Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

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