Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“What we are being told, then, is that the Prime Minister will select the projects to be referred to the Major Projects Office, which will then refer them to the sovereign wealth fund. This is surprising, because that is exactly what is happening right now with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Someone will have to explain to me who is doing what, but that is another story. How are they going to make decisions independently if the selection process is politicized right from the start? What does a politicized process mean? It means that the Prime Minister will choose projects based on what he considers to be good projects. A project that is considered good and promising is not always one that will turn a profit right away.”
“I am going to need some serious explanations from the people on the other side of the House. For now, it is not very impressive. It is especially worrisome when the government gambles with taxpayers' money. All this government is doing is using marketing tactics to sell us all sorts of pipe dreams. That worries me because, on top of everything else, the decisions around which projects will receive investment will not be made independently. The government is saying there will be an independent board of directors. How is it actually going to work? The projects to be funded by this much-touted sovereign wealth fund will be referred by the Major Projects Office. Which projects will be referred by the Major Projects Office? The Prime Minister will decide which projects get referred.”
“How will we pay the interest on projects that the private sector did not want to invest in in the first place because they were too risky and because the private sector thought it could not make money on them? What classic device is being used? Public funds are used to reduce the riskiness of projects and thus absorb the risks and losses if the projects do not work out, or at least ensure that the project is profitable for the private sector. If there is no profitability to begin with, the public would absorb the loss. How are we supposed to make money on something the private sector said it would not turn a profit and, on top of that, pay off the interest on the $25‑billion debt we just incurred? I am having a hard time understanding how the government is going to do that.”
“Now, the government has conveniently decided to duplicate that structure with an additional $25 billion, with another bureaucratic pyramid and with more people being paid big salaries to manage it, rather than just giving the CIB the mandate to manage those additional funds. There is a lot I could say about the CIB in general, but that is not the subject of today's debate. What is the idea behind all this? What does it all boil down to? It is a charade. The idea is to put on a show, to announce the creation of a sovereign wealth fund similar to funds that other countries with money set aside have, when we do not have a penny to spare here. That is what is happening. The government is pretending to have something that it does not have. I was saying that this debt will have to be paid back, or at least the interest will have to be paid.”
“(1115) That is rather broad. It could mean just about anything. The government is going to invest in Canada, but now it is telling us that it is going to invest to attract private capital. I find that interesting because, usually, when one wants to attract private capital, it is because private capital will make money. Why would private capital put money into investments that it does not currently want to invest in? That is the idea behind the sovereign wealth fund: take risky projects that the private sector is avoiding and ensure that investments are made and that the projects go forward. That is the exact same mandate as the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB.”
“Now the government is finally waking up and realizing that maybe it should have set some money aside, but it is a bit late. When we compare Canada to other countries, it is pretty clear that those countries are in a better economic situation than we are. However, this raises a question. This sovereign wealth fund will have to be paid back. At the very least, if it is not paid back, the interest on the debt will have to be paid. How will the government pay the interest on the debt? If it cannot generate enough revenue to cover the cost of the debt associated with this sovereign wealth fund, what will ultimately happen? People will continue to get even poorer. What is the government's plan for making money to enrich Canadians? What will the sovereign wealth fund be used for? It is going to be used to invest in Canada.”
“As members know, certain resources such as oil are non-renewable energy sources. Once oil wells have been depleted, that is it for oil. Some countries have been smart enough to set money aside. When the day comes that there is no more oil, they will still have money, instead of having spent it all. They will be able to continue helping their citizens. For example, they will be able to embark on an energy transition, as well as an economic transition, simply by setting money aside in all sorts of ways to continue funding the public services they want to provide to their people. In this case, we are still wondering where all the cash reserves from Canada's oil industry went. The answer is simple. Not a single penny was set aside. All of it got squandered.”
“Things have reached a point where the entirety of the GST is being used to pay interest on the debt. Not only that, interest on the debt is going to exceed the amount that Ottawa spends on health transfers. Soon, no one will be able to go to the hospital anymore. Actually, people will still be able to go to the hospital, but Ottawa will be too deeply in debt to keep paying its share of hospital costs. What will the government do then? It will cut transfers to the provinces. Still, it has a sovereign wealth fund. Generally speaking,what is the point of a sovereign wealth fund? A sovereign wealth fund is often set up by countries that want to put money aside when they have surpluses in order to avoid creating hyperinflation in their country or in case certain resources currently being developed are no longer available in the future.”
“They just took $25 billion and are going to issue bonds, but they are forgetting something: the interest payments. There is something else they are forgetting. There is now a sovereign wealth fund, this $25 billion, and they are going to have to do something to pay the interest. That is the Liberals' gamble. They tell us that, since we have $25 billion, we are rich. In fact, we are not rich, we just have debt. That is on top of the already monstrous debt that Canada has accumulated over the years, particularly under the previous Liberal government, which is still in power today. This government has been around for more than 10 years. I cannot wait to see which way this is going to go over the course of the next three years, because it is starting to be alarming.”
