INDU Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRY

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'INDUSTRIE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 4, 1999

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order, pursuant to the order of reference from the House of Commons dated Tuesday, November 2, 1999, on Bill C-4, an act to implement the agreement among the Government of Canada, the governments of member states of the European Space Agency, the Government of Japan, the Government of the Russian Federation, and the Government of the United States of America concerning cooperation on the Civil International Space Station and to make related amendments to other acts.

I'm very pleased to welcome here today, from the Canadian Space Agency, Mr. William Macdonald Evans, the president; Mr. Robert Lefebvre, the director of legal services and member of the Canadian delegation responsible for the negotiation of the Civil International Space Station agreement; and Mr. Alain Poirier, the director general of space systems. From the Department of Justice we have Mr. Donald Piragoff, the general counsel for the criminal law policy section. He is replacing Mr. Roy, who's identified on your schedule.

I will now turn it over to our witnesses and we'll proceed.

Mr. William Macdonald Evans (President, Canadian Space Agency): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

The way I prefer to proceed, if it's okay with you, is to read a short speech to introduce the subject and then give a 15-minute video that explains the space station program, which I think will help members of the committee understand in better detail just what this program is about. Then we can have questions and answers. Is that okay?

The Chair: Fine. The speaking notes are actually in the binder, I believe.

Mr. William Evans: Yes, they are.

The Chair: I was supposed to also mention that Mr. Cannis has some pins he wants to hand out. Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you. I thought it would be appropriate today to hand out these wonderful pins showing what the space station will look like. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Hopefully I'm wearing it the right way.

Mr. John Cannis: When you're up in space it doesn't matter.

The Chair: Is that the case, Mr. Evans?

Mr. William Evans: Yes, it is. There's no up or down, although we hope one part of the space station is always pointing toward the earth.

On behalf of Minister Manley, who is unfortunately unable to be here to address the committee today, I have the honour of opening the discussion on Bill C-4, legislation governing Canada's participation in the greatest science and technology project in the history of humanity, namely the Civil International Space Station.

[Translation]

What is Bill C-4 all about? Bill C-4 enables Canada to become a full partner in this great endeavour, the construction and the operation of the International Space Station. It formalizes our participation. Without it, Canada can no longer be considered a partner. Without it, this nation would lose a tremendous opportunity for the development of Canadian space research and science. Without it, Canada would also jeopardize many jobs already created in this high-tech environment.

• 0910

Our investment positions Canadian scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs on the world market. It allows this nation to continue contributing to scientific discovery and our understanding of the universe. That's what Bill C-4 does.

[English]

The bill before you relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the agreement concerning cooperation on the International Space Station and extends the application of the Canadian Criminal Code to Canadians on board. All parties to the agreement have undertaken to establish a framework for mutual international cooperation, in relation to a permanently inhabited space station for peaceful purposes.

The bill before you brings Canadian law in line with the international obligations negotiated in the agreement, and thereby reaffirms Canada's strong commitment to participate in this historic project.

The history of Canada's participation in the International Space Station project dates back to the year when Canada's first astronaut, Marc Garneau, travelled in space. That was in 1984, when President Reagan invited friends and allies to join the United States in the building, operation and use of a space station in earth orbit for peaceful purposes.

In March 1985 Canada accepted the invitation and notified NASA that Canada's contribution was to be based on the next-generation Canadarm, which would help assemble and maintain the space station, once in orbit.

[Translation]

Following a redesign of the Space Station in 1993, the partners formally invited Russia to join the partnership in what became a truly International Space Station.

Following a number of years of negotiations, all parties signed a revised International Intergovernmental Agreement on the Space Station on January 29, 1998, officially bringing Russia into the partnership. The Agreement stipulates a two-year ratification period, to January 29, 2000. Bill C-4 allows Canada to ratify this international agreement and legally endorses our commitment to the partnership.

[English]

There can be no greater millennium project for Canada and no better role for government and its agencies than to help young Canadians prepare for and participate in the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century.

No one can predict what our children's world will be like in 20 years, any more than our parents could have predicted the staggering changes of the space age. But I do know that space technology has played a significant role in shaping today's modern society.

Advanced satellite communications technologies have brought the realities of the world around us to Canadian living rooms. Space science research has opened our eyes to the state of the depleting ozone and the makeup of our universe. Human space flights have led to treatments for human ailments, innovations in engineering, and higher levels of scientific literacy among our aspiring youth.

Space, through the International Space Station project, will certainly play an increasing role in our future.

The International Space Station is about advancing telecommunications—the most commercial and private oriented of all space sectors. Growing at an unprecedented rate, the telecommunications industry is connecting Canadians to the wireless world in which they now live. Estimates predict that between 270 and 350 telecommunications satellites will be launched by 2007 to support an expanding global information infrastructure, with revenues doubling by 2005. What this means for Canadian firms—already leaders in the field—are promising opportunities in a truly global, highly competitive and rapidly changing marketplace.

• 0915

The International Space Station is about advancing science. Through experiments being performed by the world's space science community, in which Canadian scientists are recognized for their decisive role, we are learning more about our universe, the effects of the sun on the earth, and how to exploit the unique micro-gravity environment to obtain invaluable insight into the cardiovascular system, bones, brain and effects of radiation on human organisms.

The International Space Station is about innovation. Innovations to the world's most recognized and successful space robot, the Canadarm, have resulted in the next generation Canadarm that will soon be installed on the space station by Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield.

[Translation]

The International Space Station is about earth observation—a global market that, in 1998, was valued at nearly $2 billion. In 1995, Canada launched one of the most effective and efficient satellites of its kind. Radarsat-1, Canada's state-of-the-art earth observation satellite, has revolutionized the way in which we monitor and protect our environment. It currently serves clients in over 50 countries around the world to improve the management of our forests, crops, coastlines and natural disasters. Canadian expertise in this field will undoubtedly play a critical role in earth observation aboard the space station.

[English]

The International Space Station is about space exploration. With Julie Payette's mission this past May, she became the eighth Canadian to fly into space, and she joins a Canadian astronaut team that has flown more often in space than any other nation outside of United States and Russia. Moreover, Canada's participation in the International Space Station ensures that this nation's astronauts and technology will be available for missions to Mars and return missions to the moon.

