Debates of June 8th, 2026

Concurrence in Vote 5—Department of National Defence

[An hon. member]

It's a parking lot.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a parking lot.

Members need to understand what is being proposed. This $200 million is not just for the raw land, which is the impression the Conservatives try to give people. It includes the infrastructure, building a launch pad that is going to elevate Canada's status so that other countries in the world will look to Canada as a way to get their satellites into orbit. It is about sovereignty.

Do members support Canadian sovereignty? Do members believe that Elon Musk should have the priority to say, “No, I have other things that I have to launch that are more important than what Canada wants to launch, so I am going to stick with those?” Are the Conservatives prepared to surrender our sovereignty on space and satellites to Elon Musk? That is what it sounds like, because what is their answer? They are not talking about an alternative or giving criticism in terms of why it is that Canada should not have a space launch pad.

I like the idea. Come to Winnipeg and take the tour of Magellan Aerospace. There are first-class, hard workers of all different ethnic groups who are, in fact, working there every day of the week, and they are building Manitoba's aerospace industry. There is a very strong space component to it. Members can see that in the city of Winnipeg, we are manufacturing satellites. We have satellites that were manufactured in Winnipeg that are circling in orbit today. They are there. It is real. It means jobs.

I can tell members that every member of the national Liberal caucus understands the value of having a launch pad in Nova Scotia. I say shame on my colleagues across the way who do not support the initiative of having it in Nova Scotia.

[An hon. member]

How about Manitoba?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has opportunities, but there is no ocean beside Manitoba.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we finally have a government that is actually looking at expanding the port of Churchill, and there are opportunities there, possibly for rockets. Maybe we can talk about that. I do not want to talk too much about it, because the Conservatives will start criticizing it. There are all sorts of opportunities within our aerospace industry. In terms of Nova Scotia, I know my colleagues understand the true value and the investments that the government is putting into our aerospace industry and our space industry.

We can think of it in terms of our military's having the capability to work through contracts to have a satellite, and the Canadian government's being able to say, “Okay, this satellite is a priority and is going to be launched.” That is what sovereignty in space is about. It allows the national government to not have to rely on other governments, or on Elon Musk, in order to launch a Canadian satellite or to put things into orbit. Why would the Conservatives not join the Progressive Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia? By the way, the Government of Nova Scotia has actually approved the location.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one member said that it is a bad location. The provincial government does not seem to think that. It is just the federal Conservatives who want to dump on the province of Nova Scotia, it would appear.

We can look at what we have done over the last year, with a new government of just over a year and a new Prime Minister, in terms of what we have actually brought through: budgetary measures, supporting our space agency and our aerospace industry, and things like investing in our Canadian Forces, for which we hit 2% funding before the end of last year. The current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table when the Conservatives could not even get 1%, yet we got 2% before the end of the year, within months of the last federal election.

Whether it is those budgetary measures or it is legislative measures, we have already introduced to the House of Commons the measures necessary to ensure that we can move forward with the launch pad. Conservatives voted against it, unfortunately, but the point is that it has already been moved, and we are moving forward. Despite the opposition we are getting on this initiative, we will continue to move forward with it, because it is the right thing to do. We could apply that principle to many aspects of the budget.

We are talking about the main estimates, the business of supply, and there are a number of initiatives within the budget that I truly wish the Conservatives would reverse their attitude on. As opposed to looking at the glass as always half empty, there is another way of looking at it. In other words, have a positive attitude. It does not hurt. Members can still be party of an opposition party and have a positive attitude, which is lacking from the Conservative Party.

Let us take a look at major projects as an example. Yes, the space launch site is going to cost money, but I believe the investment will pay off in great dividends, not only in terms of sovereignty but also in jobs and so many other things, including benefits for our aerospace and space agencies.

