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

[Dr. Vicky Sharpe]

We have several audits where the OAG may be nominated as the auditor of preference. That obviously includes the performance, not just the financial side of things.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Those of you who said, specifically Mrs. Sharpe, that confidentiality is very important for your clients...

[An honourable member]

[Editor's note: inaudible]

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I believe the National Arts Centre is not audited by the Auditor General.

[Darrell Gregersen]

The National Arts Centre is audited by the Auditor General. The National Arts Centre Foundation is a separate charitable organization, which is audited by Deloitte & Touche.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I did not think it was so. Thank you.

Would those of you who said that confidentiality is absolutely essential agree to add an amendment or section that would say something like this:

While they may be consulted by the Integrity Commissioner, the organization's principals may refuse to communicate documents containing information whose disclosure is likely to compromise the integrity or independence of fundraising activities.

In the case of the CBC, it would be the gathering of news.

In other words, if an inquiry is being held, the Integrity Commissioner would be able to consult documents that are not public to assist him in writing his report.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

As far as Genome Canada is concerned, we solved that problem a long time ago. The names of reviewers are not disclosed. We disclose the names of all members of the panel. The research scientist does not know who will assess and validate his or her file. There is an advantage in this: the scientist could tell you, for example, that you have a conflict of interest regarding his application, but tell Mr. Tonks that he has none. The researcher has the opportunity, two weeks before the assessment, to tell Genome Canada, for example, sorry, but such and such a reviewer has a conflict of interest in terms of disclosure. This is a very transparent approach.

Reviewers' reports are anonymous, in other words no one knows who wrote them. But they are made public. Anyone, at the request of the minister, can get information on the report. We cannot post them on the Web, because we are talking about 4,000 pages. It has already happened: Minister Emerson, at the time, requested, under the Access to Information Act, a specific piece of information. We accepted and asked the researcher if he had any objection. It was anonymous, and so we provided the information that he needed.

We can go pretty far in terms of transparency, without getting into a conflict of interest and without breaching confidentiality.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much.

I do not have any other questions. Does anybody else want to answer?

[Dr. Vicky Sharpe]

We still have this fundamental concern that whereas you could say third-party confidential information should be protected, the very fact that it is done on a case-by-case basis, that it requires assessment, that it requires technical knowledge to do so, and that and the onus is on us to provide that--plus the SMEs that are part of our portfolio, the large part it--means that burden is very high. But the real risk is that whereas we have historically had all the documentation to guarantee protection, there is not a possibility that we will be able to guarantee that in the future.

It's that lack of guarantee that is the crux of our concern, and I don't see it being removed unless we are exempted like the BDC.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Ms. Sharpe.

We'll now go to Mr. Dewar.

Thank you, Mr. Sauvageau.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you to the panel for your presentations. It's a real pleasure to have you here. I understand, from the look of some of your lapels, that a couple of people have been honoured with the Order of Canada. So thank you for your service to this country as well as for presenting tonight. And thanks to all of you for taking the time to present to us on what is a fairly substantive piece of legislation.

I don't have enough time to go to each of you and ask you questions. I will make the comment, Sister Davis, that I wasn't aware that you have gone international, if you will, with your experience, and that's something I'm glad I was here tonight to know about.

I do want to talk about the public appointments process. There has been some talk of it recently, in fact in today's press. With respect, Mr. Leighton, I want to talk to you directly about your take on the appointments process, because I'm very concerned that we're going to miss the boat on this.

In our party we had proposed before the last election what we called “ethical appointments”. My predecessor, Mr. Broadbent, put it forward and in fact passed it in Parliament as a motion that all parties agreed to. Many motions are passed in Parliament and not all are carried out and followed.

But what he put his finger on was to have the Government of Canada develop skills-based, competence-related criteria for all appointments. That would include board members, senior officials of crown corporations, and other government agencies. There would be a standing committee to review it, and these criteria would specifically address the non-partisan nature of these appointments.

You've mentioned in the past your concerns around how people are appointed and the merit, if you will, within their appointment.

To go further, the motion stated that the government submit the criteria to the appropriate standing committee to look over so that everyone would understand what the criteria are, and that there be a public release and committee-approved criteria for each of those appointments. So there would be something there in the public domain to say this is what the appointment is about, these are the criteria, and then match it with the actual appointment--to have oversight into that so we can take away the poison of partisan politics, if you will, within the respective agencies that you're all involved with in varying degrees.

I would like to know if you agree with that; and further to that, if we don't take that responsibility on, what are the implications for agencies, boards, and commissions?

[David Leighton]

I do agree with it. My only reservation would be with how far down in the organization you go. I think the really important priorities in appointments are at the board level; they should be at the board level.

There's a further element in the governance of our crown corporations, at least, and that is that the chief executive officer should be appointed by and answerable to the board. This gives the board power and an interest in making the system work. Whereas under the current system with so many of the crowns, where the chief executive is an order in council appointee and the board members are order in council appointees, all you really end up with is an advisory board.

