Evidence of meeting #64 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ontario.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Bruce Archibald  President, Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
Linda Cousineau  Chief Financial Officer, Finance, Information Management and Informatics , Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario
Robert Dunlop  Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Innovation Sector, Department of Industry
Clair Gartley  Vice-President, Business, Innovation and Community Development, Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Phil McColeman Conservative Brant, ON

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with your staff and those people you've hired in senior positions.

I'd like to return quickly to FedDev. In the early days I know how important it was, as this was formed out of the infrastructure program, to communities like mine, which have a very proud manufacturing background, the city of Brantford in particular. At the turn of the century it was the third largest manufacturing city in Canada, only behind Toronto and Montreal.

Can you tell me some of the early statistics, in terms of the introduction in the first couple of years, of what we achieved? I know it was hugely significant in the case of my community.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Yes, certainly. I'll try to summarize this time.

First of all, the agency got started in August 2009, halfway through the fiscal year. We took it upon ourselves to look for partnering opportunities with agencies that had a history of doing very well: the industrial research assistance program, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, and the SMART program, just to name a few.

We knew at that time it was imperative to get assistance into these communities around southern Ontario. Very quickly, we looked for partners that had connections and existing relationships, but we also went on the road and did consultations with communities, with economists, and with planners in these little communities around southern Ontario. We collected all this data. That is where we came up with companies and communities saying that they only had one employer and needed to diversify so that they would have three or four employers, or that they needed venture capital and infrastructure, or that they had scientists who didn't know how to run a business but had great ideas.

We developed a series of programs, as I mentioned earlier, that we called the southern Ontario advantage. They were to try to approach these gaps, but I will tell you that the criteria changed, so that it wasn't so much just simply getting money into the community. We continually upped the game to require a longer term economic benefit to the community.

Today, our programs are based on diversification of communities by trying to get to the communities and educate them about these programs being available. We can't fund anything if we don't have an application. That has been a bit of a challenge.

On the venture capital side, we've leveraged some $147 million with 81 high-growth start-up companies, and with 2,400 high-quality jobs created there. The money is repayable. This is a very important thing. We've had folks like Dr. Oetker, which was looking all over North America. It's a German company. We ended up landing that company in southern Ontario, again for a repayable loan, whereas other countries, as you can imagine, are offering some significant grants, but the overall tax base I think has been attracting them because it's so low.

For one example here, I'll go back to the research commercialization initiative. Eighty-five per cent of the people in that program indicated that their projects met or exceeded most of their original objectives. Fifty per cent indicated that as a result of the ARC program, applied research and commercialization, they are expecting sales increases greater than 75%.

Another one is the partnership with Canada in which the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters are projecting that for the funding we've delivered to them, they've leveraged up to $95 million while assisting 800 southern Ontario manufacturing businesses. Their objective is to increase their productivity and their competitiveness on a global scale. Also, they have created some 5,000 jobs.

I could continue with this. Chango is another one I remember, whose sales increased over 500% as a result of working with students under our FedDev programs. In the next year they're predicting an increase of over 800% on that number.

I think we are looking at the opportunity here to shift the environment, not just to create jobs, but to create high-quality jobs in a new economy. Obviously, this is what other folks think, hence the agreement to renew the project. What we need now, obviously, is that it has to pass; we need to have the budget pass.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Thank you very much, Minister Goodyear.

Thank you, Mr. McColeman.

We'll move on to Ms. Liu for five minutes.

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's wonderful to be able to question you today, Mr. Goodyear.

Let's move right to the devastating report that the Conference Board of Canada published a few weeks ago on the state of innovation in Canada. I'll quote a few excerpts from it. It states, “Despite a decade or so of innovation agendas and prosperity reports, Canada remains near the bottom of its peer group on innovation, ranking 13th among the 16 peer countries.” It states, “Countries that are more innovative are passing Canada on measures such as income per capita, productivity, and the quality of social programs.” Moreover, states the report, “So far, there are no conclusive answers—or solutions—to Canada's poor innovation ranking.”

I find this to be quite embarrassing. Your government has been trying to fix this for almost a decade. How do you explain your horrible record on innovation?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Actually, productivity innovation is a decades-old problem. I have had, as you would put it, the unfortunate experience of reading all these reports—C.D. Howe, Red Wilson, Jenkins, Deloitte Touche. I've read them back to the 1960s, and in some cases you would think they were written this summer. Now, I'm not saying that's a good thing. What I'm saying is that improving a country's productivity is a difficult thing and it's hard to measure. You can't make a change this year and then expect to see the change next year. The fact is we have seen some increase in productivity measurements, but in my view, it is for a quarter and doesn't necessarily in itself signify the trend that we want.

