Debates of Oct. 26th, 2026

Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not defending the federal government; it is stating the facts of reality. The member might want to twist the numbers, but I used a very specific example. He was working for Stephen Harper in 2012, when the economy was doing well and youth unemployment was over 14%. Contrast that to under 14% with the current Prime Minister, given the environment we are in today.

Every job is important. We continue to push for more jobs for all ages. In terms of colleges and universities, how we train people, it is about working in collaboration with provinces. The provinces play a leading role in ensuring that the labour market is actually connecting post-secondary facilities with future employment opportunities. The federal government supports, co-operates with and works toward that.

Aerospace Industry

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of National Defence about the now infamous Maritime Launch Services' so-called spaceport in Nova Scotia. Clearly this is a project where federal money is being spent, and has been spent, without proper due diligence. It is, of course, also being spent very quickly. Just to recap, it was $200 million over 10 years for a piece of property that the company is paying only $13,500 a year to lease. That is a great ROI for the company, but it is not so good for the Canadian taxpayer.

One area of concern I want to follow up on is the technology safeguards agreement. I see my colleague looking a little puzzled, so I will give him the opportunity to google it while I am asking my question. The technology safeguards agreement is a great idea. It is a government-to-government agreement that sets out the rules for protecting sensitive U.S.-origin space technology and technology that is used outside the U.S.

This is important, because without a technology safeguards agreement, U.S.-origin rockets or U.S.-origin technology cannot be launched from Canada, including from the concrete pad of Maritime Launch Services. Other countries have reached technology safeguards agreements with the United States, including, fairly recently, the United Kingdom. As I understand it, substantive negotiations were completed by Canada and the United States in August 2024, at least according to Global Affairs Canada press releases.

Could my colleague give the House an update on the status of that agreement, because it is completed but not yet signed and in force? Without that agreement, the company, which the government is now funding to the tune of $200 million, will be unable to launch any U.S.-origin technology or goods, which is the majority of the market it is seeking to access with its spaceport. Could my colleague give us an update on the government's status in getting this agreement completed?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was provided the question that was posed, and that is what tonight is supposed to be about: reflection on the question that was posed. The question the member posed the other day in the House was all about the spaceport and why the government is investing in a spaceport.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we recognize that the spaceport is not optional. It is mandatory. When the Prime Minister or the government talks about sovereignty, having the ability to launch is part of that. Canada is in a great position to work with the European Union and others in being able to launch satellites or other objects into space. This is critical, the ability not only to launch but to expand the industry here in Canada. We are talking about the potential of literally hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of future investments, developing an industry that is there already and advancing it significantly.

I think of Magellan in Winnipeg, which manufactures and produces satellites. We cannot put those into orbit. Canada does not have the ability today to launch military satellites, if doing so was deemed to be in our interest. We would have to approach other nations. We are creating a launch pad, and now we are also adding onto it one that, I believe, is in Newfoundland. The member might want to do a quick Google search on that. He will find that from a military perspective and, in particular the one we are talking about tonight, from a civilian perspective and in light of potential contracts, both internally and coming into Canada from other nations, it is in Canadians' best interest.

It is going to develop that industry so companies like Magellan and others in our nation will be able to advance in that whole spectrum of development and manufacturing. It will allow Canada to set its priorities. We will not have to go to SpaceX or any other foreign entity in order to do the things we believe are important as a nation. Also, this is a growing industry worldwide. Why would we not want to take advantage of the technology we have already and advance it to the next level?

Space sovereignty is very important. It is a part of the government's agenda. We will continue to move in that direction because it will give us not only sovereignty but the advancement of technology and growth of our workforce by providing good-quality jobs.

I would invite my colleague across the way to come to Winnipeg, visit Magellan and look at some of the things we can develop and have the potential to put into space. Some are already going into space, but that cannot be done from Canada. We have to go to other nations to get that done. I believe having the space launching pad will be a positive thing for all of us.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not really debating the member on the potential benefits of having a space industry. That is not really the question. The question goes to the heart of what he suggests is the potential opportunity, because that opportunity, or at least a large portion of that opportunity, will not exist unless we complete this technology safeguards agreement.

I would invite him to ask Magellan whether it does anything that does not include U.S. technology. I would hazard to say that it does use U.S. technology, and it cannot be launched by rocketry in Canada if it uses U.S. technology. To access the opportunity, we need to complete this agreement. The reality is that many U.S. companies are further advanced than Canada when it comes to this. That is why a lot of rockets and things are being launched from the U.S. rather than Canada. If we want to do it ourselves, we have to build that expertise and knowledge here in Canada.

If the member does not know the answer, could he commit to coming back with an answer, or could he give us an update today? When will we see this agreement completed?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a question the member might want to pose during question period. This is a follow-up to questions that are posed in question period for additional details. If the member is unable to get the answer, he can come back to me and I would be happy to see what I can do for him.

However, I want to sincerely invite the member to Magellan in Winnipeg. I think he might be surprised by the degree to which we have the technology already in Canada. In fact, I would argue that there are certain space element projects that the United States comes to Canada for. It is not just the United States. We have a labour force that not only can sustain itself on space development, but can grow that industry, and part of growing that industry is looking at having the ability to launch.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I posed regarding the ethical cloud surrounding the Prime Minister in respect of decisions that his government has made to the benefit of Brookfield and, by extension, his personal financial portfolio.

