Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 30th, 2006

[Norman Riddell]

I left Saskatchewan in 1988.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes, I thought it was the late eighties. Well, it's good to see you again.

The question I have relates to an intervention made by one of our previous witnesses, the Canadian Federation of Students, who stated in their brief that they were very interested in Bill C-2. As one of the components of Bill C-2 on access to information that they mentioned, they really wanted to see access to information extended to the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, because they felt there were many questions they had, and quite frankly some concerns, that weren't being, at the present time at least, addressed in terms of accessibility.

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect, because—correct me if I'm wrong—you mentioned in your opening comments that most or almost all of the information concerning the scholarships, the recipients, the grant amounts, etc. is contained on your website. Is that correct?

[Norman Riddell]

Yes, that is correct. In fact, if you go to the foundation's website, you will see a map of Canada. If you click in that map on your province, you will see exactly how much money in each of the foundation's programs is going to your province. If you want to break it down by institution, you will find how many students, how much money to students in the institution, and you can also do it by riding. If you look at the total expenditure of the foundation, which is now running roughly at $370 million a year, at least $350 million of it would be covered completely by the information that's on the website.

Other expenditures, of course, are administrative costs, the costs of doing research, and so on.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Is there anything you can come up with that the Canadian Federation of Students would want to see, in terms of information that isn't presently given to those who ask for it?

[Norman Riddell]

I don't think there's any information they would want to see that we would refuse to give to them now. If they request it, they will get it. Sometimes it takes quite a long time to get information. I'll give you an example.

We received a request about a year ago at the foundation for all the contracts the foundation had let since it was established in 1998. It took some time to put that together, because our operating model has us contracting out legal services—all kinds of services are contracted out. There were hundreds and hundreds of contracts. It took us a while, but we answered the question. We do not refuse to give out information.

We would refuse to give information with respect to individuals, because we need to protect their privacy; we would refuse, under our current practice, to reveal discussions we are having with either the federal or provincial governments regarding negotiations for the putting into place of our programs; we would refuse to provide information that is a result of our consultation with our lawyers. But these are very similar exemptions, if you like, to those being proposed in the bill.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

When was the Millennium Scholarship Foundation first established?

[Norman Riddell]

It was established as part of the 1998 budget. It received the money in the summer of 1998, the executive director—I myself—was hired at the beginning of 1999, and we made our first awards in 2000.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

What was the total of the funding you received in 1999?

[Norman Riddell]

It was $2.5 billion.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Have you had any subsequent injections of funding from the government since that time?

[Norman Riddell]

Not from the Government of Canada. We have had a grant of $4.3 million from petroleum and gas companies in Canada to run a scholarship for people who are in need and who are entering undergraduate programs of interest to that industry. Out of that $2.5 billion we have received, by the time we finish the current mandate—which will be at the end of the 2008-09 academic year—we will have probably issued, out of the original $2.5 billion, somewhere around $3.2 billion of student financial assistance.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I have one more question; then I'll cede the rest of my time to my colleague.

Do you suspect, then, that at the end of the 2009-10 fiscal year funding would have dried up and your foundation may be in a position either to request more funding or would wind up operations?

[Norman Riddell]

Under the current legislation, the foundation is required to spend the capital and all interest in 10 years, beginning from the first issuing of a scholarship by the foundation. So our directive in obeying the law is to reduce the endowment to zero at the end of the 2008-09 academic year. At that time it will be a matter of decision for the government as to whether we receive more money.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

I'll cede the rest of my time, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Poilievre.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Mr. Poilievre, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yesterday we heard from the Canadian Federation of Students. They talked about the need for whistle-blower protection for researchers. They claim that a lot of influence is being exercised on researchers, that the results of research are being unduly influenced, that there has been wrong-doing at university levels in research faculties. They would like federally funded research to be accompanied by federally provided whistle-blower protection.

I'm wondering if you have any views on that kick in general, given that I imagine the Foundation for Innovation has some role in research. Can you shed some light on whether you think that would be a good idea—Mr. Phillipson, in particular?

[Dr. Eliot A. Phillipson]

Thank you for the question.

We have an internal whistle-blower policy related to our own activities. In terms of whistle-blower legislation or mechanisms at the institutions, I'll remind you that we fund institutions—that is, there have to be researchers behind the applications, but our applicants are the institutions—and they will have whistle-blower legislation. But I certainly see no objection to having whistle-blower legislation in which CFI would be involved in one way or another.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you very much. I think that concludes this round. We appreciate your being here.

We apologize as a committee with respect to the break in the cadence of the meeting, but as you can appreciate, votes do come. Thank you for the wonderful work you're doing.

We're going to try to move along quickly. I'd like to now invite the deputants who were slated for 6:40 p.m. to come forward, please: the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology, Genome Canada, and the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation.

While we're doing that....