There are many other things through major projects that will have an equally very positive outcome for Canadians, virtually from coast to coast to coast. Earlier today, as an example, I talked about the potential of wind and current energies in Atlantic Canada. The federal government is investing in energy development in Atlantic Canada today through major projects. Earlier today I talked about the port of Montreal and the potential of the port not only to create thousands of jobs for the city of Montreal and the people of Quebec but also to increase the opportunity for us to export. That will have opportunities for all of Canada.

Earlier today I made reference to the province of Ontario and major projects. The first one that comes to my mind is in the area of nuclear energy opportunities. The Prime Minister talks about making Canada an energy superpower, and we are serious about that. We are dead serious on the issue. We recognize the issue of sustainable development, and that is why we continue to work with provinces, indigenous communities, municipalities and the many other stakeholders. We realize that for these megaprojects to work, we need to appreciate and understand the importance of sustainable development. Nuclear energy is something very real and tangible, and through major projects, the Prime Minister and the government are getting behind it.

There are other countries around the world that are looking at nuclear energy, and Canada has a role to play in that. I cited the Philippines as an example. There are discussions that are ongoing with Canada, particularly with the Province of Ontario and Ontario Hydro, from what I understand, in terms of how they can take advantage of the expertise that Canada has to offer on nuclear energy.

Let us move on from Ontario to Manitoba. Whether it is mining or the port of Churchill, for the first time in Manitoba, we have an alignment to have the port of Churchill developed and be able to export all forms of different products, from the potential of LNG to some minerals that are being mined and to other types of exports. These are the types—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is not being relevant, neither he personally nor with respect to anything in particular regarding the motion. I would ask that he come to order and maybe talk about Maritime Launch Services, the lease, and the Department of National Defence—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have heard enough. There is broad latitude, particularly when we are on topics such as the estimates.

I will just ask the member to return to the topic at hand.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has not hurt my feelings. It is fine. If he is not following the debate this evening, that is fine, but I hope time was not deducted for the point of order, because I have a lot more to say.

Building big and building projects is important to Canada, and the space project is equally important to Canada. If the member was listening earlier, he would know that some speeches did not even mention the word “space”, but I appreciate that he is giving some attention to what I am saying. I ask him to follow along.

I will continue with major projects. Manitoba at one time did launch rockets. There are opportunities in the future to have something of that nature once again. However, Canada does not today have a space pad that has the capability of launching things like satellites into orbit, which is why we need to work toward it.

This is, as I said, about building projects. In the province of Manitoba, the premier and many community leaders are working with the Government of Canada on ways in which we can expand the opportunity for Canada to have yet another port, a viable and strong port.

I am hoping the Conservatives will not adopt for the province of Manitoba the same attitude that they have for Nova Scotia . At the end of the day, if they had representation in Nova Scotia, they might actually be a little more sympathetic to what the Progressive Conservative premier is saying about Nova Scotia, as well as my colleagues within the Liberal caucus.

I will move on to the province of Saskatchewan and major projects. Think about what is being proposed to deal with things such as copper mines. Look at what is happening with canola, potash and some of the other projects being considered in the city of Calgary, where the Major Projects Office is actually located.

I move on to the province of Alberta and thinking in terms of an energy superpower and being more sovereign. Sovereignty matters to our government. I will get on to that right away as one of the other things we are doing. Not only do we have a memorandum of understanding with the progressive Conservative Premier of Alberta, but we now have an implementation strategy, an implementation plan, actually in progress that is expanding opportunities to become that energy superpower.

Take a look at British Columbia. Whether it is the mining of copper, or it is, again, LNG, we will find that these things are part of the major projects.

I will talk about the north. The Prime Minister was in Yellowknife not that long ago and talked about the importance of northern sovereignty. As a government, we are looking at over $30 billion in order to build and strengthen Canadian sovereignty up north. These are substantial commitments, because we have a government that sees the value of investing in Canadians and in the projects that are going to help ensure that Canada becomes the strongest country in the G7 and the fastest-growing on a per capita basis.