It is an undisputed fact that the Prime Minister has vast conflicts of interest with respect to Brookfield. Indeed, he has acknowledged more than 100 such conflicts of interest. Notwithstanding this, he has dismissed concerns about these conflicts on the basis that his assets are in a blind trust. The problem with that, of course, is that his blind trust is not truly blind because he knows exactly what went into it.

Let us look at some of the facts.

The Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars in future bonus pay from a Brookfield investment fund that he set up when he was the chair of Brookfield. Accordingly, he knows exactly what companies the fund has invested in because he hand-picked the companies. What exactly is blind about that? Then there are the Brookfield stock options for which the Prime Minister stands to make millions. What is blind about that? All of this to say that there is nothing blind about his so-called blind trust.

Since the Prime Minister took office, time and again we have seen Brookfield at the front of the line, doing very well under the government. I will provide some examples.

The government funnelled half a billion dollars to the European Space Agency. Why the European Space Agency? Could it be because Brookfield has a 50% ownership in the space agency's headquarters? Could that be the reason or part of the reason?

Then, there is the Pathways Alliance carbon capture scheme, involving billions of dollars of investment in carbon capture. The leading carbon capture company connected to Pathways Alliance is Entropy. Who owns Entropy? None other than the same Brookfield investment fund the Prime Minister's future bonus pay is directly tied to. What a coincidence.

Then there is the $50-billion maple fund that ties the retirement savings of millions of Canadians to Brookfield, and on it goes.

Billions of dollars are flowing to Brookfield as a result of decisions made by the government. When Brookfield does well, the Prime Minister does well. That is verified by none other than the chief operating officer of Brookfield. What we have amounts to one big conflict of interest involving the Prime Minister.

In the face of that, the ethics committee issued a report in the spring calling on the Prime Minister to end these conflicts of interest by divesting himself fully from Brookfield. Why has he not?

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

Mr. Speaker, what the member clearly demonstrates is that the Conservatives are more focused on personal attacks and character assassinations than they are on public policy and the many things this government has done.

I remember sitting in the third party in the House of Commons. When Justin Trudeau was first elected as leader of the Liberal Party, the Conservatives started personal attacks against him, and from day one after he became prime minister, consistently that is all they did. It is somewhat sad, because at the end of the day, it is this thing here, that thing there and this thing here, and then they line it all up, and oh my God we have a conspiracy. We call that a tin-hat theory.

The Prime Minister was the the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England, and he was an economist extraordinaire. He is very well respected around the world. Through his leadership, the government has made numerous decisions to build a stronger and healthier Canadian economy.

What we just saw is something we saw a bit earlier, when Conservative members stood up and said that the Crown corporation on military procurement is all about corruption. That is what some of them tried to imply, but it is good public policy. The Conservatives can continue to try to do character assassinations and try to paint everything as being corrupt. They can do that all they want, but at the end of the day, I can assure the member that our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, and this government are going to continue to be focused on Canadians and not the Conservative agenda.

If I were to put on a conspiracy hat, I could ask members to imagine all the Conservatives, when they were in government, voting for farm protection procedures or enhancements, or those who argue here for getting discounts on diesel. I could say they are trying to fill the pockets of their families and so forth because they are farmers: How can a person be a farmer and vote for something that is going to benefit a farmer? I do not do that. I do not question their integrity. I do not question the ethics of that, because we have an Ethics Commissioner. I have more faith in the Ethics Commissioner than I do in what I have witnessed from the official opposition over the last number of years, because its sole focus far too often seems to be on character assassination. I do not hear other entities outside of the House of Commons, such as NDP governments, Conservative governments, different stakeholders, and indigenous community leaders, talking about corruption in Ottawa.

Sure, there is always going to be room for improvement when working collaboratively, but I believe that as a government, we have been reaching out and working collaboratively with all levels of government in numerous areas. We will continue to do so because it is the right thing to do. It builds a stronger and healthier Canada for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me spell it out for the parliamentary secretary. The Prime Minister has significant financial interests in Brookfield. He elected not to divest himself of those interests. Consequently, he does well when Brookfield does well, and Brookfield has done very well under his government, to the tune of billions of dollars. Which of those facts does the parliamentary secretary dispute?

In addition to the so-called blind trust, which is not a blind trust, the Prime Minister set up an ethics screen, which he has repeatedly defied, including by meeting with Brookfield on multiple occasions in direct contravention of the screen the Ethics Commissioner set up. Also, he refuses to disclose times when conflicts were identified but he made a decision anyway. Why is the Prime Minister hiding those potential conflicts?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, the system we operate under today, in terms of blind trust and what the expectations are for prime ministers, is something that was in place long ago. In fact, I believe it was Stephen Harper who put it in place. The same rules have applied to Stephen Harper, to Justin Trudeau and to our current Prime Minister.

Our current Prime Minister has gone out of his way in working with the independent officers of the House of Commons, either directly or indirectly, to ensure that there is integrity in the system, including blind trust. I think it would have been the same for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 27, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:09 p.m.)