Debates of April 28th, 2026

Canadian Space Launch Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this place to participate in debate, particularly when the official opposition has the opportunity to apply serious scrutiny to legislation that asks Parliament to hand broad authority away from itself and to the executive.

Bill C-28 deals with space launch and re-entry. It is not ideological. Most Canadians support the idea of Canada having a domestic space capability. They understand its importance to innovation, economic growth and, increasingly, national security. I support that goal as well, but ambition does not excuse poor design. Supporting the objective does not mean giving the government a blank cheque, especially in a sector that involves public safety, national security and potentially significant taxpayer exposure.

We are entering a period of rapid growth in space-based activity. Satellite deployment, re-entry technologies and launch infrastructure are expanding quickly. Canada does not want to be left behind, and it should not be. The government argues that Bill C-28 is needed because Canada lacks a clear legislative framework for space launch and re-entry. That is true. These activities have been managed through aviation law and ad hoc decisions. That approach is no longer adequate.

What is troubling is that Bill C-28 would not replace uncertainty with a clear law. It would replace it with discretion. Rather than having Parliament define rules, the bill asks Parliament to approve a framework and trust that the real decisions would be made later through regulation and ministerial judgment. The hardest questions are deferred. The risks are obscured. Parliamentary control is weakened.

When one reads this bill carefully, the pattern is unmistakable. Launch permits, re-entry approvals, site certification, emergency stop powers, land use restrictions, financial responsibility requirements, exemptions from those requirements and the indemnification of private operators would all be placed within the discretion of the Minister of Transport. This is where the bill starts to drift from concerning to almost surreal. This entire regime assumes that the minister would personally oversee permits, exemptions, indemnification decisions, emergency stop orders, land use restrictions and national security judgments in one of the most complex and high-risk emerging sectors of the economy.

That might sound reassuring until we remember that as of this moment, Canada does not even have a full-time Minister of Transport. We are being asked to believe that a part-time minister already juggling multiple portfolios would somehow have the time, the capacity and the sustained focus to personally weigh launch permits, re-entry approvals, liability thresholds, indemnification decisions and national security considerations, sometimes under time pressure, sometimes under political pressure, while taxpayers carry the downside risk.

This is not a governance model. This is wishful thinking dressed up as legislation, which leads to a very practical question that the government has not answered and cannot avoid. When this industry scales up, and the government insists that it will, who exactly is supposed to manage all of this? Who is reviewing each permit? Who is assessing each re-entry? Who is recalibrating liability exposure? Who is deciding whether an operator qualifies for indemnification and when it does not? Under this bill, almost all the responsibility would flow upward to one political office, not to an independent regulator, not to a transparent statutory process, but to the discretion of the minister.

Good policy depends on systems, not personalities. Bill C-28 gives us neither. Nowhere in this design flaw is that more serious than in the indemnification and liability provisions of the bill. Bill C-28 would remove space launch and re-entry activities, which, by the way, are not even defined in the act. It would take those activities from a normal aviation insurance framework and replace them with a new concept called “financial responsibility”. Parliament would not be told what those minimum levels would be. They obviously would be left to regulation, to be answered by the minister and his officials at their discretion.

The bill then goes much further. It would allow the minister to reduce or waive those requirements and to indemnify private operators against third party liability, entirely at ministerial discretion. Let us be clear about exactly what that means. Indemnification is not a technical detail. It is government-backed insurance. It transfers risk from private companies onto taxpayers.

If one operator is indemnified and another is not, the indemnified operator enjoys a powerful competitive advantage. Its risk profile drops, its financing costs fall, and its tolerance for failure increases. Its competitor, facing full commercial exposure, is placed at a structural disadvantage. Nothing in this bill would require indemnification to be offered on equal terms. Nothing would require similar risks to receive similar treatment. Nothing would require advanced disclosure to Parliament. Nothing would require public reporting afterward. This is not flexibility. That is state‑authorized market distortion.

