Debates of April 28th, 2026

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride and with purpose to speak in support of Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act. As a proud Nova Scotian, the member of Parliament for Sydney—Glace Bay and someone who has previously had the honour of representing Cape Breton—Canso, I know this project. I know the people behind it. I know the communities that have believed in it and I know exactly what is at stake, because this is not just a bill, but a decision. It is a decision about whether Canada will be a country that launches or a country that watches from the sidelines.

Bill C-28 is about whether Canada becomes a sovereign, space-faring nation, one that launches from its own soil, builds its own capabilities and competes in one of the fastest-growing sectors on earth or whether we continue to rely on others. Right now, despite all of our talent, all of our innovation and all of our history, Canada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability. This is not a position we should accept, and it is not a position Nova Scotia is willing to accept.

I was proud to stand alongside the Minister of Justice and the CEO of the Maritime Launch Services when we announced the Canada-U.S. Technological Safeguards Agreement. That agreement cleared the path, and it made commercial space launch in Canada possible, but possibility is not enough. Bill C-28 would turn the possibility into reality. It would provide a legal and regulatory framework, and the certainty that allows companies to invest, to build and to launch from Canadian soil. Without it, the opportunity does not disappear, but it simply goes somewhere else.

I hope colleagues across the aisle will support the bill, but if they do not, they should be prepared to explain some things to Nova Scotians. Why is it that the federal Conservatives keep opposing the very projects that the Progressive Conservative governments in Nova Scotia are proudly championing? Let us be very clear about the facts. A Progressive Conservative premier supports the project. A Progressive Conservative finance minister supports the project. A Progressive Conservative minister of economics supports this project. They have said so publicly. They have invested in it, and they are building it. However, federal Conservatives stand in this House and question it. This just does not add up.

Premier Tim Houston has been clear. Nova Scotia is proud to be home to Canada's first commercial spaceport, and its government did not just say that; it backed that up with real investment, real policy and real leadership. It understands exactly what this project represents. It is jobs, growth, opportunity and a future. This is not an isolated case. Nova Scotians have seen this pattern before. Here are three examples. Offshore wind, developed in partnership with the same Progressive Conservative government, was opposed by the federal Conservatives. It was mentioned today. The Mersey River Wind project, a $206-million investment powering 50,000 homes, was opposed by the federal Conservatives. Now, a spaceport supported by a Progressive Conservative premier is questioned once again by the federal Conservatives.

Nova Scotians to whom I talk are asking a very simple question: Why does the federal Conservative Party keep saying “no” to Nova Scotia? Here is the reality. This is not theoretical. It is not hypothetical. This is happening right now in Nova Scotia. On November 20, 2025, a rocket launched from Nova Scotia, from Canadian soil, for the first time in 27 years. A rocket has already launched, so let us be honest about what this debate is. This is not about whether the industry could exist; it already does. The question is whether Canada will lead it or lose it.

This is about investment in Canadian industry, workers and communities that have been told too many times to wait their turn. It is about creating good-paying jobs during construction and in the long term, but it is much more than that. It is about people. It is about whether young Canadians can build careers in aerospace, advanced manufacturing, robotics and innovation without having to leave Nova Scotia to do it. For far too long, the story in Atlantic Canada has been about out-migration, young people leaving for opportunities somewhere else.

Bill C-28 is about changing that story. It is about building something new, something that has never existed in this country before. That requires vision, leadership and investment before the finish line, because that is how industries are built. We do not wait until an industry is complete to support it; we support it so it can exist. It is not a flaw in the policy, but that is the policy.

Canada has a proud history in space. We built the Canadarm. We sent astronauts into orbit. We are part of lunar missions. Jeremy Hansen is part of the Artemis program to return to the moon. We have the talent. We have the innovation. We have the credibility. When it comes to launching from our own country, we rely on others right now, on foreign infrastructure and on foreign timelines. Strong partners matter, but so does standing on our own two feet. A country like Canada should not have to ask for permission to launch its satellites. That gap, quite frankly, needs to be closed, and Nova Scotia is where we close it.

