Bill Siksay

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am worried about the answers that I just heard from the parliamentary secretary. It now looks like the $5 billion is negotiable.

The Liberal member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing said as much in his speech earlier this evening. He said that he thought there was some wriggle room around the $5 billion owed to Canada because of the dispute with the United States. He used the words “wriggle room” when he talked about the $5 billion, and we should negotiate away some of the money we won in the dispute settlement mechanism.

We now have the government backing away. We heard this today in question period. I understand why the member for Vancouver Island North was all of a suddened concerned about the $3.5 billion figure. Where did that come from? Clearly, the government is backing away again from its commitment to stand by this negotiation and to stand by what is owed Canadians in this industry, and industry that has been so hard hit by the illegal action of the United States.

I find it unbelievable that we are going down that road. Now we are willing to negotiate away the money that is owed to Canada.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is great that we have the support of the President of Mexico in this dispute, but it is not his fight. It is not his problem that this agreement is not working for Canada. It is not his problem that our softwood lumber industry is taking this terrible hit from the Americans.

It is great that former President Clinton says great things to support us as well, but it is not his fight either. This is our dispute with the United States and our government needs to show leadership on it.

This dispute is not going to be resolved by President Fox or ex-president Clinton. It has to be resolved by the government and Canadians. If we do not stick up for ourselves and do more than just talk, do more than just make phone calls, or do more than plan trips to shopping malls to convince Americans that somehow we have been hard done by, then we will get nowhere. The negotiations will continue with the Americans and they will continue not to abide by the existing agreements let alone anything we come to down the road.

We keep hearing that the NDP would tear up the NAFTA. That is not our position. We said that we needed to ensure that it worked for Canadians. If it needs to be changed because it is not working, then it needs to be fixed.

The NAFTA is not working for Canadians. The binding dispute settlement mechanism is not working for Canadians because we won the decision. The Liberals keep saying that we won and that is great. However, what do we have to show for it? Absolutely nothing. This agreement clearly is not working for Canadians. It needs to be renegotiated and reworked so it will work for us.

We are not in this to improve the United States position. Earlier a Liberal member said that we were out to create a wonderful continent. Canadians want us to stick up for Canadian interests before we worry about American interests. That is my stand.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to participate in this debate this evening on the softwood lumber dispute with the United States. This is an important debate and an important issue for the people of British Columbia, my home province, and the people of my riding of Burnaby--Douglas.

Burnaby--Douglas is not home to a significant part of the lumber industry in B.C. but folks in Burnaby--Douglas know the importance of that industry to our province, communities in the interior, Vancouver Island, the coast, and the thousands of workers in British Columbia.

They know that we are intimately connected with their success and their ability to participate in this important industry. They know that in British Columbia we have lost over 20,000 jobs because of this dispute. They know that $4 million a day is bled from our economy because of this dispute. They know that is not good for them, for British Columbia or for Canada. They also know that this dispute is so important that continued inaction cannot be tolerated.

There has been a long series of clear decisions in Canada's favour. NAFTA includes a binding dispute settlement mechanism. That was negotiated as part of the deal. It was signed off by both Canada and the United States. It is binding. It was set up to be binding on the signatories. That is what is not happening at this point in this discussion.

The debate in the House in the last few days has been truly bizarre. We have heard the Liberals declare over and over again that NAFTA must be respected. We have heard that phrase constantly. It is the mantra of the trade minister that NAFTA must be respected. Every answer practically includes that phrase.

The Prime Minister, at his press conference yesterday, said in a very grave voice that NAFTA has spoken. That is all well and good, but what does it really mean? Repeating it over and over is not going to make it happen.

Yes, NAFTA has spoken and spoken clearly in terms of support for Canada's position, but the reality is that the Bush administration has spoken as well and it has said, “We could care less what NAFTA says. We could care less about Canada's position. We're not conceding. We're not repaying the illegal duties collected on Canadian lumber”.

