[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 30, 1996
.1533 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): I call this meeting to order.
Good afternoon, colleagues and witnesses. We shall resume consideration of our order of reference, dated Thursday, March 7, 1996, relating to the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997.
Is there unanimous consent that I call votes 40, 45 and 50 under Canadian Space Agency?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, when do we actually vote on these?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): I believe the procedure is to do it right at the end. We'll call the votes and then vote at that time.
Before we go to the witnesses, I believe Mr. Ménard has a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a suggestion about our future business.
We had previously agreed on the creation of a subcommittee on defence industry conversion. To my understanding, the members of this committee were also willing to have the committee look into new technologies, especially into those related to the environment.
I raised that issue again with the minister, who also thinks that we should proceed in that way. However, I find that we are a bit slow-moving. I just want to make sure that the members of this committee are still ready to...
Defence conversion is an issue that Bloc Quebecois members have put forward a number of times in the past. I even think that our colleague, Ms Brown, has in her riding some firms concerned in that matter. I am beginning to think that time goes by and that the session will soon come to a close, and I am afraid we might find ourselves in June without having anything done yet.
So I would like that we proceed, maybe at the next meeting, with the creation of a subcommittee. We already have a list of witnesses, and the minister is willing to proceed. I am aware that our committee is perfectly independent, but after the discussion I had with the minister last week, I sincerely hope that we will go forward as soon as possible.
I know that you are not the official holder of chairmanship, though you are doing quite well in that office. Could we count on your vigilant attention to make sure that we can proceed, right at our next meeting, with the creation of a subcommittee specifically mandated to look at least into the technologies related to the conversion of defence industries into civilian production? If some other members ever want that new technologies be included in the mandate of the subcommittee, on our side we won't make any problems as long as we can deal with the conversion issue.
[English]
.1535
Ms Brown (Oakville - Milton): In response to my colleague's request, I believe the intention of the whole committee is firm. Perhaps he does not know, but I put a call in to his office yesterday to try to arrange a meeting of the three principals - Mr. Schmidt, Mr. Ménard and me - to see if we could get together for dinner last night to set up the organization of it so that we could report back to the full committee. One of the two of them wasn't available, so I was hoping at the end of this meeting to speak to them about when we could get together. It is our intention to proceed as quickly as possible.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Mr. Ménard, if that meets with your approval, I also recall that at the last meeting or the prior meeting, the chairman did indicate that Ms Brown was going to take the initiative and make the phone calls to arrange the working group committee to look at the aerospace industry. Perhaps after the meeting you can discuss that with Ms Brown.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I would be glad to work with Ms Brown.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Introducing the witnesses, we have Mr. Evans along with Alain Desfossés and Michel Giroux. Welcome.
Mr. W.M. Evans (President, Canadian Space Agency): Thank you very much,Mr. Chairman.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to be here today to answer your questions about the activities of the Canadian Space Agency. As you know, the agency is a relatively young organization, which was created in 1989. It moved into its new head office in St.Hubert, Quebec, only three years ago.
[English]
In 1994 the government approved a new ten-year, long-term space plan for Canada together with a new space policy framework, which in many regards is very similar to the new science and technology policy recently announced by the government. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you have already received copies of the details of this plan.
In short, the agency is committed to ensuring that the Canadian space program meets Canadian needs and at the same time supports the development of an internationally competitive space industry.
Today, rather than discussing the entire program, I would like to describe briefly a couple of our activities, namely the RADARSAT program and Dr. Garneau's next mission, which is coming up in a couple of weeks. I think these two activities clearly demonstrate our pursuit of these objectives. They also show how we are carrying out this program in partnership with the private sector and the university community.
Mr. Chairman, I've also taken the liberty of having distributed to members an image of Cape Breton Island taken by RADARSAT at night, during a raging storm. There is a larger version of it here on my left. I can describe later the information in this image, but for now I will proceed with my text.
[Translation]
The first Canadian Earth observation satellite, RADARSAT, was successfully launched last November. I am very pleased to report to you that, on a technical level, RADARSAT revealed itself more efficient than we had initially expected. The RADARSAT system is now fully operational and Canada is selling its images to customers in a number of countries.
.1540
It is in the laboratories of the federal government that the RADARSAT technology was developed in the late seventies. It gives you an idea of the time which normally elapses between the development of a new space technology in the laboratories and the launching of its first commercial applications.
RADARSAT was built by Spar Aerospace, a company based in Ste. Anne de Bellevue, with the assistance of hundreds of subcontractors from across Canada.
[English]
In parallel with the manufacturing of the satellite itself, a consortium of Canadian space companies named RADARSAT International, or RSI, was created. It has invested more than $20 million in marketing RADARSAT's eventual data to foreign countries.
As we speak today, RSI sales have exceeded their wildest forecasts. They already amount to $8 million U.S., over 50% of which is in Europe and in Asia, a rapidly expanding market. Agreements are being signed with a growing number of countries, such as the one we signed recently with China. In fact, China is interested not only in using RADARSAT data but also in building its own version of RADARSAT using Canadian industry as supplier.
But RADARSAT means more to Canada than the establishment of an international commercial business to sell the data to the world. In order to receive these data, many countries need to build or upgrade their ground receiving stations. Canadian companies such as MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates in Vancouver, or Satlantic in Atlantic Canada, are clearly ahead of the international competition.
MDA, for instance, builds some 70% of the earth observation ground stations around the world. Another company, PCI, located in Toronto and in the national capital, is a world leader in the software needed to support data interpretation. It takes advantage of the fact that we are selling the data around the world to export its own capabilities.
[Translation]
Those sales also generate royalties which are used to offset the operating costs of the satellite. RADARSAT is operated from St.Hubert as part of an agreement with SED/Calian, a Saskatchewan-based company.
In parallel, the agency manages, in close cooperation with the Canadian Centre for Remote Sensing, a number of programs aimed at helping Canadian firms, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, to develop innovative applications which will allow, thanks to the RADARSAT data, a better monitoring and management of Canadian environment and natural resources.
Those new applications are expected to generate some 20 000 new person-year of employment.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I've also brought along an image taken by RADARSAT of the recent oil spill off the coast of Wales. In this image the extent of the oil spill is clearly visible. In fact, radar images were used operationally in the containment of this environmental disaster.
