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.\u00a0The report can be found online\u00a0here.<\/a><\/p>\n The SMCC held an online briefing with Tom Jenkins on Tuesday to answer some questions about the report. The briefing \u00a0can be listened to on our site\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0or below.<\/p>\n Here are additional comments from Canadian experts in science policy:<\/p>\n Yves Gingras, Scientific Director of\u00a0Observatoire des sciences et des technologies, Professor, History Department, Universit\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec \u00e0 Montr\u00e9al (UQAM).<\/strong><\/p>\n Le rapport publi\u00e9 est bien fait et r\u00e9pond \u00e0 des questions pr\u00e9cises, ce qui a le m\u00e9rite d\u2019\u00e9viter la dispersion. C\u2019est un document pragmatique, ne pr\u00e9tendant pas r\u00e9inventer la roue : il se r\u00e9f\u00e8re aux nombreuses publications qui l\u2019ont pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9 et \u00e0 leurs propositions souvent convergentes, tra\u00e7ant le portrait de la situation actuelle du financement de la recherche industrielle au Canada.<\/p>\n On sait depuis longtemps que nous sommes l\u2019un des rares pays \u00e0 miser presqu\u2019exclusivement sur les cr\u00e9dits d\u2019imp\u00f4t pour soutenir la recherche-d\u00e9veloppement industrielle. Cette fa\u00e7on de faire rend l\u2019impact du financement difficile \u00e0 \u00e9valuer. D\u2019ailleurs, dans les principes directeurs [Note de la r\u00e9daction : voir p. R-5 du rapport, \u00ab Une exigence de b\u00e9n\u00e9fice net \u00bb], on laisse entendre que dans le syst\u00e8me actuel, les subventions accord\u00e9es ne seraient pas n\u00e9cessairement proportionnelles aux activit\u00e9s de recherche. Le comit\u00e9 recommande d\u2019offrir davantage de financement direct pour des projets, ce qui facilitera le contr\u00f4le de la cr\u00e9dibilit\u00e9 des activit\u00e9s de recherche et d\u00e9veloppement des b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaires. Cette restructuration des cr\u00e9dits d\u2019imp\u00f4ts constitue la recommandation qui aura le plus probablement des suites.<\/p>\n Pour moi, la premi\u00e8re surprise de ce rapport provient de la recommandation 6.2, proposant de \u00ab transformer le Conseil des sciences, de la technologie et de l\u2019innovation en un Comit\u00e9 consultatif externe sur l\u2019innovation \u00bb. Ceci revient \u00e0 recr\u00e9er un Conseil des sciences et de la technologie. Rappelons que tant au f\u00e9d\u00e9ral qu\u2019au provincial, ces conseils ont \u00e9t\u00e9 abolis, alors qu\u2019ils apportaient un avis public et une r\u00e9flexion \u00e0 plus long terme qui \u00e9taient tr\u00e8s utiles pour \u00e9viter 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 ind\u00e9pendance et rendre leurs rapports publics sont n\u00e9cessaires pour assurer de meilleures prises de d\u00e9cision \u00e0 moyen terme en mati\u00e8re d\u2019investissements en R&D.<\/p>\n D\u2019autre part, on parle de restructurer le Conseil national de recherche du Canada (CNRC), une recommandation allant dans la direction d\u2019une r\u00e9forme d\u00e9j\u00e0 amorc\u00e9e, mais pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e sous une forme encore plus int\u00e9ressante puisqu\u2019elle permet que les diff\u00e9rents instituts du CNRC \u00e9voluent de fa\u00e7on diff\u00e9rente en fonction de leurs caract\u00e9ristiques propres. C\u2019est un sc\u00e9nario plausible.<\/p>\n Enfin, notons que la proposition de cr\u00e9ation d\u2019un Conseil sur la recherche et l\u2019innovation industrielle demeure confuse et mal formul\u00e9e \u00e0 mon sens. Je vois mal comment\u00a0un conseil \u2014 suppos\u00e9 conseiller \u2014 pourrait avoir le r\u00f4le de diriger une strat\u00e9gie, donc d\u2019\u00eatre ex\u00e9cutant. En fait ce qu\u2019ils semblent sugg\u00e9rer est plut\u00f4t un organisme de gestion des programmes plus centralis\u00e9 pour \u00e9viter la grande dispersion des programmes actuels ; un genre de \u00ab guichet unique \u00bb pour offrir, planifier et g\u00e9rer l\u2019aide f\u00e9d\u00e9rale \u00e0 la R&D industrielle. Or, un tel organisme n\u2019est pas vraiment n\u00e9cessaire car on peut aussi simplement regrouper les programmes et les rationaliser au sein du Minist\u00e8re de l\u2019industrie.<\/p>\n Prof. Adam Holbrook, Adjunct Professor and Associate Director, Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology, Simon Fraser University<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cThe reason we\u2019re 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. \u00a0So 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.