Let us talk about respect. The people of Burnaby--Douglas and most Canadians know lack of respect when they see it. They see it very clearly in the actions of the Bush administration to not live up to the provisions of its agreement with Canada.

Canadians know a lack of self-respect when they see it. They see it in the failure of the Liberal government to stand up for this country. The inaction of the Liberals is ultimately seen as a sign of lack of self-respect. Either the Liberals believe that we are right and that we are standing on firm ground or they do not. To continue to negotiate, to continue all of these other talks, to continue with phone calls, and to have advocacy plans is an indication that they do not believe that we are right.

What has the Liberal government actually done? There has been lots of talk. There has been lots of spin, but no action. There was that famous phone call and we heard about it tonight. We keep hearing justifications for the phone call that the Prime Minister finally made to George Bush, the phone call that took weeks to actually get organized and be made.

Last week in the House we were debating the do not call list bill which is about unwanted telemarketing calls. In that debate I suggested that there were a number of do not call lists in the Liberal government offices. There was clearly one in the Prime Minister's Office that delayed and delayed that call to President Bush. Do not call lists seem to exist and they seem to exist in the Prime Minister's Office. A phone call is just not enough. It is just not an appropriate response. It was too little, too late, and it appears that it was totally ineffective.

What does the NDP propose instead? We were clear in August just after this final binding decision was made. The NDP had a three point plan and we have made that clear since August. Back in August we called on the Prime Minister to recall Parliament. We were prepared to come back from our summer work in the constituencies and our holidays last August because we understood the urgency of this issue. We were prepared to get back to work on this issue. We were prepared to debate this issue in August, not October. It seems to have taken months to get this on the agenda of the House.

Second, NDP said that we should stop the deep integration negotiations, the further negotiations that we were having with the United States around integrating our approaches to things like food safety, air safety and security. There is no excuse for going further down that road when the U.S. does not play by the rules we have already negotiated with it.

Third, we said we would impose an energy levy and lay down some export duties on our oil exports to the United States. We know that we are now its largest oil supplier, having replaced Saudi Arabia.

Those were three concrete actions that we believed would have gotten the attention of the Americans and indicated that we were serious about standing up for this decision and our country. We did that because we understood the importance of strong leadership on this matter. We know that weakness will only see us taken advantage of further. This week an Ipsos Reid poll confirmed that Canadians agree with our suggestions and agree with them overwhelmingly.

I want to note the order here. Unlike other parties, my party's leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, took a strong stand, put forward a clear plan of action, and showed leadership. Later, the polling showed that Canadians agreed with us. Far too often in this place it is the other way around, where the government continuously polls to find out what people are thinking and then acts in light of that.

The polling last week showed that 80% of British Columbians support taking action in the form of imposing an energy levy. Overall, that poll showed that 77% of Canadians, a majority in every region of the country, supported restricting energy exports to the U.S. if Washington did not back down.

Canadians are prepared to take that risk and they know there is a risk involved. Canadians understand the challenges of living next door to the United States, but they do not want more negotiations. They want the agreement to be honoured. They want the dispute settlement mechanism and its decision respected.

They do not want to send a special envoy, as the Conservatives suggest, because to negotiate when we won would be wrong. To negotiate further new arrangements, as the Conservatives suggest, with the folks who do not respect the current arrangements would be wrong.

Canadians do not want the Prime Minister to look for signs that the U.S. is willing to abide by NAFTA. They do not want the Prime Minister looking for hints or reading between the lines or interpreting American statements optimistically.

Canadians want the government to have the courage of its convictions and the convictions of Canadians on this issue, and hold the U.S. to account for the $5 billion in illegal duties it has collected from Canada, and for the damage it has done to our communities and economy. Canadians want us to hold the U.S. to the agreement it signed with us and they want us to get on with that now.

