Information & Ethics Committee on June 4th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are in committee business, so I'm going to allow the motion to stand. We're going to send the motion again to members of the committee.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor. Go ahead, sir.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, 200 million tax dollars are going to Maritime Launch Services for what is at present a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot—a so-called spaceport. Maritime Launch Services doesn't own the land. It leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for only $15,000 a year. Pursuant to the lease, the federal government will be paying Maritime Launch Services $20 million a year for land that, again, they don't even own. Consequently, Maritime Launch Services will be making in excess of a 1,300% profit for land that consists of a gravel parking lot and a concrete slab.

There are serious questions about this lease beyond the fact that we have a lease for $20 million that Maritime Launch Services is essentially flipping to the federal government for that cost, making a 1,300% profit. The lease was entered into in March 2026, but it was backdated to April 1, 2025. In other words, Maritime Launch Services immediately received 20 million tax dollars for this backdated lease for no work and no value to taxpayers. There have been no answers from the Liberals about why the lease was backdated.

I asked the Minister of Finance questions about why the lease was backdated when he appeared at committee of the whole. He had no answers. I've asked questions of ministers in question period. They have no answers. It appears that Maritime Launch Services received $20 million for nothing. It's highly unusual to backdate a lease, and Canadian taxpayers deserve answers as to why that was done—why $20 million was funnelled to Maritime Launch Services for nothing.

Then there's this question: Why Maritime Launch Services? This is a six-person company. Despite their name—Maritime Launch Services—they haven't launched much of anything. They've never launched anything into space. After 10 years of being in business, they've had two suborbital test launches.

Maritime Launch Services is a company that has not had a very good track record in terms of being a going concern. In fact, the March 2025 independent auditor's report from MNP observed the following:

We draw attention to Note 2 in the consolidated financial statements, which indicates that the Company incurred a net comprehensive loss during the year ended December 31, 2024 and December 31, 2023. As stated in Note 2, these events or conditions, along with other matters as set forth in Note 2, indicate that a material uncertainty exists that may cast significant doubt on the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.

In other words, according to the independent auditor's report, Maritime Launch Services was on the verge of bankruptcy.

It's no wonder, because according to their 2025 financial statements, they reported a massive loss of $47 million and revenue of just under $15,000. It begs this question: Is that the reason the lease was backdated? Is that the reason the Liberals handed Maritime Launch Services $20 million for nothing, to bail out this nearly bankrupt company?

On the question of why Maritime Launch Services, I would add that here you have a company with a CEO who has a history of securities infractions. This CEO, Mr. Jacob, was previously fined $100,000 by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada.

How is it that Maritime Launch Services, a nearly bankrupt company that has no history of launching anything into space, that has a CEO who has a history of securities infractions, that doesn't own land and that leases land from the Province of Nova Scotia—which consists of a gravel pit and a concrete slab—managed to secure 158 meetings with government officials, including ministers of the government? How is it possible that a company like this could receive a $200-million lease, given their track record—or lack of a track record—of not doing much of anything? Could it be because this is really about rewarding Liberal insiders, like Stephen McNeil, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia who sits on the advisory committee of Maritime Launch Services? Could it be the reason is that the chief lobbyist is none other than a former senior staffer to the Minister of Justice, whose riding is next door to the site?

It certainly raises serious questions. When I asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence, “Why Maritime Launch Services, a nearly bankrupt company that doesn't own the land, has no history of launching anything into space and has a CEO with, frankly, a shady past?”, there was no answer.

Then there is the selling of shares. Immediately after the lease was entered into, the CEO—the very same CEO who has a history of securities infractions—sold three million previously worthless shares, pocketing $1.8 million. How was that allowed to happen? Why was there no lock-up agreement in place? Not only did he sell three million shares, pocketing $1.8 million, but he then exercised 2,250,000 stock options, at an exercise price of a little over 16¢, to acquire 2,250,000 common shares of the company, for the aggregate consideration of $370,750.

Here you have a CEO who sold three million shares at 60¢—suddenly inflated shares after the announcement—and then bought back 2.25 million shares at 16.7¢, pocketing $1.5 million without significantly decreasing his ownership. It looks to me like this is one big pump-and-dump scheme in which Liberal insiders are getting rich while taxpayers are getting screwed.

