Debates of Oct. 23rd, 2026

The House resumed from April 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his service to our country and for his speech, and echo his condolences to the families of those who lost their lives at Wainwright, or are injured and recovering.

Interestingly, I did not know that the member had a degree in space. I always knew he was smart, but now I know he is a rocket scientist. I also know Geoff Sheerin, who the member talked about in his speech, because he now lives in my riding. He is a real rocket scientist. What he is working on now with AlumaPower is a battery-powered portable kit that can be taken to the front lines of the battle to power the medical tents with no heat signal and no noise. It is just a super invention. I love to see technology move forward.

The member talked about the gaps that he sees. Could he summarize the kinds of amendments that he would like to see brought to this bill when it goes to committee.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will first address the point of the member opposite about Geoff Sheerin, the founder of the Canadian Arrow team. It is great to hear that he is still here in Canada using his brilliance and his ingenuity to continue to grow Canadian innovation. If she was to ask Geoff, he would say that unfortunately many members of that team of Canadians actually had to go to the United States and moved to the United States in order to find employment opportunities going into the future.

To specifically address the member's question around the types of amendments I would suggest, I sort of highlighted some of them. This needs to be reported to Parliament. There needs to be better oversight. It needs to be written into what is going to trigger things like national security assessments on to the review process and for the government to make a firm commitment, so that for a payload or ownership of companies launching from Canada, we would have the appropriate oversight over anything that would be flying over Canadian national territory.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair this morning.

The Bloc Québécois has some concerns, even though we support this bill. It is a good thing that we are becoming more independent from the United States. However, since this project is going to take place in Nova Scotia, will the federal government negotiate properly with Nova Scotia, or does it believe that, since this is more of a federal responsibility, it can do whatever it wants without talking to the Government of Nova Scotia?

I would like to know my colleague's analysis of that. Does he think the bill is well thought out in that regard, or should it come with some caveats?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have my own cynical opinion of the government's willingness to collaborate and negotiate with most organizations, including respecting provincial jurisdiction. At the same time, I acknowledge that when it comes to things like national defence, there is a time and place where sometimes we have to do things in the best interest of the country.

The importance around this does have to be communicated. It has to be open and transparent about what the requirements are and how the provinces and the federal government can work together. We are in a position now where if the government does not provide that transparency, it is just going to create additional potential waste and challenges that will undermine the importance of an initiative like this.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his condolences for the fallen and their families and the injured in Wainwright, a training area he and I know well from our time in the Canadian Armed Forces. It is hard to imagine that our men and women who are preparing to go into the battle space are now having to deal with the recovery and the loss of their brothers and sisters in arms.

On the legislation, I am just wondering if he can quickly tell us why he thinks it is so important for us to get the legislative framework right when it deals with our national sovereign launch capability.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very important to get this right because, ultimately, if we do not, it undermines our ability to continue to go forward. I talked briefly at the opening part of my speech about when I was studying this stuff 30 years ago and the laws around it. We know for a fact that there are other states or foreign-owned companies that are going to use that technology for nefarious reasons, so we need to make sure we have the measures in place to prevent that type of stuff from occurring.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, when families in Beauce sit down to make their budget, they naturally begin with the essentials: groceries, housing, electricity, car payments, school supplies, clothing and all the other basic necessities. Then they look at what is left in their wallet and, unfortunately, they are forced to make choices. There are always choices to be made. They may have to postpone a repair, delay a purchase or cut back in one area simply to make ends meet in another.

Meanwhile, in Ottawa, the Liberals are asking Parliament to approve a costly space launch bill that will grant the minister broader powers that could ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers. The Liberals talk about ambition. I want to talk about accountability. Before asking Canadians to finance its ambitions in space, the government should first confront the realities here on Earth. The people of Beauce work hard for every dollar they earn. They have a right to know how their money is being spent. More importantly, they have a right to ask questions before they are handed the bill.