<\/p>\n One of the things about Canada is that we don\u2019t really have a national system of innovation; we have a number of regional systems of innovation. So that out here in the west it\u2019s resource based innovation — renewable and non-renewable resources. Whereas in Ontario and Quebec its based on manufacturing. And then there\u2019s the services sector, which is important to all of us. But each has quite different models for carrying out R&D.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s not doing as well as Austria, which, for example, is not a resource-based economy. It\u2019s a manufacturing economy. So we have to be very careful about the comparisons we make.<\/p>\n But by and large, we have a very similar profile as Australia.<\/p>\n Will some sectors benefit more than others? Are there big winners or losers?<\/em><\/p>\n Some will benefit more than others \u2013 but I don\u2019t want to talk about it in terms of winners and losers, because it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n What’s new here that hasn’t been addressed?<\/em><\/p>\n The procurement issue is something that has always been there but has never been articulated, and it\u2019s good that it\u2019s now been articulated.<\/p>\n Canada\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n What is the best example of support for innovative programs that have been translated into successes?<\/em><\/p>\n 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\u2019s an example – it\u2019s not just that they can build a satellite, but that they can use that satellite for productive purposes commercial crop yields. It\u2019s a commercial tool.<\/p>\n Dr. Shaun Hendy, McDiarmid Institute for Advanced Materials and Nanotechnology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.<\/strong><\/p>\n This report takes a balanced approach to improving Canada\u2019s innovation performance. Canada\u2019s 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. \u00a0While Canada is endowed with abundant natural resources, the large distances between its major population centres pose a challenge for innovation. \u00a0In 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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. \u00a0The first is an issue for many countries, yet it is something that governments find difficult to address. \u00a0The 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. \u00a0Secondly, 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. \u00a0I 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.<\/span><\/p>\n There is always the temptation to tinker with the structure of government research organisations when reviewing innovation policies and this report is no exception. \u00a0Canada\u2019s NRC Institutes represent an important reserve of capability, and I can\u2019t 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. \u00a0The report seems to envisage a collection of stand-alone Institutes with a regional focus. \u00a0I think Canada should be more ambitious and look to build national networks along the lines of the CIFAR programmes.<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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. \u00a0Nonetheless, the report sensibly suggests that this preferential procurement be limited to situations where there are very real opportunities to innovate.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Mr. Paul Dufour, Principal, PaulicyWorks<\/strong><\/p>\n “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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n Otherwise this is just another report in a series of reports that have examined why Canada lags in business innovation. Rise up!\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[168],"tags":[197,195],"class_list":["post-245","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-webinar","tag-research-funding","tag-science-policy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4DqbN-3X","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=245"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247,"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/245\/revisions\/247"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=245"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=245"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/sciencemediacentre.ca\/site\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=245"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Segments:<\/h3>\n
1:\u00a0Mr. Tom Jenkins: Part 1
\n<\/a><\/h3>\n2:\u00a0Mr. Tom Jenkins: Part 2
\n<\/a><\/h3>\n3:\u00a0<\/a>Question period<\/a><\/h3>\n