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.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalMinister of Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, let me first express my deepest condolences to the families impacted by this horrific act.
The decision of the Federal Court yesterday is that of a judge who, based on the evidence in front of him, made that decision. Having said that, we will review the decision and we look forward to supporting the families in every way we can.
Leah Gazan NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals line corporate pockets with sovereignty incentives paid for by the taxpayer, the NDP is fighting to ban creepy surveillance pricing at the grocery checkout. The Liberals shut this down. They have a second chance. Today's spring economic statement is another chance to decide who they stand with: people getting ripped off at the grocery checkouts or companies that are exploiting the population.
Will they act and ban surveillance pricing once and for all, or will they keep protecting corporate profits?
Mélanie Joly LiberalMinister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions
Mr. Speaker, of course, we believe in competition, because we believe that competition brings down prices. That is why we have said clearly that we would be hawkish on competition. That being said, we are very concerned with the allegations linked to algorithmic competition. We want to make sure that, ultimately, consumers are well protected. This is work that we will be doing as well with the provinces and territories, and of course we will be there for consumers and Canadians across the country.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister cannot go on TV one day and claim that pharmacare is a nation-building program for all Canadians, and the next day allow entire provinces to be excluded.
Newfoundland and Labrador's health minister says that the federal government has closed the door on negotiations. Right now, where one lives determines whether one can access essential medications. People are being left out altogether. That is not a national program. It is patchwork.
Why is this government abandoning Newfoundland and Labrador and so many other provinces and territories while claiming that pharmacare is for all Canadians?
Marjorie Michel LiberalMinister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I am aware of the minister from Newfoundland and Labrador's intervention on the pharmacare issue. As I have said, I am having conversations with my counterparts in all the provinces, including Newfoundland and Labrador, about how we can better support them.
Participation of a Member in Private Members' BusinessOral Questions
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
The Chair would like to make a statement on the participation in Private Members' Business of the member for Terrebonne and on the sponsorship of Bill C-241, an act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.
Following a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 13, 2026, the election of the member for Terrebonne was declared null and her seat subsequently declared vacant. Members may be interested to know that, in the early years of Confederation, such decisions on controverted elections were made by a committee of the House instead of the courts. A by-election was held on April 13, 2026, and it resulted in the same member being re-elected to the House of Commons. This, in turn, raises unusual questions regarding her participation in Private Members' Business.
The current procedures surrounding Private Members' Business have been in place for nearly 25 years. The Private Members' Business process, broadly speaking, is straightforward. Following a draw, the list for the consideration of Private Members' Business is established at the beginning of each new Parliament. The names of members are added in sequence to the order of precedence on the Order Paper, based on their rank in the list, starting with the first 30 names, and afterwards by groups of 15. Members whose names are placed on the Order Paper then have the unique opportunity to have one, and only one, of their items considered by the House. This contrasts with an earlier practice, when there were multiple draws of bills and motions, meaning the same member could end up having more than one opportunity.
Most members are familiar with our current process. That said, exceptional circumstances, like the one before us, sometimes occur and may not be fully covered by the existing rules or precedents.
Standing Order 87(1)(a)(iii) stipulates that members who become eligible during the course of a Parliament, in this instance through a by-election, are added to the bottom of the list for the consideration of Private Members' Business. In cases where more than one member is elected the same day, a mini-draw is held to determine the order in which they will be added to the list.
A key principle of Private Members' Business is that over the course of a full Parliament, as many members as possible be afforded the possibility to participate. This flows from a proposal in the 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented in the House on June 12, 2002.
The situation involving the member for Terrebonne is unique, as she has already participated in the draw establishing the list for consideration for the current Parliament and has seen her name added to the order of precedence. Furthermore, she has already acted as a sponsor of a bill, Bill C-241, which was adopted at second reading and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on December 3, 2025.
I am sure the lobbies will be most interested in this, because I do have a Yiddish proverb, as I always do. It goes like this: Shikt di refueh far der make. Basically, it means, “He sends the remedy in advance of the plague.”