Bill C-28 seeks to establish a legislative framework for space launch and re-entry activities in Canada. I believe that Canada has amazing engineers, researchers and businesses that are capable of doing great things. We can be proud of their work, and we do want to develop our capabilities, but an ambitious project must be based on sound rules. It has to pass a very simple test: Will taxpayers get good value for their money? Is the Liberal government managing the money properly?

Take the case of Maritime Launch Services in Nova Scotia, which I have mentioned here before. The government announced a $200-million agreement over 10 years to lease a specialized launch site and related services before even introducing Bill C-28. I repeat: It committed $200 million.

To understand why this announcement raises questions, let us come back to the issue that my colleagues from Richmond—Arthabaska—des-Sources and Montmorency—Charlevoix and I raised here in the House before.

The situation we described is based on observations made on March 21 by Marie Lumsden, a resident of Canso who went to the area with her camera. There is a gravel road, two shipping containers and a 25-foot-by-35-foot concrete pad. For reference, that is just about big enough to put a 21-foot trailer on. That is a striking image. Then there are the numbers. Maritime Launch Services, a company in which a former Liberal holds shares, is leasing the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. Those are the facts.

The federal government approaches this company with the great idea of leasing the property from it for $20 million a year. That is a fact, not a joke. Let me repeat, a company that leased the property for $13,500 is leasing it back to the government for $20 million. I see one of my colleagues laughing, but the worst part is that someone had the bright idea to sign a 10-year, $200-million lease for a bit of land with a 25- by 35-foot concrete pad on it. That tells us everything we need to know about the Liberals' financial management. Not a single business person in Beauce manages their money like that. If they did, they would soon go out of business.

Why are the Liberals more careless with taxpayers' money than a business person would be with theirs? Why are they not being transparent? We want to know the contract terms. Who set the price and evaluated the alternatives? Who signed the contract? Who is responsible? Was the minister aware? We all asked these questions. Who is responsible for this horrific expenditure of funds?

A minister can call it a historic investment if they want, but every dollar still has to be justified, and $200 million is a lot of money.

Ottawa has announced millions of dollars, while families in Beauce are counting every penny. That is why we are so keen to make sure public funds are managed properly. When families are having to defer necessary spending, they expect their government to exercise sound judgment before making new commitments. Families are not asking for handouts. They just want their efforts to be respected. People work hard. They are asking the government to respect their efforts and invest their tax dollars wisely.

Bill C-28 raises another question. What other financial risks could taxpayers be expected to bear in the future? The bill gives the minister the power to indemnify certain owners and operators for their liability to third parties for damage, when the minister deems it in the public interest to do so. It also makes it possible to grant certain exemptions and reduce the minimum amount of liability insurance an operator is required to carry. It is a bit technical, but behind these provisions lie two very practical questions: If things do not go according to plan, who will foot the bill and how much could they have to pay? Will taxpayers end up footing the bill yet again? Are we going to put yet another expense on our grandchildren's credit card?

Canadians need to know the bounds of the commitments made on their behalf. They are the ones footing the bill, after all. They need to know how much of the risk falls on the company and how much may fall on them. If government protection is necessary, the minister must be able to justify it. He must share the terms and conditions and be accountable for his decision. He also needs to explain how the risk is assessed before offering such protection. If the government intends to make taxpayers foot the bill when things go wrong, then it needs to explain the risks to them before signing the agreement. Exercising this kind of caution is a normal part of everyday life for Canadians, Quebeckers and residents of Beauce. It should be normal for cabinet too.

We also need to think about the businesses that would like to get involved in this industry. In Beauce, we are no strangers to taking risks. Sometimes business owners have to buy machinery, expand a plant, develop a product or seek out new markets. Before investing, they need to calculate their operating costs, purchases and expenses. Most importantly, they need to understand the rules.

