Towards An Innovation Strategy for Canada

By Dr John de la Mothe

Canada is living in a policy vacuum and needs a strong and clear innovation strategy. We know that research, development, design, innovation and technology are central to our future, not just here but abroad. Yet we’ve had over 30 innovation consultations and reviews since 1972 and have not — at the broad government level — learned. This is sad in a global knowledge economy. Where should we go?

GROWTH

First, universities should teach and the future generation of civil servants should be taught about science, technology, innovation, society and entrepreneurship. That means our future public servants will understand that technological change is not equally available to all or rationally chosen across all fields or industries. This is still taught in universities in a style of economics and management studies from which technological change is removed from explanations of economic growth and sustainable development, and in which industrial output is seen as a function of capital and labour.

Simply put, technology is left out of the equation, whilst we all know that it is central to our well being. Princeton’s Paul Krugman, Harvard’s Greg Mankiew, Columbia’s Richard Nelson, Stanford’s Nathan Rosenberg and Canada’s Richard Lipsey know this, but our public service forgets this or were never taught. Understanding creativity and innovation is essential as a research subject. Canada’s granting councils must be increasingly supported if we are to proceed.

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT

As an innovation strategy, Canada should lead the world in the technologies needed for traditional and alternative energies. We have the talent. We need to go back and memorize the Science Council’s “Innovation in a Cold Climate”.

The Canadian and world environments are collectively under threat. For example, we could use the broad and popular terms of ‘Global Warming’ or ‘Climate Change’ and debate the anthropogenic nature of these complex shifts. But Canada’s polar areas are under threat: i.e. trans-border flows of pollutants from the dumping of post-industrial waste in the South Asian nations. Similar worries requiring strategic research include interference of traditional migration paths of animals and peoples by natural gas and fuel pipe-lines - not to mention research into the replenishment of old forests and clean in-land waterways.

DEVELOPMENT

Canada wishes to reinforce its international leadership role as a peace-keeper. What’s so important is Canada’s research role in international development for which we were recognized globally since the 1950s in UNESCO and the UN. There are also numerous efforts to deal, through research, with malaria, cholera, typhoid and many other illnesses. Today this work must continue in Canada, with Canada as an international partner and as a world leader. But now there is SARS, Avian bird flu, and more. We must — as a strategy — chase these ailments down. I’m not even mentioning the benefits in so doing to our research infrastructure.

INTERNATIONAL

Internationally, we must be far-sighted in groups like the OECD, the Carnegie Group, the Organization of American States, the Commonwealth, the UN, and so on to push forward a progressive agenda of collaborative research. This ranges from astronomy research to zoology. Canada can help from a research, regulatory and conservation perspective.

HEALTH & NUTRITION

There’s nothing really new to say but about health and nutrition. Canadians need more access to playing facilities like basketball courts, squash courts, tennis courts, and local swimming pools. This will be good to improve overall health and decrease obesity. American studies have shown that such supervised facilities help decrease crime and drug use. Research into health and nutrition will increase longevity but and productivity while decreasing health care costs. The government must focus on these research-intensive issues, coordinate and act accordingly.

BASIC SCIENCE

A lot of people still speak about ‘basic science’ versus ‘applied science’. I prefer ‘fundamental science’. Either way, can anyone imagine their house, their flight, rail trip, clean water, home heating, stereo, CDs (which use lasers), the cinema, cable TV, or the lighting at the orchestra, without basic science. It must be funded as a frolic. No one knows where the next piece of creative knowledge is going to come from and no one knows when the combination of ideas will result in something important.

Nanotechnology is one obvious area where the government should leave it up to the frontier researchers. The same could be said of so-called ‘Big Science’. Canada has already been through this with the OECD, the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and the upgrade of TRIUMF. But Cabinet does not want to formalize an extra-envelop process that would allow funding decisions outside the purview of research councils’ peer review, even if the science is leading-edge.

TECH TRANSFER

Technology transfer is another subject that is key to any Canadian innovation strategy. More than 80% of Canadian exports go to the US. Canadian technologies should use our various affiliations and clubs, such as the Commonwealth (which in terms of growth and GDP/Capita is second only to the US, far above China and Brazil) to diversify exports, grow jobs, and access emerging markets. Canadian technologies are our lever and organizations such as the Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance and the Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation (OCRI) will be in Asia and Europe shortly to do just that. We must be strategic in accessing the Caribbean and Latin/South America to Canada’s advantage, using research as our diplomatic and knowledge lever.

ADVICE

For Canada’s various advisory bodies to be effective, they must be coordinated, have direct and regular access to the reporting minister, the Cabinet and the prime minister. Without this, advice will rest with the guile of bureaucracy.

Dr John de la Mothe is the Canada Research Chair in Innovation Strategy at the Univ of Ottawa.