This comes right back to exactly why in 2007 we set up our science and technology strategy. This is exactly why we look to encourage businesses to partner with our academic communities so that we can move that knowledge, and there is a lot of that knowledge, down into our factories.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Sure, but despite that, we know that gross domestic expenditure in R and D is at its lowest level in 10 years, falling from 2.09% in 2001 to 1.74% in 2011. I find that to be quite a devastating record.

I'd like to move on to the NRC. This was mentioned earlier in questioning, so we know that you put $67 million into restructuring the NRC. There's no plan, or at least you haven't released it to the public, so we have no idea where this government's going. Mr. McDougall has also indicated that while the total number of positions at the NRC will stay the same, the number of researchers employed by the NRC will actually decline.

Can you tell us how many researchers will be losing their jobs this year?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

In the next coming months we will in fact speak in much more detail about the transition process. Again, to reflect the point that businesses obviously need some additional assistance, businesses are the ones that promote or are responsible, if you will, primarily for innovation and productivity in the country. There are a number of factors for this, and I know you appreciate that. It is everything from whether or not Canadians, in general, are the risk-takers that Americans are. I don't think they are, but that doesn't mean we want to be Americans.

As it was put to me very clearly by another gentleman with whom I've consulted, there is a cost here, and we don't mind paying that cost to be Canadian. We live in a wonderful country. We have low taxes. We have natural resources. We have relatively safe streets compared to so many others. I think with the productivity gap between the Americans, for example, and Canada, we're actually paying too much at this point. So the reasons for the government to put focus on encouraging businesses to be more innovative, to be more competitive, to be more productive by incentivizing them to buy the latest machinery...skills training so their employees can in fact learn the latest technologies—

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

I think we need the researchers there to actually make the groundbreaking discoveries.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

That's absolutely correct, but our researchers will continue to do research. They will be doing it for businesses in this case.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

I'd like to move on to NSERC. Tables 1 and 8 on NSERC's own facts and figures page paint a clear and quite worrying picture of basic research capacity in Canada. Since your government came into power in 2006, the discovery component of the people, discovery and innovation streams received $422 million, but in 2010-11, this stream received only $421 million, a $1 million reduction, which I find quite worrying.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Sorry, colleague...?

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

It went from $422 million in 2006, to $421 million in 2010-11. However, when we adjust for inflation, this turns into actually a $30-million cut to discovery. Can you confirm this figure, and can we expect this trend to continue?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

As briefly as possible, Minister, because we're over time.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

The question, just for clarity for my official, is that we provide $420-something million and your chart shows $1 million less.

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Laurin Liu NDP Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

But that's not adjusted for inflation.

4:20 p.m.

Robert Dunlop Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and Innovation Sector, Department of Industry

The figure is correct. I think, as the minister was saying earlier, though, there's no official program that only supports discovery research, as opposed to a program that supports applied research. Some of the activities that take place, that people under NSERC apply for as a discovery grant are actually quite applied, or as the minister said, applied and not yet applied. While as other elements of the NSERC budget have gone up, which can support it—

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Sweet

Thank you, Mr. Dunlop. I'm sorry, but we're way over time. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to answer that.

Now we go to Mr. Braid for five minutes.

April 18th, 2013 / 4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and officials from FedDev, for being here today. Of course we're here today to discuss and review the main estimates for FedDev Ontario.

Minister, when FedDev was first created in 2010, I believe the original funding envelope was $1 billion. Is that correct?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

Over five years.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Of course it was a brand new agency at the time, so out of that $1 billion, we required some funding and investment to create the agency, to build it from the ground up. Is that not a fair statement?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

That's correct.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Budget 2013 provides renewed funding to FedDev of $920 million. That, to me, is pretty much an apples-to-apples comparison, in terms of funding for FedDev over five years. Is that not correct?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

In fairness, we were given $1 billion over five years. Yes, we had some additional costs that we will not have as we move forward. We are, as long as the budget passes, looking at $920 million over five years.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Excellent.

When I look at the main estimates, page 134—and of course departmental spending in the federal government is an annual process. That's why we have annual main estimates. That's why we have, Minister, as you indicated, supplementary estimates (A), (B), and (C). That's why our plans for departmental priorities, the plans and priorities, are annual documents.

When I compare the main estimates for 2012-13 with those for 2013-14, I see a net increase of $4 million, or 2%, when you compare the mains to the mains, or apples to apples, so I'm not quite sure why there's confusion on the other side of the table.

In addition, one of the reasons for the net increase in the main estimates, as I understand it, is that FedDev was asked to administer the community infrastructure improvement fund, which increased funding for this year by $25 million.

Again, is it not accurate to say that even though this budget has renewed funding for FedDev over five years of $920 million, any future budget from the government could potentially increase that funding envelope?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON

The simple answer is absolutely it can.

It's important to point out that the government prefers, especially in these difficult economic times we are still facing around the world, to be nimble, to be flexible to meet the needs that Canadians currently face, not what faced them five years or 30 years ago.