It is those nations with space capability that will be the leaders in the next century. Bill C-4, on the International Space Station, will position Canada to remain one of those nations. Today, as we stand on the doorstep of a new millennium, technology is changing our world at an unprecedented rate.

Now more than ever, it is critical that we invest in projects that help to advance our knowledge and prepare our young people for the society of the next century. That is why using the wonder of space to motivate our young people is one of the most important and fundamental missions of the Canadian Space Agency.

Space is an exciting frontier that captures the imagination of our young people. Today in classrooms across the country, in communities large and small, teachers are using the Canadian space program and our contribution to the International Space Station to inspire students to explore the wonders of nature and to excite students to pursue solid careers in science and technology.

[Translation]

Teachers and students from across the country are still talking and learning about the feats of Julie Payette when she recently became the first Canadian to board the International Space Station.

Payette follows on the heels of other heroic Canadian space explorers like Marc Garneau, Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield. Our astronauts and space scientists are true national heroes, generating national pride by their courage, dedication and accomplishments to which all Canadians—especially young Canadians—can aspire.

[English]

I am convinced that the more Canadians recognize the enormity of their past achievements as a nation, the more they will look toward to the next millennium as a nation filled with confidence and optimism; one that will not stand by as the world's industrialized nations take that confident next step into the new frontier aboard the International Space Station.

Bill C-4, the legislation governing Canada's participation in this remarkable venture, represents this confident next step in this giant leap for Canada and humanity.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Evans. Are we ready to see the video?

• 0920

Mr. William Evans: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. Just so everyone knows, the video goes back and forth between English and French.

[Video Presentation]

• 0935

Mr. William Evans: I think that's the end of our presentation. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. We'll see if there are any questions.

Mr. Penson, do you have any questions?

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Yes.

Mr. Evans, from our point of view in the Reform Party, we saw the benefit of being able to use the International Space Station as a launch, in the House of Commons, for a debate into another issue the other day. So I gather there's been more debate on Bill C-4 than you might have anticipated.

Notwithstanding the games that are being played in the House, I have some questions. Is it possible to launch satellites from the International Space Station? If it is possible, will Canada be launching satellites?

The other question I have is on the path of the flight. Will that be constantly changing, so the space station will be over different parts of the world at different times, or will it have the same flight path all the time? In terms of monitoring the earth, I think that's an important aspect.

On my third question—and we talked about this the other day—I really wonder how intellectual property rights and patent rights will be protected by Canadians working in space. How will the property rights for anything developed with all the different partners in the space station itself be protected and maintained? I gather you have something in this act and regulations to look after that.

Mr. William Evans: Okay. I'll give you just a wee bit of history. The original versions of the space station saw one of its functions being a satellite repair and relaunch facility. That function is no longer part of the current space station program.

There are a lot of advantages to launching from orbit, as opposed to launching from the earth, so it is possible that something like this could happen in the future, but it is not part of the current plans to launch any satellites from the space station.

In terms of the orbit, because of the Russian involvement now in the program, the inclination of the orbit has been increased significantly. So the orbit of the space station will now pass over most of Canada. It will go as high as any part of Canada that is 51.6 degrees north of the equator. It will be in the same orbit, but the earth turns around underneath the orbit. I don't know what the repeat cycle will be, but the orbit will go over all of the earth between 51.6 degrees north and 51.6 degrees south over about a month.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So at 51.6 degrees north, that just puts us north of the 49th parallel. I gather the ability to see into the Arctic and monitor the ice pack and the environment won't be inhibited in any way.

Mr. William Evans: I'm not quite sure what the view angles will be from there. It won't be able to see all the way into the Arctic, but they certainly should be able to see up to around 60 degrees north. I'm not sure what the actual number is. The orbit is not that high, so they won't have that large a view angle.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Yes—400 kilometres.

Mr. William Evans: On the third issue of intellectual property, I'll let Maître Lefebvre answer that, because he has the details.

Mr. Robert S. Lefebvre (Director of Legal Services and member of the Canadian delegation responsible for the negotiation of the Civil International Space Station Agreement, Canadian Space Agency): Thank you.

Under the agreement, the partners have set up a legal regime. If you look at article 21 of the agreement, which you have as a schedule to the bill, it sets out the legal regime with respect to intellectual property. There's no doubt it's a very important area that was in the minds of the partners during the course of the negotiations.

The regime clearly says the activity occurring on a flight element is deemed to have occurred in the partner's state of registry of that flight element. In other words, it is the territoriality application.

• 0940

Having said that, in my opinion, it's probably in the area of patent of intellectual property that we have some type of uniformity throughout the world with respect to intellectual property.

In Canada we have what we call the “first-to-file” system. That is, when a researcher creates an invention, they will file an application for a patent. The date of registry of the filing of the patent application is the important date for invention purposes. Canada has had this system since 1989, as have most countries in the world.

So it was thought—and we reviewed this amongst ourselves—that it was not necessary for Canada to extend our patent law, the Patent Act, to the space station. What will happen is that research will take place on earth and then be brought to the station. Astronauts will conduct research activities and so on. Most probably, those drawers will be brought back to earth.

Then there will be discussions at the universities, in the private sector. If in the course of reviewing the data, and reviewing what was done on the station, it was decided in all probability an invention had occurred, at that point the researcher would immediately have to file for a patent application.

Throughout the world there is a system, even under the Paris convention, where if you register in one country you may be able to register simultaneously in 50 countries throughout the world. It was thought that it was not necessary to extend it to the station because there is no registry system on the station.

So all the data will come down to earth, and it's on earth that the respective partners will file the patent application.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Is that the case with the other countries that have these laboratories in space, such as the United States?

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: One of the only countries in the world that has a different system is the United States. They have what we call a “first-to-invent” system. It's a much more difficult system. As a matter of fact, the United States is now recognizing that throughout the world it's a first-to-file system, and they are the only country that has this first-to-invent system.

What it means is that you have to prove, with evidence, the moment the invention occurs, where it occurs, and the timing. Sometimes, in cases of infringement, it is very difficult to fight or defend or counterclaim the date of the invention.