The results are already starting to be realized in different ways, whether it is in constructions or in jobs, with 88,000 jobs announced just last week for the month of May. In the last year, there has been a net increase of well over 100,000 jobs. I believe it is just over 150,000. There are many indicators of this, such as with investments. Foreign investment in Canada, on a per capita basis, is greater than in any of the G20 countries. Arguably, it might even be the best in the world.

These are the types of things that the Conservatives consistently overlook. They have adopted this attitude that Canada is broken, and they have to pump that message out, inside and outside the chamber, whether it is accurate or not, and it is not. That is the message they want to get out.

I think they need to turn the page and recognize what the Government of Canada is doing, and that is working collaboratively with the stakeholders, the provinces, indigenous people and a wide spectrum of individuals who are providing us with the opportunity to build a stronger and healthier economy, and a healthier society, an economy that works for all Canadians. That is our objective.

That is why we brought forward legislation to establish a space opportunity and space sovereignty. We understand and appreciate the valuable contributions that, in particular, the province of Nova Scotia can make in being able to establish that industry here in Canada. It is something that we should be proud of and be promoting. At the end of the day, it means improving the quality of life for all Canadians.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my loquacious colleague. He is very eloquent. He always has something to say, even when he has nothing to say.

The reason we have concerns about this is that $200 million is being spent in a very unusual way on a place that is not developed at all. It has been like that for years now.

Does he think that the $200 million spent on what has been done so far should be commended, or would he say, conversely, that we are off to a bad start? Out of respect for the Canadian aerospace industry, which has roots in our country dating back 60 years and which is part of the future of Canada's economic development, does he think that the site in Nova Scotia is off to a good start?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a part of the future for Canada and our economy. As I said, it is estimated that in terms of direct jobs, we could be looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 225,000, if we can do this right. I believe we will get it right.

As for the $200 million that keeps on being brought up, it is not for the raw land. The company has to build the infrastructure that enables us to ultimately see satellites put into orbit. That is what it is when we talk about the $200 million. It enables Canada to be able to say, “This is an important satellite, and we want it launched as a priority.” Right now, we do not have that capability. Many would argue that that is not right. That is why we have to continue to push this thing forward. It is about sovereignty.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, I can hear how enthusiastic he is about his government's budget measures. I am listening to him tell us how great things are going and how wonderful life is.

However, there is one thing I do not understand, so maybe my colleague can explain it to me. If his government is having so much success with the economy, why is it happening at our seniors' expense? Why did the Liberal government decide a few years ago that seniors aged 65 to 74 should be treated less well than those aged 75 and over? It would not cost a fortune to fix this. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for a fix for years.

As a gesture of solidarity, could this government recognize how much these seniors have contributed to the Canadian economy and boost their purchasing power to match that of seniors aged 75 and over? Could it increase old age security at the same time? The Bloc Québécois has been calling for seniors' pensions to be increased by 10%, which is not that much.

I would love to hear my colleague's thoughts. Can he tell me why the government did that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's former prime minister Justin Trudeau made a commitment, an election platform commitment, that we were going to increase OAS for those individuals aged 75 and over. We fulfilled that commitment. The argument that was used was that as people age, generally speaking, they use up their retirement funds and their medical costs continue to go up. There are other issues there.

The idea of having a significant increase for those who are 75 and above was justified to the degree that Justin Trudeau made the commitment during an election, in an election platform. The member is criticizing Justin Trudeau and the government at the time for fulfilling an election platform issue. Whenever possible, we should try to live up to election platform commitments.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives have brought this amendment to talk about the launching of these rockets from Nova Scotia and from Newfoundland and Labrador. My understanding is that those are the only two locations in Canada that would be acceptable for this purpose, and it is critical for our sovereignty.

I wonder if the member could talk about the importance of things that matter for Canadian sovereignty.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if only the Conservatives had a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, I suspect it might actually change their opinions on this issue.

The hon. member is right in her overall assessment.