In addition to reducing the operating cost of federal government departments like Environment Canada or Fisheries and Oceans, these new applications will be immediately exportable to all countries purchasing RADARSAT data and will help convince others of the merits of turning toward the RADARSAT system.
.1545
Ensuring continuity of the RADARSAT data is essential to the long-term success of this new sector of our economy. RADARSAT's life expectancy is five years, and the agency is prepared to invest up to $220 million to support the development by the private sector of a successor to our first satellite.
[Translation]
In that regard, we should receive shortly a proposal from a Canadian consortium led by SNC-Lavalin which would be interested to arrange for the supplementary funding required for the project, be responsible for the construction of the satellite and operate RADARSAT II. We expect to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion by the end of this year. Once the deal concluded, we will have a good example of a government-elaborated idea transformed into a commercial and profitable undertaking managed by the private sector.
With the privatization of the RADARSAT program, we will assist to the same phenomenon which occurred fifteen years ago in the satellite communications area, when thousands of high-tech jobs were created from coast to coast.
[English]
Science is also a very important component of Canada's future competitiveness and prosperity. In two weeks' time the Canadian Space Agency's astronaut, Dr. Marc Garneau, will participate in his second space mission, giving once again international exposure and a high profile to the quality of science and engineering being done in Canada.
Many Canadian experiments will be performed during Dr. Garneau's mission. For example, the Canadian Aquatic Research Facility, built by MPB Technologies, a Montreal-based small and medium enterprise, will be used to conduct experiments to help Canadian researchers better understand why astronauts lose bone calcium and mass during space flight. These changes are very similar to the effect of osteoporosis. These experiments, done in the weightless environment of the space shuttle, will provide the Canadian medical community with essential information that could not be unveiled here on earth. This will help them develop new treatments for this disease, which affects one out of every six Canadians.
Other experiments being flown as part of Dr. Garneau's mission will advance Canada's technological edge in areas that are key building blocks to our future, such as high performance semiconductors or laser technologies.
[Translation]
I hope that this detailed description of the RADARSAT program, now managed by the agency, gave you an opportunity to better understand that complex web of Canadian expertise and partnerships which was methodically developed over the years. Thanks to those space initiatives, Canada has become one of the most prominent countries involved in space operations, and that, in spite of relatively limited budgets.
[English]
Our participation in the international space station program, the Anik series of communications satellites, and MSAT, which was just launched last week, have all contributed, with Spar often acting as the prime contractor, to the development of niche technologies that make Canadian firms valuable industrial partners across the world.
.1550
COM DEV, a company located in Ontario, now builds 70% of the world's radio-frequency multiplexing subsystems for communications satellites. MDA in British Columbia is now the acknowledged world leader in reception, processing and analysis of remote sensing data. In Saskatchewan we have SED/Calian, which specializes in space communications systems and satellite test and control systems and is very competitive in supplying INMARSAT. In Ontario, Canadian Astronautics Limited here in Ottawa supplies the majority of the receiving stations for the COSPAR-SARSAT search and rescue system. In Quebec, to mention just one, CAE has become the world leader in simulators.
These firms, together with about 200 others that participate as subcontractors in strategic technologies for these major space projects, generate annual sales of about $1 billion, of which 40% is exported. These companies employ some 3,000 people, the overwhelming majority of whom are leading-edge technologists.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have on the agency. Merci beaucoup.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Evans.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Welcome to the people of the Space Agency, which by the way is based not very far from my riding. I had the pleasure of chairing the Space Agency corporation when I was with the party in power. I am glad to meet you today.
My first question is related to what can be read on page 41 about the budget of the executive. I know that the agency was created just a couple years ago. I guess that must be the reason why the support budget allocated for management and senior executives has increased so rapidly in the last two years.
I would like you to explain me why the executive spendings have increased that much.
[English]
Mr. Evans: Mr. Chairman, I think what Mr. Leblanc is pointing out is more of an accounting change than anything else. We are currently in the process of restructuring the agency to put it in a structure and form that is more suited to the future program of the agency than to its previous programs.
I am quite pleased to state that what we call the executive and horizontal coordination functions of the agency occupy less than 8% of the agency's budget. I believe that with this restructuring and this total accounting for the overhead, the agency can stand up against any other government organization in terms of its low overhead rate.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: On page 41, at the item executive support, the amount appearing on the second line for 1994-95 is $4,180,000. For 1996-97, we can see an estimate of $6,249,000, which means after all an increase of $2.1 million from 1994-95. That's quite a difference.
I guess that, since it's a new organization, you might be presently swelling the number of executives or perhaps transferring into the agency a number of public servants who were formerly employed in other departments. I don't know, but I would like to have some explanations about the reasons of such a huge increase over a two- year period.
.1555
[English]
Mr. Evans: Again, Mr. Chairman, what we have here now is a thorough accounting of the executive support. I can assure the member that, for example, in the president's office and the executive vice-president's office, there are fewer people working there now than in the past.
In the restructuring process going on in the agency as a result of the changes in the type of program we'll be undertaking in the future, one of our objectives is to continue to reduce the number of executives in the agency.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: I still would like to get an answer, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to be overly obstinate, but I didn't have any answer yet. A $2.1 million increase for executive support does not seem consistent with keeping the number of executives at the same level within the agency. To me, a $2.1 million increase over two years seems rather amazing. We are talking here of personnel. I wouldn't want to blame anyone, but I would like to get some explanations because I still don't understand. My question has remained unanswered.
[English]
Mr. Evans: I think the only answer I can give the member is to have him look at the total under this particular activity. We are moving from $22 million last year in our total executive, executive support, program management and administration support - the overhead of the agency - down to $17.6 million. To me that's the right trend. The number of FTEs associated with that is decreasing, and this is the trend line we're on with our reorganization.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: I still didn't get any answer. I will have to ask someone else. I am sorry,Mr. Chairman, but I didn't get a satisfactory answer.
I will move to another question. RADARSAT, of which you spoke at length, is a great success. That is what you said clearly, and I agree with you on that.
As it was said, RADARSAT is an undertaking which, of course, benefits to all Canadians. As far as its profitability is concerned, do you foresee in the near future any possibility of actual returns in terms of dollars for RADARSAT I and II?