My colleague from Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna raised this concern. When financial protections depend on a minister's discretionary decisions, different companies may find themselves in very different situations. What criteria will be used to determine whether protection is granted to one company and denied to another? How can a new operator verify whether it is being treated fairly compared to another company? The government must make these rules and criteria clear. A company must be able to plan its project knowing what requirements it will need to meet. Its competitors must be subject to comparable criteria. This is essential for attracting investment and enabling new players to establish themselves on an equal footing.

An entrepreneur should succeed through hard work and good ideas. He or she should not need a contact at the minister's office to secure contracts. Predictable rules instill confidence in businesses. Well-explained decisions and transparency instill confidence in citizens. The government has a responsibility to instill confidence in both of these groups.

The Liberals also talk about sovereignty. We agree this is a serious issue. Space technologies can be used for communications, research and, above all, defence. The Conservatives are calling for more explicit guarantees when it comes to national security.

Our demands are simple. First, the terms of the $200-million agreement must be made public. Second, clear limits on the financial risks borne by taxpayers need to be established. Third, the government needs to lay out the same criteria for all businesses so they can invest with confidence and be treated fairly. These are basic requirements when spending Canadians' money.

Personally, I would approach this issue with the same common sense that the people of Beauce apply to their own finances. Before spending money, we do the math. Before making a commitment, we read the terms. When using someone else's money, we have to answer for how it is spent.

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

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised at the Conservative Party's positioning on this and its constant criticism. I understand that Peter MacKay is someone who actually supports it. I realize he is more of a Progressive Conservative, as opposed to a far right Conservative, which we see across the way.

I also understand that the provincial government is supporting the—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not know what that adds to the debate here, and quite frankly, I think it is a bit of name-calling.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is not a point of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member might not like the description of his political entity, but that is the reality of it, quite frankly.

We have the province of Nova Scotia, which is, by the way, led by another Progressive Conservative, and it is not only supporting it but also investing in it.

Can the member tell us why the far right is in opposition to space?

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think you will find that ascribing labels to people in here that are neither proper nor recognized Parliamentary terms is going to continue to create disorder, and I encourage you to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I agree that it does create disorder.

I would ask the hon. member to not use those terms. We want to have a proper debate.

The hon. member for Beauce.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, you will have to excuse him. He is new here and is struggling this morning.

We are all in favour of national sovereignty. That is clear. We are just asking the government to exercise discipline, but it never does.

I want to come back to the decision to spend $200 million on a 24- by 35-foot concrete pad. It makes no sense. That should not happen. The government should be accountable for its decisions.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-28 mainly brings to mind a concrete pad in Nova Scotia. We are really wondering how it was chosen.

This week, we found out that the government had suddenly designated a new site, this time in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would like to know if my colleague has any idea how these sites are chosen. Is it done based on objective scientific criteria, or is it just at the government's whim based on who cozies up to whom?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question. I mentioned this in my speech. I asked what the criteria are. Does a bidder have to know someone in the ministers' offices to get a contract? It should not be that way.

There needs to be a lot more transparency on this file. Far too much taxpayer money is being spent haphazardly. There needs to be more discipline.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Saint-Augustin—Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Beauce, and I found it interesting when he talked about responsibility. He explained how the provincial government is leasing the site to the company in question for $13,500, while that company is billing the Canadian government $20 million. It is absurd. Does my colleague believe this government is acting responsibly?

I heard the procurement minister say this week that dental care programs were being offered, while we were bringing up food banks and how much Canadians are struggling to put food on the table. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether this Liberal government is acting responsibly.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the utmost respect for my colleague. The words “responsibility” and “accountability” should be heard a lot more here in Parliament. As parliamentarians, we are taking action, representing taxpayers and managing public funds.

While people are struggling to put food on the table, the government is spending $200 million on a 25- by 35-foot concrete slab. That is unacceptable.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and his Conservative colleagues for highlighting this preposterous $200-million payment for a concrete slab. It does indeed raise questions, and I think it is reasonable to demand answers from the government. These are public funds, after all, and it is important not to waste them.

