Dan McTeague

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

Mr. Speaker, the proposed regulations would only affect a national, or federal, area of jurisdiction. As for satellites, their operation will be regulated because, as I explained earlier, the government transferred their ownership to the private sector.

I thank the hon. member for his question.

Six years ago, the federal government owned those satellites. In just a matter of a few years, they were transferred to the private sector. Because of this transfer, we have to make changes and ensure that the spinoffs of RADARSAT-2 are not used contrary to public or defence interest, as I have already explained.

As it relates to provincial jurisdiction, telecommunications is indeed a federal responsibility. If, however, the owners of the satellite are entered into civil arrangements through business, then of course this does fall into provincial jurisdiction. That is not something that this bill treats, nor should it treat. Federal jurisdiction over the skies is well understood and well based in constitutional law as being a matter which is a federal jurisdiction exclusively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to rise for the first time to speak at second reading of the bill on remote sensing space systems.

On Tuesday, November 23 the Government of Canada introduced legislation to regulate the operation of remote sensing space systems, satellites that can take detailed pictures of the earth and objects upon its surface.

Today I will explain why the proposed remote sensing space systems act is so important to Canada, to Canadians and to our friends abroad, both in terms of our own security and our international partnerships.

Members know that Canada became a world leader in remote sensing of the earth from outer space when it launched in 1995 its first remote sensing satellite system, the government operated RADARSAT-1.

A myriad of civilian applications for remote sensing satellites have since been developed in Canada. These include, for example, those for managing natural resources, monitoring the environment, and providing coastal surveillance and ice mapping services. Today Canadians service about 15% of the world's satellite-derived remote sensing market. Remote sensing contributes a meaningful portion of the annual $2 billion space industry.

In its 10th year of operation, RADARSAT-1 is still the most capable civilian synthetic aperture radar satellite in orbit. When RADARSAT-2, an even more capable Canadian system is launched by private owners and operators, it will move us that much further ahead of the competition. This proposed legislation seeks to maintain that Canadian leadership position.

At the beginning of the space age, when every launch of a satellite could result either in its noble ascent into space or its ignoble return to earth, only governments could afford such risky and costly adventures and activities. Remote sensing or imaging satellites were first developed and built in government laboratories. Leading edge development was done, for the most part, in secrecy.

Today however the exploration of space is rapidly becoming the exploitation of space. Wonderful achievements lie within the reach of private citizens, individual and corporate. These innovators can tap into vast stockpiles of commercially available technology based on expenditure of private financial capital. As a result, high performance remote sensing satellite data is widely available today, even more precise and useful than the data produced by the military reconnaissance satellites that helped to maintain the peace during the Cold War.

The security environment today has likewise changed in many different ways. Once, for example, the two rival superpowers observed each other using satellites in outer space. Today Canadians face new asymmetric threats from enemies that might seek to use the commercial availability of satellite imagery. Our security system for satellites must evolve in response to such developments.

Furthermore, Canada is a nation that relies on international cooperation to fill the space ambitions of its government and its private citizens. To help the Canadian private sector continue to pursue these important ambitions, a transparent regulatory regime is essential to securing access to sensitive technology and launch services. Gaining access to such technology and services often requires government guarantees to the supplier nation. The remote sensing space systems act will allow the government to provide these security guarantees to the benefit of Canadian business engage in activities of strategic value to our nation.

Let me introduce the contents of the bill for all members present. The remote sensing space systems act establishes a regulatory regime for remote sensing satellites, the facilities used to operate them, and the data and products produced by them. The regime licenses the operator of a remote sensing satellite system in Canada as well as Canadian operators who operate such systems outside of Canada.

The act, plus the regulations and licences issued pursuant to it, will set out conditions permitting the fullest beneficial uses of such satellites and the data they produce. At the same time, they will ensure that such operations are not injurious to our national security, harmful to the defence of Canada, or prejudicial to the safety of Canadian forces. We will also want to ensure that they will not be deleterious to Canada's conduct of international relations or at least inconsistent with Canada's international obligations.

