Industry Committee on Sept. 28th, 2011

[Richard Dicerni]

Well, I think Canada is a laggard in regard to not having updated its copyright laws. There have been a number of attempts to introduce and pass copyright legislation. It is one of those fundamental framework policies that every modern country needs to have. Technology has evolved a great deal over the last 15 years and I think it's important that our legislation be updated to reflect these changes.

People who create material have a right to know what the rules are. Secondly, consumers, the users, also need to know what the rules are so they don't do something that lands them in front of a court with potentially hefty fines.

As for the bill that had been produced before, it was the view of the government that it represented a fair balance between producers and users. We look forward to the parliamentary committee resuming discussion and debate on the bill and to seeing what technical amendments are warranted to further improve the bill.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The Jenkins report has been mentioned several times, that expert panel on R and D. Maybe you could give us a bit of background. I believe the report will be out soon, but maybe you could give us some background into what the mandate was of the group looking at these issues and why it's so important.

[Richard Dicerni]

The Government of Canada and taxpayers spend about $7 billion a year to support R and D. About half of that comes through a tax expenditure that is out of the Department of Finance--the SR and ED tax credit--while the other $3 billion is in a series of programs, including the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, for example, and some of the initiatives in your granting councils.

There's an overall objective the government is seeking. If we have this very rich tax credit and we have all these programs to support private sector R and D, how come we are in the bottom quartile in regard to private sector investment in R and D? The government appears to be doing its part by putting on the table the partnership opportunities. Why is the other side not coming to the table? What is it about our $7 billion that we could do differently, that we could do better, and that would lead to more private sector R and D?

How can we, the government, do better within that same fiscal envelope so that it will yield more investment? We need that innovation investment if we are to sustain competitiveness.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I'd like a bit more detail on the panel. How was the panel struck? Who's on the panel? Obviously Jenkins would be on the panel because it's called the Jenkins panel, or we refer to it that way--

[Richard Dicerni]

Yes, that's a good assumption.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Who else would be on that panel?

[Richard Dicerni]

There are five other individuals. As for what the government sought to do, it wasn't necessarily about the individuals; it was to seek a diversity of representations. That would mean somebody from the university milieu, somebody from the polytechnics and colleges, somebody from financial institutions, somebody from academia who understands tax, somebody who works in partnerships, and Jenkins, who is chairman of a high-tech firm, OpenText, in--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I gave you some extra time to finish. I think we have a good idea of it.

[Richard Dicerni]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

I'm sorry to cut you off, sir.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

He was going to say “in Waterloo”--

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

In Waterloo? Yes, okay.

Madame LeBlanc for cinq minutes.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Good afternoon. Thank you for being here to shed some light for us.

You mentioned something of great importance: research and development in small and medium-sized enterprises. People from Industry Canada will often provide guidance to small and medium-sized businesses, and will help them to use those resources. It seems that a number of small and medium-sized businesses are either not aware of those types of programs and tax credits or they do not use them because of the costs involved.

There will be cuts in your department. As a result, this type of Industry Canada service, which plays a major role in encouraging innovation and productivity in Canada, is likely to be eliminated, given that the results are not convincing.

[Richard Dicerni]

First of all, the cabinet has made no decision on budget cuts. So whatever we say is speculation.

The IRAP program under the National Research Council of Canada is working very well. The program has proved to be very useful in the past.

I am sure that the ministers will look at those types of considerations when the time comes to make decisions.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Okay.

We are talking about applied industrial research and development, but Industry Canada also deals with long-term research, meaning pure research. What impact will the upcoming cuts have on long-term research, which sometimes yields results only after a number of years?

I am especially concerned about keeping expertise within departments. Sometimes, with short-term objectives or results, it is possible to let this type of expertise go because it only gives results in the long term. Pure research is not necessarily linked to the industry, but it is very useful to knowledge in general.

[Richard Dicerni]

As I said, no decision has been made. The ministers have not decided what the cuts will be in our department or in any other department for that matter. That is still to come.

That being said, I feel that the government is aware of how important the knowledge economy is. I am basing this on the various comments Minister Goodyear has made in a number of speeches as to the importance of supporting research.

The academic research we support through granting councils is essentially medium and long-term research. It is not applied research like the research conducted at Pratt & Whitney, where the goal is, for example, to improve the efficiency of an engine so that it uses less fuel. The research we are funding in universities is medium and long-term. Minister Goodyear has stressed the importance of this type of research on a number of occasions.

As for the cuts, when the time comes to make some difficult decisions, the ministers will have to do so, but there has been no decision so far.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Although I don't like to use the expression “green technology”, could you tell me what is happening with programs for industries that are seeking to develop cutting-edge technologies in order to protect the environment?

[Richard Dicerni]

I am going to give you a quick answer: support for that comes from a crown corporation and Environment Canada programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Mr. Dicerni. That was a fast answer. Very good.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

But it was a fast question too, wasn't it?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Oui, madame, très bien.

Now on to Madam Gallant for five minutes.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

First of all, I'd like to ask the witnesses if they could soon provide us with an organizational chart of Industry Canada. In the absence of an organizational chart, I'm going to try to follow the dollar here.

In terms of the statutory votes and EBP, what sorts of programs or what would be allocated to this? You have $0.2 billion here. What is that $0.2 billion specifically spent on, if we look at the budget overview?

[Richard Dicerni]

Are you looking at the pie chart?