House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was satellites.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-275. The bill, introduced by Conservative MP Blaine Calkins, amends the Criminal Code to define sexual assault material and establishes criminal offences for its creation, distribution, or possession to protect and support sexual assault victims. 300 words.
Canadian Space Launch Act Second reading of Bill C-28. The bill establishes a regulatory framework for commercial space launches in Canada to acquire sovereign launch capabilities and support economic growth. While supporting the goal of space development, Conservatives argue the legislation lacks national security safeguards and relies on excessive ministerial discretion, creating opportunities for patronage. Opposition members also express fiscal concerns, specifically questioning the cost and transparency of a government-funded launch facility lease in Nova Scotia. 36600 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Spring Economic Update 2026 Members debate the Liberal government's spring economic update, highlighting a new sovereign wealth fund, housing initiatives, and defense spending. Liberals argue their plan maintains fiscal discipline while addressing affordability. Conversely, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre characterizes the update as an irresponsible borrowing and spending agenda worsening inflation. Simultaneously, Bloc Québécois and NDP MPs criticize the lack of specific support for provinces and insufficient affordability measures, questioning the government’s overall fiscal direction. 24400 words, 3 hours.
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Madam Speaker, I am not entirely convinced. I need to have all the information before I can answer that, but if the past is any indication, it does not look good. We know that we have a government that likes to do things behind closed doors.
To me, what matters is ensuring the highest possible level of accountability and transparency. I am hopeful that, during the committee review stage, amendments will be proposed that will allow us to ensure that going forward.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to be able to rise today to speak on significant legislation. Bill C-28 is legislation that I believe should inspire people to think big in terms of the opportunities that are there to build a stronger and healthier country for all. It is a wonderful anniversary piece of legislation, and I do not know if it was actually planned that way. It is great to be having this debate today. It was just one year ago that Canadians elected a new Prime Minister, and that Prime Minister and this government have made it very clear what we want to be able to do.
We talk about building Canada strong and building a sense of security for Canadians. When we take a look at what has taken place over the last year, we see a government that has taken many different initiatives to do exactly what we said we would do in the last election. Building Canada strong for all Canadians is the priority of this government.
The legislation we are dealing with today speaks to that point, I would ultimately argue. I would encourage members to take a look at what is before us and how this legislation would enable an industry in Canada that has done exceptionally well. This legislation speaks volumes in looking at how we can go beyond the type of markets we have and how we can complement what we have today.
As I pointed out, we could actually be sending, via rocket, satellites into orbit as early as 2028. This is a significant and ambitious goal set by the Prime Minister and government. I would love for us to be able to achieve that goal. Part of being able to do that is recognizing the value of the legislation.
I am encouraged by the Conservative, or rather, by the Bloc party's comments in regard to it.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
That was more of a Freudian slip.
Madam Speaker, I was referring to the Bloc's position when I posed the question of how its members saw the legislation proceeding.
The principle of the legislation is sound. How can someone oppose the principle of what the Government of Canada is trying to do by presenting the legislation? To that end, the Bloc's position was that it could see the legislation going to committee, having some dialogue and having stakeholders come to the table and talk about the legislation and where it might be improved upon and so forth. Ultimately, in listening to the response to my question, I felt relatively optimistic that there is going to be collaboration coming from the Bloc.
Collaboration is an important thing. We want to see collaboration. It is one of the ways we can improve legislation. One of the things that this Prime Minister and government have done very clearly is show that if there are ways in which we can improve something, we are open to doing it.
A very good example of this occurred yesterday. Yesterday, we swore in three new members to the House of Commons, which gave us a majority government. The first action we had on the floor of the House of Commons was the passing of a private member's bill from the opposition that dealt with crime. That is collaboration. We want to see that collaboration with respect to Bill C-28. Bill C-28 is something that should make all of us, in principle, feel good and want to see it happen. Why not? That is actually not a bad question to pose: Why not?
This morning, I had the opportunity to ask the front person for the Conservative Party on this whole debate a very straightforward question, not once but twice: Do they support the principle? Should Canada's space industry have a launch pad here in Canada? That is the essence of what we are talking about today: the ability to launch, via rocket, things such as satellites into space. I was surprised and disappointed, but I think they will come around. They just need a little persuading. The Conservatives will come around to supporting the idea that Canada should have the ability to launch its own satellites.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I will get to answering some of the member's questions.
