Recent views from experts and commentators relating to fast facts CONVERSATION Topics

“We have made policy decisions in previous generations that have shaped the modern Canadian economy, and these decisions have resulted in protected sectors of reduced competitive intensity that have led to reduced innovation and productivity.

Competitive intensity in a sector is a social debate as much as it is an economic one. But, we must not discuss the two separately. It would be hypocritical to have on the one hand an aspiration of control and sovereignty and in the next moment argue that this system should be just as innovative and productive as a global one that has more competitive pressures. We cannot have it both ways, and we cannot speak of one in isolation of the other. Therefore, productivity and innovation is actually a societal discussion for all Canadians as much as it is a debate for economists.

What makes the impact of this debate important for Canada is the timing. We are at the dislocation point between an old economic order and a new one that may last for decades, if not centuries. Innovation is the wealth creator in this new order, and we would be wise to structure our economy to optimize our ability to innovate and thus compete globally.”

Tom Jenkins, Executive Chairman and Chief Strategy Officer of Open text Corporation, Policy Options (September 2011)

September 21, 2011 News Release from the Canadian Radio-television and Communications Commission (CRTC): “Today, the [CRTC] announced a new framework for large integrated companies that will allow them to innovate and respond to new opportunities in a fast-changing environment. The CRTC is also establishing measures to eliminate the potential for these companies to harm their competitors or restrict consumer choice.

“Given the size of the Canadian market, there are benefits to integrating television programming and distribution services under the same corporate umbrella,” said Konrad von Finckenstein, Q.C., Chairman of the CRTC. “At the same time, we felt that some safeguards were needed to prevent anti-competitive behaviour. In particular, Canadians shouldn’t be forced to buy a mobile device from a specific company or subscribe to its Internet service simply to access their favourite television programs.”

Following its examination of consolidation in the broadcasting industry, the CRTC has decided to:

• Prohibit companies from offering television programs on an exclusive basis to their mobile or Internet subscribers. Any program broadcast on television, including hockey games and other live events, must be made available to competitors under fair and reasonable terms.
  
  
• Allow companies to offer exclusive programming to their Internet or mobile customers provided that it is produced specifically for an Internet portal or a mobile device. This includes supplementary programming such as behind-the-scenes video clips of a television program, as well as original content.
  
  
• Adopt a code of conduct to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and ensure all distributors, broadcasters and online programming services negotiate in good faith. To protect Canadians from losing a television service during negotiations, broadcasters must continue to provide the service in question and distributors must continue to offer it to their subscribers."
  

June 29, 2011 News Release from the Government of Canada: “Harper Government Supports Marketing Freedom for Western Canadian Grain Farmers”: Today, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz announced that the Harper Government will ensure that Western Canadian grain farmers are given the freedom to choose whether to sell grain on the open market or through the Canadian Wheat Board.

…“Our Government is supporting the grain sector through our commitment to marketing freedom for wheat and barley growers in Western Canada,” said Minister Ritz. “We know that grain farmers will be able to make their marketing choices based on what is best for their own business, and opening up the market will attract investment, encourage innovation, create value-added jobs and build a stronger economy.”

…Minister Ritz concluded that all farmers, right across the country, should be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities – both global and domestic – that are open to them, and that the Government of Canada is very proud to be leading the way towards the future prosperity of Canada’s agriculture sector.”

“It is difficult to find evidence that Canadians’ attitudes toward risk, innovation, and competition are significantly different than those of their US counterparts. If our attitudes are not the roadblock, why then do we under perform on innovation?

In this report and in our other work, we have concluded that our lagging performance is the result of context and public policy. In the area of context, we recommend that greater pressure be brought to bear on our firms through more international trade and less protection in many of our important industries. In the policy area, we need to focus more sharply on innovation, rather than invention, and we need to invest in developing and applying business skills to at least match our support for the hard sciences.”

“In all international forums and bilateral negotiations, our Government will continue to stand up for Canadian farmers and industries by defending supply management.”

Government of Canada, Speech from the Throne, June 2011.

“The [Competition Policy Review] Panel does not believe that assigning competition advocacy functions to the federal government or to departments or agencies responsible or specific industry sectors is likely to be successful. Competition is likely to become just one of many factors considered in the calculus of government decision making. Moreover, ministers with sectoral responsibilities may be perceived to be motivated by sectoral interests unrelated to competition.

Independence is critical. A council that is free to speak out without being constrained by the bureaucratic or political ramifications of its work will be the most effective way to advance an agenda for a more competitive Canada.

Finally, because all levels of government must engage in a national effort to make Canada more competitive, provincial and municipal representation should help to assure that competitiveness issues are addressed regardless of where they reside.

“Compete to Win” – Report of the Competition Policy Review Panel.” (2008)

“…a mechanism to spearhead private-sector innovation to make the Canadian economy more productive and competitive is probably the most urgent imperative of all. And yet it is also the most perplexing. Despite years of discussion and hand-wringing, research and development by Canada's private sector consistently lags that of most of our OECD competitors. And a recent report by an expert panel of the Council of Canadian Academies attributes this deficiency to a widespread lack of innovation strategies and initiatives by Canadian companies themselves rather than to defects in government policy or funding.

Government competition policy and support for science, technology, and innovation (STI) can complement business leadership on the innovation front, but it is not a substitute for such leadership. Action to increase innovation in the economy is first and foremost a business responsibility. But what is the most appropriate mechanism for spearheading such private-sector innovation? Over the past two years, I have been in discussions with a variety of business, political, scientific and academic leaders on this question. There is a growing consensus that the key functions should include vigorous private-sector-based promotion of innovation among private-sector decision makers; persistent follow-up of private-sector recommendations to governments where supportive innovation policies and actions are required; and the provision of services to bridge the communications gap between the STI community and the business/political communities.

But again, what is the most appropriate mechanism for initiating and leading such functions? Suggestions have included a new “think and do tank,” a competitiveness council, or an advocacy/consultancy organization attached to a university, research institute, or business association. But often the initial and understandable response from Canada's CEOs is “The last thing we need is another …” Most agree, however, that some sort of mechanism – independent of government, broadly based, well funded, highly focused, and led by an influential innovation leader – is definitely required.

Tom Jenkins, the executive chairman of Open Text, Canada's largest independent software manufacturer, has taken recently to referring to the required mechanism as “the thing.” But what is the most appropriate structure of “the thing” that will provide leadership to Canada's private sector in meeting the innovation imperative? I would welcome your suggestions.”

Preston Manning, “The Thing about Innovation”, Globe and Mail Op-ed, March 2, 2010.