Industry Committee on April 1st, 2008

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Very well, it includes it. Would it be possible for us to see all of the figures?

[Guy Bujold]

With regard to the second part of your question, which was looking to future contracts, it is really something that you would have to ask the government, as it is the government that approves the projects in which the Canadian Space Agency becomes involved. If changes were to be made to the way that contracts are awarded—be it for Earth observation projects, space exploration, or communication satellites—it would be for the government to make that decision when setting the terms of the deal, as it did with RADARSAT-1, RADARSAT-2 and its investments in the space station.

It is a policy decision, Mr. Vincent.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Monsieur Vincent.

We'll go to Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you for attending. This has been most enlightening.

Some of the things that rather struck me are the history and the direction the government has taken in the past.

I want to go back to what was talked about. Mr. Brûlé, you said that 60% or two-thirds of the ownership was in the hands of an American company. To your knowledge, was there any discussion as to what would happen to the ownership of this project should that transfer over completely to an American company? Was there some concern about that? Did the government possibly have some safeguards to protect us from that, at that time?

[Luc Brûlé]

This is an interesting question. We're going back many years into the past. I was not really part of the project team when all these things were negotiated.

From my recollection, there was an interdepartmental group working on these matters under the leadership of DFAIT at the time, Foreign Affairs, to see how this could be structured in terms of the relationship with the U.S. government and also in terms of the remote sensing act that we have in place now in Canada. These items were considered when the new legislation was put in place in 2005, but as to the precise details on how these things were negotiated and to which conclusions they came, I was not part of that at the time.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

As I listen to this testimony, there seems to be an understanding among governments that possibly supersedes national interests. Is a collective group of governments working together, setting aside national differences when they talk about ownership? Is that a safe analysis? Is that a fair--

[Guy Bujold]

No. The matter you're bringing to the attention of the committee is one of the policy framework around which those types of decisions will be taken. It would certainly be my experience in the 30-plus years I've been involved in policy matters in the government that this would be the stuff that would go forward to cabinet to make the decisions on how you would go forward.

So there would have been a full airing of all these considerations at the time this matter was brought before the government for its decision. It would seem to me to be the normal course of events. So yes, I think they would have had these conversations, and yes, they would have taken a decision with the full knowledge available to them at the time of what the framework should be to go forward with this transaction, as they did in answer to other questions, as they would for other major crown projects.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

That leads to my next question. As we endeavour in new scientific discoveries and things that our Canadian companies are...should we ensure they stay with Canadian companies, or are we pretty much resigned to the fact that it becomes their property?

[Guy Bujold]

I think that's a matter of policy that the government of the day judges depending on the various policy objectives they're trying to pursue. Yes, certainly it would weigh within the decision of the government to go forward. I don't think there's a black and white statement across every single project you do, because you're always trying to balance a number of policy imperatives.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

You mentioned earlier that the government of the day realized or believed the private sector was ready to take on these projects. Was that the right decision, or should we go back to RADARSAT-1 when it was primarily owned by the government?

[Guy Bujold]

If the test of the question is whether or not the industry has the technical competencies and the financial strength to make this deal work, in the sense of putting up a next-generation satellite, which is far better in terms of its capacities than the previous satellite, I think the answer is yes. We demonstrated that the industry was prepared to do that.

If a series of other tests are laid on that have to deal with the actual framework we did it in, i.e., the ownership of the intellectual property and the ownership of the satellite, those were policy matters--going back to the previous answers--that would have been dealt with at the time the decision was made by the government of the day to proceed in this fashion, as opposed to proceeding in the way we did with RADARSAT-1.

Those were two different models of procurement the government had before it, and it took a policy decision to go forward with it. It's not up to me to decide today whether or not the decision that was made at the time was correct or incorrect.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren.

We'll go now to Ms. Nash.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate, Mr. Bujold, that you're not at liberty to agree with me that maybe it was a mistake to sell off this technology and lose government control of it, but it was raised at the time by my colleague Alexa McDonough that this very situation we're in today with losing national control of this technology is one that was foreseen at the time.

My colleagues have raised questions about getting the data, that we paid for the data. I think we may well find a satisfactory arrangement to keep getting the data, but there is another piece of this that is integral to Canadian sovereignty, and that is in the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act, as you know, which would give Canada priority access to the satellite. That act allowed Canada to move aside commercial interests and say that when we had an interest of national security, there was an environmental necessity or a defence necessity, the government had priority access.