[English]
Mr. Evans: We believe very strongly that the RADARSAT system, the RADARSAT program in its entirety, will become a major commercial business for Canadian industry. With the launch of RADARSAT I, of which the federal government was the major funder, although several provinces and the private sector have invested in the program, we are at the beginning of a brand new commercial phase - very much the way we were 15 or 20 years ago in the satellite communications business.
.1600
For RADARSAT II, the federal share of that program will be substantially less than it was for RADARSAT I. So we're moving towards significant private sector investment in this program.
My own guess is that it will probably take until the third generation of this satellite system before it's an entirely commercial operation. So at the present moment the federal government is planting the seed with RADARSAT I, and its much reduced investment in RADARSAT II in a commercial system, which will become totally dependent on the private sector.
The situation now with RADARSAT I is that all of our operational costs for running the satellite will be covered by royalties we will receive from the sale of the data. In addition to that, the Canadian government, of course, has access to about 50% of the data from RADARSAT for its own environmental resource management and transportation needs.
For RADARSAT II, when the program is entirely commercialized we will see further increases in the amount of revenue that comes into the government from the sale of the data.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): I'll allow a very short question.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: No, I will come back later.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Leblanc. Mr. Schmidt.
Mr. Schmidt: Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. It's always good to meet you.
I'd like to zero in as well on the further commercialization of RADARSAT. I think it would be commendable to move into the commercial model. The third generation, you expect, will be in a break even position?
Mr. Evans: Yes. We expect that by the time the third generation comes along the system should be sustainable on its own. We don't know that for sure, but I can tell you that the market for RADARSAT I data is substantially greater than we had anticipated. So it looks as though we should be in that situation.
Mr. Schmidt: If that is the situation, how does this compare with the other satellite programs that Canada has? Do you operate the Telesat satellite as well? Are you connected with it at all?
Mr. Evans: No. Telesat is an entirely privately owned company as a result of its privatization several years ago. It used to be a government-owned corporation. It's now entirely in the hands of the private sector. It funds through equity and debt its satellite systems, and it gets revenue from broadcasters in Canada.
The government role in satellite communications is substantially reduced from what it was 15 or 20 years ago. You would have seen the Government of Canada building and launching telecommunications satellites 15 or 20 years ago. You don't see that any more, because it's now entirely in the private sector.
A latest example of that is MSAT. MSAT was a technology generated in federal government laboratories starting almost 20 years ago, and when it was brought to maturity it clearly demonstrated the fact that this could be a successful system. So the private sector has taken the whole MSAT program on itself, and a subsidiary of Telesat, TMI, has launched a satellite and will be starting commercial operations in a few months.
Mr. Schmidt: The various estimates place the cost of putting one of those Telesat satellites into space at about $400 million or $450 million. How does that compare with the cost of getting your RADARSAT satellite up there?
Mr. Evans: The RADARSAT cost the federal government a little more than $600 million.
Mr. Schmidt: Why did it cost so much more?
Mr. Evans: RADARSAT is an extremely sophisticated satellite. The quality of the images that you have in front of you and that are displayed here are better than you can get from any other commercial satellite currently in existence - an earth observation satellite.
.1605
RADARSAT is the first commercially oriented earth observation satellite using radar. There are other experimental radar satellites up, but this is the first one aimed at a commercial system.
We had to put in place not only the satellite, but the entire ground infrastructure that would operate the satellite, receive the data, distribute the data, and make sure we could get the information to those who could use it. So the cost I just mentioned is the total cost of the whole system.
Mr. Schmidt: Does that include the ground installation there, too?
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Mr. Schmidt: The other question I have.... Apparently with the RADARSAT II, you are expecting to have the federal government contribute about $250 million. Does that mean there's about $350 million of private money that's going to be contributed?
Mr. Evans: We're not certain how much private money will be required. What we have said to the private sector is that in long-term space plan II, which was announced two years ago, the government set aside a certain amount of money - about $220 million - for the next generation of RADARSAT, knowing full well that it would not pay the total cost of the new system.
Right now the consortium, which is led by SNC Lavalin, is preparing for us a proposal that will highlight what they believe to be the total costs of the system, what they believe the performance of the system should be, what investments they will make and other companies will make, what equity and what debt they will need, and what sort of structure they would like to see in place for the privatization of the system. So until we get that proposal, I don't know the answer to your question.
Mr. Schmidt: Okay. That's good.
The other question has to do with this whole business of commercialization. With respect to the process of getting this private involvement in marketing the RADARSAT data that's coming off RADARSAT I now and the RADARSAT II that's going to be launched five years from now or a bit before, are the contracts for these negotiated ahead of time or are they done after the satellite is up there? Just what is the process of soliciting and then actually letting the contracts to these commercial interests?
Mr. Evans: RADARSAT I is a program that has been on the books in the federal government for almost 20 years. It has gone through many metamorphoses with different partners as we went through those years.
When the government in 1984 and 1986 finally approved the RADARSAT program, it was on the basis that there would be a private sector company in place to market and sell the data, because the feeling was quite clear that if RADARSAT was to be a commercial success it needed the private sector to dictate what it should be doing and to be involved in the distribution of the data.
At that time several companies in Canada got together and formed RADARSAT International on their own. There's no government money in RADARSAT International. We then signed an agreement with RADARSAT International in terms of giving it the data in return for royalties. So that's how that happened.
For the construction of the satellite and the construction of the ground segment, we went through the normal process of defining the requirements and letting contracts with Canadian industry.
Mr. Schmidt: I'm more interested in the first part. Could we follow that up a little bit further?
There's approximately $8 million in contracts that they've now signed. What is the projection forward? It's been up there for about eight months now?
Mr. Evans: No. RADARSAT was launched just in November. It was declared operational just on April 1.
Mr. Schmidt: So let's say April 1. That's one month, just barely, today.
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Mr. Schmidt: If that's $8 million, do you project this to accelerate beyond that $8 million as rapidly as it came in the first month?
Mr. Evans: We would hope so. The original business plan foresees something in the neighbourhood of $260 million in sales, for which we would get a 20% royalty.
Mr. Schmidt: In one year?
Mr. Evans: No, no. It would be over the total of the five years. It looks, just on the basis of the initial sales, that this system will do better than that.
