Industry Committee on April 1st, 2008

[Guy Bujold]

I have had the opportunity to read the testimony provided by those who have appeared before the committee to discuss this matter. Allow me to set the record straight on some points. As you said, we are here to help ensure that you are as well-informed as possible so that you can do your job and so that the government can do what it has to do.

Let us be clear, RADARSAT-2 is the intellectual property of MDA, not the Government of Canada. Ever since we introduced this model, this has always been the modus operandi. That is the difference between RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2.

Mr. Thompson was speculating about what could happen after the deal has been finalized, without knowing what the various parameters will be. I do not see how such a statement can be based on anything but speculation.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Listening to you, I wonder whether the Canadian Space Agency is in favour of this deal.

[Guy Bujold]

I explained the role of the Canadian Space Agency in this deal earlier. It is the same as it is in any other deal. I would remind you that this is not the first time that property transfers have taken place in the 20 years that we have been in existence. Indeed, when RADARSAT-2 was being built, MDA itself was owned by an American company. Since then, there have been other transfers back and forth in the Canadian space industry. The role of the Canadian Space Agency is to ensure that, should such deals be finalized, Canadian taxpayers receive the goods and services they are due under the terms of the contract.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Brunelle.

We'll go to Mr. Carrie, please.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you very much, Mr. Bujold, for being here today. You mentioned in your last answer that there has been a lot of speculation over this issue, and it's really important to have you here to kind of delineate the difference between speculation and facts.

In response to my Liberal colleague and the issues he raised about ITAR, the government and the appropriate ministers are working very hard to address these very important issues between Canada and the United States.

But I want to talk to you today about the future of Canada's space agency and Canada's space program. Many people are saying it's rather bleak, yet there are a number of great programs out there. The minister recently announced the astronaut recruitment program, the conclusion of the James Webb space telescope, the joint venture with NASA and the EU, our ongoing commitment to the international space station until 2018, and of course the RADARSAT constellation program that was at the feasibility study stage.

I wonder if you can comment on what the impact of these programs will be on the future of Canada's space agency.

[Guy Bujold]

Thank you very much for your question.

When we at the Canadian Space Agency look to the future, we do not see a bunch of dark clouds on the horizon. We look back at what the Canadian Space Agency has been able to achieve over the last years. We look forward to things in the future--some of which you mentioned--and continued successful ventures by the agency.

Canada has done remarkably well in the area of space, and we're not flattering ourselves when we say this. I think this is recognized and there are others who say this. NASA and the European Space Agency look to Canada as a significant partner, and continue to do so. They come to us essentially for our contributions.

You indicated a number of initiatives that are under way, and some just recently completed. We have just put Dextre, the final contribution of Canada's robotic suite, on the space station that went up. It's a successful piece of ingenuity. It demonstrates Canada's knowhow in the area of space.

You mentioned the James Webb space telescope, which is the in-space telescope that will replace Hubble as the next generation. It's a huge piece of the kit, and Canada, through the Canadian Space Agency, is contributing to that.

I could go down a list of other achievements. A lander that's going to Mars in May, I believe, contains a piece of Canadian technology. The weather station on that contains some Canadian technology.

There's always more that we could be doing, but I'm quite convinced that the future is fairly bright.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Have there been any other major space robotic projects--we have Canadarm, Canadarm2, Dextre, RADARSAT-1--where the Government of Canada has signed over the ownership and operation of the entire project to a privately held company? I think it's really important to get the answer. Based on the importance of the technology, would it not have been better to have signed a deal, such as with RADARSAT-1, where the Canadian Space Agency owned and operated it?

A lot of my Conservative friends have come to me and said, “Isn't this just another example of Liberal mismanagement in a huge government program?”

[Guy Bujold]

Thank you for that question. I'll ask my colleague, Mr. Brûlé, to also contribute to the answer.

First, the government did not transfer anything. The government of the day took a decision on a new policy direction for earth observation. I wasn't in their heads and can't go back into their heads at the time, but the decision was based on the experience Canada had with satellite communications. They deemed that there was a space industrial sector in this country that was ready to take on this approach as a way of getting more benefits for Canadians at the end of the day. So it was a new approach. It was a policy decision taken at the time.

I'm not aware whether or not there are other examples. This is why I'd like Luc Brûlé to comment as well.

