Evidence of meeting #35 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was universities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Dr. Godbout, Genome Canada funding is done through a foundation rather than through a funding agency. How is the accounting done? I recall having been at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts where the Auditor General told us about that. Could you speak to us about it briefly?
11:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Genome Canada
Absolutely. In the document I sent to you, you will find a table that summarizes the governance and the accounting. Genome Canada has to make regular financial reports to the Government of Canada. The responsible department is Industry Canada.
We do it in several ways. We submit a corporate plan every year. We have quarterly meetings of the Board of Directors, and a government representative sits on the board. We have policies, we have a series of financial reports, annual reports, a strategic plan and a corporate plan.
Then, we have had audits, not financial audits but compliance audits. The agreement between the Government of Canada and Genome Canada is a contractual one. It is a proper service contract. The contract states that the Government of Canada can, regularly and at its discretion, conduct not only financial audits but compliance audits: does the agreement reflect what we are doing? It can conduct evaluation audits, after all, we are talking about $840 million. Have we met the government's expectations? These audits are done regularly each year.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Thank you very much, witnesses. I'd like to get right to some questions here, because there are so many things I'd like to ask you.
Dr. Phillipson, I was wondering if you could comment. We have these big science projects here in Canada--you know, the SNOLAB, the NEPTUNE project, the light synchrotron. They seem to have issues with operating costs. I was wondering--do you recommend that the committee actually start looking at the funding for long-term operating costs for these big world-leading science projects that we should all be very proud of?
It seems that we haven't really looked at that. Could you comment, please?
11:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation
You have identified a problem that exists with these large science facilities and projects in Canada. Over the years they have often been developed regionally, in a decentralized way, and funded and owned in a variety of different mechanisms. Some of them do not have ongoing major challenges with operating and maintenance; those you don't hear about, but you certainly do hear about the ones that do.
Most countries--in fact, all our competitor countries--have now developed an overall process or structure to handle their major investments in science and technology. In fact, with that in mind, the granting councils, the National Research Council and CFI, are addressing the problem--not the solutions, but at least they are identifying what the problems are, which facilities come in under this classification, and how other countries approach them.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I see it as an identified problem. As I said, I'm very proud of what we're doing, but I also looked at the governance structure, and it seems to be weighted very much towards academia and not business. I think one of the ideas was to get partnerships with private industry to help pitch in for those things.
Could you comment on the governance structure? Have you looked at that?
11:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation
We are looking at the governance structure. As I've said, they've developed in a totally ad hoc way, often originating in universities or in other regional enterprises.
Overall they've served Canada well. As you said, many in the country are leaders in the world, so I don't want to give the impression that we haven't done well. It's just that, going forward, we need to do better by looking at an overall structure as to how they might be managed--the stewardship, the governance, all of the ongoing operating costs, all of the points you've mentioned.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Do you recommend that the government take a look at this in order to see what we can do for the future?
11:40 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation
We think it would be useful.
11:40 a.m.
Vice-President, National Affairs Branch, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
Just briefly, clearly a number of our member institutions are involved, either as hosts or involved otherwise. Many of these facilities involve quite a number of institutions, including some private sector partners, provincial governments, and others.
It's fair to say that I agree completely with Dr. Phillipson that the models vary substantially and that what they're designed to do vary substantially. In some cases, the relationship with the private sector will be on a contractual basis. There will be a platform, a facility, in place where the private sector can come in and have research done on a contract basis. I think to expect the private sector on an ongoing basis to cover the operating costs of that platform facility is questionable in terms of whether that's the best way to do it. There may be times when it is appropriate. I think you have to take them one at a time.
I do think it is important that a framework be put in place--taking into account the differences, but a framework--before we take on any more of these projects. Right now what happens in a number of them is that the people run them, and in some cases the scientists are spending a lot of time cobbling together money, one year or two or three years at a time, to run these facilities rather than focusing on actually the science and the output.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
I'm glad you brought that up. I've looked at the governance structure in the boards, and I hear from them that they're having problems getting private money. But the boards are all made up of academics. I'm just thinking that in terms of relationship-building and things like that, it would make sense to me to have some board members who actually have contacts in industry.
This kind of leads me to the next question. I wanted to talk to you about this. You are representing the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. In your opening statement, you just talked about universities. In Oshawa I have Durham College and I have the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. I've heard that there is a real bias out there with university research versus college--in other words, theoretical research versus applied research.
As I said, even in your comments you talked all about universities; you really didn't talk about colleges. I'm wondering if there's an inherent bias in our funding of research. Is this a legitimate concern? Could you comment on that?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Vice-President, National Affairs Branch, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
Thank you.
First of all, as to the question of bias in my remarks, we represent universities and university-level colleges, hence my bias. I can't speak for community colleges. I know that the ACCC does speak for community colleges; Jim Knight spoke to the issue here. I know that they are doing what they view as important applied research, and they're doing more of it. The universities also engage, though, in the full spectrum, from basic research through applied research, in a host of areas.
As to whether there's a bias in funding, I'd say university research is the full spectrum. I don't think anyone would suggest that the research being done in the community colleges is the full spectrum, from basic to the various types of applied research.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Dan McTeague
That will have to be it for now, Mr. Carrie.
We'll turn to Ms. Nash of the New Democratic Party.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Hello to all the witnesses. Thank you for your presentations.
I'd like to ask a question to all of you about the best balance for Canada going forward in terms of our government investment of dollars. The CFI provides an opportunity for moneys--our tax dollars that are invested--to then partner with the private sector. I assume that many of the projects that get identified are identified because of the potential for commercialization, obviously, in order to get private sector money, which is important going forward. Also, we know that often basic research can lead to important discoveries and important opportunities that may have unanticipated consequences, in some cases. We need to get the right balance.
What should be the right balance going forward in terms of funding through organizations like CFI and anticipating or directing projects that we know will receive good private sector support versus funding through universities and research grants for basic research that may not initially have a commercial application that we know of?
Any of you or all of you, can you comment on that, please?
11:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation
I'd be happy to start.
The balance of where the funding comes from depends to a considerable extent on exactly where in the spectrum, from fundamental research to commercialization, we're talking. Clearly the private sector, understandably, is reluctant and generally does not invest in very basic fundamental research. That's true not only in Canada but throughout the world. It is largely the responsibility of government--that is, the public sector--to invest in the very basic fundamental research simply because it is so far upstream that the potentially commercial products simply cannot be predicted. No one could have predicted all of the commercial benefits that would have resulted from Einstein's fundamental research, yet nobody today would deny it. But at the time, no one, including Einstein himself, could have predicted it. So that generally is a role for the public sector, for government.
When we move into technology development, where a considerable amount is done in colleges, there it is a much more balanced funding. We see there that there is public sector funding, but there is also more private sector funding. Once the technology is developed and it's moving into the marketplace, then it becomes predominantly the role of the private sector. The government's role there is largely to facilitate the private sector in terms of fiscal tax policy and other things.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
In terms of how we're investing our tax dollars, do we have it right going forward? Should we be balancing more one towards the other? Or do we have the correct balance now?
11:50 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Genome Canada
I think we do. We have done a lot of catching up over the past eight to ten years.
I will take this opportunity to answer your question along with Mr. Brison's questions on...because we always benchmark with Silicon Valley. I had a chance, when I was a scientist, to work in Sorrento Valley in California, down in San Diego. It takes three ingredients: you need people, the scientists; you need good science; and you need money. Drop any one of the three and you won't succeed.
To answer Mr. Brison's questions vis-à-vis yours--