The nice thing is that, in listening to the Conservative member's speech, many of the questions he posed could actually be answered in great detail at the committee stage. I look forward to the legislation hitting the committee stage, where those answers will be provided. He might not like the content of the answer, but the government does want to facilitate communication that allows for the passage of this legislation. As I said, it is an ambitious goal that we have, to try to get things in place as early as 2028. I would suggest that we should be thinking about the industries affected.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, I was just reminded by one of my friends across the way that we have a majority. However, whether we have a majority or not, I can assure members across the way that, as much as possible, when we see good legislation, we will say, let us get behind it, get it into a committee situation, have that dialogue and see where we can collaborate and whether there are ways in which we can improve the legislation. By all means, let us be open to that, whether it is government legislation or private members' legislation. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear on that particular point.
Having said that, which was a little off-topic but I'll get right back to it, let us talk about the industries that could be positively impacted by legislation of this nature. I made reference to an industry that is so important to the province of Manitoba, as it is for Quebec. Contrary to the Bloc member, I will not say negative things about the aerospace industry in Quebec. However, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario have aerospace industries that provide thousands of jobs. In Manitoba directly, it is probably just under 10,000, or right around that mark, and I think it has great potential.
I highlighted Magellan Aerospace, which I had the opportunity to tour with ministers, most recently the Minister of Industry. It is an outstanding tour of a first-class, world-class aerospace industry that has developed, and continues to develop, satellites. Magellan has manufactured a satellite that is actually orbiting Earth today. There are hundreds of people who work for Magellan in the city of Winnipeg. When I think of the first-class workers and the good-quality middle-class jobs, I think how Magellan and Winnipeg will benefit because of this legislation. The nice thing is that it is not just Winnipeg. When we think in terms of the Canadian space industry, it is estimated that it could be worth as much as $40 billion, because of this legislation, in the years ahead.
Today, the space industry directly employs in excess of 10,000 Canadians. In terms of the contribution to Canada's GDP, it is already in the billions of dollars. If we think strictly of the space industry and beyond and complement that with our aerospace industry, we are talking about a lot of good-quality jobs. There is a very powerful and strong economic argument as to why we should be getting behind this legislation, but there is also another aspect of the legislation that is really important for us to recognize.
When we talk about security and independence, we need to think of what we have vested in with respect to our military and the important and vital role that the military would play, both directly and indirectly, in this industry that we would be giving a boost to by bringing forward this legislation in anticipation that it will pass. What does making Canada secure mean? It means making us less reliant on other nations to do the work that is so important, that Canadians recognize and wanted the government to do in the last federal election one year ago.
I referred to the military and how that would complement the legislation. We need to think of the commitment the Prime Minister made in the last election, that 2% of our total GDP would go to the Canadian Forces, and we did that. It did not take us a full year. It was literally a number of months that had passed by when we were able to say that we had hit that 2% target. We invested in our military, in both personnel and hardware, from long-overdue pay increases to dealing with the development of equipment that we want to ensure those who serve in the forces are better positioned to utilize on whatever front because of the needs of the Government of Canada.
It was just in the last couple of weeks that a record number of Canadians applied to get into the Canadian Forces. I believe the highest number of Canadians applied in over 30 years. Just over 7,000 Canadians expressed an interest in joining the Canadian Forces. Think of the potential that our military has as we look at expanding the space industry. When we talk about the security of Canadians and the direct and indirect benefits, the Canadian Forces plays an absolutely critical role. That is what this legislation would do. It would further enhance those opportunities.
I suspect it is only a question of time before we see more people wanting to explore the space option, the rocket options. We do develop rockets here in Canada. When I toured Magellan Aerospace, they talked about the rocket components to some of their missiles. I suspect it would only take some significant modifications for us to expand upon rocket development here in Canada.
Speaking about Manitoba, there was a time in Manitoba's history when rockets were being launched at significant heights in Churchill, maybe not into orbit, but we were testing rockets in and around the community of Churchill. We have a government, a Prime Minister who says we want to look at ways to build that stronger and healthier economy for all. Well, Churchill could play a role in this, in some form or another into the future. I know the member for Churchill is a very strong and powerful advocate for the community of Churchill, in particular the port of Churchill. There are opportunities to be had by members of Parliament in virtually all regions of the country when we talk about the expansion and the level of expertise, the jobs and the potential that is there.
It was interesting. I was provided with a comment with regard to the U.K. The commercial space launch sector in the U.K. was really launched back in 2018. Today, it is now worth $35 billion and employs 50,000 people. I would suggest that Canada is well-positioned to really grow in that industry.