Given the serious questions about the lease, about Maritime Launch Services, about the costs and about the pump-and-dump activities of the CEO, I believe this is imperative. Given the total lack of transparency around the lease and the total lack of answers from ministers in this government, we need to hold hearings, to bring the appropriate ministers to committee and get to the bottom of where 200 million Canadian tax dollars are going and why.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

We're on the motion. I'm working on a list. I have Mr. Hardy, Mr. Barrett, Ms. Church and Mr. Majumdar.

Go ahead, Mr. Hardy.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This motion is extremely important. We talked about it in the House, in the committee of the whole in the evening, and in question period. Taxpayers have the right to know why a $200 million contract was awarded to a company that was on the verge of bankruptcy not long before. Just today, the Minister of Finance was asked that question, and he told us to go talk to the astronauts.

It's not a question of whether or not we should be developing our ability to send satellites into space independently. The question is really more about the facts: the way this contract was awarded and the numbers, which make no sense.

Let's look at the issue. On March 16, 2026, the government announced a 10-year agreement with Maritime Launch Services, or MLS, which has six employees. It's going to receive $20 million a year for 10 years.

Again, it's the facts that matter. We can't just be partisan. Let's check the SEDAR+ platform to see what the company is worth and to find out what's going on. As of December 31, 2025, MLS had total revenues of $14,980, with a loss of $3.8 million in operating expenses. Obviously, things are not going well for MLS, but MLS ended up meeting with ministers and other key people 158 times before they got a 10-year, $200 million contract.

What kind of facility are we going to get for $200 million? In the end, we learned that it is a 25 by 35 foot concrete slab and two sea containers. Maybe we don't know anything about it, so we can go and look at the contracts. However, they show that the land does not even belong to the company. It is leased from Nova Scotia, for $13,500 a year, and the company turns around and leases it to the federal government, paying $20 million per year in taxpayers' money for 10 years. The question is not whether we need astronauts, but how can there be such a discrepancy. I think it's a fair question. It's the kind of issue that our committee should be studying.

I did some research to see if this was commonplace, if it was happening elsewhere in the world. Norway also has launch platforms. They've done a tremendous number of successful launches. It has spent $46 million Canadian, has had a bunch of launches and owns 90% of the company that does the launches. Here in Canada, we are so smart that we are going to pay $200 million, own 0% of the company, and have not yet had a single launch.

We're not against everything, but can we at least compare ourselves to successful countries and draw inspiration from them to be effective?

There's also another issue: the deal was announced on March 16, and on April 9, 24 days later, the chair of the board sold 3 million shares and pocketed $1.8 million. The company wasn't making a dime, it was going bankrupt, and then, suddenly, one of the owners pocketed $1.8 million. What happened?

We also realized that, a few days later, he made other transactions. His stake in the company fell from 15.45% to 15.1%. So he sold his shares to make money and bought them back for less the next day. As a result, he got back close to what he had, but pocketed $1.8 million, whereas a few months earlier, the company was going bankrupt.

When this kind of thing happens, the least the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics can do is invite people to testify to answer our questions. This needs to be clarified for taxpayers so that they know that, when their money is invested in something, it is being invested for them.

I will close by saying that we found out something else: The contract was dated a year before the announcement, so the company would make $20 million on day one, even though it hadn't done anything yet. I would say that is ridiculous, but that would be disrespectful.

Before I was elected, I was an entrepreneur. I wish I could start a business like that. That would be great. I would say: “I have idea. You'll see, I'll be good. Give me $20 million a year for 10 years. Take the risk and you'll see that it's going to work out well.”

This is another Liberal scheme: take taxpayers' money and risk it by investing it, with no guarantees, in a company that is not doing well, but that has the great advantage of having a good network, to help friends make money. At the end of the day, taxpayers are the ones who pay the price.

So I think we need more transparency. When things like that happen, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics needs to take action and examine them, to be fair and transparent to the citizens of Quebec and Canada, who will all end up footing the bill.

The motion is simple. We just want to call the people involved and ask them questions. If they have nothing to hide, all they have to do is come and answer our questions, and we'll be able to get to the bottom of this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

Mr. Barrett is next, followed by Ms. Church.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil. That's a legitimate objective. We have a proud history in space.

I won't take us on too long of a journey, but Canada's first astronaut in space in 1984, the year I was born, was Marc Garneau. We, of course, have the Canadarm and the Canadarm2; Canada's first woman in space, Roberta Bondar; Chris Hadfield's commanding the international space station; and Jeremy Hansen's role on Artemis II. The Canadian Space Agency says that commercial launch is now a natural evolution for Canada's space sector, and I agree.