I want to digress for just a moment to speak about another international agreement that the U.S. is not upholding. I had the pleasure, as did the member for Yukon, last night of seeing the film Being Caribou . It is the story of the porcupine caribou herd that is endangered by U.S. plans to drill for oil on the calving grounds in northern Alaska.

In the panel following the film, the member for Yukon noted that the U.S. was refusing to appoint its representatives to the joint herd management council established by a treaty between Canada and the U.S. It is doing this at a time when perhaps even later this week the U.S. Congress will pass legislation to give the go-ahead to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Again, there is that question of respect for agreements between Canada and the U.S. and another example of the lack of respect that the Bush administration shows for its treaties with Canada. I appreciate that the government is taking a strong stand on this issue, but at some point when the very survival of the herd is in question, that talk will look very cheap. I want to pay tribute to the member for Yukon for the work he has done on this, but we need to move it to the next level where we actually hold Americans accountable for the agreements they have signed with us.

The time for talk is long past on softwood lumber. The government has to get it together. It has to show some leadership. It has to show the Americans that we are serious about the agreements that we sign with them. Canadians want nothing less than that.

[Softwood Lumber, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, the hon. member kept stressing the need for a long term, durable arrangement. If NAFTA is not a long term, durable relationship negotiated freely between Canada and the United States, what the heck is it?

He is saying that we should enter into more negotiations with the United States for another long term, durable agreement when the one that we have, which his party thought was a long term, durable and successful agreement, does not seem to be working. His response to our inability to see that arrangement work properly is to enter into another set of negotiations to come up with another agreement that maybe the United States will just choose to ignore as well.

If NAFTA is not a long term, durable agreement, what the heck is it?

[Firefighters, October 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the unexpected opportunity to speak to Motion No. 153 which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should: (a) recognize all firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty in Canada; (b) support the proposed Canadian Fallen Firefighters Foundation mandate for the construction of a monument in the Parliamentary precinct containing the names of all Canadian firefighters who have died in the line of duty; and (c) send a message to the Senate acquainting the Upper House of the decision of this House.

I am very proud of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for moving this important motion. It makes a significant contribution and fills a gap in the way that we recognize people who serve our communities.

We heard today that there are 180,000 full time, part time and volunteer firefighters in Canada from coast to coast to coast. All of those men and women provide a crucial service to all of our communities.

This evening we have heard from other members about their personal experiences. They told stories of the heroic service of so many firefighters. We have also heard of the important role of firefighters in training and teaching others about the importance of fire safety in our communities. I think we all know of the important work of Canadian firefighters in that area.

The sad truth is that 800 firefighters in Canada have died on the job. They died running back into buildings when the rest of us were running out to save our necks. Those firefighters made the ultimate sacrifice. It is high time that here in Ottawa, in our national capital, we recognized their service and their deaths in the line of duty.

A high school friend of mine had a summer job working as a forest firefighter. Unfortunately and tragically she lost her life in a fire in northern Ontario in the mid-1970s. Her name was Jane Spurgeon. Like many others, she rose to the challenge of protecting our forests from fire and succumbed to the dangers of that position. I want to remember her contribution to our community and hope that she would be one of the people remembered by such a monument.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary mentioned the guidelines for monuments in the parliamentary precinct on Parliament Hill. He mentioned that there are some specific categories, but there are exceptions. One of my favourites is the Sir Galahad monument on Wellington Street just between Parliament Hill and the Prime Minister's Office. It also is an award for bravery and marks the death of someone while performing a heroic act. Back at the turn of the last century a young man sought to rescue a woman who had fallen through the ice while skating on the Ottawa River and he lost his life rescuing her.

We have already established a precedent of recognizing that kind of heroic activity with a monument on Parliament Hill. I think a monument would be only fitting. The amendment on which we are awaiting the Speaker's ruling suggests that the monument could be located anywhere in the national capital region, but there is a precedent for recognizing heroic activity with a monument even here in the parliamentary precinct. I think that the monument to that man in the form of Sir Galahad is an important and instructive one for us here in the House as we consider this motion.