This is why throughout the world, through the Berne and Paris conventions, countries in the world have decided to go to the first-to-file system, which is a much easier, much simpler, and much less challenging system than first-to-invent. The United States is considering changing their system.

Having said this, the rights per se with respect to the patent are as well protected in the United States as they are in Canada or Europe. You go through a patent application as well. Of course, the United States is also party to international conventions for the protection of intellectual property.

So from a protection point of view, we are as well protected in the United States as in Canada. It's a question of proving when the invention occurred.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Lastewka, do you have a question?

Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Yes, I do.

Would you explain to me subclause 8(3) so that I personally can understand it better? What is the purpose of that clause, and what are we trying to protect?

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: As you know, we have clauses 7 and 8. Clause 8 is to ensure that the information a person will have in the course of the implementation of the agreement—and I'm just talking here about the implementation agreement—will not be used for other purposes or other means or other intentions.

• 0945

So the purpose of clause 8 is to protect the information a person may have in the course of the implementation of the act. More specifically, subclause 8(3) shows that we want to ensure that such information is not going to be used for any other purposes except and save the implementation of the agreement.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Is it basically summarizing, then, what's in the previous clauses?

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: Subclause 8(3), of course, is part of clause 8. It says:

Despite any other Act or law, a person may not be compelled to produce or give evidence about any information or a document that has been provided under this Act or the Agreement and that is subject to a claim that is confidential, unless the proceeding in which the evidence is sought to be compelled relates to the enforcement of this Act or another Act of Parliament.

So it's a measure to protect, if I may say, the information we may obtain in the course of the implementation of the act.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The other question I had, Madam Chair, relates to clause 10. We have this international agreement, and from time to time changes will be made. I'm not sure of the procedure we have in place in clause 10.

For those of us who were on this committee in the previous session, when we had acts such as the small business loan, for instance, there wasn't a reporting back to Parliament. In this case—and especially in this case, because it's an international agreement—there's a need to inform the houses of Parliament.

I thus will be moving an amendment to clause 10 that would cause the notification of the two houses of Parliament.

I don't know if that's been circulated or not.

The amendment I would want to add at line four is that once the changes were made on the international scene, they would be laid before Parliament as soon as Parliament would resume. Because if we don't get notification, it's for us to go and search it, when it really should be the reverse for the elected people.

So when we come to that clause, I will move an amendment, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I'm going to ask the clerk to circulate that so people can see it when we get to that point in clause-by-clause.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: The other area I wanted to ask about was in line with the space program. We've had a pretty good program that participates with education, with schools across the country.

I was fortunate to visit a school outside Moncton where they have their own little space module and so forth. They educate their young people and get them involved in the space program.

While we've got you here, can you add anything as to what you anticipate doing to promote the knowledge gained in the space station that we saw on the video, and to transfer that knowledge to young people to get them interested in what's happening in it?

Mr. William Evans: We have made considerable effort over the years to try to use, as I say, the fascination of space to attract the attention of the youth of the country to science and technology in general, and maybe to pursuing careers.

• 0950

Every one of our astronaut flights contains an element of what we call youth awareness. We will take specific small experiments. We will have in-orbit press conferences with the children. We'll do everything we possibly can to involve the youth of the nation in the particular flight.

I'll give you one example. On one of our astronaut flights, we took up 1,000 canola seeds. They just flew in the shuttle, and we brought them back down. Then we distributed them to all the schools in the country. We distributed the flown seeds and canola seeds that had not flown, and gave those to the science teachers with a little experiment kit.

The kids really got involved in this. They planted the two sets of seeds—the ones that had flown in space and the ones that hadn't—and they started getting involved in the scientific method. They would take notes every day on how these were growing, they would measure them, they'd look at their colour, and they'd do all sorts of things to try to see if there was any difference between the flown seeds and the unflown seeds. This was a tremendous introduction to the scientific method to these public school children across the nation. As I say, every one of our astronauts carries an experiment like that.

We have established across the country five regional resource centres where all the information on the Canadian space program is available. These resource centres then have the responsibility for making that material available to all the schools in their region.

We run contests from time to time where we have children write essays on space, tell us why they'd want to be an astronaut, or whatever the issue is at the time. Then sometimes we have prizes such as bringing them down to Cape Kennedy to see a launch.

We of course have public speaking tours of our astronauts continuously across the country. You saw a bit of this in the video. Canada is still very much enthralled with astronauts as a profession. They are true heroes of the country. We can fill any auditorium in any city with an astronaut appearance.

That's at the children's stage. There was another part of your question about the scientific results from the station.

Every one of our experiments is run by a university set of investigators—the principal investigators, we call them. When an experiment comes back from space, the astronauts who worked on that experiment will go to the principal investigators, they'll talk about the experiment, and then they will have seminars and papers that will convey the information that comes back down.

So at all levels, from the public school right through to the university community, we take efforts to disseminate the information.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lastewka.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien, please.

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I have two questions to ask you. We've already had the chance to speak with you, and I thank you for being so generous with your time. I also congratulate you on the work of the Space Agency. I think that everyone is proud of the Agency's work, including its participation in the orbital station project.

One of my questions has to do with the ability to obtain information when a division is sold. For example, the sport robotics division was sold to another company. What happens if such a company is under foreign ownership? How can a person get information in that case?

[English]

Mr. William Evans: I think, if I have the question right, you're saying the government does invest a substantial amount of money in the development of technologies in these companies, and if they are bought by an American or a European company, what protection do we have for the intellectual property that has been invested in?

• 0955

The answer to the question is that in all of our major contracts, we retain the intellectual property rights with the government; they do not vest with the company. And we have strict clauses in all of our contracts dealing with how that technology can be exploited. For example, in the case where the Spar robotics plant was bought by MacDonald Dettwiler, which is owned by an American company, the American company or MacDonald Dettwiler cannot exploit that technology without the specific concurrence of the Government of Canada. That's how we control this technology.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: You already had a measure of protection under the agreements that you had signed with these companies. What does the bill add? It doesn't add much to what you already had, if I understand correctly.

