Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-15 of 17
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Industry committee  Again, it would depend on the customer and the terms of that. As Canada and the U.S. in the past--as evidenced both in RADARSAT-1 and RADARSAT-2--have entered into agreements related to what those controls and authorities would be, it's hard for us to speculate, not knowing what

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  Thank you.

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  Again, Mr. Chairman, those restrictions and limitations apply to RADARSAT-2 and are unequivocal. To the extent that future satellites are built, be they commercial or for the Government of Canada, the Government of the United States, a government in Europe, or the European Space

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  Mr. Vincent, I don't believe that's necessarily the case at all. As was referenced earlier, there are nearly 60 commercial clients coming after the portion of RADARSAT-2 imagery that is the right and prerogative of the Government of Canada to take first, under its agreement. So t

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  It's actually closer to 79% for the last reporting year, for our fiscal year 2007, which includes a wide range of both U.S. as well as international sales of national security weapons systems.

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  Mr. Brison, referencing Mr. Shroyer's comments at that investor conference, he was speaking to future satellite programs where ATK would be the lead offerer, on behalf of our combined company, to the U.S. government. It doesn't apply to any activity or capability related to RADAR

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  Ms. Nash, if I could take that one on for a moment, all of that work in the United States is done on a competitive basis by the agencies of the U.S. government that acquire those programs. Any participation by any part of what will be Alliant Techsystems Canada would again be sub

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  I couldn't speculate on that.

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  The contract that exists currently is for the operation of RADARSAT-2 and Canada's receipt of inventory product from that under terms that have been negotiated and that would be sustained pursuant to the acquisition, over the life of that satellite. To the extent that follow-on s

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  The Canadian priority would exist throughout the life of that satellite.

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  Any subsequent satellites then would be the matter that would be determined by the Canadian government, what it wanted, and then I think the offerers of that satellite would respond to the terms set by the Canadian government. But for the life of RADARSAT-2, the prerogatives and

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  Again, some elements of that are governed by agreements between the two governments, which have a mechanism to resolve—

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  I might add that the ownership by ATK of the Canadian subsidiary in no way relieves us of working through Canada's intellectual property export licensing. The mere fact of U.S. ownership in no way changes the process by which MDA, now as an independent company, or as a subsidiary

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese

Industry committee  U.S. and Canadian laws would both apply to the application of technologies that would move across the border between either of our countries.

April 3rd, 2008Committee meeting

Steven Cortese