A legal opinion by the Rideau Institute has been made public that says U.S. law will now trump Canadian law once this technology is owned by the U.S. Do you have an opinion on that, on whether that would be the case, and whether we ought to have safeguards put in place to prevent this situation?

[Guy Bujold]

Thank you, Ms. Nash. This is not a question that as the president of the Canadian Space Agency I would be involved in.

I would invite the committee, if it needs further clarification on that point, Mr. Chair, to seek a witness from the Department of Foreign Affairs or someone who can actually speak to the substance of that. I apologize, but that's just the way....

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I appreciate that. That's fine. We did request that the foreign affairs minister come to our committee. We haven't been able to get that.

Let me go back, then, to CSA investment and some of the questions I raised earlier. I regret that I'm trying to get so much out of my time, because we have such limited time. But can you tell me why the space agency and Canada refused to partner with the Europeans around the Mars rover investment? That's an investment that MDA, of course, was hoping to get. What was the rationale there?

[Guy Bujold]

The fact of the matter is that we have not refused to participate. We are participating. As a matter of fact, we made an initial investment in understanding the proposal going forward, and there will be a decision that will have to be taken with regard to whether it's the ExoMars land rover or other pieces of investment that the Canadian government wants to make in space. Those are decisions that are still before us.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. There seemed to be quite a delay. What's the reason for the delay?

[Guy Bujold]

We are currently reviewing the activities of the Canadian Space Agency writ large to try to identify, as I said in answer to an earlier question, a series of opportunities so that the government can be faced with a number of choices to make with regard to how we go forward in space. The decision on participating in ExoMars will be part of that deliberation.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have just one last question.

The members opposite raised the issue that MDA was once owned by Orbital, a very different company from ATK, of course. But it was at a time before Homeland Security in the U.S. The U.S. has become much more protectionist, and it was before the RADARSAT technology was developed.

Do you see a difference now between the kind of company Orbital was—and the kind of company MDA was in that period when it was owned by Orbital—and the situation today: ATK as a company and what MDA has grown to with the investment of Canadian dollars?

[Guy Bujold]

Again, I'll ask my colleague to complement my answer, if necessary.

There's no doubt, over a period of time since we've been dealing with MDA, that MDA itself as a company has matured, has created a number of capacities within itself to respond to the needs of the Canadian Space Agency.

The way the Canadian Space Agency operates, members of the committee, is that we go to the marketplace essentially with requirements. We assess the proposals that come back to us on the basis of the technical requirements we have in those calls to the market, to determine which is the best company to produce the piece of technology, the mission, that we need in order to respond to the needs of the Canadian government. We are, in that sense, an instrument of the Canadian government.

The broader matters your questions raise as to the effects of the change in the nature of the company would be something we would review in the terms of reviewing the proposals that would come forward to us. At the end of the day, we feel at the agency that it's our responsibility to make sure the Canadian taxpayer gets the best value for the investments we make in space projects.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming in today. This is a conclusion of the first panel. I want to thank you very much for....

A point of order, Mr. Simard.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chair. This group of witnesses and MDA are probably the two most important groups we're going to have here on this issue, and I think we've just briefly skimmed the surface with the agency. It would seem to me that one hour is not adequate, and I wonder, if the committee is okay with this, if we could invite these people to come back in the very near future.

I have the feeling that, with the MDA group, a one-hour session will pass extremely rapidly as well and that they should probably come for a second hour session. I'm very disappointed, actually, that we didn't get them for two hours initially.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Simard, I thank you for your point of order. I have questions myself, and obviously we did not get to all members today. I would just remind you of the motion adopted on March 11, and we did list an awful lot of witnesses to bring forward on this subject.

Secondly, members themselves have suggested witnesses.

Thirdly, we did agree we would schedule meetings for April 1 and April 3.

You're putting the chair in the position that this committee tends to put the chair in, which is wanting to do an awful lot of things in a very short period of time. If the committee wants to bring these witnesses back, the committee can do so. But it would require another motion, and it would require identification of further dates in the calendar, which would complicate things further. But that is certainly your option in the future.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

We could maybe do that at the end of this meeting then. I'm going to do it right away.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think we would need a motion.