Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 29
Marie D'Iorio
View Marie D'Iorio Profile
Marie D'Iorio
2015-06-02 11:22
Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to testify as a witness.
My name is Marie D'Iorio, and I'm the executive director of the National Institute for Nanotechnology, NINT for short, based in Edmonton. It is a partnership between the National Research Council and the University of Alberta, and it is funded by both the federal and the provincial governments. It was established in 2002 as one of NRC's cluster initiatives. The state-of-the-art facility opened its door on the campus of the University of Alberta in 2006.
The NINT strategy is based on a collaboration that transforms discoveries made in a university setting into technologies that can be integrated into potential products for the market. This is done by combining the creativity of university researchers with the expertise and discipline of NRC researchers who focus on integration, manufacturing and the cost-to-performance ratios of the materials and the devices on which they are working
NINT works in an interdisciplinary way to develop materials and devices with the potential of leading to differential or disruptive technologies in electronics, energy and medicine.
As was observed by Dan Wayner, vice-president of emerging technologies at NRC, at the committee's May 7 meeting, the term “disruptive technology” refers to a profound or discontinuous change in capability or cost-performance ratio with significant economic and social impacts. Sometimes this happens through technology integration or technology remix. It is the deployment in the marketplace that is disruptive, rather than the technology itself.
In order for Canada to be competitive in the development and deployment of disruptive technologies, there must be collaboration across innovation systems. By that I mean the universities, the research technology organizations, government regulators, and industry. No single entity can do it all.
Collaboration is a necessary but insufficient condition for success. It also requires vision combined with deep subject expertise, a high tolerance for risk, patient investment, and acceptance, if not the embrace, of failure. These are tied of course to risk-taking fortitude and entrepreneurial spirit on the part of people doing that work.
I would like to provide a few examples of disruptive technologies, starting first of all with the work underway at NINT.
For more than 20 years, the NRC has been investing in nanoelectronics, because, with current computers, miniaturization and the cost-to-performance ratio have reached their limit.
How do we meet that challenge? One of our researchers, Professor Bob Wolkow, has developed the knowledge to build a computer that is extremely fast. It operates at room temperature and uses very little power. It is a revolutionary concept because no other architecture meets all of those criteria.
Have the conditions for the development of disruptive technology been met? If we look at collaboration, for example, the NRC, the University of Alberta, NSERC, the Government of Alberta, and Lockheed Martin support the research and the development of technologies to demonstrate this type of computer.
In terms of vision, universities, research technology organizations such as NRC, and industry have recognized that quantum computing is part of the world's future and can generate wealth for Canada.
In terms of risk tolerance, there are still many obstacles to overcome in order to get a manufacturable computer of that type, and others may win the race, but in so doing, we will be learning a lot, and that will help us with the next race.
As for patient investment, it has been more than 10 years in the making, so yes, we are patient, and we have to continue being patient so that we can get to the goal.
Professor Wolkow has spun off a company called Quantum Silicon Inc. He has attracted $2.5 million of seed funding to carry on with the technology demonstration. It is part of the story of Canada's leadership in the field of quantum computing worldwide.
Before joining NINT in Edmonton, I directed the Institute for Microstructural Sciences in Ottawa, which now comes under the NRC's information and communications technology portfolio.
One of the best examples of disruptive technologies in this area is in optic communications. In 1987, a researcher was able to convince the management team of the day that an emerging technology in the United States should be developed in Canada. He said that the technology would replace information-carrying cables in a network by light, the various wavelengths of which would carry the information. By dividing light into its different wavelengths, it would be possible to send more information in parallel and thereby increase the speed and the capacity of the networks.
While this seemed a wild idea in 1987, its realization would increase data transmission by more than 100 times and diminish issues of signal strength over long distances. Given that foresight, what convinced NRC to take the risk and invest in the optical communications race?
The management team had the breadth of knowledge and the scientific judgment to understand that Canada's excellence in material science and photonics was a competitive advantage in that race. They reduced the risk by forming a consortium to build the technology and bring the technology to market, ensuring that the members of the consortium would have full access to the intellectual property once the technology was developed. They also introduced the rigour of project management to focus the effort of the technical team on the delivery against milestones.
That consortium of Canadian companies, universities, NRC, and NSERC focused the efforts of part of the personnel of the institute at the time on developing what was called wavelength division multiplexing. While the nature of the work to be undertaken was clearly pre-competitive in nature, a technology demonstration outcome was chosen from the outset. It was to be the precursor to developing photonic integrated circuits for optical telecommunication.
The work of the consortium was funded for seven years. It led to the creation of many Canadian spinoffs—four from NRC—the rise of Nortel, and the capture of 40% of the optical communications market by Canadian companies by the year 2000. By 2010 the return on investment from this disruptive technology was 400:1 in Canada alone.