The act requires licensees to make adequate provision for the protection of the environment and public safety through a disposal plan for the satellite at the end of its operational life. This plan is particularly important in protecting persons and property when satellites leave the earth's orbit. This approach will also help us to sustain our access to increasingly crowded orbits by reducing the chance of creating potentially dangerous space debris.

The operation of remote sensing space systems is inherently international in scope. Foreign partners may seek to participate in the operation of a Canadian licensed system. The proposed act makes provision for them to do so, but only in ways that promote and protect, and are consistent with Canada's security, defence and foreign policy interests. This is carried out by setting conditions for a licensee in the conduct of certain sensitive activities.

This act is consequently good for Canadian jobs at home, for trade in services abroad, and for building profitable relationships with our international partners overseas. It is important to note that the act does not reach down to touch customers of the licensee. This liberates those who legally receive data or products to enhance such products for their own use or to produce value-added products for subsequent re-sale.

This was done by design and with purpose. The myriad end-users of such data do not wish to be burdened and do not need to be burdened by unnecessary regulation.

Canada's security, defence and foreign policy interests do not require us to so burden them, as long as the flow of data and products are controlled by the licensee. This way we can permit the fullest access to the high value data and products produced by our cutting edge satellites. That is good for small and medium enterprises in Canada, and for market penetration abroad.

The bill also establishes means to enforce the act effectively and efficiently. Powers are established for inspectors to perform audits to ensure that satellite operations and data protection plans approved under the licence are being carried out. Compliance provisions are predicated largely on a system of administrative monetary penalties prescribed by regulation. To make the act more user-friendly, however, the bill also contains a new feature, namely, compliance agreements.

I will explain this. Should a licensee be given notice of a violation by an enforcement officer, it has the option to enter into an agreement to bring operations into compliance, in lieu of paying the penalty and without admitting a violation. In this way, the proposed act would encourage a licensee to continuously improve the security of its operations with investments rather than pay fines for violations.

Rarely does a regulatory regime accord so well with the business models and practices of the industry being regulated. The government is committed to smart regulation and the bill is a leading example of that very precise commitment.

The act would also grant certain special powers to certain ministers under emergency circumstances. The first such power covers the interruption of normal service. The second involves invoking priority access overriding normal service.

The government can foresee the need to interrupt or restrict a provision of data or products under urgent conditions. It is, for example, prudent not to permit adversaries to use our own systems against the men, women, equipment and facilities of our Canadian Forces acting in our defence. Consequently, the Minister of National Defence is granted the ability under the proposed act to order the interruption of services for the defence of Canada or to protect Canadian Forces at home or abroad.

Similarly, the foreign affairs minister is granted powers under the act to interrupt normal service when a continuation of operation by a licensed system would be injurious to Canada's conduct of international relations. For example, should the defence provisions of the NATO charter be invoked, the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have the necessary authority to assist in the protection of NATO forces. The use of these special powers is expected to be a rare event and can only be exercised by ministers of foreign affairs and national defence.

The United States of America has had similar powers available to it since 1992 under its landsat remote sensing act, but has never once invoked them. Prudence dictates, however, that such powers be available to the Government of Canada in a time of need.

The ordering of priority access service to satellite data is the reverse side of an order interrupting normal service. This power enables certain ministers or their deputies to “jump the order queue” at times when it is necessary to support a government response to emergencies or other urgent circumstances. The Ministers of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness are granted these special powers under the proposed act.

Of particular value is the ability of priority access to assist in emergency preparedness or critical infrastructure protection. It is important to stress that the government would use regular commercial services to fulfill its needs where possible, even during crises, but it is wise to keep powers in reserve, to guarantee the availability of imagery when emergency so demands.

With that introduction, I call on all my colleagues to pass the legislation and thereby authorize the implementation of these prudent and balanced measures. When high performance remote sensing satellites can produce data of military significance, the need for a reasonable degree of regulation to protect our own interests here in Canada is patently clear.