[English]

Mr. William Evans: This particular law doesn't add anything to that. The Canadian Space Agency has adopted the policy that, because of the significant investments we make in this technology, we have always maintained control of that intellectual property. Nothing in the law here would change this. In fact I think in the agreement it says each country maintains control of its own intellectual property. So it's well protected throughout all the agreements.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: My last question concerns the ratification of this Agreement. Not everyone will have signed on within two years, as was hoped for or requested. What consequences will this have for the orbital station's development, and what impact will this have on you and on your participation in the orbital station project?

[English]

Mr. William Evans: The process is well under way in Europe. I believe Japan has ratified it.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: As you know, the United States ratified it in April of 1998 by means of a presidential decree. This is a quick, a very quick, process, and I believe it was a symbolic gesture on the part of the Americans. They wanted to send a crystal clear message to their partners: that the partners should ratify the deal as quickly as possible. Since the United States were obviously the greatest contributor to the project, they wanted to send a positive signal to their partners.

Japan ratified it in November of 1998 and, as the chairman mentioned, the process is currently underway in Europe. Until now, only Germany and Norway have ratified it. We know that in the other member countries, such as France, Italy, Great Britain and other European countries, the process is underway.

If the European Space Agency wanted to have the mandate to table its ratification papers in Washington, the main contributors to the European Space Station would have to have previously ratified the agreement. In other words, Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain. As we know, they are currently in the middle of the ratification process.

Mr. Pierre Brien: And Russia.

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: Russia, as you mentioned during the debate in the House, is grappling with many problems, including financial and economic ones. It's dealing with serious issues. However, for now, Russian researchers and scientists are completely involved with the program, but at the moment it is not a huge priority for the Russian Parliament, given the international context and the problems it is currently trying to deal with.

• 1000

That being said, how would this affect Canada? We are still partners to the Agreement. In fact, we have signed what is called an interim agreement which binds us to the terms and conditions of the international convention. Canada has always strived to live up to its international obligations, and our objective has always been to try to meet the late January 2000 deadline to uphold our commitments towards our partners. If we do not ratify it, we will still remain as partners, but in the past, Canada has tried to fulfil its obligations and I don't think this is any different.

A final word about Europe. When deadlines loom, countries or governments tend to speed up the process. We know that France, for instance, has a fast track treaty ratification process, and it is quite possible that it will soon fast track this treaty as well. It would be quite unfortunate if Canada were one of the last countries to ratify the international convention.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Brien.

[English]

Mr. Murray, please.

Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Mr. Evans, I want to thank you for tipping us off to probably a future great controversy with the story about the canola seeds in space. It's bad enough we have to deal with this genetically modified food question in the next little while. I'll have to add seeds from space as well, I imagine.

I have a two-part question, and it concerns Canadian control or Canadian influence in this project and afterwards. How realistic is it to assume that we have significant say or real clout in the management of the space station project? Or is this more a question of the United States and Russia normally having their way, and we're sort of an adjunct to the whole discussion? Do we have any guarantees of influence?

And once it's up and running, how would we go about having an experiment accepted on the space station? Say a number of Canadian university professors or graduate students had some brilliant ideas for experiments and we wanted to have them up in the space station. Is there a queuing process for those? How does it work?

Mr. William Evans: On the first part of your question, the Canadian participation has been evaluated at about 2.3% or 2.4% or 2.5%, so it's a small contribution in that sense. However, right from the beginning of the program—and this goes back to 1984, 1985, and 1986—the concept of a true partnership was maintained throughout all the documentation. So it is a true partnership with the U.S. leadership; that's the way it's explained.

As you can imagine, there are a large number committees dealing with the technical issues and the programmatic issues of the space station. Canada sits there as an equal partner with Europe, Japan, the United States, and Russia. People such as Dr. Poirier here do represent us in those meetings. In this system, our voice is one of an equal.

Other activities do go on that we have no control over. For instance, the current fleet of shuttles is undergoing significant repair activities, so there have been no shuttle flights for a while, until these get fixed. This obviously impacts on the schedule for the program, but we have no control over things of that nature.

But in terms of making sure our equipment will do its role, will be used properly, and will be a critical part of the space station, we have a say just as equal as anybody else's.

• 1005

In terms of the operation of the station and the scientific utilization of it, again there are a whole series of international boards that are charged with making sure the station operates effectively, and Canada plays its equal share there.

In the utilization of the station, Canada traditionally has worked on a process of peer review of the science. We have a process whereby we will be issuing to our scientific community what we call announcements of opportunity, saying that we have space on the space station—so much volume, so much power, so much time, and so much weight—and asking them to make proposals to us as to what they would like to do there. That goes through a peer review process, and through that comes the selection of the science that we wish to do. In parallel with all of this, we are working with our international community to set aside time, space, etc., for Canadian experiments. So these all mesh together and our experiments will fly. It's basically exactly the same process as has been used, albeit in a much less complicated way, to ensure that our science that flies on the shuttle has been accepted.

Mr. Ian Murray: Okay, thanks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I have two questions. I guess one arises out of the question from the Bloc member regarding Russia's participation if Russia doesn't ratify, and how that affects it. I didn't quite get an answer that satisfied me. Do they have to ratify before they can be part of the delivery of the program?

The other one is the ten-year lifespan of the space station itself. Why is that? Is it worn out at that stage? Is it that technology sort of bypasses it? Can you give us a view of why we're looking at such a short lifetime for a big investment?

Mr. William Evans: I'll let Dr. Poirier answer this in more detail. Generally speaking, however, in regard to your first question of whether Russia does not participate if they don't ratify, the answer to that is no. All members will continue to play their role just as they do now. In the agreements, however, there are provisions that say that if someone does not ratify by a certain time, the other participants in the station can call a meeting to decide what to do about it. The reasons we're interested in having Canada ratify this before 2000 are so that the other members don't call a meeting to deal with Canada, and so that Canada is seen to be a full partner in the program.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But does Russia lose any...? Is there opportunity for other countries to increase their participation if Russia doesn't ratify? Or is there any penalty for the Russians?

Mr. William Evans: No. I think the more significant thing with the Russians at the present moment is not so much whether they ratify this agreement as it is whether or not they will be able to live up to their commitments.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Such as the delivery of—

Mr. William Evans: Yes, their hardware.