Another example of the role of government in the disruptive technology space is the support of companies when they are ready to demonstrate their technology and they need low-volume manufacturing and packaging capabilities in Canada. This story is actually a continuation of the previous one. After the success of the Solid State Optoelectronic Consortium, as it was known, the same visionaries reflected on what was required to help Canadian companies be competitive and generate wealth in Canada.
At the time, many Canadian spinoffs were failing because they could not afford to maintain state-of-the-art facilities to demonstrate their technologies. The concept supporting the potentially disruptive technologies was one of a photonic fabrication centre that could support companies with a design and low-volume manufacturing of photonic devices like lasers and so on. It was funded in 2002. The Canadian Photonics Fabrication Centre was, at the time, one of very few worldwide. It attracted clients from around the world, and some of them actually established a presence in Canada in order to benefit from this fabrication centre. A few years later, the majority of the clients of the CPFC were Canadian. By 2010 the return on investment of the CPFC was 10:1, so it obviously addressed a need of the companies.
I would like to conclude by emphasizing that Canada is well placed to support the development and deployment of disruptive technologies if it encourages collaboration, vision, risk-taking, long-term investment and the acceptance of failure as an integral part of the innovation system. Failure is part of learning, but it also allows us to gauge whether there really are risks to be taken rather than relying on sure bets. A culture of entrepreneurship in an ecosystem formed around innovation must accept failure so that success can be so much more rewarding.
Thank you.
Danial Wayner
View Danial Wayner Profile
Danial Wayner
2015-05-07 11:07
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon. My name is Dan Wayner. I am vice-president for emerging technologies at the National Research Council of Canada. I have with me Dr. Duncan Stewart who is our general manager of the NRC's security and disruptive technologies portfolio. I am pleased to be here on behalf of NRC to talk about disruptive technologies today.
NRC is Canada’s research and technology organization. RTOs, as we call them, are market-driven organizations whose primary job is to develop and deploy technology. In a way, we act as a link in the innovation system by stimulating business investment in R and D, adding value to research investments, reducing risks, and in many cases developing market-focused technologies in our research facilities across Canada.
The NRC has more than 2,000 employees working in research and development. They are experts in a multitude of scientific and technical fields and they are equipped to respond to the current and future needs of Canadian industry. The NRC is able to quickly put together multidisciplinary teams to help people in industry to overcome any difficulties they are facing. These may be in meeting urgent short-term needs or in establishing basic knowledge and technology that will allow them to tackle new markets.
NRC has a track record in advancing and delivering technology solutions in collaboration with Canadian industry. Some of the examples include flying the world’s first civil jet flight powered by 100% biofuel; pioneering the Internet in Canada; launching the world’s first national optical R and D network; inventing 3-D laser scanning technologies that are now used extensively by the film industry; medical breakthroughs, including an infant meningitis vaccine, the world’s first cardiac pacemaker, and the first medical isotopes for use in nuclear medicine; and inventing the fastest lasers in the world with light pulses now approaching a billionth of a billionth of a second.
As Vice-President of Emerging Technologies, I have as one of my duties to make sure that the NRC's long-term investments in science and technology are focused on the technological issues that may threaten or stimulate Canada's economy or improve the lives of Canadians in the next two decades.
In order to do that, we are implementing and supporting certain capabilities, by which I mean expertise and research and development platforms in various fields, such as high-volume data analytics, quantum technologies, optical technologies and nanotechnologies, to mention but a few.
The term disruptive technology typically refers to a technology that creates a profound, discontinuous change or quantum jump in capability or cost performance. It is important to understand the impacts are economic and social, affecting how we live, work, and communicate. We are really talking about disruptive innovations. I want to introduce that term. The technology in itself is not disruptive until it is deployed into the marketplace and used.
There are many examples from the past of how technologies or combinations of technologies have driven disruptions. The discovery of the double helix in the early 1950s was transformational for science, but not disruptive. However, combined with rapid DNA sequencing, proteomics, and big data, we find ourselves in the early days of personalized medicine, which we believe will be disruptive. The transistor led to the demise of the vacuum tube industry, which might be considered a disruption for that industry, but combined with the laser, fibre optic data transmission, data analytics, and business innovation, we have e-retail. E-retail is truly a disruption in economies today. In the more recent past we could look at smartphones, a Canadian invention, as an example of a technology that has had a huge economic impact and has driven societal changes.
The idea of a disruptive technology or innovation is not about the technology itself, but about the impact it has on our lives. Will the self-driven car be a disruptive innovation? Maybe, but we won't know until it's developed and deployed and we actually see the impact it will have on the way we work and live.
What will Canada need to continue its influence in the development and deployment of the so-called “disruptive”, that is to say revolutionary, innovations of the future? Identifying the innovations that will get to the finish line is difficult, but choosing the right race to enter is even more so.
When we know that we are in the right race, it will be easier to establish which technological platforms we really have to have in order to clear the track for those innovations.
