Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-25 entitled an Act governing the operation of remote sensing spacesystems.
Space is a very popular issue these days. It is being raised today thanks to this bill governing the operation of remote sensing space systems that are, in fact, commercially owned.
First, I would inform the House that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of a bill dealing with this issue. It is a very complex issue, with various levels of difficulty. I recognize that the government and the various departments involved tried to do their homework here, but from our point of view, in the opposition, this bills raises some concerns. In fact, this is the first bill of its kind since I was elected to this House. I do not believe we have had any other bill before the House regulating the operation of devices, equipment and satellites in space. I think we are considering such a bill for the first time in Canada because a commercially owned satellite will be launched by the end of 2005 or in early 2006.
We know that, in the United States, there have been debates in the Congress and in the Senate for a number of years. However, I was interested in reading a fact that I think may also be of interest to viewers or readers. Until 1983, it was practically impossible for the Americans, who already wanted to ensure their pre-eminence in space, to think that satellites, including remote sensing satellites, could be privately owned. Knowledge and use of space were so linked to the national role of defence or pre-eminence that it was the American government that had to capture it or settle there.
However, at the time when other countries had sent commercial satellites into space, and the United States had also started to try to reduce the deficit, specifically under Bill Clinton, they began to let high resolution commercial satellites be developed. Until then, there were commercial satellites, but not high resolution ones. We find ourselves with RADARSAT-2, a high resolution commercial satellite.
We appreciate the fact that the Canadian government was also reluctant. The drafting of the bill clearly indicates to us that the government feels responsible, in some way, for the use of these satellites that might still play a “military or defence” role. I read, for example, that during the Gulf war, French satellites that were selling images to both sides suddenly withdrew these images, because they were playing a role in the war. There is nothing to prevent us from thinking that this could happen again.
This explains the difficult balance found in the bill between the national prerogatives of security and defence and commercial freedom, despite the government's desire to plan for the basics.
This is one of the reasons why I told you that we supported the adoption of an act. However, we are waiting with great interest to see what the committee has done because that will help us better understand how these responsibilities can work on the national, security and foreign affairs levels, and at the same time control a commercial use. And I have still not talked about the provinces.
I will give you an example of the powers the government wants to have. Clause 10(1) says:
The Minister may on the Minister’s own initiative, if the Minister is satisfied that the amendment is desirable, having regard to national security, the defence of Canada, the safety of Canadian Forces, Canada’s conduct of international relations, Canada’s international obligations and any prescribed factors, amend a licence with respect to any condition--
A little further, clause 13(1) says that the minister may, on the minister's own initiative, and I quote:
The Minister may make an order requiring a person whose licence is suspended or cancelled or has expired to take any measures related to the operation of the remote sensing space system that the Minister considers advisable--
Clause 14(1) says:
The Minister may make an order requiring a licensee to interrupt or restrict, for the period specified in the order, any operation, including the provision of any service--
However, at the end of the day, it does not really make itself accountable for the costs this could generate. So, I suppose that companies will want to take action and say, “Yes, but if we are forced to interrupt our operations and not proceed with orders, we will have to be compensated accordingly.”
The fact is that I have sought to show that there will be a need to check this whole aspect of using satellites that are allowed to be operated as commercial satellites for national purposes of security and defence.
The second aspect one wonders about has to do with the priority access that the government gives itself. Allow me to read an excerpt to explain what I mean.
By the way, I know that the parliamentary secretary has certainly read and studied the bill. However, he knows that its reading will not be easy, nor its interpretation. So, let me give you a little idea.
