The Jenkins Report on Federal Support for Research and Development – October 18, 2011
An expert panel convened by the federal government released their final report Monday on how effective Canada is at supporting business-oriented research and development. Chaired by Tom Jenkins, chief strategy officer of Open Text, the report has several recommendations, including large changes to the National Research Council. The report can be found online here.
The SMCC held an online briefing with Tom Jenkins on Tuesday to answer some questions about the report. The briefing can be listened to on our site here or below.
Segments:
1: Mr. Tom Jenkins: Part 1
2: Mr. Tom Jenkins: Part 2
3: Question period
Here are additional comments from Canadian experts in science policy:
Yves Gingras, Scientific Director of Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Professor, History Department, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM).
Le rapport publié est bien fait et répond à des questions précises, ce qui a le mérite d’éviter la dispersion. C’est un document pragmatique, ne prétendant pas réinventer la roue : il se réfère aux nombreuses publications qui l’ont précédé et à leurs propositions souvent convergentes, traçant le portrait de la situation actuelle du financement de la recherche industrielle au Canada.
On sait depuis longtemps que nous sommes l’un des rares pays à miser presqu’exclusivement sur les crédits d’impôt pour soutenir la recherche-développement industrielle. Cette façon de faire rend l’impact du financement difficile à évaluer. D’ailleurs, dans les principes directeurs [Note de la rédaction : voir p. R-5 du rapport, « Une exigence de bénéfice net »], on laisse entendre que dans le système actuel, les subventions accordées ne seraient pas nécessairement proportionnelles aux activités de recherche. Le comité recommande d’offrir davantage de financement direct pour des projets, ce qui facilitera le contrôle de la crédibilité des activités de recherche et développement des bénéficiaires. Cette restructuration des crédits d’impôts constitue la recommandation qui aura le plus probablement des suites.
Pour moi, la première surprise de ce rapport provient de la recommandation 6.2, proposant de « transformer le Conseil des sciences, de la technologie et de l’innovation en un Comité consultatif externe sur l’innovation ». Ceci revient à recréer un Conseil des sciences et de la technologie. Rappelons que tant au fédéral qu’au provincial, ces conseils ont été abolis, alors qu’ils apportaient un avis public et une réflexion à plus long terme qui étaient très utiles pour éviter la fixation sur le court terme (3-4 ans), horizon typique des politiciens. Le rapport, avec cette recommandation, confirme que de tels conseils, qui doivent avoir une certaine indépendance et rendre leurs rapports publics sont nécessaires pour assurer de meilleures prises de décision à moyen terme en matière d’investissements en R&D.
D’autre part, on parle de restructurer le Conseil national de recherche du Canada (CNRC), une recommandation allant dans la direction d’une réforme déjà amorcée, mais présentée sous une forme encore plus intéressante puisqu’elle permet que les différents instituts du CNRC évoluent de façon différente en fonction de leurs caractéristiques propres. C’est un scénario plausible.
Enfin, notons que la proposition de création d’un Conseil sur la recherche et l’innovation industrielle demeure confuse et mal formulée à mon sens. Je vois mal comment un conseil — supposé conseiller — pourrait avoir le rôle de diriger une stratégie, donc d’être exécutant. En fait ce qu’ils semblent suggérer est plutôt un organisme de gestion des programmes plus centralisé pour éviter la grande dispersion des programmes actuels ; un genre de « guichet unique » pour offrir, planifier et gérer l’aide fédérale à la R&D industrielle. Or, un tel organisme n’est pas vraiment nécessaire car on peut aussi simplement regrouper les programmes et les rationaliser au sein du Ministère de l’industrie.
Prof. Adam Holbrook, Adjunct Professor and Associate Director, Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology, Simon Fraser University
“The reason we’re so interested in R & D, of course, is that it is an indicator of innovative activity. But you can have innovative activity without necessarily having R&D. So in one sense, assuming that R&D is the holy grail, we should be looking at a wider field than just performance of R&D.