We talk about difficult and challenging times, in good part because of what I classify as the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. I can tell colleagues that we need to be doing what the Prime Minister has been talking about and acting on, in terms of looking for ways to become more independent from an economic point of view. This is an area where we can do that.
We have been doing a lot in terms of looking for export opportunities and trade opportunities. We are using all forms of reaching out, while looking for other countries and wealth generators to invest in Canada. As a government over the last year, we have been exceptionally successful at doing that. However, there are other things that we could be doing. Bill C-28 is one of those other things that we could be advancing to build a stronger and healthier economy, to look at some specific industries, to complement our Canadian Forces, to build our space industry, and to complement and see the growth of our aerospace industry. All three of those would benefit with this legislation passing.
My ask to members, in particular within the Conservative Party, is to reflect on the answer that I was provided earlier by the Conservative Party. We should look at it as an opportunity. Yes, there is no doubt there are going to be questions about the legislation. It is the first of its kind that this government is bringing forward. However, let us not delay, indefinitely, legislation that can actually be a good point forward in developing and getting these types of jobs generated and providing that sense of security to Canadians.
A significant percentage of our economy, close to 15% to 20%, goes through satellites. We need to be in the game. What the Prime Minister of Canada, this cabinet and this Liberal caucus are bringing forward would enable Canada to be in the game in a very tangible way. I would hope that all members would support the principle of this legislation.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North mentioned his admiration for what the U.K. has done, in terms of its space program. In fact, the outer space program act of 1986 established very clearly under the U.K. model that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impact national security. There is no statutory duty to consult DND or CSIS in Bill C-28 and no defined national security clearance. This completely contrasts with what the U.K. has.
Does this member realize that there is a real existing gap that puts us at risk, compared to our G7 partners?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, what I would recognize is that Canada is the only G7 country that the member makes reference to that currently does not have its own space launch capabilities. Now we have a Prime Minister who has motivated the government as a whole to recognize the opportunity for us to enter this area.
As opposed to being completely fixated on why we should not bring forward the legislation, I would suggest to the Conservative Party that its fixation should be on how we could improve the legislation, recognize that the principle of having the legislation before us today is a very good thing and allow for the legislation to go through a process where the member and the Conservatives would have more input on how it could come back at third reading.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC
Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to listen to my colleague opposite talk about all of the bills tabled by the government in the House. I have to admit that he is a great public speaker.
That said, what surprised me about his speech is that he talked about how hard-working the Bloc Québécois is and about how the Bloc takes its work seriously. Over the past six years, we have said that the Bloc Québécois is the adult in the room, and I think everyone agrees with that. That is not surprising because we did not change our way of doing things and we will not change it, even if the government does have a majority in the House and in committee.
The Bloc Québécois wants to improve bills. Our guiding principle is that if a measure is good for Quebec, then we will support it, and all the better if it is good for the rest of Canada. We are rather proud of that because we are diligent and hard-working professionals.
My question for my colleague is this: The bill says that some definitions will be established by regulation, but it make me rather uneasy to give the government the power to establish definitions by regulation. It gives the executive a lot of leeway to change the regulations as it sees fit, without parliamentary debate.
Could my colleague explain why the public servants who drafted this bill are insisting that some rather important definitions in the bill be established by regulation?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, the legislation establishes a very solid framework that would enable us to move forward on this file, which I think is absolutely critical. I articulated in my speech why it is so critical that we move forward.
Nothing prevents further dialogue from taking place at committee stage. At such a point in time, any amendments would strengthen the legislation and address some of the concerns, I am sure that the government would be, at the very least, open to that. Ultimately, we just want to see the legislation get through the process because we have a very ambitious goal in terms of 2028. It would be nice to see something launched.
Tim Louis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade
Madam Speaker, we are talking about legislation and the Canadian space launch act. My colleague is from Manitoba, so he will be happy to know that I just recently met with a group called Manitoba Advantage from the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, industry and the Business Council of Manitoba, which are all behind growing our aerospace industries.
We heard from a colleague from Quebec saying that Quebec is poised to grow our aerospace industries. I want to support Ontario, specifically the Waterloo region, for our strong tech sector. We are also poised to grow in the aerospace industries.
We have two universities and a community college in Waterloo region. Can my colleague from Manitoba explain the importance of the aerospace industry in connecting with our post-secondary institutions?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I wish I had thought of making the direct link to that in my comments.