The fact remains that Canada is currently the only G7 country with no satellite launch capabilities, even though satellites are practically indispensable to daily life, whether for travel or communications. Does that fact concern my colleague?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is a great hockey player by the way. I have had to face off with him a few times.

That is a good question. Yes, the purpose is national security, and yes, we need launch capabilities. However, as I have been saying all day, people are struggling to eat and yet money is being spent with reckless abandon. It is important to manage Canadians' money responsibly.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my first time speaking in the House since the tragedy at Wainwright in Alberta last Saturday, so I want to offer my condolences, certainly to the families of the soldiers who are deceased; to the families, loved ones and communities of the soldiers who are injured; and to all the personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces. We are with them wholeheartedly, today and always, and we will absolutely remember their sacrifice.

I rise today to speak to Bill C‑28. This is an essential bill because we are in a race. It is not a rhetorical race but rather a race for investment, infrastructure and legislation. Countries around the world are moving quickly. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, India and New Zealand have each built launch sites, passed modern space legislation and committed billions of dollars to securing sovereign access to space and data.

Government investment in space launches is increasing around the world, with government spending in the space sector reaching approximately $130 billion globally in 2024.

If Canada does not act quickly, it may fall behind. That is why I am rising today to speak to the Canadian space launch act at second reading. This bill is long overdue, and it is essential to building Canada's legacy as a leading space nation.

Canada is not new to space. We are one of its pioneers. In 1962, Canada launched the Alouette I and became the third country in the world to place a satellite in orbit. We built the Canadarm. Our astronauts range from Marc Garneau to University of Guelph alumna Roberta Bondar, the first Canadian woman in space; Chris Hadfield; David Saint-Jacques; Jeremy Hansen; and just a few weeks ago, Joshua Kutryk, who is currently on the International Space Station. They have inspired generations, and their research informs important scientific discoveries.

Canada is known globally for excellence in robotics, earth observation and satellite communications. That is a proud legacy. Space is not out there; it is in every community. The University of Guelph, in my riding, is home to leading expertise in satellite earth observation and remote sensing. It uses satellite data to support precision agriculture, environmental monitoring and climate research. As Canada strengthens its sovereign space capabilities and AI capabilities, communities such as Guelph are already helping develop the talent and innovation that will turn that data into economic and public benefits. This is strategic data. Canada wants sovereignty over this strategic data. To have that, we must launch our satellites in Canada.

The industry has already made significant investments to grow the space sector and push the limits of innovation. Canada's own space sector now supports more than 13,800 direct high-scale jobs, a nearly 6% workforce increase in 2023, and sustains an additional 12,500 jobs across the broader economy. For growth in this sector, the sky is literally the limit, but industry needs government to provide the regulatory certainty and confidence companies require to attract and sustain new investment. My colleagues across the way confirm that.

Canada designs satellites, manufactures components and trains world-class engineers only to ship our work off to other countries so that they can launch those satellites, as my Conservative colleague mentioned. That results in higher costs, longer delays and greater uncertainty. The opposition party wants to move quickly and innovate, but now all of a sudden it wants to put the brakes on. I cannot understand them.

Why is space important? It is important because satellites form the backbone of almost all aspects of modern daily life in Canada. When Canadians use their phones to get directions or to do their banking online, they are using satellites. Satellites provide Internet, television and telephone services to rural, northern and remote communities.

Space weather forecasts alert us to severe weather events, such as blizzards, heat waves and heavy rain. Satellite technology is also essential for monitoring sea ice, vessel traffic and marine pollution, especially in Canada's Arctic and coastal regions.

Satellites are essential infrastructure just like roads, hospitals and airports, but they are only reliable if we can launch, maintain, defend and replace them on our own terms, according to our own needs, without depending on another country.

A country that cannot launch its own satellites depends on the goodwill of foreign countries to keep its infrastructure running. That is a vulnerability that we can and must eliminate.