The political consequences of that structure are enormous. We already have a company operating in this space that has demonstrated financial instability and operational uncertainty. Under Bill C‑28, the same company could benefit enormously if indemnification is loosened or be severely harmed if that protection is tightened or withdrawn. In either case, the impact would be dramatic, but the decision would not be governed by rules set by Parliament. It would be by the politics of the day. If indemnification is loosened, taxpayers could be exposed to substantial and unquantified liability without ever knowing or realizing it. If it is withdrawn, a company could become commercially unviable almost overnight. In both cases, the consequences would be profound, yet the decision would occur behind closed doors.

Taxpayers would not know what risks they were carrying. Parliament would not know what exposure it had approved. Only the minister would know. This is not transparency and accountability, and it is not responsible governance in a strategic sector involving public safety, national security and public money. When indemnification decisions are left entirely to ministerial discretion, they inevitably become political decisions. They are influenced by timing, urgency, pressure and optics. None of those is a substitute for law.

This bill would effectively ask Parliament to assume that every minister under every political circumstance would exercise his or her power perfectly. History suggests otherwise. Laws exist precisely because judgment is imperfect and politics change. Taxpayers should never bear catastrophic risk as the result of decisions they cannot see, cannot measure and cannot challenge.

The weakness in this bill extends beyond indemnification. The government speaks often about sovereignty and security when promoting Bill C‑28, yet the legislation fails to embed basic national security safeguards in statute. There would be no statutory requirement for foreign ownership or control screening of launch operators or payloads. There would be no requirement for beneficial ownership transparency. There would be no statutory test for payload mission profiles or end use. There would be no mandatory integration of intelligence or national security assessments into the approval process. Instead, these issues would be left to regulation or the discretion of the minister in the public interest.

I have served on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we have seen, time after time, what happens when the use of the term “public interest” is exercised without any details from Parliament as to what is in the public interest in this narrow set of circumstances. What happens is uncertainty. What would happen under this bill? That uncertainty would be either a yes or a no from the minister, with no explanation given other than a denial. The minister could say, “It is not in the public interest to give you this permit. I'm revoking it.” We could ask what the public interest is, but the minister would not have any responsibility to say what it is.

Usually, in the Aeronautics Act, someone would go to an administrative tribunal that has a specialty in this, but guess what. The minister has exempted this act from that tribunal's auspices. Essentially, a company would have a window, based on weather conditions, to get a payload through the atmosphere. Suddenly, it would have to go to court to challenge a decision, which would inevitably cost the taxpayer money because the justice department now would have to say what is in the public interest, but it is not defined by law. This is a recipe for uncertainty, and for the minister to say it would give certainty to a market that has yet to exist is a big warning sign flashing. I want to say, “Ottawa, we have a problem here.”

The result here is a convergence of risk that includes broad executive power, opaque indemnification authority, reduced independent review, large financial commitments and no hard-wired national security screening. This, like space, is a vacuum, a vacuum of accountability. The reasons the minister could give to deny a permit would be as black as space. We would not be able to see transparently why it was denied. This is a problem, considering that there is so much to be said about the Liberal government's penchant for insiders.

We know of the MLS launch. We know of the public record, which has been widely distributed, about it not being a going concern, then 158 conversations with the PMO and different ministers later and, wow, suddenly there is a $200-million lease for a property that was previously leased from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. It is now $55,000 a day.

Again, opaque processes, uncertainty and the discretion of one individual are not a recipe for the rule of law. It is a recipe for inside activity. I have said a lot about these things because I am concerned and because I am a proud Canadian. I believe in innovation. I believe in progress. I believe we have Canadian know-how, and we have proven it, time and time again, but this is not a bill for our times. This is a bill for insiders.

Let me be very clear. I have not been speaking about Canadian space launch capacity. This is an argument against governing it badly. Canada needs domestic launch and re-entry infrastructure. I am sure we can all agree on that. We also need clear, predictable and competitive rules, or else we are only going to track businesses that we will end up identifying, and we will not innovate because there will not be a sphere of competition that drives innovation, reduces costs and sees new ways and approaches come forward. This is because, under this act, there would not be the incentive to do so.

