I'm tempted to just go through what the economic strategy tables recommended.
I think, first off, Minister Morneau had an opportunity to actually be on a panel with one of his senior advisers in the summertime, and I had lived through the economic strategy tables where we had 90 CEOs looking exactly at that issue. Minister Morneau had been out during the summer, meeting, as many members of Parliament do, with business heads, and there was almost a 1:1 alignment with what the areas of need were.
I think we can get negative, and I think a lot of our reporting does tend to focus on some of the challenging areas. Research and development is absolutely one of them. That was an assessment that we made to the new government when it came in: that the R and D indicators were trending downwards and had been for a number of years. Part of that is us losing ground, and part of it is competition in other jurisdictions, as other countries have done different things that have improved their outlooks. The innovation and skills plan that Minister Bains brought forward was very much based on that evidence and analysis and the same type of work that is showing up in C.D. Howe reports.
I think there's going to be a bit of a lag, probably, in terms of the results showing up in the data. There's always a data lag. However, I think the types of investments that we have done in things like superclusters—which are at the stage now where contribution agreements are getting done—will be live and will start to show results in the coming years. Then there's the strategic innovation fund that was put in place.
I'm just cherry-picking a few examples because I know that time is an important issue here.
The third one, I would say, is around talent and access to talent internationally. With regard to the changes that the government made with the two-week visa program, which is a pilot, I think there is a very strong consensus amongst stakeholders that it should get extended.
Those are three cherry-picked measures, but very significant ones, that I think will move that type of meter. I think they're very important, the points that were made around the economic framework: the baseline laws, the outlook on regulations. There's never been a point that I've been in government where we haven't been told that our regulatory system could be improved, and I don't expect to see that day. However, I think that is a very important message. I think some of the measures that have been put in place by the Treasury Board to strengthen the accountabilities among government agencies, like the 1:1 model, which was brought in by the previous government and continues, are important initiatives.
I think that, on regulations, we.... There is the burden side of it. I've heard enough strange examples of burdens that we've put on businesses to know that there is a real issue there and that we can never take our eyes off of it. The tables called for an agile regulatory framework, and I think it is absolutely critical that this be pushed through all of the government regulatory agencies.
At the same time, there is a public good that is served by regulations, and I found myself saying that often at the tables. If you look at history, there are cases where the private sector is the point where the buck stops, and it is government and taxpayers who end up holding the consequences, whether they're environmental, financial or people who are losing their jobs due to business decisions. At that point, we're exposed and we're criticized for not having sufficient accountability and regulatory systems in place. I really do believe that the balance is critical. We certainly can do better and we need to continue to do better to reduce the burden.