I also want to pay tribute to the Burnaby firefighters and the Burnaby Professional Fire Fighters Association. The people of Burnaby—Douglas know the important contribution they make to our community and the security they offer to people knowing that they are there, on the job and ready to be of assistance whenever necessary, day or night, any time of the year.

We place an incredible responsibility on the shoulders of firefighters. We know that in any kind of trouble the firefighter is someone we can go to for assistance, who will have specific training and be able to help out no matter what the situation is. We see them act in all kinds of situations and not just fires.

Recently I was honoured to participate in the presentation of the long service awards to Burnaby firefighters who had served our community for 25 years, 30 years and I believe even 35 years. They have remarkable records of service to our community. I know there are hundreds, if not thousands of firefighters across the country who have also made that kind of commitment both to their profession and their communities.

The men and women of the Burnaby Fire Department participate in probably hundreds of community events where they perform voluntary services. I attended two of them recently. One was the Burnaby library summer reading club where the firefighters held one of their locally famous pancake breakfasts. People often see folks from the fire department helping out at community events.

I remember being at the platform when the opening ceremonies began and the firefighters were asked to do the honour of drawing some of the prizes out of one of their large rubber boots. As they were doing that, a call came in and they all had to depart in a big hurry to go to a fire. We were all reminded of the importance of the fast response of our firefighters, even at that kind of an occasion.

Recently, firefighters were present at the Burnaby Heights on the Run, a long distance run that is held in the neighbourhood around the area of my constituency office. I know all of the merchants from the Heights Merchants Association and the neighbourhood activists very much appreciated the firefighters' participation in that specific event. We almost take them for granted. We know when there is a big community event that Burnaby firefighters are going to be there to assist and make it a fabulous occasion for everyone who comes out. Firefighters in communities all across the country have a high understanding of public service.

I think that Canadians can afford to be generous when it comes to the pension and training needs of firefighters. Often firefighters have had to fight for the best kind of training when it comes to dealing with hazardous materials, hazardous situations, or specialized kinds of fires. They have often had to work extra hard to have the training made available to them consistently across the country.

I do not believe there is any excuse for withholding that kind of training for the men and women who put themselves on the line and in danger to assist communities when those sorts of risks arise. I would urge us to always take that kind of request for professional development very seriously. There is no excuse for not offering that kind of assistance and training.

We also need to recognize the special pension needs of firefighters because of the risks they put themselves in on the job and the special dangers and hazards in the kind of work they do. We need to recognize that firefighters are often subject to specific health conditions because of their work. We need to go out of our way to recognize their service to the community by ensuring that they have the best possible pensions and disability arrangements.

In this regard, the amendment is also very important because certainly the people of Burnaby—Douglas and I think all Canadians want to ensure that the families of firefighters who die or are disabled on the job are taken care of. That is why the other part of the amendment is very important. It would establish a benefit that would be awarded to the families of fallen or permanently disabled firefighters. That puts real meaning into our commitment to recognize firefighters who have fallen in the line of duty in Canada. It is an important contribution to the debate this evening.

I want to conclude with another tribute to the men and women of the Burnaby Fire Department for the incredible work and service they offer to our community. I look forward to seeing them in the near future at yet another community event.

[Trade Compensation Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this debate is before the House tonight. I hope it will continue. I believe Bill C-364 is an important bill that should be sent to committee to be discussed further and in greater detail.

This is an industry and these are communities that have been hit particularly hard by the inaction of the Liberal government to deal with the problems of NAFTA and the problems that the Americans have set up for us in that arrangement.

It is important that we go forward with this and have a thorough debate. It probably needs some safeguards, but in principle it is an important discussion to have.

Would the member support a broader discussion about legal aid in Canada, since we are talking about legal aid to corporations? Would he support the idea that the federal government should be supporting individual Canadians who often have to forgo a legal remedy because they cannot afford to have their matters solved in court or cannot afford representation in court?