It would be more incentive to get a better lobbyist than to get a better rocket. That is not the rocket fuel this industry needs or wants. We need taxpayers protected from unknowable exposure. We need national security safeguards that are automatic and non-negotiable. Once a satellite is in orbit and it does not use Canadian spectrum, the government has no responsibility or power over that satellite. That satellite, as I said, could be at the behest of a state actor and, let us be mindful, the People's Republic of China does require its companies, under its national security laws, to comply with whatever they are asked of by the authoritarian government in Beijing. The Russians also have an interest in the north and its surveillance of the north.

These are questions that the official opposition members are asking for some accountability on and some better answers. With what I heard today from the minister in his responses to me on national security and indemnification, it is clear that he has either not done the work or is silent on purpose.

We need Parliament, not a minister, setting the rules for this space. We do not need legislation that privatizes reward, nationalizes risk and leaves Canadians in the dark. Space policy, I would argue, is too important, too expensive and too sensitive to be governed this way. Again, capital flows to stability.

The minister is right that Canada has some wonderful attributes. We are a country that is politically stable. We have, most of the time, the rule of law, but if a large company were looking to make a strategic investment in Canada and seize this regime, and unless they have an inside track with a lobbyist who has the ability to get them what they want, I question that this is the right approach.

If the government is serious about our sovereignty, it should be serious about accountability. If it is serious about security, it should put it right into the statute, right into Bill C-28. If it is serious about market activity, it should stop designing laws that reward discretion over discipline. Parliament should not approve a framework that asks Canadians to trust what they cannot see.

I would like to say that it is always a pleasure to be here and to debate these important topics on behalf of the good people of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. I urge my colleagues to take the time to look into Bill C-28 to see with their own eyes not only what is there, which is the fact that almost all of the power would be given to one person, but also the large gaps in the bill that this Parliament could and should address.

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

Madam Speaker, no one could accuse the Conservatives of being visionary.

At the end of the day, this is substantive legislation in an area Canada needs to go into. We have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building and expanding our economy and ensuring that we get the type of security that is necessary, and then we have the Conservatives. I am not too sure exactly what it is they are hoping to achieve.

I do have hope, and the question I have for the member is, does the Conservative Party of Canada support the principle of Canada having a launch site?

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada believes in Canadians and their know-how.

We have a strong record, from Diefenbaker and the Alouette I, the first Canadian satellite to be launched. Brian Mulroney created the space act, which is the framework for much of the Canadian missions where we partnered with other countries, to the great success of Canadarm, among other projects. It was Stephen Harper, in 2014, who created a space sovereignty framework that this government, in this new legislation, seems to be ignoring completely.

When we talk about sovereignty, it is non-negotiable, yet under this particular bill, it is discretionary.

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

Madam Speaker, for the most part, we agree on implementing such a system, as we said earlier. However, my concern is that there seems to be a tendency to waive application of the law every time new measures are introduced. It is tiresome.

As we all know, Bill C‑5 became an act that enables the government to designate projects of national interest. It allows the government to override all existing laws. We also know that Bill C‑15 took away citizens' rights with respect to expropriation. The government also got rid of the environmental assessment for the high-speed rail project. Now it is pushing to exempt certain launch-related decisions from Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada review.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. The government seems to view laws as obstacles to progress, but laws are the legislative framework we have established over decades to provide the public with safety and stability.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate this member's intervention here today because it highlights that the government has a penchant for giving itself ultimate discretion at the expense of someone else.

There is no greater sign of this than the government's actually removing access to a tribunal. Tribunals are there for administrative fairness. Let me give an example. If a space firm that is operating legally in Canada is not favoured by the government for whatever reason, maybe they used the wrong lobbyist, had an application come in with a tight time window, or has a spelling or technical error that could easily be rectified, the minister could simply say, “Sorry”. That launch would then be scuttled at great cost to that individual company.