I think empowering the board is the critical priority. There have been several attempts made to do that, but I think it is time we got on with it. I think the consequences are not ones that I would want to contemplate.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Just to follow up, to clarify, I agree with you. There are 3,000-odd appointments out there, and the intent would be to have that at the level of the people who are at the top and then to empower them, as you said, to go ahead and deal with matters in their own purview.

The last question I had for you is, in your experience—and you've been on many different boards, you wrote the book, as they say—is there a model you can point to, be it within Canada or other jurisdictions, that you can say, maybe not in whole but in part, we should look to and say that is the one we should adopt and that's the method that would work here for us for agencies, boards, and commissions?

[David Leighton]

I'm not sure there is one model. The British Columbia government made a really fine attempt to try to make sense out of the appointments process and created a position within the premier's office that was responsible for gathering biographical data, identifying individuals, classifying the requirements for particular jobs, and criteria. It has worked very well, to my knowledge, at the provincial level. In fact, I confess to having consulted that individual within the premier's office on several occasions with regard to west coast appointments.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Dewar and Dr. Leighton.

We'll now go to Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

My question is for Ms. Sharpe.

I understand your foundation would like to not be be subject to Bill C-2. It would like at least an exemption for its commercial practices, some protection for the people who do business with you, and so on, just like what EDC gets under the present legislation.

We heard earlier today from witnesses who are journalists or are in a similar profession, notably Mr. Rubin and Mr. McKie. They said they want to access the information through the information commissioner, and get access to anything about your organization. They told some horror stories, about pharmaceutical research among others.

I would like you to explain what you want and what you think. Are you concerned that Bill C-2 goes too far, that you would face a heavy burden or that people who do business with you would be dissuaded?

[Dr. Vicky Sharpe]

I believe that with full consideration of the accountability side we cannot see how the revealing of some of the particular information, the confidential information, our proprietary methodologies, will in any way improve our accountability and transparency in a way that will enable people to better understand. We are very open. We actually have a lot to do with the media, and send them information and announcements, etc.

When we talk with the applicants about how they have or have not done on these face-to-face meetings, they are told what works and what doesn't work. We have searched quite deeply to understand why there would be an improvement in understanding of what we do over and above a very extensive amount of information you'll find on our website that not only describes our process but how we go about it, who has been successful, and results.

It really does reside with the fact that these certain areas, which we are requesting exemption for, like DDC on the third party information, on our proprietary screening methodologies, and on the experts' names and their reviews, and also on our SE business case, that model, are critical to us being able to do our work.

As I said, I talked with the chairman and we've not been able to call a board meeting fast enough, frankly. He is very concerned and will be making representations that this will actually prevent us from doing the work we're doing. We're not been flippant about this. We have looked at it; we've obviously sought legal guidance. And frankly, because we know our applicants very well, both successful and not, because we've conducted so many evaluations, they have always told us that an important part of working with us is the trust that we have so far managed to demonstrate in keeping their very important information confidential.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have a question for Mr. Martin Godbout.

Industry Canada is the main funding source for Genome Canada and the department is subject to Bill C-2.

How are you going to protect yourself against this power, since we can go through Industry Canada to reach Genome Canada? You are asking that your organization, which is included in part 2 and therefore at arm's length from government, be exempted, but we will be able to get at you through Industry Canada.

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

Absolutely. We do not have any problem with Bill C-2. Genome Canada has no problem with the government asking it for information.

I would like to return to the issue of confidentiality. I believe this is not being approached in the proper way. For Genome Canada, the concept of confidentiality is to protect the researcher who makes an application, rather than the reviewer, since the latter is anonymous.

We have no difficulty in disclosing the report of the reviewer, on request obviously, because we do not want to see negative reports splashed on the front page of newspapers. However, as far as confidentiality is concerned, our reviewers sign a confidentiality agreement, not to protect themselves but to protect the research scientist, because there is a lot of patentable material in the projects which are submitted to us. There are very large social and economic impacts.

So confidentiality aims at protecting the applicants for funding. Not one application would be submitted to Genome Canada--I repeat, none-- if it were to be made public, for reasons of competition not only in Canada but in the world. Therefore, confidentiality aims at protecting the scientist, not the reviewer, because the latter is already guaranteed that his name will not be disclosed. However, we have no difficulty releasing the report itself.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Alan Tonks]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Thank you, Mr. Godbout.

We've reached the time, as it's past 8 o'clock. I think it's been a long day.

We do appreciate your representations. You've covered everything from innovative technology and investments to the arts. That's a pretty wide spectrum. On behalf of the committee, thank you so much for the work you're doing in the community.

Members of the committee, I have a reminder that tomorrow at 12:15, the steering committee will meet in room 701 at La Promenade building, which is right across the street. Also, tomorrow, Wednesday, May 31, from 3:30 to 5:30, we're meeting in room 237C in the Centre Block.

Thank you to the translators. Thank you to John and his crew, who have helped to get us something to eat. And thank you for directing the cameras and making us look good.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup. Have a good evening.