For instance, should a woman living on a low income not have legal aid support when she has to go to court to discuss a divorce or a custody arrangement? Should people living in poverty not have access to that same kind of support that is so important for this industry?

[Telecommunications Act, October 19th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, when I heard we would be discussing do not call lists today, I became a little excited because I thought we might get to the bottom of why President Bush seemed to be on the Prime Minister's do not call list for so many months when we had the crisis in softwood lumber. It took months and months to get that first phone call in. Or, why the provincial government seems to be on the health minister's do not call list when it comes to enforcing the provisions of the Canada Health Act around credit card medicine or for profit clinics. Or, why the finance minister in British Columbia is on the immigration minister's do not call list when it comes to ensuring that the money sent to B.C. for settlement services is actually spent on settlement services. Or, why in my own riding the Norman Bethune housing co-op is on the housing minister's do not call list when it comes to getting help to fix the leaky building situation that it faces.

There are a lot of do not call lists around this place that merit some of our investigation. However I am really glad that we are dealing with Bill C-37 because it is important legislation to many people in my constituency. It was something I heard a lot about during the past election campaign and is certainly something I support strongly. I congratulate all the members of the committee and, in particular, the member for Windsor West, on the hard work they have done on this. It certainly sounds like there was a real spirit of cooperation among the committee members.

This afternoon the member for Windsor West said a couple of times that he thought the legislation was a first step and that there were still some serious problems that he tried to change with regard to charities that were included in the legislation. I wonder if he might comment a little further on what next steps need to be taken and about the charity situation.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie for an excellent speech on this important subject matter. I was particularly interested in his concerns around the private sector and its involvement in this project. I am interested in how that combines with our concerns about the vagueness of this legislation and the fact that the NDP, through our critic from Halifax, was not able to get greater clarity about certain provisions of the legislation, certain key facts in the legislation, especially given the sensitivity of this kind of technology.

I think we only have to look back to the outcry from Canadians when this government moved to let Lockheed Martin take over the census. There we had a situation where another American corporation, one with a connection to the military industry, a private sector corporation, was going to be given access not only to an important task in Canadian society but also to important information and important data. There was a huge outcry from Canadians, including people from Burnaby—Douglas, who found this an absolutely outrageous proposition, yet it does not seem that the government has learned anything from that experience.

Here we are going down that road again, in perhaps a slightly different way, but we are having these discussions about a private corporation controlling very sensitive information and very sensitive technology and we are not being very clear about the requirements around that.

I wonder if the member for Sault Ste. Marie might just comment on the parallels he sees there or expand further on his concerns about the private sector and this kind of technology and information.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that makes me fearful is just the process. We heard from many witnesses, individuals and organizations at the committee and their concerns were not addressed by the legislation or by the amendments to the legislation. They were not addressed in the original legislation and they were not addressed by the amendment process. Eighteen of the amendments proposed by the member for Halifax, the NDP representative on the committee, were not accepted.

All of that testimony went for naught. All of the concerns, even the concerns of RADARSAT International that were raised about the vagueness of the legislation in key areas did not get addressed through that part of the legislative process. That raises a serious question about the legislation and about the commitment of the government around the legislation. For me that is the most serious failing and that causes me great concern about Bill C-25.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, October 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-25, an act governing the operation of remote sensing space systems. This is an important piece of legislation before the House and one in which the NDP's foreign affairs critic, the member for Halifax, has taken a very keen interest. She participated in the various discussions in committee on this legislation.

The summary of the bill states:

This enactment regulates remote sensing space systems to ensure that their operation is neither injurious to national security, to the defence of Canada, to the safety of Canadian Forces or to Canada’s conduct of international relations nor inconsistent with Canada’s international obligations.

In order to accomplish this, the enactment establishes a licensing regime for remote sensing space systems and provides for restrictions on the distribution of data gathered by means of them. In addition, the enactment gives special powers to the Government of Canada concerning priority access to remote sensing services and the interruption of such services.