Being able to go to a tribunal to be able to rectify these things gives people confidence that they can move forward. If they have to take the government to court over something as simple as an error on a permit, that is ridiculous.

One might ask why the government would want it this way. That is what we are asking. Why would the government be giving itself unfettered discretion unless it had a plan to do something with that?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his visionary intervention, where he focused on the crux of the issue, which is poor legislation and accountability.

Yesterday at the defence committee, I questioned the new CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, previously of Goldman Sachs, who is a banker buddy of the Prime Minister. He stated that he has not been screened for national security conflicts of interest with his former high net worth clients who are connected to Chinese state-owned businesses.

I would like my colleague to expand on the parallels in this bill regarding both Liberal insiders and a failure to protect Canadian assets and IP from the intervention of the Chinese Communist Party.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to acknowledge what the minister himself said. He said that the world will want what Canada could have here. Well, the world is a lot of people, and some of them do not align with our values or our goals as a nation, so it makes sense that, if there is a gap where there is no screening over who owns what technology and what that technology is used for, that could be circumvented.

Right now, which countries lead the world in rockets? We have the United States, Russia and China, all of whom would have some sort of interest in our north. Again, Canadian rockets are the fundamental part to making this sovereignty happen. We need a legislative framework, sure, but we also need to have Canadian rockets, or else this launch pad would just be a launch pad for other nations' rockets and, without the proper screening, for payloads that are for their objectives, not ours.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the member needs to expand his thinking.

Just on that particular point, Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg manufactures satellites and actually has satellites that are circling the earth today. We have an industry that is alive and has thousands of people employed. Having the ability to launch our own is good for Canada. It is good for the industry. The Conservative Party should come out very clearly to say that it supports the industry and wants to see a launch pad.

I would ask this of the member who represents the Conservative Party on this file: Will the Conservative Party today commit its support for Canada having a launch pad?

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

Madam Speaker, this is how far down the government has gone, that the members are referring to a launch pad. In a competitive market that is well-regulated, there could be multiple launch pads, but we have only one. We have only one because the government has given a $200-million lease over 10 years, $55,000 a day, to a company that had a lease for the same property from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year. In its own corporate notes, it states that this company was not a going concern, which means to the average person that it would be going out of business. Then, miraculously, the company got this lease after lobbying, and suddenly we are all supposed to pin our hopes on it.

The gentleman across the way mentioned a company in his riding. We are very supportive of that, but I will remind the member that, first, a properly functioning market would have probably more than one spaceport. Second, we would probably see individual money being brought in, which could create that. Last, those satellites do not miraculously sprout wings and fly off into the stratosphere from the space pad. They need rockets.

How can we support our industry, and how can we encourage industries to come here? Right now, if this thing were put to test right away, it would be other countries' rockets.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier that, in 2014, the Harper government released a framework that put Canadian sovereignty and national security at the forefront of space policy. Under the Liberal government, we have a bill that does not include a single explicit national security test for launches. The Liberal government is asking us to trust its discretion instead of putting a law in place to stop hostile foreign actors from launching satellites over our Arctic. Could my hon. colleague expand on the concerns about this?

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to paraphrase the New York Times saying that democracy dies under darkness. When we have darkness and opaque processes, and the discretion of one particular minister who has market-distorting—

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

I think the hon. member's microphone is not working properly.

The hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

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

Madam Speaker, one might say the question is whether the speaker is working properly.

I would simply say that if we have a competitive market with a proper regulatory structure, good things will happen, but right now, insiders and those who would exploit our national security gaps put us at risk.

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

Madam Speaker, this morning we are talking about Bill C‑28, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act and other acts.

Essentially, we are talking about this because the government wants to establish a legislative framework for satellite launches and space launches. Canada does not have a legislative framework for this type of activity. In addition, Canada is currently fully dependent on the Americans. They have been a historic partner we used to work with for this type of launch, relying on their facilities and expertise. That is why the government introduced this bill today.