.1610
Mr. Schmidt: May I move into another area? It has to do with the actual estimates that are in the.... It has to do with some of the numbers. I'm looking particularly at the Canadian space station. I remember correctly some of the things, but I would like you to describe briefly what it is that we're actually getting for the millions of dollars we put into that space station.
Mr. Evans: The Canadian space station program's purpose is twofold. One is to supply to the station the robotics equipment that will be required to actually build and maintain the station. I think everyone in this room is familiar with the Canadarm, which is on the shuttle. There will be a similar set of robotics equipment on the space station.
Mr. Schmidt: Is it there now?
Mr. Evans: No. The first launch of the space station will not be until late 1997 or early 1998.
Our equipment is about 50% or 60% built now. If you were to travel to Spar's plant in Brampton, you could see this latest arm in bits and pieces. The primary purpose is to meet our commitments under the arrangements that we have with NASA and the other international partners to provide those robotics.
It's interesting and I think important to understand that the space station cannot be built and maintained without the robotics equipment that Canada is producing. Canada is up there with the United States and Russia as the only countries in the whole consortium that are part of the international space station that are providing elements that are absolutely essential for the program. That I think is a strong testimony to the credibility we have with NASA and our other partners.
The other purpose for our being involved in the space station is to be capable of utilizing the space station for scientific and industrial research. At the present moment the space shuttle will give us at most 10 to 15 days of microgravity research. The space station will give us as long as we want. This is significant to a lot of experiments. We have been seeking longer duration of microgravity experimentation. In fact, just a week or so ago some very important Canadian experiments were launched up to the Russian space station Mir, and we expect to have some long-duration experimentation on Mir. So that's another reason we're involved in the space station.
We are trying with the space station, the way we do with everything else we undertake to commercialize, to transfer the technology - to be able to get the ground-based terrestrial benefits from the technology. For example, one of the key components of the robotics that we'll be doing for the space station is something we call the space vision system. The first elements of this system were tested on Marc Garneau's flight back in 1984. It was further developed under Steve MacLean's flight and on Chris Hatfield's flight that took place in November. He actually used the prototype of that system to help do the performance he had to do, which was putting the docking collar in place for attaching to Mir. It is absolutely essential that this vision work or the robotics will not work on the space station, because for the first time the operators in space will not be able to see what the robot is doing.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. We'll have to come back on the next round.
Mr. Schmidt: I apologize.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Mr. Murray.
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): Mr. Evans, I want to stay on this space station issue for a minute longer. You mentioned that Canada is providing the essential components. We've also, though, cut back our commitment to the space station. I think - going back to 1994 - we renegotiated our contribution.
I'm just wondering how that has affected our potential time using the space station. Also, with the Russians perhaps becoming involved, is that going to cut back our potential use as well? From our original hopes, what do you see happening?
.1615
Mr. Evans: When we joined the program - in 1986 we finally signed the documents - Canada's share of the utilization of the space station was 3%. As a result of the change, back in 1994, in the need for us to restructure what we were doing because of costs, our participation was reduced from 3% to 2.3% or 2.4%, so it's not a major change.
To put that in perspective, to participate at that level, the 2.3% or 2.4% we have now would cost us more than we have for our space science budget, for example, so we have ample opportunity to use the space station. From that point of view, we need to develop the science and experiments, and have them paid for in order to utilize that.
Mr. Murray: How does that compare with our total contribution as a percentage of the total cost?
Mr. Schmidt: That's 50%.
Mr. Evans: When the station agreements were formed in 1986, there was some relationship between your share of the utilization and your percentage of contribution to the program, but it was never rigorous. With the changes that have occurred, the cost escalations that have taken place, and with the Russians coming on board, our 2.3% is much larger than our financial contribution as a percentage of the total program.
Mr. Murray: That's encouraging.
I want to move back to RADARSAT. These are remarkable images. I'm assuming the one you've given us is the best it can do, or can it be further enhanced?
Mr. Evans: No, no, that is not the best. In fact that's the first image that was taken. We have images now.... RADARSAT is a very flexible instrument. If you conceive of it like a zoom camera, it can zoom in on things, or it can back off, so it can have a very detailed image of a small area, or it can have a less detailed image of a larger area. Not only that, but we can change the direction in which it's looking.
All this is to say that that image is taken with what's called the 30-metre resolution. We have images that are taken with seven-metre resolution. On those images with seven-metre resolution.
First of all, let me back off and explain what you can see in that image.
You will see a couple of little dots in the dark water. They look like faults in the image, but those are not. It's in the dark part of the water. Those are actually ships, and when we blow up that image, you can not only see the ships, but you can see the wake of those ships. And not only can you see the wake of the ships, but because of an effect called the Doppler effect the wake is displaced from the ship. That gives you the velocity of the ship at the time the image was taken.
So from that image, even at that coarse resolution, we can detect ships, we can see where they have come from, and we can see the speed they were going at at the time the image was taken. In fact one of those ships is headed out towards Newfoundland. The other one is headed into Sydney Harbour.
If we now move to the higher resolution images, we have images that show airports. You can see the terminals, the gangways on the terminals, and the aircraft attached to the gangways.
Mr. Murray: Would it be fair to characterize this as essentially what were military spy satellites -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Murray: - or is that military technology now being used for commercial applications?
Mr. Evans: No, not really. We don't know for sure, but we believe there are definitely higher resolution capacities still available in the military world.
Mr. Murray: You may have answered the question I was leading to.
I was just wondering about your future market share, because originally we looked at this as essentially sophisticated mapping. I thought perhaps the market would be saturated once customers had bought whatever they wanted in terms of mapping of a certain area of the globe, but what you're telling me is that people would want to buy this information, perhaps on a daily or weekly basis, to monitor certain activities.
.1620
Mr. Evans: For instance, one of the major contracts of RSI is with a company in Indonesia, which is interested in how the trees are being harvested in Indonesia.
RADARSAT is a marvellous example, because, as you see, that image was taken at night through cloud. In the tropical regions of the world, where there are a lot of the rainforests, it's covered by cloud all the time. So optical earth observation systems can't get the images you can get with a radar system.
So there is a significant repeat usage by governments and by companies who are interested in how natural resources are being utilized.