I want to focus on a key ingredient. We're here in part to talk about what it is going to take for Canada to be competitive in the development of potentially disruptive technology, and the key ingredient for me is collaboration.
A well-organized innovation system can be like a professional hockey team. There are a number of players on the innovation landscape, universities, RTOs like NRC or CNL, for example, and others at the provincial level, all of whom have a role to play. The goalies don’t try to score goals, the right wingers don’t try to do the left wingers' jobs, but we do back each other up when it's needed. In the absence of collaboration, the innovation system feels like kids’ hockey, if I could use that analogy; that is, we all chase the puck and we end up competing with each other instead of organizing ourselves to win the game.
There are, in fact, examples of collaboration excellence in Canada focused on disruptive innovation. I'll refer to just one, and that is the quantum computing public-private partnership, which is really centred in Waterloo. It's a tremendous example of technology being driven by a vision of the future. In my view, collaboration between universities, RTOs such as NRC, and industry is the key success factor. In one direction, emerging science can lead to new technologies that have the potential to address market opportunities, but looking in the other direction, industry knows where the market opportunities actually are and has the opportunity to influence the direction of S and T.
RTOs like NRC have the capability to be the link, taking emerging science ideas and integrating them into new technology prototypes and processes. When it works well, it's a virtuous circle with industry motivating scientists to address key knowledge and technology gaps, and scientists working with industry to integrate emerging technologies into their products and processes, thus giving them the competitive edge in a global market.
As an RTO, how is NRC supporting Canadian industry to develop disruptive technologies? The NRC's printable electronics program is a good example of an initiative to foster a new industry ecosystem for Canada. Printable electronics is an emerging, advanced manufacturing technology, really part of an additive manufacturing family that's enabling lower cost digital fabrication of electronic devices. It has the potential to be a key component to enable potentially disruptive innovations such as the Internet of things.
The program is integrated into an industry-driven printable electronics consortium that was launched in 2012 and has company members from across the entire value chain. The consortium sets the R and D priorities, and NRC carries out R and D in collaboration with the industry partners on technology demonstrations that de-risk the advancement and deployment of the technologies. The goal is to catalyze a globally competitive pivotal electronic sector in Canada. To date, 11 technologies have been developed in collaboration with NRC that have been transferred to Canadian industry to commercialize PE products.
One of our licensees, Raymor Industries from Boisbriand, Quebec, won the award for the world’s best new material at the IDTechEx USA 2014 conference, which is the world’s largest printed electronics conference and trade show. The material, now marketed by Raymor, is the highest purity semiconducting nanotube ink to be commercially available today, a potentially disruptive innovation for the flexible electronics industry.
Another example comes from the National Institute for Nanotechnology, a collaboration between NRC and the University of Alberta. We have collaborated together for some years, working at the cutting edge of nanotechnology. One of these collaborations has led to the creation of a new company, QSi, to develop and commercialize a fundamentally new approach to atomic-scale, ultra-low-power computing circuits and devices that are faster than existing devices while consuming orders of magnitude less power. NRC’s role was to take a concept developed at the laboratory and demonstrate the possibility of being able to scale this up into a manufacturing process, a critical milestone to attract investors.
In closing, I'd like to reiterate that Canada is well positioned to be a major player in the development and deployment of potentially disruptive technologies. Collaboration across the innovation landscape is key, bringing together universities, RTOs such as NRC, and industry to ensure that we have a robust innovation pipeline focused on Canadian and global opportunities.
Thank you very much.
Duncan Stewart
View Duncan Stewart Profile
Duncan Stewart
2015-05-07 12:10
I'm a kid from Kingston. I spent 15 years in Silicon Valley and I came back to Canada. I also don't see this distinction between basic and applied.
To speak to Kevin's comments, I worked in a group that combined material science, computer science, electrical engineering, and physics to try to invent some new computer pieces at Hewlett-Packard, new components. But the key idea there is that it's only when you join together that scientific frontier work with the intention of delivering something, a new technology at the frontier of technology, that you can make progress.
In the case of quantum information, Canada has invested perhaps more than $300 million in generating scientific leadership and the question is whether we at a tipping point where this will go into a disruptive technology landslide in quantum technology. Waterloo is certainly one of the centres, so my goal is to partner, collaborate, in a hockey team, multiple passes of the puck back and forth. In the group in which I had the pleasure to participate in California, we produced scientific papers and patents at the same time.
Arun Menawat
View Arun Menawat Profile
Arun Menawat
2015-03-30 16:47
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be here.
Novadaq is a medical imaging company. Most of you are familiar with what medical imaging is I'm sure. MRIs, CT scanners, and ultrasound are all common in the health care industry to diagnose patients who have complex diseases.
We are a little bit different. When we think about diagnosing a patient who has cancer and we image the patient, it's really to ultimately treat the patient. But what happens to the patients who have been diagnosed with diseases when they go into the operating room to be treated by a surgeon today? The surgeon actually has no tools except his own eyes, or the memories he goes with, to remove the cancer, to fix a cardiac surgery disease, and so on.