We have a responsibility to ensure that these capabilities do not harm our own security, defence or foreign policy interests, and those shared with our allies.

At the same time, however, I want to ensure that members understand the purpose of the bill. It is to modernize. We hope that our thinking on this bill will continue to be productive and will not interfere with the interests of the private sector while understanding the realities of the world in which we live.

[Foreign Affairs, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, and I am glad he has asked it. I know that this is a matter of concern to all members of this House. We want to give serious consideration to what was done today, and will be proposing action in the near future.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I think I have just explained it to the member. Rather than casting epitaphs of shame, he ought to take into consideration very clearly that Canada did not vote against Taiwan, and this was really not the question that was raised.

I ask the hon. member to put this in its proper and appropriate context. I understand there are political issues that compel the hon. member to make his misstatement, but no member on this side or that side of the House of Commons would conclude that after the argument I just made. It is not just something the department would put together. What we see is that Canada made every attempt. Not only that, I should point out that it was an opportunity at the time. Canada's own WHO director, during his recent visit to Ottawa, concurred that Canada had a desire to do exactly what was said in the House of Commons.

Let us be clear. If there is a resolution and an opportunity for us to debate it, we will do so. We cannot govern or be set by the rules that are established by the assembly. We have to be faithful to Canada. If given an opportunity, we will reflect the concerns raised by the member and the House of Commons, and we will not detract from that at all.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, November 29th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the issue of Taiwan and of Canada's support for its bid to participate in the WHO as an observer has been debated repeatedly in this House.

Issues of health, especially given our experience with SARS, are understandably of great concern to Canadians and those who represent them in this Parliament.

Some members, however, are of the view that Canada has not lived up to the resolution on the issue passed by this House last year and that Canada somehow is not doing its part to ensure that the people of Taiwan have access to the health information they desire.

First, let me speak to the matter of the WHO. As has been the case for a number of consecutive years, Taipei's allies and supporters raised the Taiwan issue on the World Health Assembly's agenda at the general committee. The purpose of the committee is to meet and gain consensus regarding any additional proposed items for the assembly's agenda.

Once this has been achieved, the committee submits a report containing the agenda to the plenary which is comprised of all WHO member states. Although Canada was not a member of the committee and therefore did not take part in these discussions, the issue of adding Taiwan to the agenda was debated at length.

Finally, after monopolizing what was supposed to be a functional meeting, the chair noted a lack of consensus and concluded that the committee's report would not include an agenda item on Taiwan.

When the committee's report was submitted to the assembly, several of Taiwan's supporters once again raised objections and debate began anew. After what amounted to nearly a full day out of a total of five, the WHA agreed by consensus to suspend further discussions and call a vote.

The question posed to members was whether or not they supported the agenda as proposed by the general committee. Canada, along with 133 other members, such as the European Union, voted yes.

It is thus incorrect to state, as the hon. member has, that Canada voted against Taiwan as this was never the question that was asked. The question was a matter of procedure with the purpose of ending debate on an item where consensus could not be reached. This allowed the membership to get down to the business at hand, which was to discuss health issues affecting their populations.

I should point out that Canada's voting behaviour was guided by our tradition of strong emphasis on multilateralism. Canada supports the integrity of the WHO system which requires that issues be decided by consensus or vote among members. Canada believes that the substantive and important health matters being discussed remain the focus of the WHO's deliberations. We are a member of the WHO first and foremost and are there to address the health interests of Canadians and we acted in the best interests of Canada.

Following the vote, member states were invited to deliver for the public record an explanation of their voting behaviour. Although not obligated to do so, Canada recognized the importance of the Taiwan issue and felt that it was necessary to make very clear to Canadians and the membership in the WHO the reasoning behind our actions.