Does the Bloc Québécois see this in a negative light? I would say that it depends. In fact, we see it as more positive than negative, but we still have some questions. Space exploration was a hot topic in the 1950s and 1960s. At the time, it was mainly the U.S.S.R. and the United States that were competing with one another. However, that does not change the fact that all countries around the world had a vested interest in thinking about this issue and building their capacity.

Today, we are seeing trends emerging on the international stage. Companies like SpaceX and Starlink are increasingly using earth's orbit for all kinds of communications, such as the Internet. It feels like we are heading more and more in that direction in the future. There will be more launches. Under these circumstances, it would be beneficial for us to have our own launch capabilities here. On that point, I do not think I have any objections.

The only question is, why is Canada 50 or 60 years behind? It is 2026. Today we are realizing that we are lagging behind the United States and the rest of the world. One might argue that the circumstances have changed. One could say that Canada was perhaps the most naive country in the world, because it is the only G7 country that does not have its own launch capabilities. That is quite surprising. Canada is waking up rather late.

That being said, since we have to start somewhere, let us begin with the bill before us. We will study it carefully and examine what is being proposed.

In essence, what does the bill do? It amends the Aeronautics Act. Obviously, spacecraft are not aircraft, but this legislation governs the use of airspace. It determines how launch and re-entry activities work, and it establishes definitions. For example, it defines what launch vehicles and re-entry vehicles are. It also provides that certain definitions will be created through regulations.

However, it is extremely unfortunate that the bill contains so few definitions. There are few details on what purpose it all serves. It creates a legislative framework, but it gives the government maximum flexibility to decide how it will work, through regulations. This means that parliamentarians are not the ones who are going to study the issue. The minister's office will be able to decide the more specific rules behind closed doors and in secret. That allows more flexibility to adapt to future developments without needing to go through Parliament again. That much is obvious.

The downside, however, is that decisions can be made behind closed doors, without us parliamentarians being able to keep an eye on these matters and without the public and the media knowing what is going on. This can lead to abuses if there is no adequate oversight.

We will have to see in committee what the oversight mechanisms will look like if all the power to establish the rules is concentrated in the hands of the minister. This would create a situation where it would become pretty easy for certain organizations or companies to get special treatment through lobbying or influence campaigns. That is not what we want. We also do not want the government to be able to decide to prevent the best and brightest from reaching their full potential, so we will be keeping a close eye on this.

The bill also authorizes the minister:

...to indemnify owners and operators of launch or re-entry vehicles in certain circumstances, and when it is in the public interest, for their liability to third parties for loss or damage caused by their activities....

When someone wants to get into the space launch business and they go to see an insurer and say that they want to do business in this sector, the insurer will likely be extremely surprised and tell them that it will cost them a lot of money because very few people are in this business and the risks are quite significant. The bill enables the government to assume the risk, if it so desires, and to indemnify those who experience setbacks. That is not a terrible idea, because, if we want to encourage investment in extremely risky activities, if we want to encourage people to get involved in these sorts of activities when we do not have the expertise or companies that are as well established as those in the United States, for example, then it may help to tell them that the government will support them should any problems arise. However, here is the question: How will the government decide who to support and who not to support? Will that just be left up to the minister's discretion? We have a lot of questions about that.

There is also the whole issue of the public interest because some people will feel the effects of this. We need to ensure that we have proper protections in place for those who experience setbacks. We need to ensure that they are properly indemnified and that they are, at the very least, protected from the risks. I do not think that anyone will feel reassured if we tell them not to worry because we will buy them a new house if theirs burns down. People would rather we make sure that their house does not burn down in the first place.

The bill before us today still needs work, but we are coming at it with a very open mind because this legislation is necessary and Canada is lagging far behind. It will be very interesting to hear what the witnesses have to say at committee. This is a highly specialized subject, and their expertise will help us. I am certainly no aerospace engineer, but I do know a few of them. It will be helpful to get input from industry people and from people who live in places that are potential launch sites. How are these launch sites selected? Are there criteria? Are the criteria objective, or is it all at the minister's discretion again? There are a lot of unanswered questions at this point.