It is clear that this is important legislation and covers an important piece of technology that is very sensitive in our world these days.

There are some very important issues that must be raised in relation to this bill. At second reading the NDP did not take a clear position on the bill. We wanted to hear what the discussion was at committee. We wanted to hear from various organizations and individuals about what they saw was important in this legislation, although we did understand the basic underlying need for the legislation. We agreed with some aspects of the bill, but the vagueness of the language in this bill raises alarm bells about how the government intends to use the legislation.

The member for Halifax was impressed by the many arguments and witnesses who appeared before the committee. She believes that had the government truly listened to the many witnesses who raised serious concerns regarding things like transparency, accountability and the privacy of citizens, the NDP would not be voting against Bill C-25 at third reading.

One key aspect of that is the privacy of citizens. Everyone will notice that when I read out the summary of the bill it outlined many of the causes of concern that this bill was intended to address, but the privacy of individual Canadian citizens was not part of that list. We think that is a serious omission from the legislation.

I want to be clear that RADARSAT-2 is a commercially owned satellite. It is billed by its manufacturer, MacDonald, Dettwiler & Associates, as incorporating state of the art technology, featuring the most advanced commercially available radar imagery in the world. That is a pretty dramatic claim and technology that we understand is not over-embellished. This satellite will do what it is billed as capable of doing.

We also want to be clear that the Canadian taxpayers have funded approximately 75% of the development of the satellite. That is $450 million of Canadian tax dollars that were invested in the satellite that will be 100% commercially owned.

I know that raises other serious concerns. What is the involvement of the Canadian Space Agency or why is there not any involvement of the Canadian Space Agency in the control and development of this satellite? I know other opposition members have also raised that concern with regard to RADARSAT-2.

We agree with the government that Canadians need to be reassured that information collected by RADARSAT-2 would not be used against our national interest and that is why we agree with the overall necessity of this legislation. However, as I said, we are concerned with the way it has been presented.

We want to make sure that the purchasers of RADARSAT-2 imagery are subject to licensing requirements but within that we also believe some clarity was desperately needed. To that end, the NDP put forward 18 amendments that would have helped clarify the intention of this bill and the requirements of the use of this technology and the information that it provides.

In committee, the NDP proposed that we define vague and unaccountable terms like “international obligations” and “international relations” more clearly and definitively. The NDP supports the government in having priority access to RADARSAT-2 images, but the vagueness of the two terms “international obligations” and “international relations” leaves the door open so wide that apparently even RADARSAT International, which was consulted several years before parliamentarians had access to the bill, requested that these terms be better defined. When RADARSAT International believes that there is a vagueness in the legislation and a vagueness in the proposal it behooves us to be very clear and respond to that concern.

The NDP, as part of our work and our critic's work at the committee, suggested that this required cabinet decisions and not solely ministerial decisions on issues where international obligations and Canada's national interest collide. We wanted to make sure that these decisions around these important issues would be taken at the highest possible and not by individual ministers.

The NDP also proposed that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of International Cooperation have the same privileges as the Minister of Foreign Affairs since the majority of RADARSAT-2 images would be used in cases of national disasters at home and around the world.

We wanted to make sure that the ministers who had direct responsibility in the situation of responding to a natural disaster had equal call on the information provided by this technology and that they did not have to work through another department an all that it implies.

The NDP also suggested that we subject the sale of RADARSAT-2 images to export control guidelines to ensure that images are not sold to nations that work against Canada's best interest. I think that is a clear and straightforward suggestion and for the life of me I do not understand why it would not have met with some success at committee.

The NDP also put forward an amendment at committee which did not go forward that a detailed annual report on corporations that violate controls on the use of RADARSAT-2 images and the government's effort on an annual basis to prosecute violators be required. In other words, we were pressing for better accountability and transparency on matters of national importance.

