Dan McTeague

[Middle East, February 9th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I think that question was made up as it went along.

I want to assure the House that the nature of our policy review is both complex and very comprehensive. As the hon. member will know, because one of his members is attending the situation as it unfolds in the Middle East, it is important to recognize that the idea of policy review with respect to foreign policy is important. It is comprehensive. Canadians were involved in this. It deals with a number of elements, including the right to protect in failing states, and of course the whole issue of globalization. These are critical issues and we take them seriously.

[Foreign Affairs, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had asked me two questions, I could have elaborated on the first. Let me tell the hon. member that an example of just how much the world is changing is the unprecedented end of hostilities that we are seeing in the Middle East today, showing the leadership of the foreign affairs minister.

The hon. member knows very well that there is a different world out there. He may not accept that but the reality is that a foreign policy review will take time. It is a collaboration of comprehensive discussions, discussions that took place in this country last year. We will continue, not to meet the hon. member's deadline, but to meet the deadline that puts Canada first in foreign policy--

[Foreign Affairs, February 7th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know, as well as everyone in the House, just how much the world has changed in the past 35 to 40 days. There was the situation that occurred in Ukraine and of course the tsunami.

It is important that we consult with all individuals in the world, with all experts, and that we get this right. Certainly the hon. member would not want to rush a very important document if he believes and treats it very seriously, as he does I am sure.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I am certain that the purpose of this bill is to clarify the use of the best technologies solely in the interest of our country, whether at the provincial or municipal levels or for commercial reasons.

Obviously exchanges of information will be possible, but this bill proposes a regulatory system to ensure that the people who gain access have valid reasons for doing so. I do not want to forget the purpose of the bill. I understand the hon. member's concern, but we must also take into consideration that when a satellite takes a picture of our country or any other place there is no division or separation, especially in terms of the disastrous problems that he mentioned earlier.

Furthermore, if a ship from another country is in the Hans Island region, which is Canadian territory, we still do not have the resources for immediate surveillance. It is very important on a national and international level to ensure that we know who is there and why they are there.

I think it would be not only cost-effective, but worthwhile to use this knowledge not necessarily for military purposes but for defence reasons, in order to ensure that the entire territory of our country is protected.

Another consideration is to learn whether our troops—who might be in Haiti or Afghanistan—are safe or facing some threat. We want to know that the people with access to this information have the proper authority and that they are not using it for harmful purposes.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure that the member knows that, even if I appreciate his comments to move this bill forward, I hope to have the opportunity to hear him and his colleagues from the Bloc at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I would also like to emphasize to the member that there are other advantages to this satellite. We see the ice melting, particularly in the Arctic. That has environmental consequences. In addition, this measure will help us monitor ecological aspects. Of course, this will also touch on some commercialization aspects.

However, we must stop thinking that this bill will have an impact on privacy or that it will be used for harmful purposes. I would not want to leave the House under the impression that this bill has defence or anti-ballistic purposes; instead, it has more valuable purposes, humanitarian purposes, namely understanding the drought we have in some areas of our country, as well as ecological repercussions elsewhere.

I am therefore asking the member to take into consideration the fact that the bill that we are proposing sets the tone for a better technological reality. However, the technological aims and objectives will also improve knowledge of our country and of the world we live in.

Given our intention of supporting the Kyoto Protocol, it is very important to be up-to-date so that we can not only solve problems that might exist, but also know exactly where we stand now. This would help us ensure that we have a better overview of our country as is is now, particularly in terms of peace

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Halifax for staying on topic and speaking so readily to the issue of the bill at hand.

I share her concerns with respect to privacy. For the record I want to make sure it is perfectly clear that the remote sensing satellites expected to be licensed under the proposed act are unlikely to possess sufficient performance capabilities to generate privacy concerns.

Should any future technology provide law enforcement agencies with imagery capabilities against which a reasonable expectation of privacy would exist, prior judicial authorization should be required.

I also want to assure the hon. member that our government is firmly committed to protecting the rights of persons afforded under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms against any unreasonable searches. It is important that the hon. member understand from a privacy perspective that we too of course would be vigilant. However, this does not have the technology to do what is perceived to be a concern as it relates to privacy.

I assure the hon. member that I know the distinction given my intervention on the FLIR decision, which was to accord with the Supreme Court of Canada to reverse the position on the forward looking infrared camera. I know and understand the distinction between what was said at the Superior Court of Ontario which was wrong, which turned out to be upended by the Supreme Court of Canada nine to nothing. I will take that kind of affirmation for my efforts any day.

I want to point out to the hon. member, as I said to other colleagues earlier, that the BMD satellites observe missiles in flight or on trajectories above the earth. Remote sensing satellites do not.

We can have the debate on BMD any time. The hon. member will know that I had a very thriving debate with her leader on Sunday. When given the facts, Canadians will arrive at the need to balance our sovereignty needs with the issues of security on BMD. They will make that decision through parliamentarians.

We will not be moved by those who believe that somehow this is the escalation of the arms race. Canada believes very strongly in the notion of prevention and protection as well. If missiles are going to fly above our territory, we want to know what is going on. We want to be at the table. We want to ensure that those missiles and the debris, whether it be chemical or warheads, does not fall on Canadians.