[Luc Brûlé, Director, Earth Observation Projects, Canadian Space Agency]

In terms of what we did at the Canadian Space Agency, RADARSAT-2 is a unique model. As Mr. Bujold said, this is a decision dating back to the mid-1990s. To repeat what Mr. Bujold said, at the time we expected the commercial remote sensing industry to become very vibrant, to the same level as the commercial satellite communication industry was.

There were some lessons learned from that. They were trying to apply that to the remote sensing industry. When we proceeded with this program, it was done on a competitive basis. We went out to industry, and there were responsive answers from industry. MDA, at the time, was selected as the best proposal.

We have to say that in the end it did work. We do have a satellite in orbit; RADARSAT-2 is working very well. We have impressive imagery coming from RADARSAT-2. We have an agreement with MDA to receive our share of the contribution in terms of imagery.

As Mr. Bujold said, we have an agreement that is solid enough to ensure that we will have access to our imagery over the coming years. For us, the emphasis is now on using the imagery for the benefit of Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Carrie.

Ms. Nash, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses.

Mr. Bujold, the mandate of the CSA is to promote the peaceful use and development of space. Now, ATK describes itself as an advanced weapons and space company. A couple of weeks ago an ATK missile was used by the U.S. navy to shoot down a satellite.

If Canada's leading space company becomes a subsidiary of ATK, do you see any conflict between the CSA mandate and this company's objectives? And will the CSA continue to award contracts to an ATK subsidiary?

[Guy Bujold]

Again, Ms. Nash, as I answered in response to questions from your colleagues, it's extremely speculative to comment on a transaction that has yet--

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

It's not speculative to ask whether contracts to ATK would comply with the CSA mandate.

[Guy Bujold]

The contracts we have currently with MDA do fit entirely within the mandate of the Canadian Space Agency. I would assure you that in the future any contracts would also have to be consistent with the mandate of the Canadian Space Agency.

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

Will CSA be changing its mandate at all for the future?

[Guy Bujold]

No.

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

You talked about many of the successes of the space agency, and it feels a bit like you're driving by looking in the rear-view mirror, because the successes we've had have been the result of investments by past governments. There's no successful space program around the world that doesn't rely heavily on government investment.

Yet Canada's level of investment in space has been dropping dramatically, and we are the lowest of the G-8, whether it's dollar amounts or percentage of GDP. While we have in the past made a lot of money from our investments, now that we're selling these off and our investments in new technology are diminishing, there is no space policy. Canada has no space policy and our investments are declining.

So what's the plan? How are we going to continue after we've sold off, if the government does approve this deal, the largest company that's developing technology for the space industry? What's the plan for the future?

[Guy Bujold]

First of all, I'd like you to believe me, if you could, that the Canadian Space Agency is not only operating by looking in the rear-view mirror, but indeed, given that we are talking about space, we are also somewhat visionary. We are looking at the achievements we can garner from space in order to help advance the social and economic goals of the government.

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

I think that is the space policy for Canada.

[Guy Bujold]

Let me finish.

There are essentially a number of investments we're currently engaged in. There are a number of companies that we're supporting across that range of 200 companies, which I was suggesting to you at the beginning form part of the Canadian industry, that are breaking new ground constantly.

I said we are being sought after by the European Space Agency and NASA to participate with them in future missions. Our history has been one where, when those opportunities presented themselves to the government, the government had a decision to make, and the decision, if we look back on history, was to participate in those things. We were a significant contributor to the international space station. Canada contributed nearly $1.4 billion to the development of the international space station.

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

Yes, and if I could just say, that made us $2.7 billion in return.

[Guy Bujold]

Yes.

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

It got us participation in the program to develop astronauts. It got us to be part of the space mission program. We developed a lot of technology, a lot of spinoffs. But I suggest to you that Canada seems to be withdrawing from an effective space program because of our diminishing investments. That's a real challenge.

In fact, Mr. MacDonald, the founder of MDA, has said that if there had been effective investment by Canada in the space industry, MDA might not have needed to look elsewhere for future contracts.

There are contracts on the order books that Canada is committed to, but the funding has not been invested. How do you account for that?

[Guy Bujold]

I think the question of whether or not MDA would have gone forward in a different set of circumstances is one that you should be asking MDA, and I know they're going to be here—

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

No, I am asking you why the Canadian Space Agency is failing to invest or live up to contracts that they've already committed to.