Given the sensitivity, the ability of this technology to zero in literally on the everyday activities of Canadians and indeed people around the world, I think accountability and transparency given the national importance and national interest in this was desperately required.

It is important to note that RADARSAT International has sold imagery from RADARSAT-1 to the U.S. military. This information may have been used by the United States in its war in Iraq. I think that is a concern that many Canadians have. This is a war that most Canadians do not support and we want to make sure that Canadian technology is not being used to support the illegal war in Iraq. If the legislation does not address these kinds of issues then it is severely flawed.

Canadians deserve to have an ironclad assurance that the government approved sale of RADARSAT-2 imagery will not be sold to the U.S. for war, for promoting war or for any other military purpose that Canadians do not support. I think this is the bottom line with many Canadians. We do not want to participate in any way in an illegal war like the one that is currently being fought in Iraq.

It is worrisome that the government also saw an obvious link that one can make to the use of RADARSAT-2 as part of the U.S. ballistic missile system. It raised this directly. It is no wonder that the first words out of the mouth of departmental officials were words assuring us that there was no connection between RADARSAT-2 and missile defence.

It is interesting that this concern was the first issue raised by departmental officials when they appeared before the committee to discuss the legislation. It goes to show why we need absolute clarity and detailed assurance within the legislation that this RADARSAT-2 technology would not be used as part of the U.S. ballistic missile system, as part of the star wars proposals that come out of the United States.

Canadians have also been extremely, utterly and absolutely clear that they do not want any part of the star wars program.

The NDP also urged the government that it must be clear in the House and in committee when it states in the priority access clause of Bill C-25 that such access is warranted if “the minister believes on reasonable grounds it is desirable for the conduct of international relations or in the performance of Canada's international obligations”. Those were the terms that were not defined sufficiently to allow us the ability of supporting the legislation.

I mentioned earlier the privacy of citizens. Given the ability of this technology to zero in on individual activities and on individual locations within the space of about a metre and half, I think it is really important that Canadians be assured that their privacy is a high priority within the legislation but there is not a clear delineation of that in the legislation.

A little while ago a colleague from the Bloc Québécois raised the whole question of foreign ownership and whether technology like this should remain 100% under Canadian control. That is an important concern and one that should have been addressed as well in the legislation.

Unfortunately, in working this bill through the parliamentary process and through the committee process, the government chose not to work constructively with opposition members on the committee. In fact, apparently some government members even objected strongly to holding hearings on the bill, which I think is very troublesome. Given the absolute importance of the legislation, the strong implications for privacy and for participation in military actions, I cannot imagine why any government member would try to block holding hearings and hearing from people who know this technology, who know its capacity and who have opinions and testimony to offer about the legislation. Thankfully, that did not carry the day.

Unfortunately, however, a lot of that testimony was ignored by the government, especially when the member for Halifax put some of those concerns into amendments to this legislation. They were turned down and did not go forward, so a lot of that important testimony was ignored.

Some of that behaviour just goes to confirm our concerns about the bill. It goes to show that those concerns perhaps are justified and that there is more going on here than meets the eye. We want to make sure that there is transparency and the attempts to block transparency, even in the discussions on the bill, certainly do not make us rest any easier about the legislation.

The government's refusal to take into account the advice of experts before who repeatedly expressed concerns with the vagueness of the legislation, the lack of transparency and accountability, and the exclusion of the Ministers of the Environment and International Cooperation from having any priority access to images unless they ask the permission of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to act on their behalf, is a very serious concern. That is a bottom line for the NDP. We have many concerns but those things form our bottom line and lead us to not support the legislation at this reading. The NDP will be voting against the legislation.

It is important legislation. It is important technology and very sensitive technology, and the NDP, after the process that we have gone through in the House of Commons and in committee, remain concerned about the legislation. We see many questions unanswered and still much vagueness in the bill which is less than helpful in the long run for Canadians.