The U.S. has been concerned about Russia's ability to deliver the hardware. There are two critical parts to the Russian contribution to the space station. One is up there already. In fact, it was the first launch, and you saw it on the video there. The second is something called the service module, and it has been scheduled to be launched. In fact the actual hardware itself is ready to be launched, but we're running into launch vehicle problems.

As I said, the shuttle in the United States is not usable right now, and the Russians have had a recent launch failure of a type of rocket that would have beeen used to put the service module up. Right now, then, neither the United States nor Russia has launch capacity that is able to deliver this stuff, so we expect a delay in the program as a result of this. The point I'm making is that once that piece of key Russian hardware, that key element of the Russian contribution, is there—and once the launch systems are fixed up, it will get launched—their contribution is less critical.

Mr. Charlie Penson: So the ability to get it up there is the main component.

Mr. William Evans: Right now, it's the ability to get it up that is causing the issue.

Mr. Charlie Penson: What about the ten-year lifespan?

Dr. Alain Poirier (Director General, Space Systems, Canadian Space Agency): I can answer that.

• 1010

Prior to 1993, the nominal life expectancy of the space station was thirty years, essentially. To design a more rugged space station is obviously more costly, so in 1994 the partners realized that we had to bring down the costs, and the overall philosophy of the space station changed. We designed the space station for the ten-year nominal, but the space station is now a modular space station that we can easily enhance, repair, and fix in space. Actually, that's the major role that Canada is going to play with its robotics systems. We will be able to support the maintenance and servicing of the space station. Also, I think the technology will evolve over the ten-year period, so we have the ability to actually upgrade and improve and evolve the space station. That was part of the main decision in 1994.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

What is the CSA doing to ensure that the technology developed in the course of the Canadian space station program remains in Canada, and what is being done to transfer the technology to Canadian firms to increase their competitiveness in global markets?

Mr. William Evans: In terms of protection of the technology, it's a policy of the Canadian Space Agency that all of the intellectual property rights for the technology that we develop for the space station—and other projects, for that matter—remain with the government. We retain the ownership of the intellectual property, and we therefore control how it gets developed. If a company wants to develop and exploit the technology, it has to come to us and tell us how it wishes to do that, and we have to grant a licence to do so.

In terms of exploiting the technology here in Canada, we have undertaken several programs to assist industry in the exploitation of that technology. You saw just a really small snippet of some of that in the video.

I'll point out that one of the most interesting spinoffs of the space station robotics technology was shown just very shortly, and that was the totally automated gas station. You don't have to get out of your car. You just drive your car into this gas station. And this gas station exists, by the way. It's under testing in California right now. It was built out west by a Canadian company using technology developed in our program. Using a vision system—which, as you saw, is also important to what we do in space—it recognizes the type of car, recognizes where your gas filler pipe is, and sends a robot over there. The robot opens it up, fills it with gas, closes it all up, and away you go. And that's just one example.

So we have programs inside the agency that are aimed at ensuring that the technology we develop is in fact exploited.

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Thank you.

The Chair: Is that it?

Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Malhi.

Mr. Brien, did you have any more questions? No?

Lastly, Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, presenters.

Let me begin by saying that every government, on behalf of its nation, has an obligation to be responsible to its citizenry when it engages in a bilateral or multilateral agreement. You stated earlier, Mr. Evans, that this specific project—and I'll quote you—is “the greatest science and technology project in the history of humanity”. It's a multi-partnership, and quite an investment. We as a government have an obligation to report to Canada's citizens how we spend their money, how we invest their money, and how we hope to enhance their lifestyle through this investment, etc.

I want to ask a question, because often the question has been asked in terms of expenditures. In this case, with the space agency, the program is $1.4 billion to $1.6 billion cost-wise. Can you tell me how much of this has been spent to date? How much will the program cost in the future in terms of annual operating costs, and is it enough? And how does that compare to the other partners you mentioned, as far as their contributions go? The video clearly indicates how many benefits we have as a nation and as humanity. I would just like to know some of those comparative figures, if you will, please.

• 1015

Mr. William Evans: It's a complicated question.

One of the things I'm very proud of—and I'll just say this up front—in the Canadian space program, on the government and industry side, is that way back in 1985-86 when we started this program, we estimated that it would cost $1.2 billion. We're now almost 15 years down the road and our cost estimate now is $1.4 billion. Collectively we have been able to do this, and I'll tell you, there isn't one other nation in the world that has done this in a space program. The U.S. costs have blossomed and the European costs have blossomed. In fact, the Europeans used to have a module as large as the Japanese module; it has shrunk in size because they couldn't afford to build their original design.

That was just an aside, but I wanted to make that point. I'm very proud of the total complex here in Canada and how it has accomplished that.

Most of our equipment has been delivered. The new arm that you saw in the video is sitting at Cape Kennedy, getting ready for launch next summer or next fall, depending on the schedule of previous launches.

Another part of your question was about the ongoing costs of the space station. We have an obligation to pay our share of the so-called common system operating costs. In other words, it costs money to launch supplies to the station, to launch astronauts, to train astronauts, etc., so there are a whole bunch of common things all partners have to share. Our share of that is our 2.3% or 4% of the thing, which is a very small number percentage-wise, but a very large number in actual dollars.

We, like all the other partners, are incentivized to find ways and means of supporting the space station program without actually sending money south of the border. So far, we've been quite successful at that. I forget the exact number, but right now we believe we'll be able to use about half of our utilization rights on the space station without having to pay any common system operational costs. This is significant. For our scientific community, this enormously reduces the cost of using the space station.

By the way, everybody's doing this. The Europeans are doing it, the Japanese are doing it, and the Russians are doing it.

So we're supplying things to the United States, such as hardware, training facilities, you name it, which means the dollars stay here in Canada. We're doing that rather than just paying the United States to operate the station.

Mr. John Cannis: So we're really getting a bang for our buck, then?

Mr. William Evans: I believe we are.

To answer the very first part of your question, how do you tell people that this is a good investment? It is a large investment. It is by far the largest space program we have ever undertaken—and that's the case amongst all the space agencies around the world.