My plea to members of the Conservative Party of Canada is that they look at it as an Atlantic Canada initiative. It is the best place to have a launch pad because the Atlantic Ocean is right there, which would be great to have for re-entry and so forth. This $200 million is not just for raw land.

As I indicated earlier, one of the biggest supporters, alongside my colleague, is the Premier of Nova Scotia, who happens to be a Progressive Conservative.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at Maritime Launch Services' financials. I think this is very revealing because its condition appeared to be extremely weak before the government's injection of money. In its 2025 financial statements, the company had $47 million in losses, $14,980 in revenue and approximately $70,000 in cash on hand at the end of 2024. We have heard numerous times tonight that a shareholder actually cashed in what were effectively worthless shares after the $20-million injection, which gave him $1.8 million.

Is it not true that the government effectively rescued a failing company and subsidized an enterprise on the verge of bankruptcy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to, maybe, write that question and see how the Premier of Nova Scotia would respond to it.

Here is an opportunity. Maritime Launch Services can provide, through a contract, a service that would provide Canada the opportunity to have space sovereignty. It is a viable opportunity that we are working on with the province of Manitoba and other stakeholders that is going to enhance our industry here in Canada to the benefit of all Canadians. I see that as a positive thing.

The member should write the premier.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side of the House comes from a city that is home to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which is an extraordinary museum, by the way.

The problem is that, in the 2023 budget, this government announced its intention to introduce much tougher anti-forced labour legislation. That same intention was included in the 2024 budget, but, suddenly, since the new Prime Minister took office, this intention does not appear in the 2025 budget. It has been abandoned. That means that today, we are voting on appropriations that do not include funds earmarked for strengthening anti-forced labour legislation.

How can my colleague, who has the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in his own city, accept such an about-face by his government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister supports and advocates for human rights on virtually a daily basis.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go and see how we can work collaboratively in Houston with our own astronaut Jeremy Hansen.

The member mentioned this in his speech, but I would like it if he could comment, perhaps, as to why we need the independent capability to launch, to work on research and development and to have access to space, as well as working collaboratively with other countries across the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question, because it is a great way to, hopefully, end the discussion on this particular issue. We have a choice. That is, do we rely on Elon Musk to establish Canadian priorities in sending satellites into orbit, or should Canada have its own space sovereignty, where the Government of Canada can establish the priorities and, at the same time, build on industries, whether it is our aerospace or space industry, which generates hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs? I choose the latter.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

First of all, let me say what a thrill it was to meet Kevin White's brother-in-law today, astronaut Jeremy Hansen, here on Parliament Hill. Kevin White is the fire chief in the city of Barrie, and he is married to Jeremy's sister. I thought I would mention that for Kevin's benefit.

During World War II, when Allied aircraft would be flying over the targets, ready to bomb, they would be hit with flak. In this place, we know we are over the target when Liberals start justifying and making excuses for things that absolutely make no sense, and they speak in a louder tone to try to make their point. What is important about this debate tonight is that Canadians are watching the government spend $200 million on a politically connected spaceport project in rural Nova Scotia. The more we learn about it, the less sense it makes.

As the finance minister suggested in committee of the whole two weeks ago, this is not a story about innovation or economic stewardship. It is a story, in fact, about Liberal insiders, political connections, well-connected insiders and taxpayers who, once again, are being asked to foot the bill for a project that should have never received this level of government backing in the first place. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 every single day for this project.

What exactly are they getting for that money? They are getting a gravel road, two sea cans and a concrete slab that has launched exactly two rockets, neither of which have reached space. One of those launches was conducted by a York University student rocketry club. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 a day for what amounts to be the most expensive science fair project in the country, and yet somehow, despite this lack of infrastructure, lack of revenue, lack of launches and lack of any proven commercial success, the federal government decided to give this company $20 million a year for the next 10 years.