I might point out that on that image you can see very clearly the geological features that underlie the surface of Cape Breton. This is only available through images that come from radar. Geological companies are very interested in these images, not for repeat usage but for initially looking at ways and means of finding where minerals or oil deposits would be.
There are so many applications for the radar, but I would just like to point out that radar doesn't give you everything. The leading company in the provision of optical earth observation data is a French company called SPOT. RSI and SPOT are working together to combine the best of optical imaging with radar imaging so that we will be able to meet the world demand.
Mr. Murray: Okay, except I have one quick question. I would like to move to the astronaut program. I notice that the estimates for 1996-97 show a reduction in human resources, full-time equivalents, to 20 from 37 in the previous year, yet the budget has gone up considerably. My question relates to that. Why has the budget for that program gone up? Is it just because Marc Garneau is going off into space again, or is there something more fundamental than that?
Mr. Evans: I think one of the reasons for what you see there is that we have transferred the responsibility for the space vision system to the astronaut program. It used to be part of the space station. So that is augmenting their budget somewhat.
The number of people in the astronaut program varies dramatically, depending on the flight rate. The astronaut program is one of the largest employers of students. In that count of people you will find a significant number of students.
Mr. Murray: Out of 20 people?
Mr. Evans: Well, no, it's probably more. That number is the FTEs. It's 20 equivalent people, but one FTE could be six people working two months each. So I hate to count it in terms of people. It's -
Mr. Murray: Okay.
Mr. Evans: I might point out that with Chris Hatfield's flight, Marc Garneau's flight, and Bob Thirsk's flight.... Bob Thirsk could be flying on the shuttle mission immediately after Marc Garneau. Those three flights will have taken place in the span of about eight months, which is an enormous flight rate for us. It does stress our system in terms of our being able to cope with it.
Mr. Murray: Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Murray.
That concludes the first round of questioning. We move to five minutes. Monsieur Ménard, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I know that we have before us the only public servants who are allowed to have their heads in the clouds, but I will try to ask specific questions, Mr. Chairman. I have three of those.
The minister announced his science and technology policy a few weeks ago. You have seen your budget reduced from $301 million to $226 million. Am I mistaken to think that at the time you were asked to make critical choices as administrators, you were not actually aware of the major orientations which the Minister of Industry was going to propose? Then, if that was the case, on what basis did you make those choices as administrators?
I will ask my three questions in a row, if I may, so that you can see the relationships between them.
.1625
Secondly, I understand that the Space Agency was neither designed nor meant to be a regional development organization. However, in your presentation, you looked somewhat proud to mention an alleged or actual relationship between the existence of the agency and the creation of a number of high-tech jobs. In the case of Quebec, could you just give us a general idea of the spin-offs which resulted from the creation of the agency, and indicate which relationships you can see between the two?
You also talked about Spar. In Quebec, there are some thirty major firms in the aerospace area. Could you somewhat specify for us what relationships you can notice between the development of an industrial sector such as the aerospace industry and the contracts that have been let? Finally, as a Quebec-based agency, how would you rate the value of your contribution to the development of that industry?
My third question will also be my last one. You must surely be aware that the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion has seen its budget drastically cut. I don't know if you have any business relationships with that centre. In Quebec, people are very concerned. You certainly can imagine what that means. I guess that, as administrators, you would not like to find yourselves in a position of being suddenly faced with a budget cut of $7 million. Although this centre is funded under a tripartite arrangement, the federal government, in a rather amazing move which could be seen as barbarous management policy, announced its cuts without previously notifying its two partners of its intention.
As a Canadian agency, do you maintain any relationships with that research centre? If so, can you tell us if you are anticipating any effects from those cuts and give us an idea of their nature if any?
Those are my three main questions, Mr. Chairman. As you can see, I am reasonable. However, I insist on getting precise answers. You may be allowed to have your heads in the clouds, but you still must give specific answers.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): I don't expect you'll jump in either.
Mr. Ménard: Oh, oh.
Mr. Evans: Thank you. Before I answer your three questions, I will now try to answer the question your colleagues asked earlier.
It is an accounting change. Previously the legal services and the Ottawa office of the agency were part of our administration and support. This year we have created an evaluation unit, which the agency did not have before. That's also to be part of the administration and support. So that's an accounting change.
But one of the increases that is in that increase you pointed out, a real increase, is in our communications budget, which has been increased by $1 million as part of the long-term space plan II, in order to create an awareness in the country about what we do in space, what we accomplish in space, and in general to try to sensitize the Canadians, and particularly youth, about science and technology in general.
I hope that specifically answers Mr. Leblanc's question. I will now get to the three questions you asked.
First of all, you're right, the main estimates show that our budget is decreasing from $319 million to $226 million. Unfortunately, for those of you who try to follow the Canadian space program through the main estimates, that does not tell the whole picture. long-term space plan II, in fact the entire space plan, has always been funded with a bit of an A base or an ongoing base, plus the infusion of funds for very specific projects. These projects don't always start of the beginning of the fiscal year. So these projects, which don't start at the beginning of the fiscal year, don't show up in the main estimates.
When long-term space plan II was approved, the government set aside $1 billion over 10 years for new space initiatives. Among these are the RADARSAT II program and the advanced satellite communications program.
.1630
Now, we have access to those funds when we go to the Treasury Board and make a specific proposal for how we intend to spend those funds. We have accessed some of that $1 billion, and it shows up in the main estimates. We have not yet accessed most of it, and it will show up in future main estimates or in supplementary estimates that are done during the year.
My expectations for the total expenditures of the agency this year, for example, will be about $320 million. So through our proposals for Radarsat II, advanced satellite communications and others, in supplementary estimates we will get additional funds that have already been set aside by the government, waiting for us to take them.
Unfortunately, the main estimates show a decrease in reality because of the technicalities of putting the main estimates together; that's what they had to show. In reality the budget of the agency will in fact be slightly higher this year than last year.
Your second question has to do with spin-offs in Quebec. Starting at the very top level, more than 35% of our expenditures over a period of time are spent in Quebec. The agency, of course, itself is located in Quebec.
