The province’s three largest universities have argued that the public shouldn’t have access to the financial dealings of SFU’s spinoff companies. According to documents filed with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, UBC and the University of Victoria have justified this position, in part, with the claim that universities act as “service providers” to private-sector organizations.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers and the B.C. Information and Privacy Association have argued in favour of the release of these records. The Georgia Straight has obtained copies of all of their submissions to Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis, whose ruling is pending.

The dispute centres around a freedom-of-information request to SFU, which was filed by David Noble, a professor at York University. Noble, a critic of the corporate influence on universities, sought information in February 2004 from SFU’s University/Industry Liaison Office on companies spun off from SFU research.

According to Noble’s submission to Loukidelis, SFU confirmed in October 2004 that it had located records in the UILO, which is on SFU’s Burnaby campus. A year later, however, SFU took a different position, arguing that the records “are not in the custody or control of the university”.

SFU’s claimed that the records were in the sole control and custody of “Simon Fraser University Ventures”, an SFU–owned company that holds shares in spinoff companies. Noble then asked Loukidelis to conduct an inquiry and issue a legally binding order on SFU to release the records.

SFU president Michael Stevenson’s submission to Loukidelis asserts that SFUV is not a “public body” under the province’s freedom-of-information law. As the shareholder of SFUV, Stevenson wrote, the university is entitled to receive financial statements and any auditor’s report. “SFU does not have general statutory right to access all records in the possession of SFUV,” he claimed.

UBC and UVic filed a joint submission supporting SFU’s position. “There is no democracy interest invoked where the public body is acting, outside of its statutory mandate to provide services to the public, as a service provider to a private company,” UBC and UVic’s lawyer, Lorene Novakowski, wrote in the submission. “Access to the records will not further the transparency principle of government as the public body is not engaged in activities that are directly related to the mandate of the public body.”

The Canadian Association of University Teachers has intervened on Noble’s side, claiming that SFU should not be allowed to use its wholly owned company to deny public access to documents involving licensing deals. “SFU considers ‘that research is an essential component of the mission of Simon Fraser University and constitutes a major instructional activity as well’,” CAUT executive director James Turk wrote in his submission.

The B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has also intervened on Noble’s side, purporting that the universities’ position poses a “threat” to the purpose of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act: “to make public bodies more accountable to the public”.

“Simply put, if Public Bodies can avoid the effect of the FOIPPA by using wholly owned or controlled subsidiary corporations as repositories of records, the effectiveness and purpose of the legislation will be severely impaired and the public accountability it provides will be lost,” wrote Daniel Burnett, lawyer for the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association.

High-tech entrepreneur Bart Copeland has taken an active role in the inquiry. He is chair and former CEO of Credo Interactive Inc., a Vancouver-based software company that has intervened on the side of the universities. Copeland, president of Solstice Management Group, claimed in his submission that the release of records involving third parties “will pose significant harm to the future health and development of the technology industry here in British Columbia”. Copeland noted that Solstice owns more than 25 percent of the shares in Credo Interactive, whereas SFUV only held 6.8 percent of the shares.

“To achieve world class stature requires collaboration with numerous parties including the academy, government, and businesses; inside and outside of the Province,” Copeland wrote. “We are of the strong opinion that this Inquiry does not help, but actually hinders, the future prospects of developing a vibrant technology industry in the province.”

Former SFU vice-president of research Tom Calvert—now an SFU professor emeritus of computing science, engineering science, and kinesiology—was listed as a director and secretary of Credo Interactive Inc. in documents filed with the corporate registry. SFU’s former vice-president of research, Bruce Clayman, swore an affidavit stating that he was a director and officer of SFUV, and that he created documents “solely in my capacity as a director of SFUV and in no other capacity”.

Noble told the Straight that the outcome of the hearing could have an impact in Ontario, because its universities are coming under freedom-of-information legislation in June. “One of the things we’re suggesting is without these companies being subject to FOIPPA, there is no way of knowing about corruption,” he said.

Noble said that through an access request, he was able to obtain documents concerning a licensing agreement that SFU signed with a different company linked to Calvert and Copeland. Calvert was secretary and director and Copeland was chief financial officer of Virtual Learning Environments Inc., which signed a deal with SFU on May 1, 1997. VLEI’s president was Linda Harasim, who taught communications and who generated enormous media publicity for developing on-line learning programs.

Calvert was coleader of the TeleLearning Network, which was funded by the federal government and several corporations. In 1997, the Straight reported that Noble had described the network as “an academic front for a commercial enterprise”.

Correspondence between SFU and VLEI, which no longer exists, reveal that the university tried without success over four years to recover a “direct debt”. In the end, Noble recalled, SFU absorbed a loss of approximately of $95,000 in royalties and another $189,000 for overhead.

“There is $300,000, which is a nice bit of change that the taxpayer ends up eating after funding everything,” Noble said. Calvert was unavailable for comment by the Straight’s editorial deadline.

Noble added that SFU won’t release records on a separate company called Telelearning Solutions Inc., which he described as a “spinoff” of the telelearning centre. Noble said that Telelearning Solutions was created by Joanne Curry, who managed the telelearning centre and who is now the administrator of SFU’s Surrey campus.

“I wasn’t able to get any documents on that because they alleged it wasn’t a spinoff of SFU,” Noble said.

SFU officials declined the Straight’s request for comment by deadline. Credo Interactive Inc. officials did not respond to telephone and e-mail messages by deadline.

1. Trent's board did not explicitly reject or approve Part 4 of the Endowment Lands Master Plan which contains the recommendation for the creation of the Trent University Development Corporation. In the absence of the board's explicit rejection of the formation of such a corporation it must considered that the idea is active and still very much alive.