🚀 go-pugleaf

SYNOPSIS OF TOM HARRIS' MEETING WITH SENIOR CANADIAN SPACE OFFICIALS
                     (continued, as recorded by Tom Harris)


DATE/TIME OF MEETING: June 9, 1995/ 11:00 am - 12:15 pm
LOCATION: Canadian Space Agency (CSA) President's Ottawa office
ATTENDED BY:
        (1) MR. MAC EVANS, President of the CSA;
        (2) MS. DIANA DURNFORD, Special Assistant-Policy to the Minister
        of Industry (The Honorable John Manley);
        (3) MR. TOM HARRIS, Speaker, Space Exploration and Environment.

You'll recall from previous postings that Mr. Evans, Ms. Durnford and
I spent most of this meeting discussing the following two items:

        (1) The suggestions made by an increasing number of social
scientists that the space agencies should focus more on the societal
consequences of manned space exploration and development when marketing
the program;

        (2) The general perception in the space activist community that,
by reducing Canada's contribution to the international space station
project, the government was, in effect, "eating our seed corn", thereby
damaging our potential to generate wealth in the future.

The outcome of our discussion of issue #1 was handled in my news group
submission of a couple of weeks ago (if you missed that submission and
want to read it, just send me a note and I'll fire it off to you).  The
remainder of this news group entry concerns issue #2.

Generally speaking, I was pleasantly suprised with the answers Mr. Evans
gave me.  He seemed quite anoyed that much of the media had focused mostly
on program cuts and said little about the positive things the Long Term
Space Plan (LTSP) will accomplish for Canada's space program.  Here, much
abbreviated, is what he (or, at times, Ms. Durnford) said:

a) Relatively speaking, Mr. Manley is currently treating the CSA as a
"favored department".  While the CSA's overall budget was reduced by about
15% this year, other parts of Industry Canada are suffering much larger
budgets cuts.  I vaguely recall Mr. Evans also saying that space station
funding is virtually unchanged this year -- for those who know the
figures, please advise me and I'll post a follow-up if the station's
budget was changed significantly;

b) Were it not for Manley's enthusiastic promotion of the space station
project last year, other forces in cabinet would likely have already had
their way and Canada would be out of the program entirely.  A 61% cut to
Canada's contribution to the space station project (which is what happened
last year) is unlikely to enthuse space supporters;  however, in contrast
to no involvement at all (which, as I have heard from knowledgeable
sources other than Evans and Durnford, ministers more powerful than Manley
were advocating), we have done well.  It sounds like the anti-Manley
sentiments I've been hearing are unjustified -- the culprits lay elsewhere
(I have a good idea where, but until I have more information, I'll keep
these opinions to myself);

c) as a result of the LTSP, we will see an average of one Canadian per
year traveling on board the shuttle up to the time the space station is
commissioned.  This is in contrast to a total of three Canadians who have
flown in space since 1984;

d) While no funds have been allocated to support Canadian astronauts
visiting the station after its commissioning, this does not mean the we
will not be on board.  As Mr. Evans put it, the funding decisions have
simply been "punted down field", put off to a later time closer to when
the station is actually up and running.  Indeed, the CSA is still
continuing to prepare for space station usage and expect funding will be
forthcoming as required on a case by case basis (he said something about a
decision to be made in 2002 about our utilization of the station - if
anyone knows more about this, please let me know or, better still, please
post it so we can all see).  Mr. Evans pointed out that this uncertainty
in long term funding is quite normal in projects of this nature.  As an
example, he explained that ten years ago there was no funding allocated
for the programs which the CSA are well into right now.  (by the way, the
fact that Canada even has a 10 year plan is somewhat unusual -- certainly
the US doesn't).  As I discussed with Mr. Evans, it is still important
that space activists keep up their work so that when the time for these
decisions arrives, Cabinet will know that Canadians want to see our
country involved in this important project.

e) Canada's major contribution to the station (i.e.. the Mobile Servicing
System - (the robotic manipulators required to assemble and maintain the
station)) is expected to be completed as much as one year before it is due
to be launched.  This is apparently much better than our partners in the
project.

f) Mr. Evans also mentioned that the LTSP allocated approximately one
billion dollars in new funding for CSA projects, something that was
apparently given little attention by the media.  

Generally speaking, I came away from the meeting feeling that the people
inside Industry Canada (and the CSA, in particular) are doing the best
they can with the resources at their disposal.  Certainly there seems to
be considerable merit to Diana Durnford's statement that they are "spending
smarter with less".  It won't surprise anyone to hear that Mr. Evans did
say that he would like a bigger budget for his agency.  However, given the
current climate of fiscal restraint in government circles, he feels that
they are doing quite well.  

Until recently, I had considerable sympathy with their position.  However,
now, I'm not so sure.  Before posting this submission, I sent a
preliminary copy to someone (who asked to remain anonymous) who I know to
be very knowledgeable about CSA activities.  This individual painted quite
a different picture to the one I heard in the meeting with Mr. Evans and
Ms. Durnford.  Consequently, I'll soon be posting a follow-up to this news
group submission, giving a somewhat different perspective concerning some
of the points brought up on June 9.  It will probably take a few more days
to get this together so, in the meantime, I welcome your comments on what
I have posted so far.  If you would like your ideas or other information
included in my next posting, feel free to e-mail me at any time.  I would
be happy to keep your name and affiliation confidential if this is what
you want.  In that case, if I posted your ideas, I would do it in such a
way so as to not reveal your identity.

I should point out that I'm not interested in government bashing -- I just
want to assemble a posting which depicts as accurately as I can the real
picture of the funding of Canada's manned space effort.  If the overall
picture is positive then my posting will reflect this and of course the
opposite is true as well.

As you probably gathered from my last news group submissions, I feel that
if the CSA were to change its marketing approach so as to incorporate more
of the social science arguments for manned space exploration and
development then, to a large extent, the funding would take care of itself
-- after all, if enough Canadians seriously want, and speak in favour of,
a larger  manned space program, we will most assuredly get it.  Even a
doubling or tripling of the CSA's budget would have virtually no effect on
the Federal government's short term deficit and, in the long run, the
manned space program will contribute far more to helping solve our debt
crisis than it ever cost.  As space activists, we must continue to show
people this, as well as encourage the government to sell the program in a
way which will better appeal to the real interests of Canadians - on this
last thought, I'll let the news groups know what happens next -- so far
I've not heard back from the CSA or the Department of Industry since my
meeting with them on June 9.

Ad Astra,

Tom Harris

PS:  I have been sending Mr. Evans, M. Fortier and Dr. Karl Doetsch (head
of the manned part of the CSA) copies of all of my news group submissions
since the subject meeting.  I have asked Mr. Evans to let me know if he or
his staff disagree with anything I have posted -- so far, they have not
commented so I am assuming that this means they agree with my descriptions
of what transpired on June 9.  If they correct any parts of this
submission, I'll post that information immediately.