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to ask the representatives from the National Arts Centre to be here tomorrow evening, if we wish to finish up by 8 p.m., or to be included with these witnesses? I would prefer that they be invited back tomorrow evening, but I leave it up to you to decide.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

It seems that we would have time tomorrow evening.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau, and Ms. Guay.

We have the clerk discussing that with them, and if that is going to be possible, then I think I see agreement that it would fit into the committee's deliberations for tomorrow evening. The clerk is going to report further on that. Thank you for raising that issue.

Welcome, Ms. Sharpe, from the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology. Also, we have Christopher Bredt.

From Genome Canada, we have Mr. Godbout. Thank you, Mr. Godbout.

From the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, we have Sister Elizabeth Davis, the chair. Sister, welcome.

And we have Jonathan Lomas, the CEO of that foundation. Mr. Lomas, welcome.

If I have the committee's consent on this, it has been suggested by Mr. Sauvageau that we combine the panels. The National Arts Centre is in agreement with that. We'll just direct our questions after their presentations as if it were one large panel.

It seems, Mr. Sauvageau, Ms. Guay, that's all right.

So we also have the National Arts Centre and Mr. Leighton.

Okay, Mr. Leighton, you have an associate with you?

[Darrell Gregersen, Chief Executive Officer, NAC Foundation, National Arts Centre]

I'm Darrell Gregersen, the CEO of the foundation for the National Arts Centre.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Good. Welcome.

All right, maybe we'll just start at the top. The general procedure is that we provide a few minutes for introductory comments. We'll go down the line and have introductory comments as appropriate, and then we will go into our questioning routine.

Perhaps we'll start with Ms. Sharpe, president and CEO of the Canadian Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology.

Ms. Sharpe.

[Dr. Vicky Sharpe, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and committee, for an opportunity to address you this evening.

I would briefly like to state that SDTC was created by the Government of Canada as an arm's-length organization to bring to market clean technologies—clean air, climate change, clean water, and clean land—that contribute to the economy and the environment of Canada. We've built an entrepreneurial capacity, and fund projects with a consortium of companies that must contain at least one for-profit entity, and which prove out the technological viability of the technologies so they are available for commercialization by the private sector downstream of us.

We essentially operate much like an early stage venture capital company, providing made-in-Canada solutions to real world industry needs. This is evidenced by the fact that 80% of our consortia are led by the private sector, and 89% of the funded portfolio of 75 projects is comprised of SMEs. We are unusual in the substantial amount of leveraging of government funds that we have achieved, that is, in a 3:1 ratio. We have placed $169 million, as leveraged by $449 million, of which 60% is from the private sector. Early results from SDTC's funding show that Canada has the opportunity to be in a leadership position in the oil and gas sector, and the transportation, agriculture, and forestry sectors.

As for the issues that we see in front of us with this bill, unfortunately the breadth of it will compromise SDTC's ability to carry out its mandate. Historically, SDTC has operated under a strict regime in protecting its applicant information as proprietary and confidential—requirements that are, in fact, stipulated in our funding agreement with the government as a necessity, if applicants are to provide full and detailed information enabling us to select the best projects with the greatest potential for helping Canadians.

While there are some protections under the bill, SDTC would not be able to guarantee confidentiality to our clients, which at this stage in their development of their technologies is of high sensitivity in terms of public disclosure. As I mentioned, the leveraged funding that comes from the private sector is also made on the basis of an opportunity for future profit, which cannot be realized if the information is in the public domain. Therefore, the willingness of entrepreneurs to apply to SDTC and to provide the detail and quality of information that we would need to be able to assess them would be compromised as a result of this uncertainty, thereby significantly limiting SDTC's ability to select the best projects and to obtain leveraging of taxpayers' dollars from the private sector.

We, therefore, respectfully request that SDTC be supplied an exemption for this type of information, similar to that allowed for the Business Development Bank of Canada and EDC, where the law did recognize that they could not carry out their mandates without the ability to provide assurances of confidentiality. SDTC has provided, under non-disclosure agreements, due diligence information to BDC on some of our companies for downstream support.

The second issue is that the degree of sophistication required of SDTC to select technologies with high potential from over 2,800 companies, with some 57 different technology groupings, cannot be performed without detailed and confidential methodologies to screen and evaluate these opportunities, and the input and guidance of a wide range of highly skilled experts. Should these confidential methodologies, or the expert reviews, or even the names of the experts, be made available, it would enable lobbying of these experts and gaming of the process, all of which would affect the integrity of what is currently a highly objective, non-influenceable selection process.

Additionally, to provide benefits from SDTC's funding, we have developed a proprietary tool that contains confidential information from our applicants, enabling SDTC to focus on the areas of greatest return to Canada. This addresses the primary barriers to market and industry adoption. The results of this model, of course, are very widely available on the Internet and in presentations across the country, but we have trademarked the model. Therefore, we also request that SDTC's proprietary methodologies, and the expert reviews and their names, be exempted from the act. We also request that our scoring methodologies be kept confidential, so they may operate in an objective fashion and be protected from influence.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Could you wrap it up, please. Thank you.