Here is my remedy. Given that she has already had an opportunity to sponsor an item, one that is still working its way through the legislative process, the Chair is of the view that allowing the member for Terrebonne to be added a second time to the list for the consideration of Private Members' Business would go against the principle behind the procedure and House affairs committee's proposal of 2002. Her name will therefore not be part of the upcoming mini-draw along those of the new members for University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest.
In cases where members have items before the House when their seats become vacant, the practice is normally to remove their names as sponsors. This is appropriate in the case of a death or resignation, as the original sponsors can realistically no longer play any role in moving the item forward. In these situations, a process exists, through Standing Order 94, to dispose of items once it is apparent that there is no member able to move them. Alternatively, the House may also decide to choose a new sponsor and allow the item to continue.
In the current context, however, the original sponsor of the item has now returned to the House. It is worth noting that the bill has been in committee during the entire period of her absence, meaning there have been no occasions where a sponsor would have been required to move a motion in the House.
To be a sponsor has procedural meaning, as the sponsor is expected to move their item when it is called, for instance. It also has operational meaning as, typically, sponsors are the default managers of business. They draft items, put them on notice, and have some say in their scheduling. The work of a sponsor can begin before they are sworn in, and can continue after a bill is passed by the House.
It seems obvious that the member for Terrebonne has performed these responsibilities in regard to Bill C‑241 before the Supreme Court decision. As prior proceedings have not been nullified by the said decision, and the member was reelected to the House in the by-election held on April 13, 2026, it is the view of the Chair that the member should continue to carry out her duties as sponsor of the bill.
This will allow the House to consider and dispose of the bill in accordance with the process and principles for Private Members' Business.
I thank all members for their attention.
The House resumed 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.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, any Canadian launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions. If this bill is about sovereignty, then those protections must be written into the law, not left to chance.
This is ultimately about balance. Canada can build a competitive space sector. Canada can support innovation. Canada can strengthen sovereignty. That is how previous generations succeeded. The achievements of Canada's space program were not the result of vague rules or unchecked power. They were built on clear objectives, strong oversight and public trust. That is the standard we should be applying today.
As we consider Bill C-28, the question is not whether we support Canada in space. We do. The question is whether the bill gets the framework right. In its current form, there are serious concerns. Let me be clear about what getting this right actually looks like.
A serious bill would define the key terms clearly in the law so Parliament, not just cabinet, sets the rules. It would include clear criteria for approvals and rejections so decisions are not made behind closed doors without explanation. It would preserve independent review so Canadians can have confidence that decisions can be challenged when needed. It would also require full transparency around major financial commitments. If hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are involved, Canadians should be able to see the reasoning, the price and what they are getting in return.
Most important, the bill would put national security safeguards directly into the law, not as an afterthought or something decided later but as a core requirement from the start, because once these systems are in place, once launches begin and international actors are involved, it becomes much harder to go back to fix gaps that should have been addressed from the beginning. These are questions that must be answered and issues that must be addressed, and this is where Parliament must do its job.
Canada has the opportunity to get this right. We can build something that reflects our strengths and values, but that will not happen by default. It will require scrutiny, accountability and a willingness to improve what is in front of us, because the goal is not just to participate in space but to lead in a way that Canadians can be proud of. That means that when we act, we do so in the clear interest of Canadians, not behind closed doors and not without answers. Canada should lead in space, but Canadians should never be asked to sign a blank cheque for decisions made behind closed doors.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really need to focus on the principle of the legislation. This particular legislation would support an industry that is critical for economic growth and security for Canada. It would have an impact on industries, whether the space industry, our aerospace industry, post-secondary facilities or many other indirect industries. There is great potential for growth.
The Conservatives should support the principle and recognize that Canada needs a launch site for satellites. Magellan Aerospace, in Winnipeg, employs hundreds of people work. Magellan has a satellite orbiting the earth today.
Does the member recognize the value of the legislation and that it may ultimately pass?
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support space. Conservatives support the commercialization of space. The concern with regard to Bill C-28 is the blank cheque or a credit card that the current Liberal government may be offering to itself. We are just asking for checks and balances as Canada furthers the commercialization of space.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I homed in particularly on the fact that the member has mentioned the administrative, arbitrary nature of the minister's power. First of all, it would all be concentrated in the minister. He would actually be taking it away from the transportation tribunal that usually handles these things. Again, there is very little specificity as to what is in the public interest. The minister could literally give one indemnification rate to one market participant, and another to a different performer, totally distorting the market.