It is important to note that the bill would amend a bunch of acts: the Carriage by Air Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Secure Air Travel Act. We will have to investigate the broader implications of amending those acts. Yes, the goal is to create a legislative framework, a space, a structure for the aerospace sector, but legislative amendments can have unexpected consequences, outcomes nobody anticipated because we do not necessarily have all the knowledge and expertise when the time comes to vote at second reading.

We are going to take this seriously and give the government the benefit of the doubt. I think the government is trying to do something commendable. The question is how it goes about it. Unfortunately, the devil is often in the details. We are used to the Liberals slipping in little poison pills here and there, or proposing somewhat hidden plans designed to favour or help their cronies. There is nothing leading me to believe that that will be the case this time. Still, we have become so accustomed to these kinds of Liberal manoeuvres that we will certainly keep that in mind as we move forward with the process.

Another issue we have questions about is the fact that there is currently only one launch site, located in Canso, Nova Scotia. Would it make sense to have others in the future? What exactly justifies the conclusion that this is the only place where one should be located? I have nothing against the existing site. I think we need more sites. At the very least, these are questions that need to be asked.

It also remains to be seen what amendments will be proposed by the other parties, whether by the Conservative Party, which is represented at committee, or by the NDP, which is not. I do not know whether the NDP members will have the time, energy and resources to take an interest in this bill. The same goes for the Green Party. I do not know what its intentions are in this regard. Since I am a member of the Bloc Québécois, I obviously think that the Bloc has the best ideas and the best vision, but the other parties sometimes have good ideas too. That is less true of the Liberals, but we will still listen to what they have to say, especially since they are the ones in office and we do not have much choice in the matter.

Is it time for Canada to develop its capabilities? I would say yes, definitely. However, there is one thing that is not very clear in this legislation and that I look forward to learning more about, and that is the fact that this type of aerospace launch facility often also has military uses, not just civilian uses. It has scientific and commercial uses, and this framework will have to regulate all of that.

It would be nice to get an idea of the Liberals' interests. What are their intentions moving forward? How do they intend to capitalize on the legal framework that we will soon be working on? I think that the question of research interest is obvious. The question of commercial interest is being discussed more and more. Awareness of this issue is growing. However, the question of defence interest should not be overlooked. It does not seem like it is being discussed publicly at present, but I think it should not be forgotten. It seems obvious to me that National Defence will want to use these sites for military testing. What types of military tests would be conducted? Where do Canada's military capabilities currently stand, specifically in terms of defence autonomy?

We see this elsewhere in the world. Investments in the aerospace sector can often have military applications, just as many investments in the military sector can also have applications in the aerospace sector. Just think of ballistic missiles. Is the purpose of this bill to support certain sectors? As I mentioned, there is certainly a military interest, from a defence perspective, and a commercial interest, but it would be nice to know which specific sectors the government intends to support and how it plans to use these tools.

I believe that everyone deserves transparency, that everyone deserves to know the truth. Having as much transparency as possible will also allow us to move forward with as much confidence as possible. I do not think anyone wants to end up with nasty surprises in a few years because things were hidden from the public, because this was never properly debated and because the necessary legal framework was not established through the amendments this bill needed in case any blind spots were left unaddressed.

We have important work to do on this bill, and we are going to approach it with the utmost seriousness. Obviously, we cannot fault the Canadian government for wanting to break free from its dependence on American facilities. However, the question that will always be asked, and that we must also always monitor, is who is going to invest in this? We are not divesting from American interests only to jump into the arms of other interests. Still, we have to take a serious approach if we sincerely want to achieve Canadian sovereignty and eventually Quebec sovereignty. That is what I want. We have emerging companies with potential. We have expertise in Canada. In fact, the Canadian Space Agency's headquarters is located in Saint-Hubert, just a stone's throw from my riding. The CSA has lots of expertise and great facilities. I am sure that its representatives will have things to say about this bill and interesting opinions to share.

