Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauce.
Before I start, I want to again acknowledge the unfortunate terrible tragedy in Wainwright this past week and send out my condolences and prayers to all the families of those fallen soldiers, but in particular to all the injured families and those injured soldiers who are still recovering. It is my understanding there are still approximately a dozen of them who are in critical condition and fighting for their lives. Any thoughts and prayers that we can send to them would be of the utmost importance as they continue to carry on. Those thoughts are a reminder to the House and all Canadians listening that we know our soldiers are required to train as they fight. They still have to get out the door. Those soldiers who were implicated in this terrible tragedy are set to deploy in the coming months to Latvia in service to our nation.
We are here to debate Bill C-28. Really, the debate has just started. I think we are only on the second day. There has barely been any debate on this, so I am looking forward to ensuring all members of the House who want to speak to this piece of legislation will have the opportunity.
What is Bill C-28? It is an enactment that would amend the Aeronautics Act to establish a legislative framework for space launch and re-entry activities in Canada. It would amend certain definitions to take into account new terms, such as “launch vehicles” and “re-entry vehicles”, and authorize those terms to be defined by regulation. It would also remove certain decisions related to the launch and re-entry from review by the Transport Appeal Tribunal of Canada. It would expand the tribunal's 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 would also introduce new authorities related to the liability and indemnification for launch and re-entry activities.
Here is a bit of my own background. I spent 25 years in the military. When I was at university at the Royal Military College of Canada, I received an honours degree in space science. I had the pleasure of being exposed to this stuff, and I am going to date myself, back in the mid-nineties. In particular, we had a lecture or course, which I remember well, on space law. I am not a lawyer. I do not pretend to understand what has evolved, but I remember the fascinating discussions and debates we were having 30 years ago on the challenges of space and how it applies to aeronautic laws, etc. It all comes to some of the challenges with the arming of space, how we protect it and how we maintain that international peace that is evolving around there. I do not think 30 years ago we could have predicted just how industrialized space has become.
I want to talk specifically about why I personally think having domestic launch capability is important, but it needs to be done right. If we go back 20-some years ago, we had the XPRIZE. Elon Musk even competed in this competition and did not win, but we had Canadian companies involved in it. One in particular was the Canadian Arrow. As part of their requirements to launch their rocket as part of that XPRIZE competition, they needed a launch site with a coastal area with open water at least 100 feet deep with a range footprint of 40 miles by 30 miles. The team lead was Geoffrey Sheerin out of London, Ontario, and they started this back in 2000.
As to their mission and goals, I will quote Geoff: “We entered the competition to build and fly a manned suborbital vehicle. The X PRIZE makes it possible under the umbrella of a race to motivate and consolidate help from industry. We hope to make Canada into the space shuttle capital of the world.”
I have a personal connection to that team as well, because Gregg Mackay, the structural engineer and the vice president of engineering for Canadian Arrow, is on that team, and Gregg graduated from RMC with me in 1997. He is from Fenelon Falls here in Ontario, and he now resides in my beautiful riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. He is a high school teacher, and I know he is likely listening this morning, with 32 of his students, so I think we have actually likely tripled the number of normal watchers here for the House. It is great to have individuals and those students listening.
I am going to quote Gregg here:
”We were a very proud Canadian team. The choice of the name 'Canadian arrow' was no mistake. (An obvious nod to the Avro Arrow). We were insistent on a Canadian vehicle, designed by Canadians, built in Canada, based in Canada, launched in Canada. Without the need to go suborbital, a very limited down range capability, and with a water landing, there is no reason why many locations in Canada would not have suited. As we neared completion of ground testing, and vehicle development, we started to look at launch sites. We were very quickly offered space at American launch facilities. It became equally obvious that we were up for a very enormous challenge in acquiring permission to launch from Canada. Despite months of negotiation with various departments, we were turned down for all our requested launch locations. With a slim possibility of a Churchill launch site. We had been leading the competition (in the eyes of many experts who were following the competition) but the delay in locating a launch test facility within Canada eventually played a major part in an American team winning the prize ahead of us. We never gave up on being a 100% Canadian team, but that ultimately cost us the prize.”
I am saying that just to outline that this is something important, but we need to do it right. Here are my concerns with Bill C-28 as it is currently drafted. It does not address basic national security safeguards needed in statute. It does not address the possibility of foreign ownership. I do not see anything in law, even within the bill itself, that would allow for the screening of operators and payloads.
I find it interesting that the government is constantly speaking about sovereignty and security while promoting this bill, yet the legislation, as I mentioned, would fail to embed basic national security safeguards into 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 tests within the legislation 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 at the discretion of the minister in the public interest.
In a specialized industry like space, the risk of regulatory capture is high, so my question is really around this. This is why I am bringing it forth: Why would the criteria for approval and indemnity not be written into the law itself? Is it because the government, the Liberal government, wants to somehow reward insiders and take away the transparency and accountability that comes with parliamentary oversight? It is really hard for Canadian innovators, or any innovators, to invest the necessary capital in a black hole of uncertainty. How would this framework that is built on undefined future regulations give confidence to new Canadian start-ups or does the government really just want to keep this controlled within the industries and companies that are already tied in directly to the Liberal government?
I would note we have one example with the Maritime launch site, I believe it was called, where the government committed $200 million to that project earlier this year, and included $20 million per year backdated for a year. I would note that the first $20 million was paid upfront, despite no operational milestones being met by the company yet.
In principle, and in conclusion, I personally support the need for domestic space launch capabilities here in Canada. The example I provided of the Canadian Arrow is just one example of why this is so important. That being said, my initial analysis of Bill C-28 indicates that instead of setting the conditions for a transparent, accountable framework that would enable Canadian ingenuity and entrepreneurship, the Liberal government is actually asking Parliament to waive parliamentary oversight and fails to adequately address national security concerns.
I am going to be listening intently to the many more days of debate on this bill, specifically for the speeches that I can expect from the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Public Safety and the Minister of National Defence, as I am anticipating they will be keen to provide answers to these important questions.