Space has become an increasingly hostile and contested domain, so there is a greater need to safeguard our critical space assets. Many of our allies have acknowledged this fact and are already investing heavily in space-based defence and sovereign space launch capabilities. There is no defence without space. Canada has an opportunity to provide a much sought-after service to our allies that can support several multilateral security objectives. In this new space race, existing global demand for launch far exceeds the supply of launch services, so foreign governments and international companies are actively seeking alternatives in stable, trusted countries like Canada. Once again, Canada has what the world wants, and part of that is our geography.

The proposed legislation would allow Canada to harness its natural advantages of land, coastlines and talent, and to build the frameworks necessary to support a viable, safe industry of space launch and re-entry. The Canadian space launch act is a framework that is necessary to ensure that all launch and re-entry activities in Canada would be conducted safely, securely, sustainably and in the public interest.

This is not strictly about science or industry. This is a fundamental question of sovereignty. Canada needs its own means to collect its own data. Our ability to lead in AI depends on good data, including strategic satellite data that powers everything from climate forecasting and agriculture to Arctic surveillance, while ensuring that Canadians retain sovereignty over critical data sets rather than relying on foreign providers to launch our satellites. A sovereign satellite and launch capability strengthens our security, economic competitiveness and resilience, enabling Canadian-made AI systems built for Canadian conditions and ensuring uninterrupted access to vital data during times of crisis.

Canadian innovators are ready to compete. They need legal authority and clear rules to follow so they can raise capital, build prototypes, test new technologies and attract international clients right here in Canada. That is what this act would provide.

The act would improve safety by implementing a modern, risk-informed approach to regulations that is aligned with international best practices and complemented by a robust regime of oversight, inspection and enforcement, exactly what members opposite were calling for a second ago. It would also require operators to carry insurance and to demonstrate, before any launch is authorized, the financial responsibility to cover any damages that may occur.

This is not a partisan issue, nor should it be. The question is whether Canada intends to compete in the 21st century or stand on the sidelines while others seize opportunities that should be ours.

If the House passes the Canadian space launch act, Transport Canada will act swiftly to advance the regulatory framework; work with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities that are already on board; coordinate with industry; and establish international partnerships to ensure that Canada is not merely a participant in the global space economy, but a leader.

The choice is very simple: Canada can lead, or it can fall behind. Let us choose to be masters in our own house. Let us choose our industries, our sovereignty and our security.

I hope all members of the House will choose to lead in sovereign space launch capability, because it is about our economy, science, safety and our sovereignty.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to address what happened yesterday in relation to Maritime Launch Services.

The RCMP raided an operation in Quebec, Lion, that has shown exactly the government's template for how it actually funnels government money, taxpayer money, to individuals it favours. How this relates to Maritime Launch Services is that it has taken two years for Lion to be investigated by the RCMP. Maritime Launch Services is doing exactly the same thing.

The government, in arrears, gave $20 million of rent to Maritime Launch Services, before it even occupied it, for a $300,000 lease that it actually had. It was $20 million, for nothing at all, to give to the government's friends. The minute it did that, the president of Maritime Launch Services took a whole bunch of his shares and sold them, as they were pumped up to 60¢ a share, putting almost $2 million in his pocket.

The government is continually using mechanisms through which it is funnelling Canadian dollars, almost illegally, as the RCMP showed yesterday, to its friends in their chosen fields. Can the member tell us that we will not see the same repeat of a raid from the RCMP on this operation?

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, those are extraordinary accusations and allegations in the House. I am certain, with the RCMP investigation, that we will investigate and get to the bottom of it, clearly.

I want to come back to the whole conversation, though, about how the land is supposedly just a little slab, how it was worth a tiny amount and how we are now paying this much for it. Anyone who knows a thing about zoning knows that every housing development and every factory starts in a field, a slab. It is about the geography. It is about the potential. The minute the zoning changes, the minute the economic opportunity expands, so does the cost. There are not a million places we can launch satellites from in Canada. This is one of them.