The question isn't whether Canada should pursue sovereign launch capability. The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money on this particular $200-million deal.

Should Canada have sovereign launch capabilities? Absolutely. The issue is the deal. The government announced a 10-year, $200-million agreement to lease one dedicated launch pad at a spaceport in Nova Scotia. The government says that it will support DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Government of Canada, our allies and our partners. It says that the pad has to reach “initial operational capability...by the end of 2026” and that “90% of the funds...must be spent in Canada.”

Those are very important promises, but they raise accountability questions. How was the $200-million price determined? Was there a competitive process, or was this a sole-source deal? What did taxpayers receive for that first year, given that the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025, with $20 million per year and the first $20-million payment due before March 31, 2026? What milestones, holdbacks, clawbacks or cancellation rights protect taxpayers if the site is not ready by the end of 2026?

Finally, what due diligence was done on the financial position of the company? Its 2025 annual filing refers to the spaceport as being under construction and notes that depreciation begins when the spaceport is available for use.

I most certainly would not say that the project is bad or that Canada shouldn't pursue this capability. In fact, I would say the exact opposite, because this capability matters for Canada. As Parliament, we have a role to play. In fact, I would say that we have a duty to make sure that the money was handled properly.

If everything was done properly, the government and the company should be able to show that. That's why it's important that we pursue that accountability here at this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

Next is Ms. Church, followed by Mr. Majumdar.

Ms. Church.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

Mr. Majumdar, go ahead.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is an opportunity to take up Ms. Church's invitation, because I think very much so that this spaceport describes ethical standards for public office holders and therefore the procurement discipline that is enclosed therein.

Canadians expect serious scrutiny of major defence spending, especially when it involves $200 million in public funds. That is exactly why this committee should support the motion to hold hearings on the agreement between the Department of National Defence and Maritime Launch Services for the Spaceport Nova Scotia project near Canso.

The government describes this as a key step towards sovereign launch capability, national defence and innovation in space. Those are important goals, indisputably so. The public records show, however, a distinct gap between the announcements and the current reality on the ground. Parliament has a responsibility to examine that gap.

A photograph of the site, very widely circulated, shows a gravel road, two sea containers and a concrete pad. That is the visible infrastructure supporting a $200-million, 10-year commitment from DND. The agreement is structured to be roughly $20 million per year.

The site's launch history consists of two suborbital flights: one by a York University rocketry club in July 2023 that reached about 13.4 kilometres, and a T-Minus Engineering test flight in November 2023. These are positive steps for those involved, particularly the students, but they do not yet represent a mature orbital launch facility with a proven sovereign capability or defence needs.

The company's financial position prior to this agreement is of concern. It was modest, to be charitable. MLS's 2025 financial statements reveal a loss of $47 million and low revenue of $14,890. It leases land from the Province of Nova Scotia for a relatively small annual amount. Taxpayers are now providing $20 million annually under this deal. That contrast alone warrants basic questions about value for money, milestones and risk.

The contract was backdated to April 1, 2025, with payments beginning before parliamentary scrutiny could even begin. The agreement also includes requirements for the company to reach operational capability by the end of this year.

These timelines and payment structures raise very legitimate procedural and accountability questions that involve the ethical standards of these public office holders. There are also reported political connections, some of which my colleagues have gotten into, including a former Liberal premier on the advisory board and representation by the Liberal cabinet minister for the area. These facts do not prove impropriety necessarily, but they certainly reinforce the need for transparency.

Committees exist precisely to separate connections from evidence and to test whether due diligence was indeed rigorous. This is not about opposing space development or defence investment. Canada needs better capabilities in space for surveillance, communications, Arctic sovereignty and our alliance commitments. Serious objectives require serious procurement discipline, competitive processes where possible, clear military requirements, alternative analysis and verifiable milestones. That is what these hearings can establish.

The motion proposes a modest six meetings. That is reasonable for a $200-million commitment involving public funds, defence procurement, limited operational history and many unanswered questions about decision-making, risk assessment and alternatives.

Thank you, and I look forward to the committee's decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Majumdar.

Mr. Bonin, I'm sorry, but I have to bring this meeting to a close.

The meeting is adjourned.