The debate and argument tonight is that Canadians deserve to know why the numbers alone make absolutely no sense. Maritime Launch Services reported less than $15,000 in annual revenue. At the same time, the company reported tens of millions of dollars in losses and had only about $70,000 in cash on hand. Independent auditors openly warned that there was material uncertainty about whether the company could even continue operating. In plain English, this company was on the verge of financial collapse. Instead of walking away, what the Liberal government did was attach itself to this project even more aggressively. Canadians have seen this pattern before. When ordinary Canadians struggle financially, the Liberals tell them to budget better, but when politically connected companies struggle financially, the Liberals suddenly open up their wallets.

The insider connections surrounding this project are impossible to ignore. Former Liberal premier Stephen McNeil publicly supported the project before the environmental review had even been completed. Then later, after championing the project politically, he conveniently joined the company's advisory board. Canadians are tired of this revolving door where Liberal politicians help projects while in office and then later somehow attach themselves to the same companies benefiting from that government support.

MLS's chief lobbyist was reportedly a former senior staffer to the justice minister, and the company reportedly lobbied the justice minister 14 separate times, more than the current or former local MP for the area. Canadians do not need a conspiracy theory to see what is happening. The pattern is clear. Former Liberal politicians, former Liberal staffers and well-connected political insiders are all orbiting around a company that is now receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer support.

Despite all of these political connections, the project itself still makes no practical sense. The original business model was based around launching the Cyclone-4M rocket. The problem is that the rocket has never actually been built. Imagine spending $200 million to build an airport for planes that do not exist yet.

Canadians would never, ever tolerate that level of incompetence in any other sector, yet somehow the government saw no proven rocket, no proven market, no regulatory framework, no meaningful revenue and massive financial instability and still thought this is exactly where 200 million hard-earned taxpayer dollars should go.

The government did not just ignore the warning signs. It practically sprinted past them.

The company's founding partner became tied to a NASA false claims case involving allegations of false billing and ignored safety protocols. The chair of the board faced sanctions from Canada's investment regulator over failures involving compliance and supervision. The Ukrainian aerospace partner behind the project had already been surrounded by allegations of corruption, failed international projects and major financial disputes. Any one of these should have triggered caution, but instead, Liberal insiders continued to attach themselves to this project.

The most unbelievable part of it all is the land arrangement that is in place. Maritime Launch Services does not even own the land. It leases Crown land from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $13,000 a year, and somehow, through this federal government agreement, taxpayers are paying massively inflated amounts connected to the exact same land, resulting in a 1,300% profit margin.

Canadians are struggling. They cannot get mortgages approved. Young people cannot afford homes, families are cutting back on groceries and seniors are struggling with bills, but somehow, the Liberal government found a way to guarantee politically connected insiders with what appears to be a 1,300% return tied to publicly owned land. That is not to mention that effectively worthless shares of what was an effectively bankrupt company were sold for a profit of $1.8 million. That is not economic development, nor is it innovation, as the finance minister would say. It is absolute cronyism.

Why is the federal government attaching itself so aggressively to a project that still lacks even the most basic foundations for success? Canada does not even have a fully developed regulatory framework for commercial orbital launches. The environmental assessment was minimal. The project dramatically changed its entire business model. The site itself is underdeveloped. There were two launches, and both were unsuccessful. Still, the government wants to invest $200 million in it.

At some point, Canadians will stop seeing this as a business decision and start seeing it for what it looks like: a politically protected project kept alive by well-connected Liberal insiders using taxpayer money. Canadians deserve governments that invest based on merit, viability and public interest, not on who knows which minister, former premier or Liberal staffer. Right now, Canadians are paying $50,000 a day for a failed science fair, while the only things truly taking off appear to be the profits and connections of Liberal insiders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I often wonder if there is someone in the Conservative backroom who gives out a gold star every time someone on the other side mentions the word “corruption”. The Conservatives consistently try to incorporate that word into every speech they give.

My question for the member opposite is this: Does he believe that the Premier of Nova Scotia, who is, as I pointed out, a Progressive Conservative, is wrong in supporting this project too?