Novadaq represents a Canadian innovation where we actually bring imaging to the operating room, to the surgeon, where he can actually visualize how blood is flowing, what normal blood flow is, where there are cancer cells in several cases, where tissue is dying, or where tissue has higher metabolism where it should be normal metabolism.
For the first time surgeons are actually able to visualize and thereby treat the patient. Based upon statistics, we have at this point treated over 100,000 patients, mostly in North America. Typically, given we can treat these patients for the first time correctly, statistically we have probably saved 500 lives at least, if not more. We have probably saved hundreds of millions of dollars in costs, if not more, because doing these types of surgeries correctly the first time reduces health care costs.
In several ways we are a wave of the future. We are a company that is actually changing the way surgeries will be done in the future. The reception in the surgical community has been quite strong.
Let me give you some facts about our company.
We were incorporated in April 2000. The initial intellectual property for our company came from the National Research Council. It was developed in Winnipeg. Today we have a market capital of approximately $1 billion. We're listed both on TSX and on NASDAQ, so we're a dual-listed company. We employ about 300 people worldwide. Of those, about 150 are in Canada. Most of the people we employ are highly educated, typically earning $100,000 to $200,000 or more in salaries, so a high salary and upper middle-class employment.
The other unique thing about us is we have invested approximately $400 million in developing this technology and building our company. Of that $400 million, about $300 million was actually imported from the United States.
What's interesting about our company is that the intellectual property is ours, but the money actually came from outside to help build the company. In fact, more than 95% of what we sell is outside of Canada. We're using Canadian talent, using other people's money, and building business in Canada.
Our revenues today are in the range of about $50 million to $65 million. We're one of the fastest growing North American medical device companies. We're growing at about 30% to 40% per year. We expect, if anything, that growth rate will increase over time so we will continue to employ more and more Canadian middle class or upper middle-class members. We actually have the potential to be in the hundreds of millions, quite frankly in the billions of dollars because of the value proposition of our company.
Today, obviously, the United States is our number one market. We are in all the top hospitals in the U.S. There are approximately 50 cancer centres that are considered the top cancer centres in the United States. In every one of them our technology is standard of care. We have another approximately 1,000 hospitals in the U.S. that use our technology. Even for technology that is considered the latest state of the art, which is robotic surgery, our imaging technology is incorporated into the robot, and without our technology that robot is not able to perform some of the more critical functions.
In summary, we are a Canadian invention built with Canadian talent. We are changing the way surgery is done and will be done in the future. We have done the right things in terms of importing the capital and exporting our products worldwide. In terms of support, I want to share with you first the support that we have received from Canada.
First of all, the innovation came from the National Research Council. Their ability to help us form the company and support us during the early days with research and development that we desperately needed was critical. I thank the government for supporting them.
The second place that has been very helpful is the business development offices of the consulates around the world. They have been very supportive of us. I can give you several specific examples. The first meeting we had in Japan was in the Canadian embassy. That meeting resulted in a fantastic agreement. We're about to begin marketing in Japan starting this summer. Taiwan is another good example. The consulate organized a lunch with major distributors and we were able to pick the right distributor for us. There is mainland China and Australia, and I can give you a list of others. India was a big success. Last November the consulate and the consul general personally did interviews with the local newspapers, which really gave us a tremendous platform from which to build our momentum. The market there is growing at a rapid pace.
To be honest, I have nothing but good things to say to you about how our company has been helped.
With respect to the needs that we have, I think the first need we have is a bit unusual.
As I mentioned to you, we are built on Canadian talent. In Canada we have great engineering and technologies, but the reality is that with respect to imaging and the management talent that is needed to build a global company like ours, we need to be able to import management from outside of Canada also. I would request that as you look at these tax treaties or equalization treaties, you help harmonize those treaties around the world. Bringing people in, particularly from the U.S., is a difficult task. I originally came from the U.S. and ultimately became a Canadian citizen, but I think I'm more unusual than normal. I'm proud to be a Canadian citizen at this point.
The second thing is that I know you heard from other company leaders here today about how EDC has been helpful. EDC, for all of its efforts, has not been very helpful for a company like ours. The reason is that there is no precedent for our company. We are creating the market. These markets didn't exist. We're teaching surgeons how to do surgery they've never done before. EDC looks at this and they simply see risk. We're asking them to look at the U.S. market, see how the U.S. is adopting our technology, and then overlay that on the risk profile in the developing world and help us with being able to provide the necessary resources for the distributor market worldwide. I think that is probably one place. I think Jean-Paul said it very well, where being a little bit more aggressive and being able to use these corresponding markets as a benchmark would be very very helpful.
With that, I'm open to any questions you might have.
Kevin Radford
View Kevin Radford Profile
Kevin Radford
2015-03-12 12:08
Good morning.