“That is bad news for the Liberals, but it does not matter because they have a majority. That is unfortunate, because if the government did not have this much-vaunted majority, then perhaps it would avoid making mistakes like this one. The Liberals are introducing the sovereign wealth fund as though they just reinvented sliced bread. They are saying that there are plenty of other countries in the world that have sovereign wealth funds and that by setting up such a fund, Canada will be able to get rich like those countries. If I go to the bank and borrow $200,000 because I want to buy a bigger house or do renovations at home, I am not richer the next morning, because I took on $200,000 in debt. That is exactly what the Liberals just did.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are here today to discuss the Conservatives' opposition motion on the new so-called sovereign wealth fund, or the Canada Strong fund, which the Liberals announced in their economic update. In short, the Conservatives' motion, which is a page long, argues that this fund should not exist and that the government should abandon it to limit our debt load, rather than increasing it. There is one thing that I have to point out right away to those who are here today. It is not every day that the Bloc Québécois agrees with the Conservatives. In fact, that is a rather rare occurrence. I think the fact that I am announcing my intention to vote in favour of the Conservative motion really says something, and I think most members of my party intend to do the same.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary 's argument is essentially that we should have a sovereign wealth fund here because other countries also have sovereign wealth funds. However, what he is forgetting is that those other countries use surpluses instead of debt to build up their sovereign wealth funds. It is a bit like if I were to buy a house that costs three times the price I can afford. Let us say I buy a house for $10 million and I make $50,000 a year, because I wanted to be like my neighbour, who makes $300,000 a year. Does it make sense to do something I cannot afford to do simply because my neighbour did it?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the member opposite. The government talks about a sovereign wealth fund, but we know perfectly well that this fund is only masquerading as one. Sovereign wealth funds exist in almost every country of the world. They are based on savings and what people decide to put away for future needs. In this case, however, the fund is based on debt, not savings. My questions for my colleague opposite are as follows. How much debt has Canada taken on to create this phoney sovereign wealth fund? How much is this extra debt going to cost taxpayers annually?”
“Mr. Speaker, among other things, this so-called sovereign wealth fund—so called because that is the tagline the liberal government baptized it with—is tasked with investing in projects selected by the Major Projects Office. The thing is, the Prime Minister himself is the one who decides what projects to send to the Major Projects Office. We were told the sovereign wealth fund would be independent, but how can it be independent if the Prime Minister is the one choosing which projects to fund?”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Liberal chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the member for Vaudreuil. Two days ago, he posted on social media that he was the guest of honour at an event organized by a group that promotes Driver Inc., namely the CTOA. The committee just completed a study on the loss of life. It just heard testimony from victims. It just heard the entire trucking industry denounce this public danger, and yet the committee chair still shows up at this group's events. Why are the Liberals and that committee chair promoting Driver Inc. instead of banning them?”
“I am proud to have been there for its inauguration 10 years ago. In closing, I would like to offer the entire organization, as well as its president, René Béland, my warmest congratulations on this 50th anniversary.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to mark the 50th anniversary of an organization in my constituency, the Association de Chasse et Pêche de Contrecoeur. The organization, which mainly brings together duck hunting and ice fishing enthusiasts, is renowned for its famous Festival de la Brimbale, where a temporary village is set up on the river during the brief period when the St. Lawrence freezes over. These are magical moments that allow both enthusiasts and those who dabble to get together with family and friends in a setting like no other. People from all generations head outdoors during the coldest part of winter to enjoy nature and all it has to offer together. The association holds a significant record, and not just any record at that. Since 2016, it has held the record for the world's largest tip-up, or brimbale .”
“Mr. Speaker, I note that the member opposite is an MP for Nova Scotia and that he is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport for the Liberal government. I am stating that information because the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-28 , addresses the need for Canada to develop its satellite launch and aerospace capabilities, among other things. I think this is a laudable objective, but in his speech, the MP spoke almost exclusively about how important this is for Canada and for Nova Scotia. He completely ignored the fact that more than 40,000 people work in the aerospace sector in Quebec and that Quebec is truly a leader in this cutting-edge technology. I would like to know whether I should be concerned about my colleague's speech, and I would like to know if there is a place for Quebec in all of this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on the bill with my colleague when we get to committee stage. My question for him is the following. We have a bill that is about 10 pages long and has almost no details on the government's real intentions. We are being told that everything will come through regulations. Does my colleague find that reassuring and does he think that is enough to turn this bill into a real law?”
“Madam Speaker, I am not entirely convinced. I need to have all the information before I can answer that, but if the past is any indication, it does not look good. We know that we have a government that likes to do things behind closed doors. To me, what matters is ensuring the highest possible level of accountability and transparency. I am hopeful that, during the committee review stage, amendments will be proposed that will allow us to ensure that going forward.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“(1110) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1105) 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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“This can lead to abuses if there is no adequate oversight. (1100) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“In the future, it may be necessary to reinstate the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency if space travel becomes very popular and there are a significant number of travellers. Does the minister see this as something that is intended to be permanent?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the minister on his speech and on introducing this bill. I do not know whether he drafted it himself, but in any case, I believe it was something that needed to be done. As we know, humans have been exploring space for 60 years now, yet Canada still did not have any framework legislation on this matter. Now that gap will be filled. With this bill, the minister is aiming to exempt projects from being subject to certain laws, including the Canadian Transportation Agency Act, which would not regulate space travel. While I can understand that not that many people will be travelling into space, that does not change the fact that this is part of a trend where the government is constantly trying to exempt certain projects or initiatives from certain laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has rightly pointed out, there has been a shift in the balance of power in Parliament, which is simply the result of a wave of defections. People have been lured by the prospect of power. We do not know what was promised to them, but I know there have been specific discussions regarding one MP who left the Conservatives to join the Liberals. Does my colleague have any details to share with us regarding the procedures or methods used by the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure , in particular, to make phone calls and promise people gifts in exchange for switching sides?”