The only company we have capable of building satellites is located in Ste. Anne de Bellevue. You know that CAE is located in Montreal, and is a first class world leader in simulators. MPB Technologies is a significant company in Montreal. It does more than just space, as does CAE. MPB Technologies, as I mentioned, created this aquatic research facility under contract to us, which is going to fly on Dr. Garneau's flight. We have arrangements with -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I hope you will keep some time to answer my question about magnetic fusion, but could you tell me, on a scale of 100, what proportion of that business goes to Quebec? I understand that you cannot have in mind every contracts the agency is letting, but as far as you know, what portion of those contracts goes to Quebec? In terms of regional development, how big is the Quebec share? If you had to bet on that or give that information, what would be your assessment, as an administrator, of the percentage of business which goes to Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Evans: In terms of dollar value, let's say 35% of the dollar value of our contracts go to -
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: If I understood you well, thirty-five percent of the contracts that the agency has concluded with the private sector have been let to Quebec firms?
[English]
Mr. Evans: If I understand correctly, you're asking about the number of contracts. I don't have that information. What I have is the value of the contracts.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I will reformulate my question. I think that you are a major partner in the aerospace industry in Quebec. For historical reasons, Quebec has a niche, a concentration of enterprises capable of carrying out some of those contracts.
You are telling me that, overall, on a scale of 100, you did let to Quebec firms about thirty-five percent of the contracts in the course of last year. If such is the case, you are going to become my idol in technology.
.1635
[English]
Mr. Evans: Let me try again. We can provide you with the details of the contracts that are let. So we can give you precise numbers, names and dollar values of companies. All of that is available.
We measure our statistics over a long period of time, because most of these contracts are multi-year contracts. What I can say is that as of December 1995, we have let $1.8 billion worth of contracts, and 35% of that has gone to the province, to industries located in the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Just a last word on magnetic fusion, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Mr. Ménard, you can get back on the next round.
Mr. Mayfield.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: But don't go away before having talked about magnetic fusion.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Can you answer it quickly?
Mr. Evans: Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question very quickly. We have nothing to do with magnetic fusion.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): I think that's a very clear response.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Yes, you're right, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Voices: Oh, oh.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Monsieur Ménard. Mr. Mayfield.
Mr. Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin): Thank you very much. Some of the information you provided today, and mainly the graphic information, was really exciting. At least in my mind, the potential for what this can be used for is pretty vast.
The word ``security'' has been used here, but I think you're talking about commercial applications. Is this piece of machinery up in space being used for security purposes?
Mr. Evans: Undoubtedly the answer to that is yes. I might mention, for example, the ability to detect ships. This is a very significant sovereignty issue, if you will, for Canada. We have the largest coastline in the world, and knowing where ships are, where they come from, etc., is a useful piece of information.
I must caution you that you can't see all the ships all the time, so it's not a foolproof system.
I'll give you an example of another use of this data. When the U.S. commerce secretary's plane went down in Bosnia, we were asked to provide some images, which allowed the U.S. authorities to try to see the path of the wreckage, to try to reconstruct what happened.
The fact that, as I mentioned, RADARSAT can, in certain modes of operation, detect aircraft on runways probably is of interest to the military. The Canadian government's policy on the use of the data is for peaceful purposes. It does not exclude military use, so I would expect.... We know, for example, that the Canadian military are vitally interested in the information that comes from RADARSAT. I would expect that maybe the military of other governments would be interested.
Mr. Mayfield: I make no apology for speaking as a Canadian national as I ask these questions, but I think it's great that we can use it to our Canadian advantage, and where it's not to our disadvantage to assist other nations in the world as well.
I'm wondering if, as part of the commercial part of this, where in fact you're selling the services of this satellite, this satellite being used by other nations, perhaps for their security services, security needs.
.1640
Mr. Evans: We know one of our major partners in this program is NASA. We know that RADARSAT will be used to map Antarctica. It's the first time ever that the total continent of Antarctica will be mapped. That's of scientific interest, but also of military interest.
I would expect that even the U.S. military would procure a significant amount of this data. They have certainly shown strong interest in having a look at what we have.
Mr. Mayfield: You also mentioned that this technology is going to be provided for China to put together a RADARSAT of their own. Is that the expectation?
When it is available to them, will that RADARSAT the Chinese nation has in its possession be to any disadvantage to Canadians and our RADARSAT program?
Mr. Evans: I don't think so. We're at the very early stages of the discussion with the Chinese on how this might happen. We have signed an agreement with them for the reception of our RADARSAT data. As far as we can tell, their interest in procuring a satellite system of their own stems strictly from resource management needs, for instance, looking at floods, rice fields, etc.
There is no doubt, though, with images of this quality that we are unable to control their end use. We would not, for instance, give the Chinese the RADARSAT technology if we felt that it was going to substantially detract from the commercial aspects of our own satellite system.
Mr. Mayfield: You could control it by selling the information from our machinery, too.
Another question I wanted to ask you -
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): One last, quick question.
Mr. Mayfield: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You mentioned that the federal government has access to 50% of the data provided by RADARSAT I. Do you have any idea why you don't have access to it all?
Mr. Evans: We have access to it all if we want to pay for it. What I was saying is that we have that data available to us.
Go back to the original purpose of RADARSAT. It stemmed from an idea, back in the mid-1970s, that we would be transporting oil and other mineral reserves from the north to the south, and people were looking at ways and means of ensuring safe transportation. It became very clear that radar is a very useful instrument in terms of differentiating between new and old ice. With radar we can help ships plan their way to the south.
We will see that the Canadian government is using the system now. In fact one of our major users of the system right now is the coast guard, and an organization that is part of Environment Canada, the ice centre. It is being used now operationally for just that purpose. In fact we will also find that it's useful for floodplain observations.
The Canadian government will be a major user in order to facilitate and make more effective and more efficient the type of operations it has to undertake.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.
Mr. Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my questions and any comments I have is, I suppose, my inherent desire that what has been developed and is such a useful tool would, first of all, be used to the advantage of Canadians without jeopardizing that advantage down the line. Thank you very much.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Mayfield. Mr. Shepherd, please.
Mr. Shepherd (Durham): To continue with your earlier conversation about the letting of contracts, is the domicile of the recipient of a contract a factor in letting contracts?
.1645
Mr. Evans: No. The primary factor in determining where these large contracts are let has to do with the capability of the industry involved. It just so happens that the largest contractor we have, Spar Aerospace, is located in Ontario and Quebec. It so happens that their facility in Ontario is the robotics centre, and their facility in Quebec is the satellite facility.