Subclause 8(4) of the bill reads as follows:
Every licence is subject to the conditions referred to in subsections (5) to (7), any prescribed conditions and the following conditions:
I now move on to paragraph c ). It is worth reading because it is important, including for provinces:
c) that raw data and remote sensing products from the system about the territory of any country—but not including data or products that have been enhanced or to which some value has been added—be made available to the government of that country within a reasonable time, on reasonable terms and for so long as the data or products have not been disposed of, but subject to any licence conditions under subsection (6) or (7) applicable to their communication or provision;
I would like to say to the hon. parliamentary secretary that we can understand that all is not perfectly clear. But what is clear is that any raw data and remote sensing products collected by the owners of satellite systems—we can think of RADARSAT-2—that are images taken over the territory of another country will have to be made available to the government of that country for so long as they have not been disposed of.
Let me put the question to the hon. parliamentary secretary. If this is how it is for territory subject to remote sensing, why would it not be the same for the territory of provinces? I think that this is an important question, and we say yes. Very good reasons will have to be put forward to convince us otherwise.
Let me continue to show how complex this bill is. The government's own press release of November 23 states:
Canadian remote sensing satellites provide important information on the distribution of groundwater, minerals and oil and gas deposits, oceanography, cartography, geology, hydrology, agriculture, forestry and disaster response and mitigation.
The areas listed are, in large part, areas of provincial jurisdiction. There are even some governed by provincial legislation. So, the satellites could provide information for sale to private buyers, who could use this information to defend themselves against a provincial government that does not have the same data. Or else, the province would have to buy everything, which makes no sense. There is a very practical problem here.
I repeat that this is what the release says. We know that the main areas where these images and data will be collected are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Now, moving from security purposes to commercial purposes.
The release reads further:
Natural resource industries currently make use of satellite images to monitor crops and forest growth and to gain information about groundwater, minerals and oil and gas deposits.
I was thinking of Hydro-Québec's retention basins, that they have always wanted to keep secret. From what I understand, these high-definition images could expose the secret, without Hydro-Québec even knowing.
You will understand that we are at the questioning stage, but we need to take time on it. Fortunately we know that RADARSAT will be not launched before the end of 2005. However, since this will be the first time there will be regulations governing such a situation, we will need to really sit down and decide what to do.
There is one dimension that is not affected in the least, though it seems to me that it could be. The bill has been created on the occasion of the launching of RADARSAT-2, yet I understand that this is not the only thing it will cover. It will certainly be of use to other private entrepreneurs who would like to get into this field.
Even if this is remote sensing equipment, coupling infrared with this improved definition could provide them with images that would start to involve personal information, and there is nothing on this in the bill. An answer to that question will certainly be needed.
While we are dealing with space, we also need to look at the international aspect of these commercial remote sensing satellites. My clever researcher has found a text for me on the Foreign Affairs site, one that is most interesting, although it is indicated that the views are those of the author alone. This is a paper on the legal aspects of satellites and remote sensing.
The author portrays the situation by putting countries in three groups. The first group is made of only one country, the United States, which is way ahead of everybody else and is expected to have 1,000 commercial satellites in space within 10 years. Therefore, space defence will become even more important to them.
The second group is made up of countries like France, some member states of the European Union, India and China that have evolved technologically and might collectively, if not individually, use all their powers in the areas of space and remote sensing.
And then there are the so-called rogue states that are interested in upsetting the order that we want to institute there. Based on this, the author, Mr. Salin, comes up with the following proposal:
For now, it is interesting to note that a club of about ten countries control high resolution remote sensing. They include the United States, Russia, France, Canada, Japan, China, Israel and India.
I remind the House that the United States is in the first group. He continues:
It is still possible to try to get them to reach an agreement governing the further development of this market in everyone's interest.
He suggests:
Canada could play a leadership role and take advantage of its friendly relations with all of these countries.
He adds:
We could have an agreement, like the one banning anti-personnel landmines, that would govern the commercialization of high resolution images so that it follows some rules...
I see that my time is up and, since we are no longer the official opposition, I will yield the floor to my hon. colleague.
I think I have explained why we are in favour of some kind of legislation, but we will have a lot of questions to ask in committee. Lastly, we will wait until third reading to take a general position on this bill.