Foreign Affairs Committee on April 15th, 2008

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Fine then. I really do not see any need to debate it. If we look at the wording of the motion...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

On every motion that comes here—

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I understand, Mr. Chairman, but it relates perfectly to what we are studying today. It is specific to what the witnesses have told us. It reinforces Mr. Dewar's position and motion, as well as the reasons why we decided to bring this matter to the attention of committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Your motion is completely in order.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's completely in order. Even though the 48 hours were not part of it, because your motion is specific to what we're studying today—

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It relates to...

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

—the motion can come out of that.

But my suggestion is that we not debate the motion until committee business at the conclusion of the meeting, so that we have opportunities to listen to our witnesses.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

In that case, I will go along with you, Mr. Chairman, provided I have some assurances that I will have enough time at the end to discuss the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes.

Now, do you have questions for our guests? You're almost out of time.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes.

If MDA's system is sold to US interests, this sale will result at the same time in their acquisition of intellectual property. Will Canada lose access to technology developed here in this country by Canadians? Could this sale jeopardize the surveillance and protection of Canadian and Quebec territory and of the Canadian Arctic?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Who would you like to pose that question to, Mr. Leblanc, or to all our panellists?

[Col Pierre Leblanc]

Perhaps you could direct that question to Mr. Byers. Unfortunately, I have neither the legal expertise, nor the knowledge of the details of the contract, to answer your question.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

So then, I will put the question to Mr. Byers.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

For the committee's information, for five years I taught as a professor of international law at Duke University in North Carolina. I know a reasonable amount about the way the United States applies its laws extraterritorially.

I would remind you of the controversy over the Helms-Burton Act, whereby the U.S. government sought to regulate the activities of foreign companies with respect to a third state, namely Cuba, and the fact that the United States at one point in doing that sought to deter a challenge in the WTO by threatening to invoke a national security exception.

The legislation that exists with regard to remote sensing satellites in the United States would support such an extensive view of U.S. extraterritorial application as well. I have no doubt that if the space division of MacDonald Dettwiler were sold to ATK, the U.S. government would exert powers over this satellite in ways that exceed Canadian national interests.

I agree entirely with Mr. Shrybman and his legal analysis. I think he's right on. For me this is a red flag that calls into question even the possibility of authorizing the sale.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Byers.

Mr. Staples, and then Mr. Shrybman.

[Steven Staples]

Briefly, on the question of intellectual property, Mr. Friedman, the CEO of MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates, appeared in this room at one of the other committees. He gave us an interesting reminder.

There are three aspects to this that you need to look at. First, there are the existing contracts between the government and MDA in terms of getting the imagery they paid for. Second, there is the licensing issue of Radarsat-2, for which we've done the legal opinion. Third, the one you are striking on, madame, is the intellectual property.

It was quite clear when the ATK executives appeared before the committee that they were most interested in the intellectual property of the satellite. That is the knowledge that's going to be needed to carry our industry forward. Even if we were to keep, for instance, Radarsat-2 and lose that intellectual property, our industry will be forever frozen with ten-year-old technology that's currently in Radarsat-2, because the technology has evolved.

From speeches they have given in the United States and from what their own executives have said, it was quite clear as well that ATK wanted to use the intellectual property, to move it to Pentagon classified programs. This would effectively rule out Canadians from participating in those programs because of ITARs and other problems. Our space industry and the future of our space industry are at risk if we lose that IT.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Staples.

We'll go to Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing here today.

I want to make a comment.

I'm appalled at the monumental Liberal mismanagement that put our government into a position like this by putting five times the amount of funding into a virtually private company and not having these types of arrangements thought out beforehand.

Another political question of note is the connection of Marc Garneau, who was there during the time, the Liberal candidate, I believe, and his silence on this. Somebody in the industry surely would have picked up on the vulnerability of this at that time. How much has his silence affected this to bring it to this stage today and then drop it on the table for our government of today to deal with?

The second part of this is that Canada certainly must assert itself in its Arctic territorial claims or weaken its position internationally. Of course our government is doing a lot on this now, as you said, Mr. Leblanc. They've been putting in ports, aircraft, and sea patrols. They're doing a lot on it.

My question is, even with a bilateral agreement with American ownership of this equipment for the imagery facilities, if it's American-owned and only sometimes requested by Canada, whose sovereignty is really being reinforced overall with Radarsat scans of the Arctic waterways in the higher Arctic? Is America's being reinforced, or is Canada's? Is it reinforcing internationally?

After all, if the equipment isn't owned by Canada, is only used part-time by Canada, if it's mostly owned by the United States and used most of the time by the United States, and with the United States having a disagreement on Arctic sovereignty itself, whose sovereignty would be reinforced if we used it part-time from the United States? Is that not a concern?

Could you respond, Mr. Leblanc, or Mr. Byers?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Byers is waving his hand.

[Prof. Michael Byers]

Thank you for recognizing me.

I think one could reasonably take the view that it would have been better to keep the development of Radarsat-2 vested entirely within the government agency, the Canadian Space Agency, rather than constructing the private-public partnership that was used to build Radarsat-2. But one could equally take the position that the government of the day should simply have done a better job in constructing the private partnership with MDA.

In any respect, that is to some degree water under the bridge. The question is, what do we do now to fix any mistakes that were made? I think the blocking of this sale is a fine step in that direction, and I applaud the government for that.

In terms of the question of whose sovereignty would be reinforced if we had only occasional access to the satellite, that's a very pertinent question, because it's not simply a question of us losing priority access to the satellite, it's a question of losing something called “shutter control”, the ability to block the use of the satellite by others for certain purposes.

For instance, I would presume that the Canadian government would not allow Radarsat-2 to be used to take images of Kandahar airfield in Afghanistan, images that might then be used by someone purchasing them on the open market internationally. Those images we would want to restrict to us and to our NATO allies there.

Shutter control is just as important as priority access. This is a satellite that the Canadian taxpayer paid for, not just for the images that we get from time to time but also for the control.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Supposing we're leasing time on it, or renting time on it. Would we not be losing credibility internationally on our efforts to monitor our own territory and sovereignty by renting it part-time—in other words, lose the credibility because we as a country will not even think enough importance of it to fund this type of very important detection itself?

[Prof. Michael Byers]

I certainly take the view that the second-largest country on earth should have surveillance ability of its territory at all times, including at night, which is why we built the Radarsat technology rather than optical technology. This technology is made-in-Canada technology for a reason, because of the nature of our country and the fact that the Arctic is in complete darkness for some months each year.

But also, in terms of other issues, such as partnering with other countries, Radarsat-2 is an asset that we bring to the table. So if we are partnering with the United States in the defence of North America, we bring icebreakers to the table; we bring ice-strengthened patrol vessels to the table; and we bring the best satellite in the world to the table to share with the United States when we are in partnership, without giving up control.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you want somebody else to answer? You have more time, another minute.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

I have a question to Mr. Leblanc on the conditions, as you saw it, of the Arctic monitoring from 1995 to 2000, and your reporting on it.

I'm a former member of the RCAF radar ground, so I know the situation in the 1960s. But it was of concern by 1995, seeing how our major patrol of the Arctic was done with Ski-Doos and .303 rifles with the ranger units that they had through there and the lack of proper equipment.

Could you comment on what you feel international opinion would be on Canada's effort to patrol its own territory and monitor its sovereignty if it does not have equipment like this?