That having been said, we do have some very specific initiatives under way to try to enhance the participation of industries in Atlantic Canada, for example, in the program. Ten years ago there was no participation by Atlantic Canada in the Canadian space program; now that's 4%. It's not because we are forcing those contracts into Atlantic Canada; it's because we have made a concerted effort to make those industries aware of the Canadian space program. We also have made a concerted effort to make sure that we're aware of their capabilities. Through that awareness process we're finding that they do win contracts.
Mr. Shepherd: Fair enough.
On a personal matter, Roberta Bondar and her research into microgravity materials program is part of your program as well, in your science portfolio. I don't understand the process. I think she made an application, or something, for funding for her research. Now she's in the United States doing that. Could you explain to me what happened in that process?
Mr. Evans: Yes. When Roberta was a member of the agency, the Canadian Space Agency funded - it's not materials research, it's research in terms of blood flow in the brain - that while she was an astronaut in the Canadian space program. Since she left the program, we have again funded her research on a contract to us, for a total of some $2.1 million over five years, along with support from NSERC, the granting council.
In fact the statistics will show that through the process of our joint funding with NSERC, financing of Roberta's research in life sciences is the largest single research in life sciences we have under way in this country.
Her issue stems from the way in which all of these research grants, the role the federal government plays in supported research.... The system is built on the premise that the researcher has a position in a university. Therefore the universities cover their salary, overheads, and that sort of thing. As I understand it, Roberta's particular issue is that she could not find a position in a university. That was her problem, not the funding of her research per se.
Mr. Shepherd: Could you just clarify that for me? As I understand it, she's not doing this kind of research in the United States.
Mr. Evans: Her research always involved a significant element of activity in the United States, because her research is based on testing astronauts before and after they fly. So she has a research associate in the United States.
Mr. Shepherd: But we continue to fund her in some kind of form?
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Mr. Shepherd: I have only one other question. In studying the history of the space station Freedom.... Is that's what it's called?
Mr. Evans: Not any more. It's now called space station Alpha.
Mr. Shepherd: All right, Alpha.
.1650
It would appear to me that the history has been one of burgeoning and unanticipated cost overruns. Various people come along, and all of a sudden the cost keeps going up and up. Are we confident at this time that we understand what the costs are to complete this project?
Mr. Evans: The answer to that question is yes. You're right: if you take a good look at the total space station program, including what the United States, the Europeans, the Japanese, the Russians and the Canadians are contributing, it is a much more costly program than was originally anticipated. Every nation has been struggling to keep those costs under control. That's why periodically there is a review of the space station, and there's a downsizing.
I can tell you that in 1986 I stood before a committee like this and said that the Canadian space station program would cost $1.2 billion. And I'll tell you today, the Canadian space station program is going to cost the Canadian taxpayers $1.2 billion.
We have been able to restructure our contribution. We have been able to work with our partners to keep our costs within the originally estimated costs.
Mr. Shepherd: Do you think all these governments have the intestinal fortitude to continue financing this to its completion?
Mr. Evans: Oh, yes. I think the days of questioning of the space station by European governments and by the American government are over.
At a ministerial conference of all the science ministers of Europe, the European Space Agency has agreed to be full partners in the space station, and to carry out their role. So in Europe that issue is now behind them.
In the United States a couple of years ago the program came within one vote in Congress of being terminated. Those days are over now. The program has solid support again, because NASA has been able to show Congress that it is keeping the costs at a certain level.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thanks, Mr. Shepherd.
I have three names left on my list. We have five minutes of questions, and I'll start withMs Payne, please.
Mrs. Payne (St. John's West): I think you have answered some of my questions, but I was interested in your comments with regard to ice activity and fishing boat activity off the east coast of Canada. I am wondering how much more improved our reports on ice surveillance will be.
I would like to make one comment. One of the problems we had in detecting boats and being able to prove our cases in court was the fact that the foreign boats were able to do their fishing and get outside the 200-mile limit before we were able to get enforcement officers on board. I now believe that because of this, detection can be done without them ever knowing they're being detected, at least at this point.
More interesting to me would in fact be the effect that will have on the costs of government to do this kind of work in future by reason of technology.
Mr. Evans: There are two parts to your question. First, RADARSAT is able to detect some ships sometime. It is not at all capable of identifying ships, although, just as an aside, I must state that on the high resolution image, we have images of ships. While we cannot identify which ship this is, we are able to see the holds of the cargo ships, so we can tell a cargo ship from a weather ship. Under certain conditions, we can determine the superstructure of the ship, so we could determine whether it's a ship that's low in the water or one that is high. So there are certain characteristics, but we cannot identify ships.
The Canadian Ice Centre is using RADARSAT for two reasons. They believe it will cost them less than flying aircraft. In fact they are terminating their contracts to fly aircraft. Second, with this system we are able - and we're doing it now routinely - to have the ice images in the hands of the ship's captain within two hours of the overpass of RADARSAT. So it's much more efficient and effective, and that's why they're using RADARSAT.
Mrs. Payne: And cheaper.
.1655
Mr. Evans: Yes.
Mrs. Payne: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mrs. Payne.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc.
Mr. Leblanc: Mr. Evans, thank you very much for your answer to my question. That was not an hostile question. I simply wanted to get an answer.
About our participation in the space station, did our relative percentage of participation, compared to that of other partners like the Americans, the Japanese and the Europeans, drop significantly, or did it remain about the same?
[English]
Mr. Evans: When our percentage dropped from 3% to 2.3%, the U.S. picked up 0.7%, so their percentage went up. The European percentage I believe is 12.5%. The Japanese are at 12.5%. The Americans have the rest. The Americans are now going to have to share some of their utilization with the Russians, who have just joined the program.
But you can see that Canada is in there at 2.3%, with the Europeans being in it 12.5%. We are small but, for our country, significant players in the program.
I'll reiterate that the space station can be built without the Japanese and without the Europeans. It cannot be built without the Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: I am very glad that we are there. However, you are talking of about 2.3 percent, which is still quite an enormous amount of money, since we are taking here of $1.2 billion. Will we have the same opportunity to do some research in the space station? Will we be granted the same amount of time in the space station?
