Your Privacy, Foreigners, Influence, Priorities, Ownership & RADARSAT 1 & 2

Taxpayers should own a large amount of RADARSAT -- but don't, it seems. How did it become private? Is it similar to taxpayer support of Bombardier? When do taxpayers get in on the ownership since they contribute so much?

Remember what happened to the AECL reactor design? Check News Junkie Canada, October 24, 2004, section 5, I think. Find out whether China is involved or likely to be with RADARSAT -- working on any aspect. If so, . . . . You figure it out.



Privacy Concerns: RADARSAT 1, RADARSAT 2

Hansard Oct. 4, 05 -- "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."

Remote Sensing Space Systems Act

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-25, An Act governing the operation of remote sensing space systems, be read the third time and passed. [. . . . ]

Some hon. members also questioned the protection afforded under Bill C-25 against foreign acquisition of Canadian licensed remote sensing satellites. The approach adopted in Bill C-25 in this regard draws no distinction between domestic and foreign investment in Canadian remote sensing space systems. All potential licensees, from whatever country, must meet security standards established to protect Canada's national security against injury, whether from a Canadian or a non-Canadian investor. [. . . . ]

º (1600)

Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's questions and his good comments. He has reflected on some of the areas I raised. His last comment, however, does not satisfy the question I had in terms of delegation of powers.

I was talking about the powers under clause 12, which are the powers for a minister to actually order that a certain service be performed and are not the powers referred under clause 21. In answer to my question the parliamentary secretary was quite correct. He referenced clause 21 but he referenced paragraph 21(1)(a) which says that the minister “may not delegate the exercise of the Minister’s powers under subsection 4(3) or 14(1)”. It goes on to say he or she may delegate to his or her deputy minister. That is understood. The question I raised was on paragraph 21(1)(c) which says “may delegate to any officer or class of officers—or, with the consent of the Minister of National Defence, a member or class of members of the Canadian Forces—the exercise of any other powers of the Minister under this Act”.

In fact, the way it reads, clause 12, which is the minister's power to tell a satellite operator what service he or she has to perform, that appears to be able to be delegated even to a member of the armed forces. That is the question I have in response to his very good question. I do not know if he is able to comment on that in my question about his question to my question.

[Translation]


Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two questions of the member, the Conservative Party critic for foreign affairs, who, to my surprise, supports this bill.

First, nothing in this bill provides for the licence to be revoked if the satellite operator ever becomes a foreigner. Does this not worry him a little, especially in view of the fact that MacDonald belonged to the Americans for a few months? Would it not have been better to state very clearly that RADARSAT-2 and any other satellites that the Canadian Space Agency might design must be operated by companies that are 100% Canadian-owned? That is my first question.

Second, in view of the fact that this is a private operator, should they not also have ensured that federal departments, provincial governments and departments as well as the scientific community have priority access to the remote sensing images? Since this is a private company, it will obviously try to sell the images to whoever offers the most. What was standard procedure with RADARSAT-1, namely a certain priority in the use of the remote sensing images for the federal government, the provinces and the scientific community, no longer applies. Nothing in the bill ensures this priority. I think there should have been a provision like this in it.

[. . . . ]
º (1605)

Mr. Stockwell Day: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his questions. I do not want to defend the federal government's bills, but I can answer his questions all the same.

In the case of a company like this, or other companies, there are no regulations at the present time in Canada requiring the company to be fully owned in all cases. [. . . . ]

º (1610)


Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): [. . . . ]

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.

You might want to re-read the above paragraphs.

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.

º (1615)

[. . . . ]

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. [ . . . . ]

---