Nova Scotia is uniquely positioned for this with its geography, its coastal location and its Atlantic launch trajectory. These are not theoretical advantages. These are real competitive advantages in the global space economy. This is why Maritime Launch Services chose Canso. This is why international partners from Europe to Asia are already lining up for Nova Scotia. This is why this is not just a regional project, but a national asset rooted in my province of Nova Scotia, serving all of Canada.

The project also represents partnership with the municipalities involved, in particular Guysborough County, indigenous communities engaged in this economic opportunity, workers, tradespeople, engineers and innovators across this country. This is what building a nation looks like. It is ambitious, forward-looking and grounded in real communities in Nova Scotia. Again, I ask what the alternative is. Is it to step back, to hesitate or to let other countries take the lead? This is what is at stake without Bill C-28: Investments, jobs and opportunities go elsewhere, and Canada falls behind.

Nova Scotia is not asking for permission to build the future. We are already building it. A rocket has already launched. The infrastructure is being built. The partnerships are in place and the momentum is real. The only question is whether the House will match that ambition. The federal Conservatives can continue to say no to Nova Scotia, but our government and in fact the Progressive Conservative provincial government in Nova Scotia are saying yes to jobs, innovation, economic growth, Canadian sovereignty and a country that builds.

Bill C-28 would make Canada a space-faring nation. It would strengthen our sovereignty. It would create real opportunity for Canadians and send a clear message to Canadians and to the world: Canada is not standing on the sidelines anymore. We are stepping forward, we are building and we are launching.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary may or may not be aware, but the Minister of Transport, when I questioned him today about the glaring gaps in national security screening, said not to worry because we have the Canadian Space Agency. Well, the Canadian Space Agency has no national security mandate. In fact, the bill itself, Bill C-28, is completely silent on CSIS or any other national security review.

If the Canadian Space Agency has expertise, maybe on a technological basis, but no authority when it comes to national security, who is in charge of making sure that our system is not going to be compromised? We can look at the United Kingdom and the United States: They have clear national security to make sure there are not dual-use technologies that can be applied against their people. There is nothing in this bill on that.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member and I do enjoy our time together on the transport committee. Let me look at this from a certain perspective. We are here today to talk about a legislative framework for processes that follow international standards and that keep security first and foremost in mind. Right now, we are putting that legislative framework to session, but we have a very talented transportation committee. I hope at some point we get a chance to study this project and offer solutions and opportunities, ones that I know that we will look to take seriously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member opposite is an MP for Nova Scotia and that he is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport for the Liberal government.

I am stating that information because the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-28, addresses the need for Canada to develop its satellite launch and aerospace capabilities, among other things. I think this is a laudable objective, but in his speech, the MP spoke almost exclusively about how important this is for Canada and for Nova Scotia. He completely ignored the fact that more than 40,000 people work in the aerospace sector in Quebec and that Quebec is truly a leader in this cutting-edge technology.

I would like to know whether I should be concerned about my colleague's speech, and I would like to know if there is a place for Quebec in all of this.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes some solid points.

I used Nova Scotia as an example, but I could have easily used Quebec as an example, in terms of the innovation and the collective intelligence when it comes to space, aviation and things of that nature. I think this regulatory framework touches all provinces, all opportunities, the skills and abilities, and the political and collective will of the Quebec people. I think that good things will be happening in Quebec as well as a result of this regulatory framework.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague, who is also from Nova Scotia, for his passion for our province. I share that passion. I have often used the example that many young people had to leave Nova Scotia and go to some of the bigger cities in Canada to find their way, and now they would no longer have to.

Could the hon. parliamentary secretary describe the genesis of this project? Why this location? What is the strategic advantage of this project in this location in Nova Scotia?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Canso meets all the standards by which it is more productive and easier to bring product to space via a variety of means, in particular, satellites and whatnot. I appreciate the member bringing it up.

Many folks in the municipal district of Guysborough and adjacent communities, municipalities, first nations and the private sector support this for all the advantages that Canso brings. Time and time again, we hear from the Conservatives that it is not possible, as well as more negatives.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in communities like mine there is a lot of ambition around space launches.

