Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Innovation Canada: A Call to Action5 Program Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1Existing Assessment Procedures for Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1Assessment of Program “Effectiveness”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2International Practices in Comparative Program Assessment. . . . . . . . . 5-3Consultations with Stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3Recommendation 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-96 Program Mix and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1Changing the Mix: More Direct Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3Overview of the SR&ED Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5Net Public Benefit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7Recommendation 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-107 Filling the Gaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1The Procurement Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2Recommendation 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3The Large-Scale Research Collaboration Gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6Recommendation 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9The Risk Capital Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-11Recommendation 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-178 Leadership for Innovation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1Recommendation 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-49 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1The End Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1The Way Forward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2Annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1A Programs in the Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1B The Advice of Other Panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5C Biographies of Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R-1viii
ContentsList of Figures1.1 Canadian Business Expenditure on Research and Development (BERD),1985–2010 (billions of 2000 constant dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-32.1 Relative Level of Labour Productivity in the Business Sector, 1947–2009(Canada as a percentage of the United States). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32.2 Sources of Canada–US Gap in Average Annual Labour Productivity Growth(differences in percentage growth rates: Canada minus the US) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42.3 Provincial BERD Intensities in Canada, 2008 (business expenditure onR&D as a percentage of provincial GDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-72.4 A Firm-Centric Model of the Business Innovation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-102.5 R&D Expenditure in Canada, 1981–2009 (percentage of GDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-122.6 The Innovation Ecosystem: Converting “Research” into “Innovation” . . . . . . . . . . . 2-172.7 ICT Investment per Worker in the Business Sector, Canada as a Proportionof the United States, 1987–2009 (current US dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-193.1 Total Envelope Expenditure ($ million, excluding federal programadministration costs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-53.2 The Largest Direct Expenditure Programs in the Envelope, 2010–11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-83.3 Program Envelope, by Form of Support, 2010–11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-93.4 Envelope Expenditure, by Type of Recipient, Total Direct Expenditure,2010–11, and SR&ED Tax Credit, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-103.5 Sectoral Distribution of Direct and Indirect (SR&ED) Expenditure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-135.1 Types of R&D Performers Employed by Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-65.2 Reasons for Not Participating in R&D Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-75.3 Program from Which Funding Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-85.4 Satisfaction with Various Aspects of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-95.5 Direct Spending Portion of the Envelope, by Activity Supported, 2010–11 . . . . . . . 5-155.6 Performance Indicators for Comparison of Categories of Like Forms ofR&D Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-176.1 Direct and Indirect Government Support of Business R&D, 2008(except as noted) (percentage of GDP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-26.2 Tax Subsidy Rates on Investment in R&D for Selected Countries, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-46.3 Tax Expenditures, by Type of Corporation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-76.4 Federal and Provincial Tax Credit Rates (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-87.1 Funding Chain by Stage of Development and Size of Investment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-127.2 Many Gaps Have Resulted in a “Vicious” Cycle in the CanadianVenture Capital Industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-147.3 Proposal to Support High-Growth Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-188.1 The Government of Canada’s Innovation Machinery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2ix
Page 1 and 2: Innovation Canada:A Call to ActionR
Page 3 and 4: Innovation Canada:A Call to Action
Page 5: Dear Minister,Please find attached
Page 8 and 9: Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
Page 35 and 36: The Context of the ReviewChapterThe
Page 37 and 38: The Context of the Reviewspreads wi
Page 39 and 40: The Context of the ReviewBox 2.2 De
Page 41 and 42: The Context of the ReviewIn absolut
Page 43 and 44: The Context of the ReviewInnovation
Page 45 and 46: The Context of the Reviewdevelopmen
Page 47 and 48: The Context of the ReviewBox 2.4 Wh
Page 49 and 50: The Context of the ReviewProsperity
Page 51 and 52: The Context of the ReviewFigure 2.6
Page 53: The Context of the Review%115110105
Page 60 and 61:
Innovation Canada: A Call to Action
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 69 and 70:
Vision and PrinciplesChapterVision
Page 71 and 72:
Vision and Principlesout in Chapter
Page 73 and 74:
Program EffectivenessChapterProgram
Page 75 and 76:
Program Effectivenessand processes.
Page 77 and 78:
Program Effectivenessfull spectrum
Page 79 and 80:
Program EffectivenessFigure 5.2 Rea
Page 81 and 82:
Program EffectivenessFigure 5.4 Sat
Page 83 and 84:
Program EffectivenessBox 5.1 Operat
Page 85 and 86:
Program Effectivenessassessment of
Page 87 and 88:
Program EffectivenessFigure 5.5 Dir
Page 89 and 90:
Program EffectivenessFigure 5.6 Per
Page 91 and 92:
Program Mix and DesignChapterProgra
Page 93 and 94:
Program Mix and DesignBox 6.1 Direc
Page 95 and 96:
Program Mix and Designthe needs of
Page 97 and 98:
Program Mix and DesignFigure 6.3 Ta
Page 99 and 100:
Program Mix and DesignBox 6.3 Stack
Page 101 and 102:
Program Mix and Designcapital costs
Page 103 and 104:
Program Mix and Designportion of th
Page 105 and 106:
Filling the GapsChapterFilling the
Page 107 and 108:
Filling the GapsBox 7.1 Use of Proc
Page 109 and 110:
Filling the GapsBox 7.2 Canadian In
Page 111 and 112:
Filling the Gapscompetitive levels,
Page 113 and 114:
Filling the GapsBox 7.4 Institutes
Page 115 and 116:
Filling the GapsThe budgetary impli
Page 117 and 118:
Filling the GapsSuch concerns are i
Page 119 and 120:
Filling the GapsAngel InvestmentAt
Page 121 and 122:
Filling the GapsWith the foregoing
Page 123 and 124:
Filling the GapsBearing this in min
Page 125 and 126:
Leadership for InnovationChapterLea
Page 127 and 128:
Leadership for InnovationThe approp
Page 129 and 130:
Leadership for Innovationinnovation
Page 131 and 132:
ConclusionChapterConclusion9We are
Page 133 and 134:
Programs in the ReviewAnnexPrograms
Page 135:
Programs in the ReviewDepartment or
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148:
show all

Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?