At the end of the day, and I have said this in the past, Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba have very strong, healthy aerospace industries. One of the reasons is because of postgraduate educational facilities that have so much to contribute. We have some of the smartest intellectual individuals and hard workers who make up our communities, whether in Waterloo, Winnipeg or Montreal and the surrounding areas. There is so much that can be contributed to aerospace and the space agency. That is one of the reasons why it is so important that we get this legislation off the ground.
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, 2% GDP, NATO spending compliant, successful recruiting and now a 2028 rocket launch are all Liberal illusions. It is a ridiculous promise unless they are referring to a model rocket. I have heard enough hot air to launch a rocket.
My question is specific to the components of this legislation. What parts would allow parliamentary review for security screening to protect from foreign interference, hostile state use and the theft of Canadian IP? There is none of that in there. This is all critical. Also, there are components that are missing from the legislation around defence. Could member speak to that?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member starts off giving out misinformation. He makes a mockery of the 2%, saying that we have not hit the 2%.
Here is a wake-up call for the member opposite: He does not have to believe everything the Conservative back room tells him. We actually hit the 2% months ago. If you get the back room to tell you a bit, what you will find is that we got 2%, the new Prime Minister—
Bill C-28 Canadian Space Launch ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I would remind the hon. member to address his comments through the Chair.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.
Tamara Jansen Conservative Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
Mr. Speaker, I could not help but notice earlier when one of my Liberal colleagues shouted the famous Buzz Lightyear line, "To infinity and beyond” in response to today's space bill.
That seems to be the level of seriousness this Liberal government has when it comes to such an important issue. This sort of trivialization raises a serious question. When Canadians see this kind of attitude, they wonder whether our legislation is being approached with the rigour it deserves.
Why are we seeing, in this bill, a shift away from disciplined, rules-based decision-making toward something far more secretive and heavy-handed under this Liberal government?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, let me use the word “excitement.”
There is a great deal of excitement when we have an industry that has so much potential and we bring forward legislation that would have a profoundly positive impact, not only on one industry, but on multiple industries. It has just been pointed out how post-secondary facilities themselves would benefit from this. Canadians as a whole, in terms of the overall growth, would generate contributions to the GDP and improve our conditions.
We are talking about thousands of good jobs, plus so many—
Bill C-28 Canadian Space Launch ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. We have time for a brief question.
The hon. member for Waterloo.
Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member's comments and the level of discourse and debate taking place on this legislation.
We saw a Canadian from southwestern Ontario be part of the mission of people going the farthest that we have seen in our lifetime. It has been pretty impressive. It is really encouraging, and initiates the desire for the private sector to grow and for opportunities to grow, where academia meets the private sector and so forth.
Is there anything else the member would like to expand on? I know that constituents in the riding of Waterloo are really looking forward to seeing this debate advance.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, Waterloo, Winnipeg, Montreal and all of Canada will benefit from the passage of this legislation.
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I will be splitting my time with the spectacular member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.
I have to move on to a brief but very sad note. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the tragic incident that happened in my riding in the town of Cobourg yesterday. An OPP officer in my community died in the line of duty in a tragic accident. I want to take a moment to remember Sergeant Brandon Malcolm's memory and send our thoughts and prayers to his family. Godspeed, my friend.
I will start the speech in earnest. Canada has a proud space past. We have numerous accomplishments. Look at the satellites we have built and put into space. There is the Magellan company, which the member for Winnipeg North mentioned. We are all very proud of that. We are proud of great astronauts like Chris Hadfield and Roberta Bondar, and Jeremy Hansen most recently.
I am a “space‑phile”. I love two academic subjects. One is space and the other is politics. I was glued to the television, watching Jeremy Hansen. I had the Artemis II app as they made it all the way around the moon. It is the farthest humans have ever been. A Canadian was not just a part of that, but a big part of that. He was leading the charge.
I will warn that criticism of the legislation is coming forward, but let there be no doubt that Conservatives are full‑throated supporters of Canadians taking their rightful position in the lead in the next space race.
Let me talk a little about some of the concerns that come from this legislation. It purports to create a legislative framework for the launching of rockets into space from Canada. That is a notable and laudable objective, and it is something we all should aspire to. The challenge is what is actually in the legislation or, more accurately put, what is not in the legislation.