Communities like mine are still waiting to know when we are going to get a chance to clean up derelict vessels around the coastline. I have proponents in my communities who want to remove the boats, but the Liberals defunded and closed the program. When are you going to reopen it and deliver relief to my communities?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Again, please speak through the chair.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Mr Speaker, I am not sure when there is going to be time to do that, but I will say it is a very important issue. I was with fisheries as the parliamentary secretary. In terms of the Pacific Coast, we know that there are challenges there, but we are working and, as a member close to me says, we are laser‑focused on that.

When it comes to Canada establishing sovereignty and working on space, this bill is the right way—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss this important bill. It is a real opportunity to talk about issues that are important to our communities.

The government has been incredibly ambitious with this bill, talking about the possibility of launching rockets into space from Canada and developing a national space program by 2028. Yet, in front of us we have a bill that is very easy reading because, at only 10 pages, it sketches out the briefest of details around what that program might look like. It is going to be a challenge for the transport committee to think about how to operationalize this and how to think about asking the government where it is heading on this.

One of the characteristics that is emerging from this government, which we really see in this bill, is a trend towards creating a new organization, putting together very thin details around it and then leaving it to the executive branch of government to sort out, with an incredible amount of discretion. What that does under these circumstances is create a real conundrum. It creates a situation where, as constructive members of a loyal opposition, we want to work with this government to realize the ambitions of Canada and to build Canada into the kind of country that we can all be proud of.

However, we find ourselves facing these situations without a lot of guidance from the government about where it wants to go. The ambitions associated with this bill are galactic, but the realities are closer to an abandoned—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna is rising on a point of order.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have translation.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I understand that there may not be translation.

Is translation working in French?

I understand that interpretation is working, so I am going to invite the member to resume her comments.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is actually a wonderful opportunity to indicate that I will be splitting my time with the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

I was starting to talk about the fact that the bill is incredibly ambitious. It has ambitions of galactic proportions, in fact, looking to be able to launch Canadian rockets into space and to enhance our ability to participate in a space program. However, one of the challenges is that right now, the program looks like a gravel pit or a gravel-covered lot in Nova Scotia. I am sure the site was selected for a good reason. I am sure it provides an optimal location to be able to launch from, but I think it is going to be important from an oversight perspective to be able to look at and examine the economics of this deal.

We have a very unusual set of circumstances. In this particular case, there was no need, it looks like, from the reports, to actually expropriate this great location. It looks like there was in fact an entity that got there. This was originally, I believe, Crown land and was in fact being leased out to someone who has made what might be a deal of galactic proportions, to be able to lease that space back to the government for a very large amount of money.

What I struggle with under these circumstances is that the need to examine this transaction comes at a time when the Liberal government has actually taken steps in the House, in the last 24 hours, to make it harder to do that. I was in the ethics committee last night for several hours, listening to some of my colleagues from across the aisle speak at great length and with incredible lung capacity to the reasons the committee should not, in fact, get access to documents that the members of the committee were seeking in order to examine matters related to the Prime Minister's schedule, to conflicts of interest and to other matters that Canadians really deserve to be able to see into.

Under the conditions we are in, in this country, if we really are, as the Prime Minister says, in a time of rupture, it is so important for the best ideas to rise to the top. There is only one way for us to get the best ideas, and that is to subject them to detailed questioning and analysis.

It is in that spirit that we approach our duties with respect to the ethics committee. Of course, everyone knows the government wants to live up to its expectations, but the reason that conflict of interest screens exist and committees like the ethics committee exist is that we are all human. This oversight, and the knowledge that this oversight is there, enables us to be crisp in our adherence to the law and to really have it on our minds all the time, which is so important when we are dealing with taxpayer dollars.

That takes me back to the bill and to the fact that already, within hours, frankly, of the initiative being announced, we have some questions as to the financial circumstances around the selection and lease of the site. On top of that, what we layer onto that is a bill that is really and truly quite thin in terms of its regulation. It does not answer some really important questions around how decisions are made, preferring instead to leave them to the discretion of the executive branch of the government.

The thing about the executive branch of the government is that it does not operate in this place. It operates across the street and in various other buildings around the parliamentary precinct. It is so important to have that parliamentary oversight, as we think about questions around the safety and security of something as important as a space program, and as we think about the intelligence implications and the other matters that need to be taken into account when we are launching an ambitious program such as this.

