues opposite have left some doubt, I'll say, in our minds about whether they support that and whether they look at this project as an important piece in those capabilities. This project will drive billions of dollars in investments, create good-paying jobs, increase our sovereignty and create opportunities for our NATO partners, particularly at a moment when these capabilities are on the minds of the commercial and private sectors in Canada and more broadly on the minds of our partners and defence partners in particular.
This is a serious investment. This investment is timely. My colleagues opposite said they would not take us on a journey, but they did journey through some of our past astronauts. At this moment, we can think about the Artemis II; about astronaut Jeremy Hansen, who is coming back to Parliament next week; about how proud Canadians were about the capabilities that led Canada to be a part of that mission; and about French being spoken for the first time in space. These were moments that brought us together as a country and that speak to the ambition we can have when we invest in our capabilities and when we invest in science and innovation and in the moon shot goals that inspire us to be at our best.
I think back to the Avro Arrow. I think many Canadians regret that it was cancelled—when Canada didn't move forward and, under a different government, cancelled that project. Something this country has dealt with for decades is missing those capabilities and the loss of engineering talent that followed from that. We certainly don't want to see that here.
I would note that some very important people have stood up in support of this project, including Conservative Premier Tim Houston, who said that Spaceport Nova Scotia is an “exciting project that advances our province” and that it will “grow our economy and increase local prosperity”. This project has been supported by the Government of Nova Scotia specifically because it creates jobs and brings investment to that province.
The Conference Board of Canada estimates that this project could add 1,600 jobs during construction. Mr. Cooper speaks of it derisively, as some sort of concrete slab. Spaceports by definition involve concrete slabs. I'd be curious about what else we'd launch from.
It's going to add $300 million to our GDP, according to the Conference Board of Canada. In light of how we are trying to invest in our economy and in light of our desire to create good jobs, meet our defence commitments and increase our capabilities, this is an important investment.
All of that said, there is a certain reality to this motion: If the Conservatives wish to dig into this, the ethics committee is not the place to do it.
The motion calls for literally four ministers of the Crown and a host of others to come, but when I look at the mandate of this committee—access to information, privacy and ethics—this is not within the scope of the committee. The proper place for this to be debated might be over at national defence, might be over at transport, might be over at finance or might be over at industry. I'll also note that they've added the Minister of Justice to come here, but I'm not too clear on why.
This doesn't strike me as the best place for this motion to be examined within government. I would urge my colleagues to review Standing Order 108(3)(h) outlining our committee's mandate and ask them to consider whether or not this falls within the mandate laid out there.
That mandate focuses primarily on the work of the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying; on reviewing and reporting on the reports of those commissioners; on working in co-operation with other committees on “any federal legislation, regulation or standing order which impacts upon the access to information or privacy of Canadians or the ethical standards of public office holders” and, finally; and on “the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy...and to ethical standards relating to public office holders”.
As I look at this motion and see the direction that my colleagues intend to pursue, I would encourage them to consider other venues to discuss this. I'll remind them of the conversation we just had about the committee business on our plate—which will hopefully take up the next number of meetings, if not a few months of meetings—and encourage them to reconsider.
Thank you.