My name is Kevin Radford. I'm the senior assistant deputy minister of operations, and I'm accompanied by Manon FiIlion, director general of finance and deputy chief financial officer at Shared Services Canada.
We are pleased to be here today to discuss the funding that our department is seeking, as provided under supplementary estimates (C), tabled recently in Parliament.
I will start by updating you on the progress the department has made in delivering on its mandate to transform, consolidate and standardize how the government manages its IT infrastructure, particularly in the areas of email, data centres, telecommunications and improved security.
The email transformation initiative is a complex project that involves converting 63 separate email systems and 3 technology platforms of 43 organizations to a new system. Shared Services Canada has now begun to migrate to the new system. The plan is to migrate all departments over the course of the fiscal year.
The department's data centre consolidation is moving ahead. Shared Services Canada currently has three operational enterprise data centres in Gatineau, Borden—on the Canadian Forces base—and Barrie that provide the Government of Canada with the capacity needed to move data and applications out of old data centres and into the new. Shared Services Canada has closed a total of 49 legacy data centres over the past two years. At the end of this initiative, the government's data centre footprint will have shrunk from 485 to no more than 7.
Under the telecommunications transformation program, as of December 2014, almost 38,000 traditional land-lines have been migrated to the more cost-effective voice over Internet protocol, and just over 11,000 traditional land-lines have been migrated to cellular services. SSC is also upgrading and better connecting federal video conferencing and enhancing Wi-Fi services.
Shared Services Canada is also delivering on its mandate by consolidating and standardizing the procurement of workplace technology devices. These include operating system software and basic desktop applications such as word processing software. While the government spends about $660 million a year in this area, Shared Services Canada is negotiating new contracts and now buys these essential tools in bulk, providing consolidated savings.
Shared Services Canada is developing a more integrated approach to improve security for the Government of Canada. Working closely with our security partners, we have created a security operations centre that provides 24-7 prevention and detection services, and a dedicated response and recovery team that directly supports our partner departments. These security services include a supply chain integrity process that is part of all Shared Services Canada's procurements.
I will now turn to the supplementary estimates overview. The supplementary estimates (C) for Shared Services Canada represent an increase of $39.9 million in the department's reference levels.
The first component is $34.3 million in new funding. The majority of this new funding, $32.5 million, will be used to create a more secure IT environment for the National Research Council, following last year's cyber-attack. Shared Services Canada, in collaboration with the National Research Council and Communications Security Establishment Canada, is building a new and secure information technology infrastructure for the National Research Council on an accelerated basis. A portion of the supplementary estimates' financing for the National Research Council is to acquire new network services to take advantage of our new data centre infrastructure and the associated security benefits of this new architecture.
The remainder of the new funding outlined in supplementary estimates (C)—$1.8 million—will support the IT infrastructure that will allow two of our partner departments, Employment and Social Development Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada, to upgrade their IT applications to reflect the reforms implemented in 2014 in the temporary foreign worker program, as well as provide additional storage and database capacity and connectivity.
The second component of Shared Services Canada's supplementary estimates (C) is proposed net transfers from our partner organizations, some for adjustments related to Shared Services Canada's creation and others related to specific projects and initiatives.
Let me share with you a couple of highlights of these transfers. Proposed for transfer from Public Works and Government Services Canada is $1.8 million. The transfer is for the closure of three legacy data centres in Ottawa and one in Toronto. From National Defence, $1.3 million is identified for transfer for services and equipment in support of the Mercury Global military wideband satellite project, as well as for support of IT-related renovations at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario.
All these activities are helping Shared Services Canada to improve savings, security, and service. Moreover, by providing secure, robust, modern IT infrastructure, Shared Services Canada is helping our partner departments to achieve their priorities while they deliver services to Canadians.
My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer your questions. Thank you.
View Wai Young Profile
CPC (BC)
I see.
All right. I may be sharing my time, if I have time at the end, with my colleague here, Mr. Kerr.
The cyber-attack was a big issue for Canadians. They were quite concerned about Canadian data, etc., so I wanted to ask Shared Services this. How can we be assured that another attack would not occur? What steps have you taken in these new systems? I was happy to hear about this security centre, which is 24-7, and all the different things that you've done to put that into place and to provide those kinds of services for all the different departments, but can you give us a more in-depth understanding of how we can be assured as Canadians that this attack will not recur?
Kevin Radford
View Kevin Radford Profile
Kevin Radford
2015-03-12 12:39
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.
With respect to the National Research Council and the incident that occurred there, I will try to explain just very briefly. I've talked already about the capability around our security operations centre, but maybe we can reach back a couple of years to when we had a cyber-incident that happened at Treasury Board and at the Department of Finance. The Department of Finance and the Treasury Board were able to continue working because they were on the secure networks of the government. We were able to basically cut off their access to the Internet and they could carry on with business.