We are examining the bill at a time when the government has taken some steps, in the last 24 hours, to establish sort of an iron control over committees, which it would be able to use to, quite frankly, stifle debate on these issues.

Earlier, one of my colleagues pointed out that in answer to a question about this act, one of the government members involved in transport, I think it might have even been one of the parliamentary secretaries, was discussing how they would be getting information like this. They would be working things out with the Canadian Space Agency. That is of great concern to us because the Canadian Space Agency, while a very important organization, is not an organization that has its focus on security and intelligence matters.

There are defence implications to a space program like this. There are commercial implications. There are procurement implications. It really is one of those areas where the more I think about it, the more I see the need for a whole-of-government approach. That is not to create additional bureaucracies but to make sure the legislation is precise and clear enough that different parts of the government, different agencies, understand what their roles and responsibilities are and so that regulations around this program can be developed in a sensible and efficient way that would make sure Canada gets the most out of this program at this very important time.

If we are going to build our country in a way that creates good jobs for the next generation, then it is so important to handle this initiative in a responsible way. It is going to be up to the transport committee, and I know my colleagues will do a good job in thinking the bill through.

With that, I thank all of my colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, who have contributed to making this important program launch in a good way. I look forward to answering questions about my remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation speaks for itself in the sense that we recognize the potential to build Canada strong for all by looking at how the space industry, our aerospace industry, our military industrial industries and post-secondary facilities would all, in one way or another, be directly impacted. We have an opportunity here to potentially generate thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in additional GDP contributions over the coming years. What we need is the framework within this legislation.

Is the member committed to seeing the principle of the legislation pass through?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for both his ambition and his optimism around this.

If the bill does speak for itself, it does so very quietly, because it is quite thin on detail.

Yes, we agree with the members across the aisle that there is an opportunity here, and we look forward to probing that opportunity in committee and being able to put some substance on the bill.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has said multiple times that this would align Canada with other G7 countries, like the U.K. and the United States.

The legislation in the U.K., the Outer Space Act 1986, literally says that the licensing authority must be satisfied that an activity will not impede national security. In the United States, Congress decided that the giving of indemnification to participants in the space industry should be decided by Congress and not by the administration itself. Why would this legislation do neither?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was a little girl, I thought these spaceships went to the moon and beyond through magic and that it was a wonderful, amazing illusion. As I look at this bill, I see yet another example of bills that are magic and illusion in the sense that they purport to put us on even ground with the G7 and to do wonderful and amazing things to propel Canada ahead in the world, but there is an awful lot missing when we look under the covers, including the kind of regulation and detail my colleague just outlined.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we see here is yet another attempt by a Liberal minister, and the Liberal government, to consolidate power around the office of the minister in giving full discretion to the minister and overlooking the importance of parliamentary oversight, debate and listening to other opinions, which, of course, leads to questions of transparency.

I wonder if the member could comment on whether she thinks it is a good idea to consolidate power in the hands of the minister and not allow parliamentarians to have a fulsome debate on an important issue like this.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, do not get me wrong. I really respect the fact that the government and my colleagues across the way are struggling to meet the world where it is and to find a good response for Canada in that context.

However, there is a disturbing trend, and it does not just come through Bill C-28. It has also shown up in other legislation, like in the acts enabling the Major Projects Office or Build Canada Homes, where there is an ambitious, big, splashy announcement made and promises made that are pie in the sky, sky-high and into orbit, but when we look at the details, the message is, “Just trust us. We have your back.” In a circumstance where the government is undeniably popular right now, that is one thing, but I hope Canadians do not end up with buyer's remorse down the road when they find out that power has been consolidated in a group of people who do not know how to wield it wisely.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are looking at Bill C-28, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other acts. Before I even get into this bill on Canadian space launches, I would say that things may already be going off track. Let me explain.

On March 21, Marie Lumsden, who lives in the small community of Canso, Nova Scotia, woke up early. She lives three kilometres from the famous launch site, which is, I imagine, the first of the major projects we are looking at today. She put on her boots and grabbed her camera to go see what had been announced with such great fanfare. There was talk of a $200-million investment and a site that the government was so proud of. It was the dawn of a new era.