Could the member please comment a bit about who would benefit from a regime that is so opaque and arbitrary?
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, right now there would be too much power for the minister with regard to Bill C-28, and therefore, with regard to decisions, there would be closed doors behind the scenes. Conservatives are asking for there to be more transparency with Bill C-28 with regard to decisions for procurement of opportunities for projects related to the deep commercialization of space.
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have claimed success with military recruiting, when in fact they have managed to meet only their own artificially low thresholds, and the Liberals have claimed success with 2% of GDP spent with NATO, when they know full well that the spending fails to meet NATO's criteria. The bill is short on detail and devoid of security considerations. It has not addressed potential hostile state interference.
My question for my colleague is this: Does he agree that this parking-lot planned spaceport is a closed-door plan reporting to a single minister and not responsible to Parliament and Canadians, or is it another Liberal illusion?
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, my concern is the repeated pattern of Liberal boondoggles or possible scandals. We have seen it with the Trudeau government, and we are possibly seeing it with the Liberal government. Cases in point are ArriveCAN and also PrescribeIT. With the lack of checks and balances in Bill C-28, there could potentially be a Liberal scandal, such as possibly what is happening in Nova Scotia with $200 million spent for what is deemed a spaceport but for which so far the results have been very limited.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is a very ambitious goal. Ideally, we want something to be able to launch as early as 2028. Does the member share the ambition that we can in fact have a launch pad for 2028?
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, ambition is very important. I think all Canadians have the ambition for space exploration and also for the commercialization of space. As I said earlier, all Canadians also want accountability and transparency about where their tax dollars are being spent, and that is needed in Bill C-28.
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, Canada stands at a crossroads in the global space economy. This is no longer just about exploration or scientific curiosity. It is about sovereignty. It is about national security. It is about economic opportunity in a rapidly growing sector where other countries are moving decisively to protect their own interests. Canadians expect leadership in moments like this, leadership that is transparent, accountable and grounded in the national interest. Instead, what we have before us is Bill C-28, and it raises serious concerns about who will control Canada's future in space and who will make those decisions.
Canada has a proud and remarkable history in space. Under the leadership of John Diefenbaker, our country launched Alouette I, becoming the third nation in the world to design and build a satellite. We developed world-class technology such as Canadarm, and we inspired generations through astronauts like Chris Hadfield, Roberta Bondar and Jeremy Hansen. That legacy was built on trust and accountability, and it was built for all Canadians, not for the insiders behind closed doors.
Bill C-28 would move us in the wrong direction. It would give sweeping powers to the ministers, who could decide who can launch, what can be launched and under what conditions. It would do so with vague definitions, limited oversight and broad discretion. In fact, it does not even clearly define what constitutes a launch. Instead of clarity, we get ambiguity. Instead of accountability, we get the concentration of power. When power is concentrated, transparency becomes essential.
I want to share something from my own life. When I was a kid growing up on the farm, we had an old coach house, a small barn, that we had to move. I remember one day working with my father and his good friend. We jacked up that building and took off the siding. We had to replate it so we could slide some telephone poles underneath to make some skids. We had those telephone poles there and put another one across the front, chained it up and pulled the building with a tractor, moving it across our farm and setting it down in its new location. What I remember is that when I looked back at where the barn had originally stood, there was nothing more than a simple concrete pad.
When I look at what is being described today as a spaceport in Nova Scotia, a gravel road, two sea cans and a small concrete pad, I cannot help but think of that farmyard. What Canadians are being told is a launch facility looks, by all accounts, strikingly similar to what was left behind when we moved that barn, yet we are talking about a reported $200-million lease over 10 years, a lease that was backdated, an agreement that describes the site as being capable of supporting orbital launches.
Canadians are asking a very simple question: What launch site are we talking about? According to detailed reporting and first-hand accounts, all that exists is a gravel road, a couple of containers and a concrete slab. Nonetheless, this same project is being presented to investors as capable of supporting more than 150 launches per year. That is not just a gap between promise and reality. That is a credibility gap.