With the National Research Council it was much different. They were working outside the government networks. There were many distributed sites across the country and they had varied Internet connections at all of these different sites. The strategy was around the containment of that particular security incident. We worked very closely with the National Research Council in developing that particular plan. Obviously, we had to try to minimize the impact on their operations, so it wasn't as simple as Finance and Treasury Board and allowing them to continue to work. We had to work with them around the containment and to make sure we protected ourselves from the particular incident.
The first order of business was obviously to protect the rest of government from this particular threat. Using the security operations centre and our capable folks who work within Shared Services Canada we were able to do that, as a first instance.
Going forward, the entire program of Shared Services Canada is around upgrading as per the 2010 Auditor General's report on the state of IT infrastructure. By building new data centres we are building in security by design. By reducing the 50 wide-area networks and contracting with our supply chain integrity under national security exceptions, so we know of country of origin, etc., all of this is to put security by design into our new networks as we go forward.
On the issue around the National Research Council and the expense that was associated with it, the nature of that particular threat meant we actually had to physically replace all of the equipment, all of the networks, etc. This was a very sophisticated act as has been discussed in the media, and this necessitated a complete replacement. We couldn't just clean it and use it again. It required a complete, new infrastructure.
In nine or ten short weeks, again working closely with the Treasury Board, working with our security partners, leveraging the new data centres at Gatineau, we were actually able to create a brand new infrastructure working with the vendors' and the telcos' brand new wide-area networks, and create a green environment from which NRC can now operate. We are working closely now with NRC, National Research Council, to migrate their workloads from the contaminated site that's been contained, scrubbing that data and moving that into the new infrastructure.
That's just one example of what Shared Services Canada and the creation of Shared Services Canada can do with respect to security.
View Cheryl Gallant Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay.
The National Research Council of Canada's requesting $6.4 million “to help outstanding and high-potential incubator and accelerator organizations expand their services to entrepreneurs”. What methods do you use to measure the impact of these grants and contributions on the services provided to Canadian entrepreneurs?
Lisa Setlakwe
View Lisa Setlakwe Profile
Lisa Setlakwe
2014-12-04 10:32
This program is just getting launched. Fifteen incubator accelerators have been approved for funding. Not all have been announced yet. Ultimately, the funding will allow for these organizations to mentor and provide advice to these high-potential companies—in some cases they may physically house them—and also put them in touch with key networks, whether financing or marketing networks, whatever the case may be. The objective is that the companies will grow. In some cases success will look like companies that are able to access capital that they may not have been able to do on their own. I don't have the particular performance measurement strategy that's associated with the program, but we can provide that.
John Knubley
View John Knubley Profile
John Knubley
2014-12-04 10:33
I think typically as well there would be an evaluation after a reasonable period. A concrete example of these incubators is Communitech in Waterloo. These kinds of incubators have been quite common in Silicon Valley and have been very successful. I think we're quite pleased to see how many incubators have been successful in this new program. They offer real opportunity, I think, in supporting these dynamic start-ups, typically owned by younger people, to be successful and to grow to be larger companies.
John R. McDougall
View John R. McDougall Profile
John R. McDougall
2014-06-11 15:44
Thank you, Mr. Côté.
The NRC's responsibility is to undertake research largely of a technical nature.
In the case of issues where there has been a spill and we're trying to assess the nature of the material spilled, the mechanisms that might be used for environmental remediation and cleanup or containment, even for identifying the possibilities, and so on, we would develop technology to do it.
Our job would not include the particular protocols that the companies might apply in terms of using technology. They would more likely relate to organizations like the Transportation Safety Board or others to sort out whether their approaches are rational and appropriate for the safety level that's desired.
View Rob Nicholson Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you very much.
I'm here today as was just pointed out to discuss supplementary estimates (C), but first I would like to address a story that ran last night on CTV regarding an invitation officials sent to the families of our fallen soldiers regarding the May 9 National Day of Honour.
The letter was premature, incorrect, and contained false information as event plans have not been finalized. Our government is proud to commemorate our military's mission in Afghanistan and to provide Canadians with an opportunity to reflect on the courage and sacrifice made by our soldiers.
Throughout this mission in Afghanistan our troops demonstrated commitment, dedication, and valour. Sadly, many Canadians made the ultimate sacrifice during this mission and we owe their families a debt of gratitude that can never be repaid. That is why it is the government's position that these expenses will be covered.
Now back to the subject of today's committee business.... As you pointed out, Mr. Chair, you've introduced those with me and I am pleased to be here this morning with them.
In a few moments I will also speak to you about the Communication Security Establishment, or CSE, and this is why, as was pointed out, I am joined by John Forster, the chief of CSE.
I understand that some members have a written version of the remarks from my last attempted appearance. I will however go through a number of my remarks to ensure that they are fully and appropriately on record.
Last time I spoke to you, I highlighted the good work of our men and women in uniform. I remain impressed each and every day with the incredible work of our military and the dedicated civilian team supporting them.