When Marie Lumsden arrived at the site, what she found was a gravel road, two sea cans, and a concrete pad measuring 25 feet by 35 feet, which is roughly the size of a campsite for a 21-foot trailer. All of this cost the government $200 million, as it so proudly announced.

I am not talking about this here to be oppositional or to create a narrative. I am talking about this because Quebeckers and Canadians deserve to know how their money is being spent. When $200 million is spent on a concrete slab, that raises questions. For many weeks now, citizens, journalists, financial analysts and, now, parliamentary committee members have been asking the same questions.

What we saw yesterday in the House was quite something. We have questions. Canadians have questions. Government Motion No. 9 was adopted, curtailing our ability to ask the government these questions and hold it accountable. Once again, we have a fine example of what is coming our way over the next few years. The questions are serious and they deserve answers. Canadians pay taxes, and they are seeing the government spending their money on projects like this, to the tune of $200 million for a trailer pad. I think Canadians deserve answers.

Today, I am just going to present some facts and ask the government if it has anything to say in response.

Let us talk about Maritime Launch Services, the publicly traded company responsible for this $200-million launch site. The financial statements are public, so we are not making this up. This information is public, and the company is registered with SEDAR+. For those tuning in who would like to check it out, SEDAR+ is Canada's official securities registry.

The financial statements tell us three things.

First, in 2025, Maritime Launch Services generated $14,900 in revenue—not $14 million in revenue, but $14,900, with no extra zeros. We are talking about nearly $15,000. That is a figure that, I think, is highly significant. Second, that same year, the company posted a loss of $47 million. It had nearly $70,000 in cash. Those figures are not exactly impressive. These facts are public knowledge, and I think that is what is drawing attention to the issues. Third, and I believe this is the most important point, the company's auditors, the accountants who conduct the analysis and are tasked with auditing the books, said that there is material uncertainty as to whether the company will have the financial ability to continue as a going concern.

That tells me this is not a company in great financial shape. I am not the one saying it is on the brink of bankruptcy; the company's own accountants are saying that. Despite this seemingly precarious situation, our colleagues opposite, the members of the Liberal federal government, decided to invest $200 million in this company. They decided it made sense. That is $20 million for 10 years.

To pick up where I left off with Marie Lumsden, her experience that morning and the photos she took blew the story wide open. She has spent the past seven years trying to talk to the community, asking questions, and sifting through piles of data and pages of ATIP requests. She contacted the municipal, provincial and federal governments. She even contacted the Minister of Justice, who would later make the announcement with great fanfare in Nova Scotia.

She has spent seven years asking questions, but no one seemed interested in listening. However, she found something astounding in the documents, something that I think should raise some important questions. This infamous launch site is the future of Bill C‑28. The government wants us to trust it on this bill. The thing is, Maritime Launch Services leases the land from the provincial government. It is a lease. It does not belong to the company; it is leased.

How much does the company pay the government to lease this land? That is the question. The company pays $13,500 a year plus taxes because, of course, there are always taxes. The company leases the land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million a year. The company does not own the land. Think about it. If the company does this for 10 years, that amounts to $200 million dollars. The company leases the land from the province for $13,500 and then subleases it to the federal government for $20 million.

Some might say that the opposition parties are always complaining, that they are always opposing everything, that surely there is a return on the investment and that the Liberals made a logical and informed decision, but that does not seem to be the case. The government did not get any shares in the company in return for its investment. It has no ownership rights to the land. It has no equipment. It has nothing. We are talking about $20 million per year for 10 years, or $200 million, and Canada has nothing to show for it except a concrete slab about the size of a trailer pad. Marie Lumsden has spent seven years trying to tell elected officials that. She has spent seven years trying to make her voice heard. Today, I can say that, here in Parliament, we talking about what she discovered and about the work she has done.

To be fair, I recognize that Canadian space sovereignty is a legitimate objective. It is important. I recognize that Canada needs to develop its own domestic launch capabilities. That is not what I am criticizing. Canada has a rich history of space exploration. What I am criticizing is the fact that the government is going to use this as a pretext to help well-connected people instead of using it to build on that rich history.