It needs to be viewed from many angles. We can view it just straight from the investment angle in terms of how we're pouring $1.4 billion into the Canadian economy and what we are getting for that; we can go through the jobs, the technology, and the spin-offs we mentioned, all of that. We think it's a very solid case of a positive return of 3% to 4% on that investment.

We can look at it from a sociological point of view, which says that here is humankind's first major attempt to establish a permanent facility in orbit around the earth, which is, by the way, an absolutely necessary first step if humans wish to travel beyond the earth and the moon. There are a lot of activities aimed at going to Mars. The space station will try out all of the technologies and all of the implications of going to Mars. So there's a sociological point of view in this thing.

• 1020

Finally, I'll look at it from the point of view of what I believe will be one of the strongest legacies of the program. You have 11 nations in Europe, plus Japan, Russia, Canada, and the United States, basically all of the industrialized nations of the world, working on this project. Over the last 10 to 15 years, the most significant thing is that all of these countries have learned to work together. What started out to be a U.S.-dominated thing, in which the rest of us were just contributors to their grand dream, has turned out to be what I mentioned earlier: a very equal partnership. Through this program, these nations are going to learn to live and work together in space, and I think the implications down here on earth are tremendous.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Mr. Cannis.

I want to thank you, Mr. Evans, for your presentation this morning and for bringing your colleagues with you as well. We appreciate it. We appreciated watching the video and the discussion. We look forward to the future in space.

Right now we're going to move to clause-by-clause consideration. Is everyone prepared for that?

We will excuse the witnesses. I know you have another appointment at 10:30, Mr. Evans. If the rest want to stay, that's fine.

Mr. William Evans: Thank you.

The Chair: Now, clause-by-clause consideration.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed.

If the committee is in agreement, we can carry the clauses. I only have one amendment before me. If there are no others, we could carry them together until we get to the amendment.

(Clauses 2 to 9 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 10—Amendment to schedule)

The Chair: At clause 10, Mr. Lastewka, you have an amendment.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Yes, I do. I so move. I believe it has been circulated in both official languages.

The Chair: Maybe you'd just like to read it for the record, Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: It's to add to clause 10 on line 4:

and shall cause the amendment to be laid before Parliament on any of the first fifteen days that either House of Parliament is sitting after the order is made.

The Chair: I don't think you're adding; I think you're replacing line 4. May I just have that clarified? It says “replacing” on this paper, and you said adding.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Did I?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I meant replacing.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Earlier I mentioned—and maybe I'll just repeat that one portion—that in previous bills where agreements or amendments were changed, there wasn't a mechanism to come back to Parliament. By adding this amendment, it would make it such that we would be notified of that amendment. If either of the Houses decided to hear it or review it, that would be fine. If not, at least we were informed.

If we don't have that amendment, the amendment could be changed on the international scene and we'd have to look for it. So rather than having it be perchance, the objective here is that the Houses be notified; whatever they decide to do is up to them.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: In the interest of keeping our general positions coherent, I think some provisions should be strengthened. I believe that Parliament should ratify any amendment to the Agreement, as should be the case for most agreements. In my view, a notice of 15 days before or after an amendment has been made to the Agreement is insufficient.

I think it would be better to say that Parliament, and not the minister, should have the power to amend a schedule. This provision should be strengthened since it would ensure that Parliament and its elected representatives would play a greater role in the ratification of agreements signed by the Canadian government.

• 1025

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: We had this similar debate previously. The problem you get into is that because there are House recesses, the House doesn't meet, and it's an interference. The objective here is not to interfere, but to make sure that we were made totally aware of those amendments, and if there had to be reviews by either house, they could do that. It's not to be an interference, though.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I think we need a little more clarification. I need more clarification anyway from Mr. Lastewka. Are you specifically talking about the regulations that would take place that all of the different parties to this agreement have signed on to?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: Basically, I'm sure that the partners will be looking at agreement changes. They could be very slight changes. But it was felt in our previous committee that in order that the two houses be notified, there should be something in that would make it so many days after the next sitting of the houses that they would be notified. Many times we probably would not go any further with it, but there might be a chance that Parliament might want to look at the agreement and go back on the agreement and maybe advise further to it. But it was a means of making sure that the two houses were communicated with.

Mr. Charlie Penson: What I'm wondering about is that any change to the agreement—and we still have our resource people here from the Canadian Space Agency, so I would ask Mr. Lefebvre if he might comment on this—any change to the regulations that require Canada to amend any of our law would have to be done through Parliament anyway. Changes to the agreement, to the regulations, that didn't require Canada to change our law, according to Mr. Lastewka's recommendation would just come before Parliament so that they would be advised that there had been a change in regulation.

Mr. Lefebvre, I assume that you and your people have drafted this clause. I wonder how you see it fitting as a comparison with what Mr. Lastewka is proposing.

The Chair: Mr. Lefebvre.

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the proposed amendment that is before you is that in the event of an amendment to the international convention pursuant to article 27 of the agreement.... If you look on the schedule, there's a provision for amending the international convention, whereby in this respect there would be an obligation on the part of the government to table before the House that amendment.

It's always been a prerogative of the executive to negotiate, conclude, and discuss international agreements, and the need to come before you is of course if we do need to have some Canadian legislation modified to bring our internal legislation in conformity with our international obligations, and so on.

In this case, as I said earlier, we've added to the schedule of the bill the agreement. It would be for information purposes, but also for a better understanding, we believe, of what is the International Space Station agreement. So in this respect we have done so.

If it's an amendment to the international convention, with this amendment we will have to come back and present it to the House. We have to table it. If that amendment does create a legal right or obligation, then we will have to consider whether or not we need to modify a piece of our Canadian legislation. In this case, we will have to present an amendment to the legislation.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But the real question is how does the proposed amendment of Mr. Lastewka line up with the article 27 that's already there? Isn't it really the same thing that's being discussed here?

• 1030

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: Article 27 is the procedure under the international agreement as to what we do to amend this international agreement. The partners have decided under article 27, which is incidentally the sort of article or provision that you find regularly in international conventions.... This is what we call the amendment procedure. Partners decide how to do that.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But I understood you to say—and maybe I misunderstood, and maybe you can clarify it—that if there was an amendment to the regulations that did not require Canadian law to be brought into line to make that possible, it would just be submitted to the House for information purposes. My question to you is how is that different from what Mr. Lastewka is proposing in changing clause 10?

