serendipityoucity

I am learning much about the democratic process in Canada with respect to S&T, or shall I say how difficult it is for a citizen to do citizenship (see Darin Barney Paper about his conception of this word) and find a place in this S&T discussion.  I have discovered:

• how two scientists, in an act of civil disobedience got the issue out by following their conscious and quitting their engineering jobs at MDA. They did not want to work for an American arms manufacturer, particularly one that makes dirty land mines.
  
• that journalists who have dedicated their careers to watching defence and space issues can have a very large impact,
  
• that scientific associations may have less of a voice on political matters related to S&T as a significant number of their members work for the government and are therefore under a gag order.  So far I have not heard of non lobby non consulting scientific associations taking a stance.
  
• that Nobel Prize winning scientists who do not have to worry about career limiting moves can speak freely and if we are lucky, as in the case of Polanyi they do.  Clout helps!
  
• S&T committees, where their docs are located and how to get information from the committee clerk.  Perhaps I will begin to go and observe these committees in action.
  
• great leads in the articles I read about consultants, experts and spokespeople.  By following these I discovered some incredible lobby groups, consulting firms and loads of good research on space strategy, data strategies, EO strategies, along with the space and defence industry related to radar and satellite
• that I do not know anyone who is actively working on these issues, save 1 PhD student.  That I also know few people who know more than I do on this topic that I can have a conversation with. And I know very little.
  
• some excellent educational material about earth observation (EO) technologies
• that the first organizations to appear on the scene were less scientific in nature and more policy oriented on issues of defence and sovereingty.  Later what followed were stories from science and industry.
• that opposition parties were against the sale.  That the NDP was first on the scene asking hard questions.  I need to check what the Bloc has to say.
• I received two separate and different letters from NDP Leaders Paul Dewar, MPP my riding in Ottawa-Centre and Jack Layton.  With the Jack Layton letter I received a list of actions the NDP took on this issue (I’ll paste below as they are interesting).  I also found an open letter from the Liberals.
  
• framing the story is important, in this case it was sovereignty, access to military secrets, space strategy, space industry, tax expenditures, government mistakes, the fear of arms manufactures, private public good,  and sadly for me the issue of data access and environmental monitoring was pretty much last
  
• a petition and a form letter

Doing Citizenship:

• I got informed
• I blogged about it
  
• I talked to remote sensing specialists
• I pointed the issue out to S&T experts (seems that this type of issue, is well not on their radar!)
  
• I signed a petition and submitted a slightly modified form letter

Pretty lame really and quite frankly, is this all there is? Is this all that the means of democracy (see Barney again) in Canada has to offer?  What I have done will have little or no impact on the final decision by Prentice or the INDU committee.  It seems that being an intelligent citizen who cares about these issues, who has done some digging to make a judgment (what citizens do) about what is morally and ethically right here, is blocked by the means of citizenship in Canada.  There is in fact no real space for me/you to participate in this issue.  I do not know my place as a citizen in this debate. I was glad to discover the INDU Study where citizens and groups can have a voice, I am not sure how my voice will rank on the authority structures we tacitly adhere to in this country, and I am not sure how to really get involved in S&T policy at the moment nor how to have a real influence.

NDP Problems with the sale of MDA to ATK: (via email from Jack Layton)

1. Landmines Treaty: ATK is the largest producer of cluster bombs, landmines and other munitions in the US and one of the largest in the world. Allowing Canadian technology to enhance ATK`s capacity is a breach of the spirit, if not the letter of the Ottawa Convention on Landmines which Canada spearheaded.
2. National Security & Arctic Sovereignty: RADARSAT -2 was designed and funded in large part to monitor Canada’s vast territory, particularly the North. We currently have priority access to the use of, and images captured by the satellite, especially as they pertain to national security. All this could be lost. The technology transferred to ATK could also potentially be used for the continued weaponization of space.
3. BILL C-25: AN ACT GOVERNING THE OPERATION OF REMOTE SENSING SPACE SYSTEMS: This standing legislation (in regards to the operation of the RADARSAT 2 Satellite) is aimed at protecting Canada’s national security, national defense and foreign policy interests, while supporting our continued leadership in the provision of satellite remote sensing data. It also gives special powers to the Government of Canada to order priority access or the interruption of service when it is deemed necessary to protect national security, defense or international relations interests and to observe international obligations. No government official has yet provided any answers on how the approval of the sale under the Investment Canada Act will work with the application of the Act.
4. Taxpayer Investment: Canada has invested approximately $450 Million in RADARSAT – 2, which only launched in December of 2007. What will we get for that investment?
5. Employment: Under ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) many Canadian workers may be restricted from working on the classified US projects that MDA hopes to get from the sale and it is unclear what impact this will have on the industry here (ie: what parts of the projects Canadians will work on). Also, many of the brightest minds working in this industry have indicated that they will quit if the sale moves forward and Canada will lose much of this talent.
6. Impacts on Industry: Canada is a world leader in space and satellite technology. It currently has full design and production capacity. As the technology develops, it will not be Canada’s and we will slowly lose that capacity, as well as the foreign investment that comes with a world class industry.
7. Space Missions & Space Policy: Canada has been an active participant in space missions due in large part to our technological contributions such as the Canadarm. Future contributions will not be Canada’s to make. What will this mean for our future involvement in space missions?
8. Government Failure to provide leadership: One of the central reasons given for the sale of MDA to ATK, has been due to the dwindling number of projects and contracts to work on; something potentially resolved if MDA had access to the US market. There is no shortage of projects to work on however. The shortage has come from the government’s lack of action with promised projects such as the RADARSAT constellation, as well as the government’s refusal to support a contract that would have allowed Canada to build the European Space Agency’s Mars surface rover. A national space policy and leadership on the part of the government could resolve any economic reasons for the sale.

I also need to figure out why I am bothered by this issue, why I am compelled to follow-it, and what beliefs are motivating me to pay attention to it and take a stance, make a judgment.  At the moment I can say that rationally it does not make sense, however it was not rationale that got me paying attention, is was something deeper, emotional, intuitive  - which are knowledge sources that get you no-where or have no value in debate structures in the means of male based S&T technocratic led politics!