We will have to see, because the sovereign wealth fund was just announced yesterday. The Liberals are drawing inspiration from some very flashy buzzwords and are following Norway's example in particular. Does the Liberal plan exist anywhere else? Let us look at what Norway did. Andøya Space, based in Norway, has the infrastructure needed to carry out successful launches. It cost the equivalent of $46 million Canadian. The Norwegian government owns 90% of the company. That is a quarter of what the government is spending here, and 90% of it is owned by the Norwegian government. That is not the case here. We own 0%, and it is costing us $200 million. We are talking about public funds here. There have been successful launches in Norway. It is working. We should look to this model for inspiration. I am not saying this as a complaint. That is not it at all. I am simply suggesting what should be done.

Ultimately, what should be done? First, the government has to publicly disclose all the contracts. We want to know how bids were made, what criteria were applied, and whether other candidates were in the running for the much-touted launch facility or whether this was the only location the Canadian government could access.

Second, the government has to explain why Canada received zero equity in return for 200 million taxpayer dollars. Norway has a 90% ownership stake in the Norwegian company. Canada has zero stake.

Third, and I want to emphasize this point, because it makes us really skeptical about Bill C-28, the chair of the board of Maritime Launch Services sold three million shares of the company on April 9, 24 days after the announcement. That is serious. Someone is making a lot of money on the backs of taxpayers, on the backs of Canadians, with help from the Liberal government. Questions need to be asked. The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner needs to be formally seized with this issue now, not a year from now.

Some weeks ago, the minister proudly announced that this was a historic investment. He talked about Canada's sovereignty, Canada's future and Canadian ambition. However, there is zero ownership, zero control and zero transparency. Now, the government wants us to pass Bill C‑28, which would give the minister sweeping, discretionary powers to be wielded behind closed doors. I experienced this yesterday at an in camera committee. The Liberals took control of the committee and decided to go in camera to make sure that people would not hear what was being said and that Canadians would not have access. They took complete control so that we would stop asking questions. That is not how a government should act. Democracy is all about transparency. Clearly, the current government does not understand that. It wants to decide who can go into space without clear criteria, without going through Parliament.

In an industry as strategic as space, the risk of regulatory capture is real. This bill does nothing to reduce that risk. On the contrary, it concentrates power in the hands of ministers. It allows decisions to be made behind the scenes, as usual. It is shutting Parliament out of the process. Why are parliamentarians being asked to approve a regulatory framework after $200 million was spent? Why were rules not established beforehand?

I will close with this question: Why is there no transparency, when that is what all Canadians expect from the government?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks and I would like to ask him a question. I know it takes time to prepare a speech. What I am hearing is a lot of frustration. What I have also been hearing from the start is a lack of long-term vision for our country. During his 10‑minute speech, I heard him say that people are not happy and that we are doing nothing.

However, what I have been hearing from people in my riding, which is next to my colleague's, is that they are happy with what the government is doing right now. People have never been this happy to see their government taking action, moving forward and making progress. That is what people want us to do.

I am hearing the opposite from my colleague. Today we are talking about Bill C‑28. I would like to know if my colleague is for or against this bill. Is he for or against the fact that we are investing in our future for our younger generations?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was taking notes because that is a good question. The frustration is very real. The member mentioned long-term vision, but people have been waiting for 11 years and are still waiting. The Liberals are very good at making announcements that end up being empty promises. There are no shovels in the ground. They just talk about huge, multi-billion dollar projects, while families are struggling to make ends meet. The Liberals keep unveiling major projects that they say are on their way and telling us how wonderful they will be, but there are no results. Unfortunately, it is all smoke and mirrors. That is the result.

A recent report states that Canadians were impressed with the Prime Minister's trips, which cost over half a million dollars in in-flight catering alone, but that they are extremely disappointed that he has failed to deliver on affordability issues. That is people's real-life experiences talking. When my colleague talks to his constituents, he should take a look at the Angus Reid report, which says that people were pleased to see the Prime Minister travelling but that they are extremely disappointed that they cannot afford groceries despite working so hard.