I should point out some of the compilations from the document that was set forth. Canada has voted to support the report of the general committee. A solution to Taiwan's desire for status at the WHO should be achieved through a pragmatic and non-politicized process that does not detract from the core mandate of the organization. Canada would support a formula for Taiwan's participation, as long as this formula was in accordance with WHO organizational constitutional rules and procedures and received broad based approval of WHO members.

I should point out that we are very interested in continuing with this process. It is important to know that Canada has always been there to assist Taiwan in developing its national health insurance programs. We will continue to do so in the days to come.

I want to point out to all members that it would be inaccurate to state that the position taken by Canada was not faithful to the record. There is a procedural problem that has to be taken into consideration. I think that in terms of how I described it, the member could not but conclude that indeed the government was faithful to that position.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are here at the end of a very crucial and timely debate, one which I think signals the ability for this Parliament to remain ever relevant to the current challenges that we face, not only here in Canada but around the world.

I want to compliment each and every member of Parliament who has taken the time to express most intimately, most passionately and most appropriately the concerns that we share as a country on a matter that affects not only the virtues and values that we have in Canada, but those which will obviously reflect very clearly on what is occurring today in Ukraine.

This past Sunday, Ukraine held the second round of its presidential election. This contest was between the current prime minister, Viktor Yanukovych, and the leader of the opposition, Viktor Yushchenko. There was a lot at stake on the outcome of this election, whether Ukraine would continue forging closer relations with the west and whether much needed reforms would finally be enacted, ensuring the development of Ukraine into a prosperous and stable country. However, the most important stake of all in this election is the future of democracy itself in this vast country situated in the heart of Europe. A free and fair election would provide the very foundation upon which to build the future of that country. We know a flawed election could set Ukraine's progress back several years, perhaps decades.

Regrettably, Canadian and international observers and the House of Commons have reported electoral fraud on a massive scale. Intimidation, acts of violence and numerous serious illegal voting practices have been reported. Millions of votes have been cast illegally. These credible reports can only lead us to conclude that this election was neither free nor fair. In fact, it was fraudulent. It is particularly disturbing to note that the Ukrainian authorities and leadership may have played a role in these electoral violations.

Canada reacted very strongly to this unacceptable situation.

First, the Prime Minister declared that, if these numerous reports of fraud proved to be accurate, the international community would have to examine its options.

The Minister of External Affairs then called for an immediate investigation of these allegations of serious fraud, and today the Deputy Prime Minister rose in this House to announce that, considering the allegations of serious and significant electoral fraud, Canada rejects the announced final results, and calls for a full, open and transparent review of the election process.

The Deputy Prime Minister went on to say that Canada will have no choice but to examine its relations with Ukraine if the authorities fail to provide election results that reflect the democratic will of the people of that country.

I should also point out, since this is a matter that was raised this morning, as well as earlier on in this important debate, that the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, in the absence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has called in the Ukrainian ambassador in order to make our very serious concerns about this alleged fraud very clear to him.

Canada is not the only country to react so firmly to the election results. It is very clear to say and fair to say that the whole western community is unanimous in denouncing this flawed election. The United States declared that it cannot accept, as legitimate, the results of this election as the numerous reports of fraud have not been investigated. Likewise, the European Union and several of its member states have denounced the election results and called for a review.

Ukraine matters very deeply to Canada. We were of course, as has been suggested here on numerous occasions, the first country to recognize an independent Ukraine in 1991. Since then we have invested large amounts of energy and resources to assist Ukraine to develop into a stable, democratic and independent country.

The Government of Canada's encouragement of democracy in Ukraine has taken a very tangible form. The minister responsible for the Canadian International Development Agency has involved this nation for many years with Ukraine by funding projects in areas of good government, democratic development and strengthening a civil society. In fact, CIDA's present program in Ukraine, valued at $18 million per year, is one of our largest development programs in Europe. Since 1991 Canada has provided over $235 million in assistance to Ukraine.