Why not have a launch site in Quebec, given that the CSA is based there? Logistically speaking, it would be much closer than having to travel all the way to Canso, Nova Scotia. Is there potential to develop something in Quebec? I can see the value in that. I think that, as Quebeckers, it is in our interest to have this type of expertise, even if it already exists here.

Quebec has an aerospace industry, as I mentioned, with the space centre in Saint-Hubert, but we also have plenty of aeronautics expertise and knowledge. A great deal of aeronautics knowledge and expertise is applicable to aerospace. We have Bombardier, which is an important player in Quebec, but we also have the Airbus and Bell Textron facilities. People in the aeronautics sector are interested in what is happening in the space sector, and their skills often come in handy. Given that Quebec has this strength, I hope the federal government will be willing to recognize that we already have assets and strengths in Quebec. Why not build on Quebec's strengths and assets rather than spreading our efforts all over the place and ultimately ending up with something that is less powerful, less interesting and less effective? Quebec has the expertise, and we must make the most of it.

Unfortunately, the federal government still does not have an aeronautics policy, even though aeronautics is a leading industry that is very lucrative for Quebec. It is a cutting-edge field, and yet Ottawa has no vision for it. I think that is unfortunate. The same goes for the aerospace sector, as we now see. This is 60 years overdue. It is high time we developed a vision, but is this really a vision? I do not think it is. This is a framework. If the government has a vision, then it would be good to know what it is. Right now, it is unclear whether the government has one.

Obviously, the current regulatory framework is inadequate. We will work on that, particularly with regard to rocket launches, satellite imagery and the full potential of satellites, which have a growing number of applications. We are discovering more every year, almost every month. We know that satellites are highly useful, including in the war in Ukraine. Were it not for these advantages, particularly those derived from the tools the Americans have put at its disposal, Ukraine would have already lost the war. That aspect is often underestimated. We often tend to overlook it, but it is very important. This has an impact in the military sphere, but there is also the issue of Internet access in the regions, in more remote areas.

In the future, will technological developments render the entire wired Internet system we have today obsolete? Will our communications and telecommunications systems become outdated? I cannot say. What I do know is that we are increasingly seeing a trend toward satellite technologies when it comes to investments and that there is a lot of potential there.

Earlier, I mentioned that Quebec is home to several companies in the aerospace industry. I am thinking about Héroux Devtek, which is in the landing gear business. We could also talk about Quebec companies that manufacture flight simulators. In addition, there is a new Quebec start-up company based in Longueuil, in my area. It plans to use the facility in Canso, Nova Scotia. This company is Reaction Dynamics, which is working on its own vehicle, the Aurora-8, which would be completely independent from what is being done in the United States. It is a great start-up that we want to encourage, because we think it has a lot of potential. We are proud of our homegrown expertise. We believe that the Canadian government must continue to have a vision. I say “continue”, but the government did not have a vision until now, so in fact, it needs to develop a vision.

What matters to us is that Quebec's interests are taken into account. Expertise in the satellite industry is important. Apparently, 20% of our economic activity is tied to satellites. That is huge. With digitization playing an ever-increasing role in almost everything, satellites are the future. That is why it is important to get on board.

I have more to say, but I may get a chance to say it during the committee's study.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the aspects I want to highlight with regard to the legislation is the impact it would have on the industry as a whole after we see the legislation pass, go to committee and increase the amount of dialogue.

There are industries, such as our aerospace industry. Quebec has a very healthy, growing and vibrant aerospace industry, and so does the province of Manitoba. I made reference to Magellan and the fine work it does. We are talking about good, quality jobs. By having legislation of this nature, we would be establishing a framework.

My question for the member is, would he not agree that establishing a framework, so that we can do what we are doing with the legislation, will be good for our aerospace industry in particular?

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

Madam Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, yes, as we said, we welcome Bill C‑28.