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: Maybe you're referring to article 9 with respect to regulations by Order in Council. Is that what you're doing?

Mr. Charlie Penson: No.

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I thought you just told us that under article 27 there's already a process in place that would allow for.... In view of the fact that it may not take legislative change in the Canadian Parliament to bring it into line, where there would just be a change through regulation that did not require legislative change, there would be a process to have that brought to the Canadian Parliament just to keep us informed of what the regulation change is. Is that not what you just told us?

The Chair: Mr. Penson, I think what happens is clause 10 satisfies the requirement of article 27 by saying the minister can make the changes. What Mr. Lastewka has done is say that it should come back to Parliament after the minister has done that to ensure Parliament is aware of that. That's what's happening.

Mr. Charlie Penson: We have legal counsel. I'm asking Mr. Lefebvre if that's the case, or if he sees a need to have the amendment by Mr. Lastewka.

The Chair: That would depend on Mr. Lastewka. The way clause 10 reads is the minister has the abililty to do this all on his own.

Mr. Charlie Penson: He's responsible to Parliament.

The Chair: But he doesn't have to come before Parliament. We wouldn't know anything about it. And the whole point of Mr. Lastewka's amendment is that we should be kept informed. The other way to do it is to have Parliament ratify every change to the agreement. I'm not sure that's in the best interests of development either.

Mr. Brien has a comment. Mr. Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would prefer that Parliament be empowered to ratify any amendment to the Agreement. Don't forget that section 10 does not deal with regulations, but strictly with amendments to the Agreement's schedule. I maintain that Parliament should be the one to ratify any amendment to the Agreement.

Despite the fact that Mr. Lastewka alluded to the issue of deadlines, you have to remember that most international agreements provide for relatively long deadlines, which means that Parliament will probably sit before these deadlines are met. It's very rare that an international agreement calls for member countries to ratify it in the three or four weeks which follow. It is therefore highly likely that the Parliament will reconvene soon after an agreement has been signed in order to provide enough time to ratify it.

We hope that this practice will become the norm for every type of international agreement, including the one at hand. Therefore, rather than giving the minister this type of power, we should ensure that it be given to Parliament instead.

I propose an amendment to section 10 which would go even further than what is contained in the motion, Madam Chair, and I would invite the members of the committee to vote on it. I can provide you with the motion in writing if you wish.

[English]

The Chair: We have Mr. Cannis and Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. John Cannis: Madam Chair, you clarified the intent, as I also understood it and Mr. Penson. But let me take this opportunity to respond to Mr. Brien. I hear clearly what he's saying, but I think the intention of bringing forth this motion is that it parallels other international treaties, if I may point that out. For example, there's the anti-mines treaty. So there are precedents that are set and we're drawing parallels from there and applying them to this legislation as well. I want to point that out for Mr. Brien. Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: My intention, Madam Chair, was not to handcuff the government and stop proceedings. My intention is to make sure we have good ongoing communication. By putting this amendment through, it has the communication effect to inform the houses. If the houses decide from their communication to do something, it's their business.

• 1035

I don't want to get into the position Mr. Brien is looking at where everything now has to come back to the House for big debates and proceedings are stopped. I would totally disagree with that.

The Chair: Mr. Lefebvre, perhaps you can clarify for us what the other countries are doing. Is this a standard procedure that the other countries will be following?

We wouldn't be sitting here today if the minister already had this authority. So I'm a little confused here.

Mr. Robert Lefebvre: I'll have my colleague, Don Piragoff, from the international division of the criminal section of the Department of Justice, answer that question.

Mr. Donald Piragoff (General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Penson referred to article 27 of the agreement. Article 27 of the space station agreement provides the mechanism by which the agreement itself can be amended by the parties. And in article 27 it states that the amendments made by the parties “...shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession by those States in accordance with their respective constitutional processes”.

Under the Canadian constitutional process, which we have adopted from the United Kingdom, treaty-making powers are a prerogative of the executive, totally. In the United States, which has a different constitutional basis for their government, the treaty-making process is shared. The executive makes the treaties, but the process requires Senate approval, ratification. That is not our constitutional process. Accordingly, under our constitutional process the executive has the prerogative and the right to negotiate and enter into international agreements, international treaties.

A treaty is basically a contract, an agreement between sovereign powers. And the sovereign power in Canada is Her Majesty in right of Canada, which is the federal government.

Sometimes treaties require that legislation be enacted in order to put the treaty or agreement into effect. At other times there are provisions of a treaty or an agreement that do not require any legislative changes.

If an amendment to the treaty requires a change to be put into effect, under this new piece of legislation it may be put into effect in one of two ways. It can be put into effect by way of section 9, which is a regulation power. If the Governor in Council makes a regulation, then that regulation is of course subject to parliamentary review and must be published in the Canada Gazette. So there is a process for notification if the amendment to the agreement is put into effect by way of regulation.

If the amendment to the agreement, in order to put it into effect, in order for Canada to implement it, requires a change to a Canadian law, then the government will have to bring a bill before Parliament to give effect to that amendment. In that case, the Parliament of Canada will have an opportunity to debate that bill and approve the bill or not approve the bill. And if it does not approve the bill, then it does not basically permit the implementation of that amendment to the agreement.

As I said, the third situation is that sometimes there are amendments to agreements that do not require any changes to Canadian law, whether they be legislation or regulations to put something into effect. It's purely a contractual relation between the parties and it does not require any changes of domestic law, whether it be legislation or regulation.

The proposed amendment would ensure that any amendments to the agreement, whether or not they require legislative change in Canada, whether or not they require regulatory change in Canada, or whether or not they require no regulatory or legislative change in Canada, would at least be brought to the notice of both houses of Parliament.

• 1040

The effect of the proposed amendment is to fill the void to ensure that in all cases if there is an amendment, whatever that amendment might require in terms of action or non-action by Parliament or by the Governor in Council, Parliament would be notified basically that the agreement has been amended pursuant to an agreement of the price. That is the scheme within the agreement, that is the scheme within the act, and that is how the agreements are put into effect under our constitutional process.