Canada has also been very much involved in supporting a free and fair presidential election. The Government of Canada sent, as has been expressed by many members in this House, a delegation that included the member for Etobicoke Centre and the member from Edmonton. They were part of a group of observers as part of a mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, to monitor the vote.

The contingent of approximately 50 long and short term observers was significantly larger than missions sent by Canada to monitor elections in other countries. This is evidence of the great importance that Canada attaches to its relationship with Ukraine and the importance it attaches to the election being fair and of course being honest.

Our embassy in Kiev has also been playing a key role in efforts by like minded countries in support of free and fair elections by leading a group of foreign missions which have been monitoring developments leading to the vote. This group led by Canada has conveyed on many occasions to Ukrainian authorities the importance of a clean vote.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Robinson in Ukraine for his excellent efforts without which much of the information that we have received of late would have certainly been to some extent anecdotal.

Canada's commitment to a democratic Ukraine and the ties that strongly bind our two countries have very much to do with the resolve of our fellow Canadians of Ukrainian origins. They have steadfastly supported the independence and development of this country. We must applaud the efforts of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress who in its own right sent several observers to monitor the presidential election.

By demonstrating in the streets demanding that their democratic choice be respected, the people of Ukraine are providing clear proof that democracy is now deeply rooted in their country.

Canada intends to continue to support the development of democracy in Ukraine, a country with which we have close and deep ties.

Let me echo the declaration made by the Deputy Prime Minister today and say that Canada cannot accept these results as they do not reflect the true and democratic will of the Ukrainian people. Canada rejects these results and calls for a full and transparent review of the election process.

A challenge has been given to this Parliament and a challenge has been given to the free world. There will always be those who will defy the imperatives of freedom. No matter how vain such an attempt may be, the reality is that this nation will not tolerate electoral malfeasance.

We share much in common with the people of Ukraine, but we also share much in common with their desire for freedom and for their desire to be free from the kind of obstructions which they have had to confront over the past few days.

I have for several years sponsored and been pleased to have members of the Ukrainian community, students who have worked with me and given me much to learn about that part of the world. We share not only much in common, but I believe that there is a bond between ourselves and the Ukrainian people that requires us and necessitates Canadians to take action in a way that reflects the consensus and the unanimity of our spirit with those who are there this evening who are protesting at this time at six o'clock in the morning local time in Ukraine.

This government takes this challenge very seriously. This Parliament has certainly given an indication that is rare to see in these times, a position where there is cooperation, where there is consensus and we will in the next few days provide greater evidence of our determination to see a free people continue to prosper in Ukraine.

[Sudan, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know how passionately the hon. member for Mississauga--Brampton South is concerned with this issue, as we are in the House.

I want to assure the hon. member and every member in the House of Commons that the Prime Minister will continue to press urgently for a resolution to this conflict. This of course will be one of the issues he raises next week when he meets with the Sudanese president.

I want to also inform the hon. member that we have taken a number of initiatives at the United Nations with respect to the Security Council members in support of a resolution that enhanced the African Union mission and $20 million to help in that effort.

[Ukraine, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question but I also want to point out that the hon. member only 35 minutes ago witnessed solidarity in the House in purpose on the Ukrainian people and the plight they find themselves in at this point.

We will work with the international community and show the same solidarity that exists in the House of Commons to work with our partners to ensure that there is international opprobrium for the actions that have taken place in Ukraine.

I can assure the hon. member that we will consult with all Canadians. Perhaps there will be an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to have a formal debate in the House, perhaps as early as this evening, with your permission.

[Ukraine, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that the Prime Minister has done just that. I also want to assure every member in the House of Commons, as we have delegations from the House there now, that we share the grave concerns about the voting procedure and, of course, the way in which it was counted.

We cannot ignore the plight of Ukrainians today and this country takes this unanimously in a way that is very serious.

[Ukraine, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is a very important and serious issue.

We call on the Ukrainian authorities to fully investigate and promptly remedy these violations to ensure that there is, above all, transparency and that the election results truly represent the democratic will of all people in Ukraine.