Every Canadian knows that North Korea attempted to do this. The mission failed. It wound up halfway over the Pacific Ocean. These are hard facts. Several nations, such as Iran, have refused to become part of the non-proliferation treaty. We saw what happened in New York in 2001. We know that it has cost Canadians $10 million to protect our security at the borders from that kind of attack.

I look forward to the hon. member's participation on this very important issue at committee. We will have an opportunity, as we are now, to deal with issues along the lines of proliferation and arms treaties and arms control. The foreign affairs committee is looking into that. I hope the points that we have made about privacy are ones which will meet with the hon. member's satisfaction.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I want to respond to the request of the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla relating to Norad. I can tell the hon. member that there is no formal relationship between RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2 with respect to Norad because that really deals with air defence issues, air missiles and so on, which is linked to the first point I made on BMD.

However there could be, and have been in the past, relationships with NATO which deals with our partnership with other nations in terms of defence as well as clients who will work from time to time, as our satellite is used, for NATO initiatives. I just wanted to give the hon. member an assurance that it is not for Norad but in fact for NATO if anything.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. critic for the Conservative Party for his comments with respect to second reading of this bill. He has raised a number of important issues, which I am sure we will have an opportunity to debate in committee, and ask officials to provide a comfort level to all members of Parliament.

The first issue which he raised of concern over was ballistic missile defence. I know there are some who have likened this initiative to BMD. This satellite is a remote sensing satellite. It is not a satellite that observes trajectories above the earth on whether missiles are moving in one direction or another. I want to dispel the myth that has somehow permeated certain individuals who believe it is. I want to give assurance to the House that it has nothing to do with that issue.

On the subject of BMD, I too, like the hon. member, am looking forward to a very healthy debate on this issue. I would also offer, as I have done to his representative on the committee, an opportunity for a briefing, which the Conservative Party has not taken up at this point. We would certainly like to offer an opportunity to discuss this matter more fully.

On the issue of privacy, there is no question of privacy. This legislation gives regulatory effect to those who should be licensed. The hon. member has perhaps spoken to this issue more frequently than any member in the House of Commons. On the subject of terrorism, we do not want clients who might use the information for heinous, distasteful, questionable and harmful ends. I think the hon. member would agree with that. It will not affect the privacy of Canadians, but we need to have a modicum of understanding of why the information is being used through commercial means.

Finally, on the subject of costing, the hon. member can be assured that we will give a costing. We all want to ensure that it is consistent with the modalities that the private sector expects, while taking into consideration the public's interest.

I realize there is not really a question there, but it may provide the member an opportunity to further comment on other areas that he thinks will be helpful to ensure that the bill passes.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, we will certainly have an opportunity to discuss the subject of commercialization.

Commercialization of this product will allow us an opportunity to work with the provinces cooperatively.

Satellite technology, as we all know, works above the earth. It works in terms of being able to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It would be ultra vires, to say the least, not to recognize it is profound, distinct, federal, national, but that is not to say that we will not work with the provinces.

Another thing I want to point out for the hon. member is with regard to her concern about the private use of data produced. She referred to this earlier. I want her to know that it will not regulate per se the private use of data. The legislation licenses the operator of the remote sensing satellite to protect the security and of course our foreign policy and defence issues that I raised a little earlier. It will not, however, apply to how end users make use of satellite data and images and create value added products.

Therefore, it really does not fall into the domain of privacy or to a great extent into the area that she is concerned about, provincial jurisdiction. We could probably get a better clarification at committee. I look forward to that.

[Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, December 7th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member, who also is Bloc critic for foreign affairs. She is quite able and she has obviously raised several questions to advance this matter before the committee. Her remarks are laudable. I must stress, yet again, that we will respond in adequate fashion to the member's concerns.

I would like to say and stress something regarding our remarks in relation to the provision of information to foreign countries. It is simply because we have a lot of ties with other countries. We have signed agreements with them under which we have an obligation to share information.

As to provincial jurisdictions, the other member of the Bloc already asked me that question a while ago. I stressed to him that when it concerns the provinces—because it has to do with commercialization when it is a question of the private sector—they still have an ability to find and get the answers that they want. However, we have no responsibilities when it comes to other countries.

Let me be perfectly clear on this. Canada has a number of treaty obligations with other nations as a satellite may pass over and inadvertently, for whatever reason, take pictures of another nation. We will of course share that with another nation.

While the hon. member will have some very valid questions to ask at the committee concerning the prospect of pictures being taken of something that falls within provincial jurisdiction, it could even fall within municipal jurisdiction depending on the circumstances.

I think we have done this already with respect to RADARSAT-1. There is already usage. There is custom. There is convention. This bill is really to deal with macro issues, international issues and defence issues, particularly in light of the fact that we have privatized the sector. I take the hon. member's point that these are important questions which we will have to debate and work with each other on at committee.

I am obviously awaiting the answer and I will pass it on to the Bloc member. There is also the matter of privacy. It is understood that this does not affect the question of the privacy of people in Canada.