If I can, I will go over some of the things that are not in this legislation. When we look at a piece of legislation that purports to create a framework for the launching of rockets into space, one would think a key term included in it is the word ”launch”. It is not included. “Launch vehicle” is also something one would think we would want to define in the legislation. It is not included. “Re‑entry vehicle” is another important piece. It is a descriptor and another important definition that one might want to include in that legislation.
Let us go over some of the broad topics now that are not included in the legislation, such as permitting an authorization system, the certification and operation of launch and re‑entry sites, safety requirements, financial responsibility and insurance, liability and indemnification, zoning and land use, the application of international agreements and standards, emergency powers and stop orders, administrative enforcement matters, exemptions and exclusions.
I know the members across will ask Conservatives how we are going to vote on this. My question is, what are we going to vote on? Where is the beef, as they say? The legislation might as well be two lines, saying the minister shall grant, on the terms that they wish, a launch pad wherever they want, whenever they want, and we shall just trust them.
I have something I would like to share with all Canadians. If a politician comes up to them, regardless of whether they are a Liberal, a Conservative, from the NDP, a Green or from whatever party, and says to just trust them, do not do it.
Here is a real challenge that comes from the uncertainty and the overreliance on regulation in the legislation. The challenge is the two Cs. One is certainty and the other is corruption.
When we are looking to invest in an economy, when we are looking to invest in a business and when we are looking to buy anything, we want certainty. When an investor is looking from around the world and the trillions of dollars that float around in the global economy, they ask where they are going to put that money. They could put it into a country that has a defined regulatory system and prescribed legislation that allow people to understand with full certainty how their money will be utilized and whether or not a launch will be permitted, or they could invest in Canada, where, at some point, there will be some regulations about something regarding a launch that will, no doubt, help Liberal insiders.
If I am sitting outside of Canada and I have billions of dollars to invest, I am thinking, “Canada has many great things.” We have some of the leading research scientists in the world. We have great people. We have great resources and great universities, like Waterloo, that are leading the charge. What we do not have from this legislation is certainty, and without certainty, we really do not have anything. It is a challenge, because we do not know how that is going to be interpreted and what the minister is going do.
The minister, in response to my colleague's question, actually said he just copied his homework, and in the U.S., they do the same. When he says that about the U.S., I hope he is not copying Russia or China. That would be troublesome for its own reasons, but he said they are copying the homework. That is not even entirely true, because in the U.S., the licensing of launch pads is actually done by independent professionals that operate at arm's length from the government, such as the FAA and other professionals. In Canada, with this legislation, we would put it directly under the minister, which then opens us up to the other troublesome C, which is corruption.
When given absolute power, it corrupts absolutely. That was said many years ago. We have certainly seen it over the last 10 years. Whether we are talking about the WE scandal, SNC-Lavalin, the billions of dollars blown on consultants or the Canada Infrastructure Bank, these ministers have a penchant for making bad decisions. As I said earlier, if any politician of any stripe comes up to a Canadian and says, “Just trust me,” that is the key for all Canadians to know not to trust them. There is a reason why we put the rule of law in place. It is that it creates a level, equal playing field for all Canadians.
There is perhaps a reason that we have seen $1 trillion of capital flowing out from our country during the Trudeau and Carney eras of government. This is challenging.
Bill C-28 Canadian Space Launch ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
I think the member knows what he did wrong. He cannot use members' names in the House. I will let him continue.
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should say “the Prime Minister”.
It is 10 years of Liberal rule, and I appreciate the ability to underline that. It is another Liberal, one might say. In the last decade, we have seen $1 trillion of capital flowing out. It is precisely what this legislation would embody that is the problem.
Here we are. Now we are sitting here and we have to make a legislative decision. We have to decide whether or not we support this. What Conservatives are really asking for is to know what we are voting for. Nancy Pelosi famously once said they will pass the bill and then read the bill. The Conservatives believe the opposite should be true. We need to know what is in this legislation. My hon. colleague has posed a number of great questions about security and the screening of the payloads that will go up. We need to know what is in the legislation.
I have two constructive suggestions for the members opposite. One is to include necessary things, such as a definition of a launch vehicle in the legislation. Amend it so that we know what is in the legislation.
The second, if they really wish to go forward with regulations, is that there is nothing in law to stop them from publishing today draft regulations that would demonstrate to all Canadians exactly what their intent is going forward. Take some of the ministerial discretion and put it onto the people who are the professionals who are able to objectively review it and provide us with objective decisions on it.
Those are a couple of things that would certainly help Conservatives make a decision.