Let's take Afghanistan, for example. Just last month, I had the pleasure to welcome back the last rotation of soldiers deployed to Afghanistan. More than 40,000 Canadian Armed Forces members have served in Afghanistan, and many served more than once. In many ways, it was a war that defined our military in the last 12 years.
With our NATO allies and partners, we helped Afghans reclaim their country from terrorism and provide security for the Afghan population. Today, Afghanistan's security forces stand at approximately 345,000 personnel, and they will take full responsibility for Afghan security at the end of this year.
Mr. Chair, to undertake such a mission abroad for 12 years, our military needed proper equipment, and we gave it to them. Through the Canada First defence strategy, the government made unprecedented investments in military equipment and successfully delivered on many procurement projects.
But at the same time, it's important to challenge ourselves to ensure that our procurement processes are as efficient as they can be. This is why I was pleased to announce a few weeks ago, with my colleague Minister Finley, the new defence procurement strategy. The defence procurement strategy is giving the defence team new tools to improve the way they do procurement. It helps us streamline the procurement process and improve efficiency.
Mr. Chair, in our supplementary estimates, we are requesting $57.8 million in new appropriations to fund the Aurora modernization and structural life extension project, funds for the force mobility enhancement project, and some transfers to other government departments. Of these funds requested, we are offsetting $49.5 million with previously appropriated funding, and $8.1 million with transfers to other government departments. This reduces our total request for new funding to only $311,000.
Some of these funds will be used, again, as part of the Aurora modernization and life extension program, which will ensure that Canada maintains a world-class airborne surveillance capability while ensuring value for Canadians.
Some of the funds requested will be dedicated to the force mobility enhancement project. This project will provide the army with a flexible multi-purpose capability that will enable them to respond effectively to any mission, now or in the future.
In addition, these estimates will allow the department to work with other federal agencies to leverage resources and enhance the security of Canadians.
Mr. Chair, you will see that the estimates include smaller transfers of $5.2 million and $2.7 million to Shared Services Canada in order to reduce duplication and inefficiencies within government institutions and also conduct information technology activities at the Carling campus.
In addition, you will see a funding transfer of $141,900 to Transport Canada as part of a multi-year commitment to the Canadian safety and security program.
Also, these estimates list a transfer of $25,000 from National Defence to the National Research Council of Canada in order to conduct surface and groundwater monitoring at two National Research Council sites in Penticton, British Columbia.
While the job of the defence team is maintaining the security of this country, this government recognizes that a strong and resilient economy is an important aspect of that security.
That is why, last year, the defence team launched its own internal business process review, called defence renewal.
The defence renewal process is an opportunity to improve the way we manage our people, assets, and resources. While excellence in delivering operations at home and abroad will always be our priority, we must streamline the defence procurement process and leverage Canadian tax dollars that are provided for defence.
Mr. Chair, at the committee's request, I take this opportunity to also address any of the committee members' questions on the Communications Security Establishment. Let me underline the important role that CSE plays in protecting Canada and Canadians. CSE's mandate flows from the National Defence Act and requires CSE to provide the Government of Canada with three key services.
First, CSE collects foreign signals intelligence that supports government decision-making by providing information on the capabilities, activities, or intentions of foreign entities, such as states or terrorist groups.
Second, CSE has a cyber-protection mandate and provides advice, guidance, and services that help secure government systems and networks and the information they contain.
Finally, CSE provides technical and operational assistance upon request to federal law enforcement and security agencies under their respective mandates.
Under both its foreign intelligence and cyber-protection mandates, CSE does not target Canadians anywhere in the world or any person in Canada. Under the agency's assistance mandate, CSE acts under the legal authority of the requesting agency it is assisting and is subject to any limitations to that authority, such as applicable court warrants.
The foreign intelligence activities of CSE are critical to fulfilling the government's commitment to address emerging threats to our sovereignty and economy posed by terrorism and cyber-attacks while ensuring that Canadians' fundamental privacy rights are protected.
Over the years, CSE has provided intelligence to protect Canada and Canadians by supporting Canadian military operations and protecting our forces from threats; uncovering the efforts of foreign-based extremists to attract, radicalize, and train individuals to carry out attacks in Canada and abroad; identifying and helping to defend Canada against the actions of hostile foreign intelligence agencies; providing early warning to thwart foreign cyber-threats to the Government of Canada and to critical information infrastructures and networks; and furthering Canada's national interests in the world by providing context about global events and crises and informing the government's foreign policy.
In fulfilling this important role, CSE operates in full accordance with the law, including the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, and the Privacy Act. CSE is also subject to legislative measures in place to protect the privacy of Canadians and persons in Canada. Since 1996, a fully independent CSE commissioner—a series of esteemed retired or supernumerary judges—has regularly reviewed CSE activities for compliance with the law. The commissioner and his full-time staff and expert consultants have full access to all CSE personnel, systems, and documents. In more than 17 years, the commissioner has never found CSE to have acted unlawfully. In fact, he has specifically noted CSE's culture of lawful compliance and genuine concern for protecting the privacy of Canadians.