Let us look deeper. The company involved has reported losses exceeding $47 million and revenue of just $15,000. The executive compensation for that company is approaching $1 million. What makes it worse is that the land it is on is Crown land, leased for roughly $13,500 annually, yet it is being presented as a multi-million-dollar asset, $14.8 million being the book value, I believe, if my memory serves me correctly. On any farm, in any small business and in any household across the country, those numbers do not pass the smell test, yet somehow in the House they do. Why is that?
The concerns go much further beyond the numbers. The residents in the area, more than a thousand people within a few kilometres, have raised serious concerns about safety, environmental impact and the economic consequences to fisheries and to local livelihoods. They have spent years filing access to information requests, reviewing thousands of pages of documents and trying to be heard.
What did they find? They found an environmental assessment process that many believe is inadequate and repeated requests for federal impact assessments rejected. They found that, even after years, key requirements for the project had still not been completed, and the regulatory framework for launches was not even in place, yet approvals and funding continued anyway.
Let us think about that. We would be committing hundreds of millions of dollars to a project in a sector where the regulatory framework does not even exist. That is not leadership or competence, and Canadians have the right to question it.
When we look at the broader picture, a troubling pattern emerges: a company with questionable financials, a project approved through a process many consider deeply flawed, lobbying and political connections appearing at multiple levels, and a massive federal commitment to taxpayer dollars despite all of these red flags. Canadians look at this and ask whether this is about the space sector or something else.
Bill C-28 would take this kind of situation and make it easier, not harder, for this to happen. It would give even more powers to ministers to make decisions behind closed doors, reduce transparency, limit oversight and increase the risk that decisions are driven not by merit, but by access.
Space is strategic. It affects our Arctic sovereignty, national defence and communications, yet this bill would not provide strong safeguards against foreign interference or influence or ensure robust national security screening.
At the same time, Canada has a real opportunity in this sector. We have the talent, expertise and geography, but success requires clear rules, transparent decisions and investor confidence. Bill C-28 would risk undermining all of those.
Conservatives support a strong Canadian space sector, innovation, investment and defending Canada's sovereignty. We cannot support giving the government a blank cheque, legislation that concentrates power without accountability or a system that appears to reward insiders while asking taxpayers to carry all the risk.
Canadians believe in ambition and building, but they also believe in common sense. When we see $200 million tied to what looks like a concrete pad at the end of a gravel road, we know something is wrong.
From Alouette 1 to today, Canada's space legacy has been built on trust. Let us not replace that with secrecy, insider arrangements and unchecked power. Let us build a space future that is transparent, accountable and truly in the national interest.
Conservatives will stand for a strong Canada in space, a transparent government here on earth and a future that belongs to all Canadians.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely silly for the Conservatives to try to portray that this has something to do with insiders.
Seriously, we need to take a look at the actions of the government over the last year. What we have witnessed is a clear indication to what degree this Prime Minister and this government are driving to expand Canada's economy.
We are talking about an industry, the space industry, and many others that would benefit by the passage of this legislation. The only thing the Conservatives want to look at is any form of character assassination, denying the opportunity for these good-quality jobs and developing and promoting an industry that could contribute billions more and provide thousands more jobs.
Why will the Conservative Party not recognize it for what it is, a wonderful opportunity to take a step forward in an industry that we need to support? At the very least—
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, they say that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour.
Let us go through a few examples. We will not talk about the space industry for right now, but let us talk about the oil and gas industry, for example. We passed Bill C-5 this year, which gave the government extraordinary powers to circumvent its own bills that it put in place that stopped oil and gas exploration in this country. That is another example of where projects could not get done. Nothing could happen without the government ministers hand-picking projects.
We are seeing the exact same thing when it comes to this bill. We are seeing that the Liberals do not want to go through a proper process; they want the ministers to have all the power.
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Mr. Speaker, building on the point that my colleague was making, over the last couple of years, Maritime Launch Services lobbied the government 158 times, and most of that was in 2025, right before it got the $200-million payout. If we look at some of the stock activity going on, it was valued at five cents and it jumped to over 60¢. If we look at the incredible value that people who knew what was happening would have gotten because of that, we can clearly see the conflicts and the shenanigans that are going on here behind the scenes.