In Quebec, the aerospace industry accounts for more than 40,000 jobs—nearly 42,000 according to 2023 data. A lot of people work in this sector. I do not think Manitoba has 42,000 jobs in this sector. I am not saying there are no skilled people or people working on interesting things in Manitoba, but I do think Quebec has significant expertise that we have to retain. We have to leverage that, not spread our efforts thin. That is why I am concerned about putting so much discretionary power in the minister's hands. I want to make sure we have a fair system that rewards excellence, not whoever Ottawa chooses to reward.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his informative and enlightening speech.

I have two questions for him. Given the uncertainties in the commercial launch market, what level of risk does he think the government should accept when looking to develop a new industry?

Also, how can we ensure that taxpayers are well protected?

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for asking her questions in French. We always appreciate it when people make the effort to speak French in the House. We do not hear that very often. The presence of French is often forgotten in Canada, if not denigrated and repressed. My colleague's question is like a burst of fresh air.

As for her questions, I would say that the matter is fairly broad. That is precisely why it would be necessary to hear from many witnesses during the committee study of Bill C‑28 to ensure that we can properly address the concerns and questions my colleague has raised. At this time, I cannot claim to have all the answers to these questions.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague and friend, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, on his speech.

We talked about the fact that the government does not have an aerospace policy. In the past, we have seen a lack of federal investment in this industry. For example, even though Quebec invested everything it could, we lost out with the Bombardier C Series because the federal government did not want to invest.

Does my colleague think that things will be different for the aerospace industry? Could he elaborate on that?

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

Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no reason to trust Ottawa on this issue because history has shown that Ottawa does not serve Quebec well in any regard.

Let us look at a recent example, when relations with the U.S. were already strained and President Trump was already in office. Bombardier makes air surveillance aircraft that could have served our armed forces very well, and yet Canada decided to snub Bombardier's aircraft and buy American planes. The government could have bought its aircraft from Quebec and strengthened the capabilities of our local industry, but for whatever reason that is beyond my comprehension, it always ignores Quebec's talent. It is very frustrating.

That is why we think that an independent Quebec would be better off showcasing its own expertise, rather than being constantly looked down on by the rest of Canada.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Madam Speaker, given the broad discretion this legislation lends to regulations, would the member agree with me and our party that draft regulations should be published prior to the passing of this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, that would be helpful because we are kind of in the dark at the moment. We are being told that regulations will be forthcoming. Do government members already know what will be in the regulations? If they know, why not put that in Bill C‑28? If they think the regulations are not fit to be included in the bill, why not tell us more so we have a sense of the government's plans?

My concern here is that we have, on occasion, seen the government make all kinds of program announcements. It announces wonderful things in the budget, and then it takes years for things in the budget to materialize as actual programs. Sometimes the government announces things without knowing what it is going to do or where it is going to go with them. If we had a sense of where it wanted to go, we could work more effectively in committee going forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is estimated that with the passage of the legislation, we could see something actually taking place in Canada as early as 2028. It is an ambitious goal, but it can be achieved. The legislation, in itself, plays a critical role in hitting that particular goal.

I am wondering if the member from the Bloc could give an indication of how they see the legislation going through the House.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague's question about how I see this moving forward, I would say that I hope it will progress fairly quickly in the House. We often focus on the big picture in the House. We tend to pay less attention to the details and concentrate more, shall we say, on the broader issues. As for how things will proceed at the committee stage, that will depend on the witnesses who are called to appear and on what we learn.

At the moment, I think we are at the stage of sorting out the details. The government has admitted this itself, given that this is the first bill of its kind to be introduced. In fact, there is no legal framework specifically for the aerospace sector. At the moment, we are simply relying on the laws that apply to air travel and aeronautics. As the government itself is still in its infancy, we cannot claim to be any further ahead than the government. At least, I hope that is the case.

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

Madam Speaker, what we see, yet again, from the Liberal government and the Liberal minister is another power grab giving more autonomy to the minister to make decisions, which, of course, leads to less transparency, less accountability and less parliamentary oversight.

Does the member opposite think it is a good thing to give more power to the ministers and to have less transparency, less parliamentary oversight and less debate for all parliamentarians?