Evidence of meeting #30 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Environmental Careers Organization of Canada
It's in Victoria and Sidney, B.C.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
They're two different organizations. BIOTECanada is the member industry association for biotechnology. BioTalent Canada was founded in 1997 as a sector council program.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
It was government funded. It was set up as a sectoral council body for the purpose of gathering information, and keeping the government informed as to what was needed in the industry.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
Certainly in terms of monetizing a lot of its products and services, there was much more going on from 1997 to 2001. Then they shifted the other way. Specifically for the people we were trying to approach, which were students and unemployed or underemployed people, the cost for service, obviously, was a barrier. We felt that the more accessible those products and services would be to them, the more we would fulfill our mandate.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Since that time, from 1997 to today, have you had any other sources of funding, other than government funding?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
Yes, through both our job board and some of our products and services, we have a cost-per-use recovery method.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
You have a revenue line for services rendered and payments received for those services rendered.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
BioTalent Canada, as it was actually founded, was a breakaway from BIOTECanada, as you mentioned. It was a subcommittee, and then it became an autonomous organization. Our board of directors and our bylaws mandate that we have 15 to 18 industry people, people who are actively in the industry and are plugged into the biotech industry, which is where—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
They may be indirectly, perhaps, but not directly.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
The direct beneficiary of our work is the unemployed job seeker who's seeking a job in biotech in Canada.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
Okay. They benefit because of the information you prepare for them.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
That's correct. We present two things. Number one is the path of least resistance towards a biotech job. We also do a great deal of branding for biotech as an alternative career path. Immigrants and some Canadians who are not able to be credentialled or licensed in their chosen professions often don't realize that biotechnology can be a very lucrative and productive alternative career path.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
I'm trying to get my head around this. Maybe either of you gentlemen can help me. I come from an industry. We had an industry association, whose members are the actual players. The players themselves put the money in without any government funding to provide those services you just talked about.
This model is quite a bit different. It is the government coming in and saying that we're going to provide all these resources to the industry.
You're nodding as though you understand these two vastly different models—one government funded and one non-government funded but which the industry is actually paying for as a conglomerate, as a group. In your experience, having seen this, is one better than the other?
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
I think for the biotech model, you have a disparity. You have the 20% that are the really super-big companies, such as the pharmaceuticals, which require a great deal of regulatory lobbying and a great deal of advocacy on their part. That's a great deal of what the member associations do for them.
The smaller ones, which are the vast 80% of the biotechnology industry, the member associations don't serve particularly well, because they're very much into the top 20%. The bottom 80% are the ones that require the HR direction to manage the skills gaps. They're the ones that benefit directly and are the most numerous. They're also the ones that drive the bio-economy. They're the ones that produce the drugs the bigger companies buy. They're the companies the other companies partner with to advance their R and D.
Which model works? Right now I would say, unquestionably.... Should BioTalent Canada have been more plugged into the industry associations at the top end? Absolutely. I think we're realizing that it was short-sighted on behalf of our particular organization.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON
What you're suggesting in that comment is that there's room for alternative sources of funding for your group through the industry.
4:05 p.m.
Executive Director, BioTalent Canada
Absolutely. We're currently investigating them now and I certainly didn't want to state that there was absolutely no way that BioTalent Canada or other sector councils could find the funding. However, more specifically, in terms of how each of these verticals is going to pursue filling in of those skills gaps within the verticals, the fact that we are no longer bound by a fundamental mandate or have any encouragement to actually work together, other than hopefully resource-sharing and operational efficiencies, I believe, may be a problem for the government and for Canada in terms of its approach to international sector skills.