I am wondering what my colleague thinks about that.
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, someone does not have to be that good in business to understand that there is something wrong here. The land that this launch site is on is owned by the provincial government in Nova Scotia. It was leased for $13,500 per year. That company turned around and leased it to our federal government, in its incredible business acumen, for $20 million a year.
That is some pretty good business for whoever owns this launch site. It is some very poor business if we are trying to be in support of the Canadian taxpayers who are actually footing the bill for this.
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think that the member has raised, in his comments today, a very good example. If the oil and gas sector was regulated the way that the Minister of Transport is suggesting Bill C-28 should be regulated, it would be all-powerful and it would be for arbitrary reasons.
I think industry participants would say it would not be fair if certain companies were insured and certain companies were not insured, and if certain companies could get a permit to start drilling and certain ones could not. That is an opaque system. It would not be tolerated in any investment-oriented enterprise like oil and gas.
Could the member talk a bit more about how MLS lobbied the PMO and ministers over 150 times and somehow acquired this lease where it is getting $55,000 a day from the federal government?
Steven Bonk Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, we will even take a further step back from that. There are two things that private industry or private investors want more than anything. The number one thing they want is predictability.
We have a system now where the government is not following its strict processes. It is allowing the ministers to pick winners and losers. We know that something is wrong. We have a democracy and we have a country like Canada that has had such a great reputation. I have had the great privilege of working all over the world and there was an open door wherever we went because we were Canadian and others knew that our system worked. We are seeing that eroded every day by giving the ministers more power and less scrutiny. This is a terrible slide in our democracy, as far as I am concerned.
Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today and to set it in the context of what has been already an incredibly exciting year for space in Canada, a year in which we have sent and seen return back, from the far side of the moon, Colonel Jeremy Hansen. With Dr. Jenni Gibbons, they were a key part of that work with respect to the Artemis II mission of the Canadian Space Agency.
I appreciate the comments from my colleagues from Souris—Moose Mountain and London—Fanshawe with respect to some of the particularities of the bill and their concerns.
It is rare that we get a piece of legislation that has some inspiring words in its text, but I am going to share some of these and will come back to the manner in which this is inspiring specifically.
There were some questions around what was in the legislation and some vagueness. However, I read some very specific language in the legislation. I want to read out here what it says under proposed subsection 3.2(1):
The following definitions apply in this Act.
launch vehicle means
(a) a rocket; or
(b) a vehicle, other than a rocket, that is designed to ascend to Earth orbit or beyond.
re-entry vehicle means a vehicle that is designed to be returned by its operator, substantially intact, from Earth orbit or beyond to Earth.
In the very text of this legislation, we have the imagination, the promise and the hope of space exploration. The thing that is inspiring millions of Canadians and has inspired hundreds of millions of people around the world with the Artemis II mission is part of the framework of this legislation today. It is talking about vehicles that were not earlier contemplated in our aeronautics legislation. The Canadian space launch act sets up a position where we can imagine vehicles we did not have as deployable resources, imagining a sector that is emerging, but needs some regulatory shape to it, and bringing it into life.
I think that, very crucially, the legislation does a very good job of balancing the need to promote risk-taking and the gathering and deployment of resources across Canada with the appropriate supervision of the minister, the departments and others, but with the right calibration toward risk-taking and setting into motion an industry that already exists. However, from a G7 perspective, the very specific things we want to do in this sector we are not doing as much in Canada as other G7 partners.
The Canadian Space Agency is a key partner in the Artemis II mission. The European Space Agency is very much involved as well.
I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peace River—Westlock. My enthusiasm for this mission and all things space in this moment is very heightened. I apologize for that brief oversight.
It is not just the inspiration. When one is in space, one cannot do what my friend from British Columbia would like me to do in this moment. When one is on a mission, one has to keep going. Our friend Colonel Hansen definitely did that.
I want to draw attention to the Artemis II mission, and I mentioned Colonel Hansen. Two other astronauts had a key role. One was Jenni Gibbons on Artemis II. She was in mission control. She was officially one of the backups on the mission, so she had to be ready. She went through the exact same training as the other astronauts. She is also the youngest Canadian astronaut and a huge source of pride, motivation and inspiration, not just to women and girls, but to Canadians across the country who can say that they can do this, that they can go into space.