One of the things about Canada is that we don’t really have a national system of innovation; we have a number of regional systems of innovation. So that out here in the west it’s resource based innovation — renewable and non-renewable resources. Whereas in Ontario and Quebec its based on manufacturing. And then there’s the services sector, which is important to all of us. But each has quite different models for carrying out R&D.
So one has to ask the question, are we doing badly in terms of R&D for the resources sector? And are we doing badly in terms of R&D in the manufacturing sector? And the same for the services sector? But the numbers vary, like when someone says Canada’s not doing as well as Austria, which, for example, is not a resource-based economy. It’s a manufacturing economy. So we have to be very careful about the comparisons we make.
But by and large, we have a very similar profile as Australia.
Will some sectors benefit more than others? Are there big winners or losers?
Some will benefit more than others – but I don’t want to talk about it in terms of winners and losers, because it’s not a zero sum game. Changing the the SRED for example, will make it possible for people to focus more on the human capital side.
What’s new here that hasn’t been addressed?
The procurement issue is something that has always been there but has never been articulated, and it’s good that it’s now been articulated.
Canada’s about the only country in the world that actually plays by any of the trading rules. So why should we not in fact put in some kind of procurement policy?
What is the best example of support for innovative programs that have been translated into successes?
The best example, at least in my mind, is MacDonald, Dettwiler Associates in Vancouver. It has mutated in various forms through the years, but has become a very strong player in resource satellites and resource management using satellite platforms. And that’s an example – it’s not just that they can build a satellite, but that they can use that satellite for productive purposes commercial crop yields. It’s a commercial tool.
Dr. Shaun Hendy, McDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
This report takes a balanced approach to improving Canada’s innovation performance. Canada’s economic geography is unique in many ways, and overall I think this report takes this into account while drawing on best practise from other OECD countries. While Canada is endowed with abundant natural resources, the large distances between its major population centres pose a challenge for innovation. In the long run, economic growth is driven by innovation, and there is mounting evidence that collaboration and innovation go hand in hand in the modern world. Countries with disperse population centres can struggle to put the right people in the right places at the right times and consequently need to put more effort into fostering collaboration.
The report addresses several well known market failures that hamper innovation, namely the lack of risk capital for entrepreneurs and the under-investment in R&D by business. The first is an issue for many countries, yet it is something that governments find difficult to address. The recommendation does not shy away from increasing government support in this area, but for this to succeed a high tolerance for risk will be needed. Secondly, the report re-balances the support for business R&D from a scheme based exclusively on R&D tax credits, to a mix of tax credits and direct support for SMEs. I think this is a prudent approach, although care must be taken that direct support programmes do not proliferate and are not captured by market incumbents.
There is always the temptation to tinker with the structure of government research organisations when reviewing innovation policies and this report is no exception. Canada’s NRC Institutes represent an important reserve of capability, and I can’t help but feel that an opportunity has been lost to build a much more robust national innovation network that cuts across geographic and provincial boundaries. The report seems to envisage a collection of stand-alone Institutes with a regional focus. I think Canada should be more ambitious and look to build national networks along the lines of the CIFAR programmes.
Finally, while there are many instances internationally where government procurement seems to have played a role in building domestic markets that enable firms to take ideas to scale, there is an opportunity cost here if Canada’s trading partners seek to do likewise. Canada may be giving up the opportunity to sell goods and services to much larger national governments by favouring its own domestic firms. Nonetheless, the report sensibly suggests that this preferential procurement be limited to situations where there are very real opportunities to innovate.”
Mr. Paul Dufour, Principal, PaulicyWorks
“Leadership is the critical issue here. For these recommendations to be accepted and implemented, it will require more than just the report authors to push them or the federal government, but championing from the industry leaders. Further, if these are to go anywhere, federal government programs need to be envisioned as national in scope with design and delivery in collaboration with the provinces and territories. They need to be at the table.
The report needs to be picked up and discussed across a national platform. Follow-up and buy-in by the PM and senior cabinet must take place. University and college presidents need to bring this panel report to the attention of the provincial premiers and relevant ministries.
Otherwise this is just another report in a series of reports that have examined why Canada lags in business innovation. Rise up!”