The Chair: Mr. Brien, does Mr. Piragoff's explanation satisfy your concern about if there had to be a change to Canadian law?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: No, not at all. The provisions contained in section 9 do not call for Parliament to decide. There is a very clear trend, which has cropped up in other bills as well. I am convinced that Mr. Piragoff is very familiar with this growing trend, where amendments are passed through regulation rather than through legislation, which gives the government much more power and room to manoeuvre. It is up to the committee to decide whether it wants this power to remain in the hands of the government, as much as I would prefer for Parliament to have more of a say. It is true that that would not change the fact that section 27 will apply and that Canada will sign the Agreement and that, under the provisions of the Act, the government will not be constitutionally obliged to present its case to Parliament.

However, do we really want to amend the Constitution in order to change the way we ratify treaties? You know as well as I do that amending the Canadian Constitution is no easy task. I think we should begin by changing the way we do things and our laws. In so doing, the Constitution will eventually be amended.

Do you want the government or Parliament to exercise that power? I'm not so sure. It is true that there is a legislative process governing legislative changes arising out of the amendment to an agreement, but in most cases, it will be possible to make changes simply through regulation, and not through Parliament.

That worries me. Unlike others, I do not want to give the government more power; it already has enough, and those powers are already far too concentrated under our political system. I will bow to the will of the committee if it wishes to maintain the status quo, but I will not support this section of the bill.

[English]

The Chair: Just to clarify for the committee's sake, Monsieur Brien is quite correct that the amendment we made last time to the Small Business Loans Act had to do with the regulations and bringing those before the committee. This doesn't do that. In fact, according to what I read, clause 9 shows that Parliament has no say whatsoever.

Mr. Piragoff just explained that the regulations will come to us. They wouldn't come to us as a committee. They may be gazetted, but there would be no parliamentary process if the gazetting takes place when the House isn't in session. That's a concern we'll somehow have to deal with.

Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I understand Mr. Lastewka's amendment better. Basically, it's just an information package after a fait accompli. What Mr. Brien has raised is part of a much bigger debate that perhaps needs to take place in this country at some point, but I wouldn't want to see it hold up this space agency bill.

We may need to talk about that at some point, especially as it comes back to us in forms of agreements signed such as the Nisga'a that go through Parliament where really no amendments can be made at all and closure is used. That's going to focus the debate a little bit more.

In terms of this specific bill, I would like to see it proceed. I'm happy to support Mr. Lastewka's amendment. It doesn't do very much except perhaps keep Parliament in a loop on what amendments have been made after they've been made.

The Chair: If there are no further comments, let's vote on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: May I put my motion to a vote, Madam Chair? May I table an amendment to section 10? I know very well that it will be defeated, but I would still like the committee to vote on it.

[English]

The Chair: The only problem I have with that, Mr. Brien, is we've just passed an amendment. So what you would have to do is amend the amendment we've just passed. We should have done that before we passed it. I'm looking for some guidance here.

• 1045

We have a procedural problem here. Mr. Brien, your amendment goes with an earlier part of the clause, and we've already agreed to amend starting at line 4. So I need unanimous consent from the committee to go back to an earlier part of the clause.

Do I have unanimous consent?

Mr. Walt Lastewka: No. I think we should just carry on.

The Chair: Okay. Sorry, that's not going to happen.

(Clause 10 as amended agreed to on division)

(Clauses 11 to 13 inclusive agreed to)

(Schedule agreed to)

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended back to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We will adjourn until our next meeting, which will be on Tuesday, November 16. We'll be doing the round table on productivity. The first one is on shipbuilding. We haven't confirmed yet who the witnesses will be for the second one.

We're in discussions with Mr. Gallaway on Bill C-276 to try to accommodate his schedule. We're looking at doing his private member's bill on Thursday. I haven't been able to confirm that with him yet. But if that's the case, we'll do his bill on three Thursdays. It will be the same thing, 9 a.m. to 12 noon on Thursdays, if that works with his schedule. That's what we're trying to accommodate. I'm still in discussions with his office on that. He's a member of the finance committee, which is travelling, and it's going to be very difficult to have him here.

Mr. Penson and then Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Getting back to the meeting on November 16 regarding productivity, are we going to be having witnesses from the private sector, the universities, and the think tanks come before us in addition to the departmental officials?

The Chair: What's going to happen in the morning or in the afternoon—I'm not sure which way it's going to work—is that one session will be on shipbuilding, and that will involve the Department of Industry, EDC, and Department of Finance officials. We will eventually have witnesses from the private sector for the shipbuilding part once we hear. But the ones in the other session—

Mr. Charlie Penson: I would hope it's going to be expanded far beyond shipbuilding.

The Chair: This is just the one part of the session we had agreed to do. We've agreed to move forward on that.

A schedule is being put forward by the researchers, which I will be circulating as soon as we have it in final form. I'll probably see it today.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Is that with regard to witnesses?

The Chair: Yes. You can see which witnesses we're trying to incorporate following the discussion we had at the steering committee last week.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'd like to be involved in putting forward some names of witnesses to come before the committee regarding productivity.

The Chair: I'll forward what the researchers have, but I don't want to get into round tables that involve more than four witnesses because it's going to be too cumbersome.

Mr. Charlie Penson: The point I'm making is that just listening to Industry Canada talk about productivity is not my idea of getting information—

The Chair: No, Mr. Penson. For the five schematic meetings, nobody from Industry Canada is being suggested, with all due respect to Industry Canada.

Mr. Charlie Penson: I'd like to see that list as soon as I can.

The Chair: It will be distributed as soon as it's available.

Mr. Lastewka.

Mr. Walt Lastewka: I was just looking at the list of meetings and potential topics and witnesses, so you've answered the question.

The Chair: What we've decided to try to put forward to you is a schedule that will break things into chunks so that we're not doing four things at the same time. We might delay our banking meeting. We can do that at a number of meetings later on in December or early February when we return.

• 1050

We're just trying to work that out in order to see what works best so that we can keep that together, and there will be some consistency to the meetings we hold.

The meeting is adjourned.