I also want to draw the attention of members to Joshua Kutryk. We are sending a second Canadian astronaut into space at the end of this year, to the International Space Station on another mission. He is going to be in space for around six months. We respect the personal cost, the sacrifice and training he has had to go through, the running of scientific experiments and the extent to which he is subjecting himself to that experimentation. We thank him.
These astronauts, these heroes for Canadians, are heroes they might have seen earlier in movies and are now able to watch on television in these missions. They are a really important part of the space sector and the inspiration that is coming in this year of space for Canada.
It is not just the astronauts. Recently I had the pleasure of meeting some young people who were employed by NordSpace, which is one of the companies looking to do, and that has done, some very successful tests around rocket launches in Canada. I met one of them at a recent Next Generation Manufacturing conference. She came into the sector through the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, specifically 631 Sentinel squadron in Scarborough. She told me that once one has a taste of aerospace, it never goes away.
We are building a sector that is inspiring hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It is a sector they want to join. When there is an appetite or an interest, what does government do to serve that interest? In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy articulated a national mission, and that attracted resources and energy. Obviously, the U.S. administration and NASA were very involved in leading that effort. It is the connection between government action and inspiration that I want to draw members' attention to.
By saying we are going to have sovereign space launch, I mean we are going to make space for more of the NordSpaces of the world to, again, as described in the legislation, launch rockets and launch vehicles that were not earlier contemplated in legislation. This creates the space for young people, like the woman from 631 Sentinel squadron, to then get into that sector.
I was talking about space, and there is a lot of interest in space this year, and these kinds of sovereign launch capabilities have a relationship to some of our deep space missions, but even the near-Earth orbit that would probably be the more daily subject of this piece of legislation also creates its own inspiration.
A number of years ago, when I was teaching at what was then Ryerson University, now Toronto Metropolitan University, I assigned a biography of Elon Musk to my students as an example of, at the time, some of the ways in which he was pushing the frontiers. There is a very fascinating chapter in the Elon Musk biography by Ashlee Vance on his work with SpaceX and the frontiers he was pushing with the scientists and the engineers in his company, saying, “Can we do this faster? Can we do this better?” He was imagining something that had never been done, except by a giant corporation and a giant space agency, the biggest entities in the world. He decided to move into space because of his inspiration and because of the capital he had to deploy.
We know, and I know from teaching those students, that that effort, that imagination, that ambition inspired them and other Canadians. Now we have other inspirations that are not just from Elon Musk and are not just American. NordSpace itself is an inspiration. The astronauts I mentioned earlier are an inspiration. It is lighting a fire and an interest on campuses across Canada. I was recently at an Artemis II space launch celebration gathering. There were gatherings across Canada for both the launch and the landing. We felt our hearts beat as the capsule came toppling through the atmosphere and then cheered when those first parachutes came up.
It is those moments that are inspiring students across Canada. At the Artemis II space launch event that I attended with Let's Talk Science at the University of Toronto, I met a group of undergraduate students who were starting a rocket club, the second rocket club on campus. There was already a rocket club for the engineers, and this was a group of arts students and science students who were going to have their own rocket club. There are students who are joining competitions and getting course credits. They are building the kind of excitement and economy that would be supported by this act.
Recently, I had the pleasure and the opportunity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry to visit Western University, the University of Waterloo and the University of Victoria, all campuses and locations that have this research energy but also student energy toward the space launch capabilities that this act would be building.
I think my colleagues are going to share some of the other very specific benefits of this legislation, the economic benefits and the regional benefits. We are not going to have our own Kennedy Space Center or our own Cape Canaveral, but we can have versions of those places that people are proud of, that we can launch from and identify with.
I want to conclude by reminding us of the vision that is required here, with a quote by Langston Hughes, in the Dalton McGuinty book Be a Good One:
Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly.
In this legislation, we are giving Canadians from coast to coast the opportunity to fly. It is a great opportunity and a great piece of legislation. I commend it to the members of the House.