Were the commissioner ever to conclude that the agency is acting outside the law, he would be required to report this immediately to the Attorney General and to me as the minister responsible for CSE. Both the chief of CSE and I take the findings of the commissioner in his reviews very seriously. CSE has implemented past recommendations of the commissioner related to privacy, and the agency is in the process of implementing those from the more recent reviews.
Canadians can continue to count on the efforts of CSE and the government to safeguard the security of Canada from foreign threats while at the same time acting in full accordance with the law and protecting the privacy of Canadians.
Mr. Chair, thank you once again for inviting me. I welcome any questions.
View Élaine Michaud Profile
NDP (QC)
I'll be very quick.
My question is for the Department of National Defence officials.
Coming back quickly to supplementary estimates (C), I saw that DND was transferring $25,000 to the National Research Council of Canada for the assessment, management and remediation of federal contaminated sites. Could you please provide to the committee, in writing, the details on how that money is being used?
In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, there are TCE-contaminated sites in Shannon caused by the Valcartier military base. Although federal money is earmarked for the cleanup, there is very little of it and it isn't accessible quickly enough.
So I'd like to have the details on how that $25,000 is being used and see whether it includes the cleanup in Shannon.
Kevin Lindsey
View Kevin Lindsey Profile
Kevin Lindsey
2014-04-03 12:49
We can provide the answer in writing, of course.
I would, however, like to make one thing clear. The transfer in supplementary estimates (C) is for $25,000, not $25 million.
View Tony Clement Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
Thank you, members of the committee, for providing us with the opportunity to speak to you about Treasury Board estimates as well as the government-wide mains.
I'm joined today by officials from the Treasury Board Secretariat, including the secretary, Yaprak Baltacioglu; Jim Ralston, Comptroller General of Canada; Daniel Watson, the chief human resources officer for the government. You may recognize Bill Matthews, assistant secretary of the expenditure management sector.
Bill's going to say a few things as well, but I just wanted to give you a brief overview of government-wide 2014-15 main estimates.
Again this year, the main estimates show a significant decrease in the amount of voted expenditures. As you will see, the estimates for the voted amounts are down by almost $800 million compared to last year, which is a clear result of our government's commitment to reducing unnecessary spending and balancing the budget.
Chair, the 2014-15 main estimates provide information on the $235.3 billion in planned budgetary expenditures for the 2014-15 fiscal year. This includes $86.3 billion in voted expenditures, which have decreased from $87.1 billion in 2013-14. This also includes the $149 billion in statutory expenditures.
Mr. Chair, the main appropriations include an increase of $311.7 million for Health Canada in order to stabilize, renew and expand important health programs and services for first nations and Inuit communities,
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's $253.1-million investment in affordable housing program, as well as a $70-million fund for housing in Nunavut, and an increase of $59.6 million for the National Research Council of Canada to realign industry-focused research.
Parliament will be asked to approve the amount of voted expenditures through interim and full supply bills, of course. I should say that the main estimates continue the steady decrease in the amount of voted spending. Over the past four years, since fiscal year 2010-11, there has been a decrease in the main estimates voted appropriations.
At the same time, statutory expenditures have gone up by $3.53 billion, mostly because of the changes made to the estimates for seniors' benefits and the Canada health transfer.
Overall, these main estimates reflect the results of the government's cost containment measures.
As for my own department, in 2014-15, the Treasury Board Secretariat is asking for $7.4 billion in planned spending. This amount does include certain increases as they're related to an increase in pay, less expenditures, operating budget carry forward, and employer contributions made under the pension program.
The secretariat's reference levels were reduced by $7.6 million in 2012-13. By the end of the 2013-14 fiscal year, ongoing savings will reach $15.1 million and $23.6 million by the end of 2014-15.
Just to give an example, as a follow-up to budget 2012, the Treasury Board Secretariat cut $100,000 from its annual spending on travel to align with our government's commitment to reduce travel expenditures.
Our government remains focused on modernizing and simplifying the administrative systems of government as well as promoting productivity, innovation, and excellence in the public service. Returning to a balanced budget is not an end in itself; it provides a host of benefits that go well beyond the bottom line. It frees up taxpayer dollars that may otherwise be spent on interest costs to lower taxes and invest in the priorities of Canadians. It helps keep interest rates low. Instilling confidence in consumers and investors, these dollars spur economic growth and job creation. It strengthens our country's ability to respond to longer term challenges such as population aging and unexpected global economic shocks.
With your say-so, Mr. Chair, I would now ask Bill Matthews to give you a little more detailed information on the main estimates, and afterwards we'd be happy to take your questions.
Results: 1 - 15 of 29 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data