[English]
Mr. Evans: When I talk about the 2.1%, I'm talking about the percentage of the power available on the space station, the percentage of the volume available on the space station, and the percentage of astronaut time available on the space station. All these things are resources available for use of space stations, so our percentage is of all of that.
You're also right that it will take a significant amount of money to utilize that 2.1%, in terms of providing the scientific instruments. In the documentation you will see that we do have a microgravity research program. We have a life sciences research program. They're very aggressive. They're part of Marc Garneau's flight, they were part of Steve MacLean's flight, they're part of what's going on in the Mir space station at the present time.
These are all aimed at getting Canadian scientists and industries in a position to know what the space station is all about, to know what the microgravity environment is all about, and to position them to be able to use the space station. So we have a precursor program under way now.
I might also mention that as a result of our participation in the space station, we have the right to fly our astronauts to the space station. With this tremendous flight activity we have now, Chris Hatfield, Marc Garneau, and Bob Thirsk are all part of the agreement with the United States on the space station, giving us the opportunity for our astronauts to perform experiments in space. So this is all leading to the space station era.
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc: Do you often have an opportunity to exchange on a scientific level with researchers from foreign countries? Do you review together the outcomes of the experiments or does every country do it on its own in most cases?
.1700
[English]
Mr. Evans: The science program we have is a major international operation. Everything we do in space science is basically done with some international partner. We participate not only with the United States and the Russians, but with the Swedes, the Japanese, the Germans, the French; it goes on and on. The type of science program we have is really basically an international cooperative program, and the results are therefore shared.
To me it's a significant accomplishment of our scientists that they win the opportunity to fly their experiments. What happens is that the process is one of say Sweden or the United States or Russia will issue an announcement of opportunity, saying there's an opportunity here to fly experiments. We invite the scientists of the world to make proposals. Canadian scientists win more than their fair share of those. The capacity of science in this country is incredible, and it's well respected worldwide.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you, Mr. Leblanc.
Mr. Schmidt, you'll be the last questioner for today.
Mr. Schmidt: Thank you. I have two sets of questions, if I might.
The first set of questions has to do with the European Space Agency. According to the grants and contributions program, I notice that, with the exception of the executive horizontal coordination, virtually all the grants and contributions are to the European Space Agency, in one form or another. Is this part of the space agency program? Exactly how does this separate from the other work of the space program?
Mr. Evans: Canada has a long-term arrangement with the European Space Agency. It's a 10-year agreement, which comes to conclusion in 1998. By virtue of that arrangement, we are able to participate in programs of the European Space Agency.
The fact that it's a grant and a contribution is a technical issue; it's not a programmatic issue. It's just the mechanism we have available to us here in the Government of Canada to participate in their programs.
Mr. Schmidt: It's actually a payment to them. They don't pay us anything in return?
Mr. Evans: What happens is that Canadian industry becomes aware of activities of the European Space Agency. We're aware of activities at the European Space Agency. Together we decide, here are programs we would like to participate in. So we go to the European Space Agency and we work with them to try to ensure that what we want to do can take place. If we are able to do that, then we contribute to that program.
In managing those programs, ESA lets contracts back to Canadian industry. So we are contributing to several European Space Agency programs in earth observation, telecommunications, and as a result of that contracts are let to Canadian industry.
Mr. Schmidt: These particular areas have to do with space science; they have to with the variety of programs. The question I have has to do with earth observation, to be specific. That's the radar satellite we're doing, dealing with the work up there. Does the earth observation with the ESA parallel that, does it overlap with it, or does it simply coordinate with it? Just how does that work?
Mr. Evans: It's a very coordinated effort. For example, the European Space Agency has launched two radar satellites, called ERS-1 and ERS-2. Canada participated significantly in ERS-1 for two reasons. First, our company, MacDonald Dettwiler, was the prime contractor for the ground segment for ERS-1. So it was a major contract that came to us for that, and we also provided some of the equipment on the satellite. Second, it allowed us to participate in the ERS-1 data reception program. We could get that data. And this all happened before RADARSAT was launched.
.1705
So it was all part and parcel of a strategy we had to build confidence in Canadian industry to utilize the data from a radar satellite. It's all part of our desire to build up what we call a value-added industry in Canada. Those are those industries that take the data and images like that, and convert it into useful information that can be used by resource managers, or whoever.
So we continue to participate in that program, ERS-2, which is a carbon copy of ERS-1, on a much lower level, just so that we could continue to use the data and learn from it. Neither one of those satellites matches the technical capacity and capability of RADARSAT, so they don't constitute a threat to us at all. We have used those programs to increase the sales of Canadian industry, and to ensure that we get enough knowledge so we can have a running start on RADARSAT.
Mr. Schmidt: This is a supplementary question, because I have one after this.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): One last question.
Mr. Schmidt: One last? I have to choose between those two?
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): One last question.
Mr. Schmidt: Okay. I'll catch you later, I guess.
The last question has to do with RADARSAT II. Is it simply a duplicate of RADARSAT I, or will it have greater capabilities than RADARSAT I?
Mr. Evans: I can't answer that question, because that's in the hands of the consortium. They will have to decide whether RADARSAT II is a carbon copy of RADARSAT I, or whether they want to make enhancements.
Mr. Schmidt: Well, if we're paying the shot, how come we don't have an input?
Mr. Evans: We're paying part of the shot. The whole philosophy here is that we have demonstrated the technology with RADARSAT I, and we are offering the private sector the opportunity to take over RADARSAT II. They're the ones who know the market, they're the ones who will decide the capacity and capabilities of RADARSAT II.
Mr. Schmidt: No problem.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): Thank you very much, Mr. Schmidt.
I'd like to thank the witnesses and Mr. Evans for providing an insightful look into the Canadian Space Agency, for coming before our committee and answering the questions of my colleagues. Thank you very much.
Members, before the meeting is to adjourn, is it agreed that the Competition Bureau and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council appear before the committee with respect to the main estimates for 1996-97 on Tuesday, May 7, at 3:30 p.m. and Thursday, May 16, at 9:30 a.m. respectively?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Valeri): And lastly, the committee is adjourned until 3:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 1, when the Honourable John Manley will be appearing before us in Room 308, West Block. Thank you.