REFORM PARTY VIEWS ON THE INDUSTRY
COMMITTEE'S INTERIM REPORT
"A Review of S&T and the Innovation Gap in Canada" and report recommendations
1. Purpose
The Reform Party wishes to submit a minority report in order to clarify both our concerns with the decision to table a report and with the recommendations contained in the report. Comments are made based on the last draft report (Draft #1)made available to Committee members.
2. The Decision to Table a Report
The review on science and technology and the innovation gap in Canada was conducted as a roundtable. To date we have heard from many excellent witnesses and gained some valuable insight into the state of S&T in Canada today. At the time of the House rising for the Christmas recess the Committee had heard a substantial amount of information but had not completed its review. For example, the Committee has not heard from the provincial scientific community, a necessary participant in our objective of pushing Canada's S&T agenda forward.Reform feels the decision to table a report, in particular, to put forward recommendations, is premature. While we understand the haste to do so was an attempt to underscore previous science and business recommendations made by the Finance Committee and to urge the Minister of Finance to highlight science and technology in the next federal budget, the objectives have now been nullified by the Finance Minister's announcement of an early budget.
The result of last minute scrambling has had several effects: it has precipitated decisions being made unilaterally by the Chairman; it has circumvented the committee process by not allowing enough time for Committee members to review the report's recommendations and make amendments; it does not meet any objective as there is not enough time for the report or the recommendations to be taken into account by the Finance Minister in time for the tabling of the federal budget.
While Reformers support the need for a higher profile for science and technology and innovation, particularly as it relates to its important contribution to the state and future of the Canadian economy, we feel tabling this document prematurely neither contributes to Canadians understanding of the work being carried out by the Committee or reflects the commitment Committee members have for the subject.
We contend that had the document been released at a later date, timely and effective recommendations could have been included and would have made a solid contribution to the state of S&T in Canada.
3. The Recommendations
Given that the recommendations are, in our opinion, premature and incomplete we would make the following points in relation to the recommendations found in the Committee's interim report.Recommendation
- With the budget soon to be presented to Parliament, the Industry Committee would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance some major themes for long-term policy as well as some more short-term recommendations. We have seen the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Finance, The 1997 Budget and Beyond: Finish the Job, and we fully support its recommendations on science and business.
Recommendation
- During our hearings, many witnesses explained the importance of science and technology for our economic future. Science-based firms are creating value-added products and providing well-paid jobs. There is strong private-sector support for many of our public S&T institutions and programs. The Committee also heard compelling arguments that our success as a high-tech nation will not only depend on the quality and quantity of our science and technology, research and development, and capital and labour, but, just as importantly, our success will be governed by our ability to collaborate, cooperate and network with one another and with researchers and firms abroad. There is even abundant evidence that Canadian entrepreneurs in the high-tech sectors have the capability to do more than they can do now. We heard of projects, particularly in the information technologies, that had to be cancelled because of a lack of skilled programmers and engineers, and of good jobs going begging, as well as of the difficulties some firms have in finding the right sort of finance at the right moment.
Recommendation
- Many members of the science community feel that science has too low a public and political profile. The Budget Speech is by far the most widely reported economic statement of the year, and we recommend that the Minister of Finance use this public opportunity to highlight the importance of S&T and to set out the government's long-term commitment to it.
Recommendation
- The Committee was warned of the need for a national portfolio of scientific activity balanced between research and development. Just as an oil economy would fail if too few resources were devoted to drilling compared to refining, the current state of our science infrastructure in our universities was of serious concern to both business and academia. We, as well as the Finance Committee, heard one joint proposal from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and the National Consortium of Scientific and Educational Societies to reinvigorate our university research facilities by earmarking part of the new infrastructure program. Both this Committee and the Finance Committee do support such a program, but it will require the best co-operative efforts of all tiers of government. Although joint action is preferable, this Committee feels that the federal government should continue with efforts of its own to improve our research infrastructure if circumstances dictate.
In addition, the Reform Party maintains that the ongoing lack of a coherent and sufficient S&T strategy has devalued the necessity and support of a strong basic research capability and has contributed directly to the deterioration of the basic research infrastructure in the university sector.
We neither believe in the effectiveness of an infrastructure program nor support one as a solution to this problem. Instead we recommend that the government, with the input of the scientific community, develop a Canadian science strategy that would establish stable, long-term funding for basic scientific research and improve the management of scientific resources.
Such a commitment will remove the element of uncertainty the university sector now faces and will provide the university sector with the main tool it needs to rebuild the basic research infrastructure: the confidence to make self-determining, long-term investment plans and program decisions based on its need to position itself within the national and international science and technology communities.
Recommendation
- The Networks of Centres of Excellence program is up for renewal, and like the Finance Committee, we feel that Phase III of the program should be undertaken. Because the Industry Committee has had more time and opportunity to look at the NCEs than the Finance Committee, it is not unsurprising that we feel more strongly about the contribution the NCEs can make to our national innovation system. Apart from the impressive record of technology transfer and training, the NCEs promote new methods of collaborative working, ways of undertaking research and development that hopefully will permeate further into business and academia than the direct reach of the NCEs themselves.
4. Conclusion
The Reform Party would like to reiterate its support for the roundtable exercise. We feel the testimony heard from the witnesses was extremely valuable and speaks volumes about the need for a concerted effort on the part of all sectors, government, academia, and business, to close the innovation gap.It is imperative that Canada increases its R&D activity. This will result in a well developed technology sector, increased productivity, higher levels of employment, and economic growth. We believe these are the ingredients for competitiveness in the 21st century.
Reformers believe that Canada is at an economic crossroads. It is time that we made the commitment to move ahead. Only by becoming a science and technology culture will Canadians respond to science and technology with the degree of importance necessary, will our universities and industries solidify their objectives and find support, and our governments find ways to solve our economic and social dilemmas. In short, we will have found a common perspective and will bring long needed recognition to the efforts of those who have begun the change.