Foreign Affairs Committee on April 15th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do we have a seconder for that?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Goldring might want to explain why to the committee.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Given the circumstances of what the issue is about, we've been listening to some commentary on it and there's some question as to whether it is national security--what it is. The nature of this motion seems to be instructing the minister to do something that he's clearly in the process of trying to make a decision on.

I think it would be best to go in camera so we can have a discussion on this issue within the committee without the general public being present. This is a possible national security issue. It's certainly about something that's important to Canada's sovereignty. Why would we want to have this discussion in the general public at large, and internationally, when we could very well deal with it ourselves within the committee meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In any event, Mr. Chairman, we are giving the House notice of this motion. There is nothing secretive or confidential about it. Can I speak to this motion? I have not yet had an opportunity to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have a motion on the floor, but I don't have a seconder yet to go in camera. Okay, we don't need a seconder.

Mr. Goldring, if you want to debate this motion because of your concerns that it might affect the market, or some of those things, I guess you have the right to make that motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Deschamps, do you want to bring forward your motion?

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We should not have to debate it for very long, since Mr. Lebel has already said that he was very pleased with his minister's decision not to put these assets up for sale and to stay the course. My motion is along the same lines. We will not need to debate it at length, since you have already voiced your opinion on the Industry Minister's decision.

Therefore, I ask that you call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You can call for a vote, but we need to have the debate on this first.

My intent here today is to deal with this motion; it's not to run out at 5:30.

Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chair, my intent is not to not cooperate or not to say anything that is otherwise, or not to waste the time of the committee. All I'm saying, in all earnestness, is that this motion should be dealt with at the industry committee. It specifically names the Minister of Industry. The industry committee has had four meetings on it, and we have had one.

The Bloc has also tabled this motion in the industry committee, not just here. So I'm questioning why we are duplicating the work when they're coming to the issue pretty much at the twelfth hour. How can the Bloc be so concerned about the national security of Canada?

However, I don't want to get into the political debate. I want to say it's in the industry committee, the Minister of Industry is responsible, he is dealing with it, they've had four meetings, we've had one. So I would request that my colleagues send it back to let the industry committee deal with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Khan.

Mr. Lebel and then Mr. Masse.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Earlier, I said that I was proud of the minister's decision. I think it is up to him to continue his work. As my colleague just noted, the matter has already been brought to the attention of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. We need to let the Minister of Industry do his job.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

Again, I think part of why this debate is important is that we leave the process to the ministers. I think that's what Madame Deschamps is saying here.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for dealing with this today.

As a member who sat on the industry committee for five years, I can tell you this is an important signal to the industry committee as well. We did deal with the Foreign Investment Review Act a number of times. In fact it took me three years to get the national security element included in that act.

I think this motion is important. We heard testimony from our two witnesses here who talked about the silo approach we have with regard to space and so forth.

Just to be brief, it's to say we support this motion. I think it's one that shows direction from this committee in an interest, and I hope it will be positive in addressing a wider problem that we face, which is having a more concentrated space strategy. This has been one of the issues that's raised the profile, and this is an opportunity for this committee to engage the industry committee on that and show interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

I have Madame Deschamps, then Mr. Goldring, and then Mr. Patry.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I want to thank Mr. Masse for his comments.

Mr. Khan finds it surprising that the Bloc Québécois is concerned about Canada's security. As far as I know, Quebec is still part of Canada and 25% of the Canadian population has concerns about this matter. I believe that we the members of the Bloc Québécois have a duty to raise these concerns in this forum.

If you have taken the time to carefully read this motion, Mr. Khan and Mr. Lebel, you will have noted that it reflects something that we would like to see happen. We want assurances of the Minister of Industry's commitment. I have served on other committees in the past and as committee members, we can convey our support to the Industry Minister.

This is not a setup. We are not endangering Canada in any way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Goldring, then Mr. Patry, and then Mr. Khan.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Chairman, from a point of order, I suppose, a point of view, this seventh report, did we pass this at the subcommittee? And if we did, on point number four here, it says that if the committee feels the need to hear more witnesses on the Radarsat-2 issue, they will hold a one-hour meeting on April 17, 2008.

If we have a possibility of having another one-hour meeting in the future, wouldn't that pre-empt the passing of this motion now? This motion is to go ahead with a supporting issue when very clearly in this seventh report here we're leaving the door open to having further discussion on it. What's the point of having further discussion on it if you're already making up your mind on what you want to do? You have a conflict.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

There are two separate pieces of legislation that concern Radarsat: the Canada Investment Act, which comes under the authority of the Minister of Industry, and the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, or RSSSA, which provides for a mandatory satellite operation licensing system. Pursuant to this act, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade is responsible for issuing, amending and renewing licenses. Both departments are involved in this and the fact that the two committees have passed the same resolution...We are not making any demands. We merely want him to stand by his decision.

The motion is worded in a very diplomatic way. Diplomacy is important in the field of foreign affairs and this motion smacks of diplomacy. I think that adopting a motion is a very nice way of conveying our support to the government. It is not every day that opposition parties support the government. This one time that I do actually support the government, I think it would be nice to adopt a motion to that effect.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

They should be jumping at the opportunity.

I think you should call the vote at this time, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Khan and Mr. Lebel. If there are no others after that, we will hear the question.

Mr. Khan.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

The minister has made the decision. As you know, the minister is very serious. Let's just let him do his job. Everybody is in agreement. There's nobody here who disagrees with the minister. This is important. The minister is addressing it, but he seriously has made his position clear. I suggest we have other matters as well that are there, and we should address those, and we should have some faith in the Ministry of Industry. They will do a decent job, but the minister has already decided in favour of...in the same vein as all of you believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Khan.

Mr. Lebel.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Patry, I am simply going to repeat what my colleague Mr. Goldring said earlier about respecting the witnesses and their testimony here today. Mr. Masse agreed with his comments.

The subcommittee's report mentioned the possibility of holding another one-hour meeting to hear testimony on Radarsat. In my opinion, if we want to continue working in the same spirit that Mr. Masse alluded to earlier, then we cannot move forward until we have completed our study of the Radarsat system and until we have heard from all of the witnesses.