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.