• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge
 

2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge

on

  • 3,268 views

The second Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge (ATRIG), a report card on the Toronto Region's innovation performance, examines a range of indicators to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the ...

The second Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge (ATRIG), a report card on the Toronto Region's innovation performance, examines a range of indicators to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the region's innovation system. We welcome feedback and suggestions for future reports

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,268
Views on SlideShare
3,268
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
42
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge Document Transcript

    • 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge
    • 2 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 At A Glance 8 Who We Are 18 What We Offer 27 How We Are Performing 32 Conclusion 34 ATRIG Advisory Council 36 Appendix 1 – Selection of Comparator Regions 43 Appendix 2 – Methodology/Data Sources 53 Appendix 3 – Selected Sector Profiles 58 Appendix 4 – List of Acronyms 59 Endnotes TABLE OF CONTENTS
    • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge
    • WHAT WE OFFER The Toronto Region is particularly strong in a critically important area that facilitates innovation – education in the 25-34 age range. Its high and growing overall levels of post-secondary and post-graduate residents include Business, Science and Technology master’s and doctoral graduates ready to become the next generation of managers and entrepreneurs. The region would benefit The Toronto Region has an innovative research base with from even more post-secondary graduates and post- a highly-educated and growing population that benefits graduate degree holders (master's and doctorates) as - Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, from a diversified manufacturing base and other major well as initiatives to encourage entry to these programs Hungarian Biochemist, 1937 Nobel Prize for Medicine advantages compared to its competition – that’s the for even larger numbers of students. good news. The scale of R&D funding from private sources in the However, the Toronto Region faces some significant United States is much higher than in Canada, although challenges to meeting its full potential to become one collaborative private/public sector funding for R&D of the top research capitals in the world. The obstacles in the Toronto Region universities is increasing. to be overcome include the need for even more post- Unfortunately, the region performs relatively poorly graduate students, stronger governmental support for compared to other regions in government funding for research and development, more private sector R&D, R&D in the sciences, engineering and health related and greater focus on knowledge and technology transfer. areas, and in private sector R&D. It would benefit from That’s the conclusion reached from a review of the Toronto more R&D investment from governments which would HOW WE ARE PERFORMING Region’s research and innovation system conducted by the lead to its R&D facilities and human resources becoming EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Toronto Region Research Alliance (TRRA). stronger, and its universities building a base upon which The second edition of the Toronto Region Research their capacity to train graduate students and attract Alliance’s Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge R&D-intense industries as partners. “Research is to see what everybody else (ATRIG) analyzes the current strengths and weaknesses has seen, and to think what nobody of the region relative to other regions with strong else has thought.” research bases, like Silicon Valley in California and The Toronto Region is publishing more and increasing Massachusetts, and to more comparable research its numbers of licenses, inventions and patents. These centres, like the Research Triangle in North Carolina, commercialization and knowledge transfer mechanisms Montreal, Illinois and Michigan. are tangible proof that the region’s universities are These findings will help key decision makers in transferring their R&D to the marketplace. But the region WHO WE ARE IN SUMMARY government, industry and post-secondary education is not matching the competition. It is not performing better understand how the Toronto Region can grow and as well as many of its comparator regions in terms of prosper by focusing attention on building a stronger relative impact – where it publishes and how much research base that will benefit us all. it commercializes. The population of the Toronto Region is growing rapidly, The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large and fueled by an influx of skilled, educated immigrants from highly-educated population, diverse industries and high around the world. The region’s economy benefits from employment rates, for instance – upon which it can build diverse industrial sectors outside its traditional to improve its performance. But to compete successfully manufacturing base (including “fast” companies with to become a truly innovative research base will require strong potential for growth), solid employment levels, significantly more sustained efforts – and a collaborative superior wages and healthy household income. Its approach between government, industry and the post- high use of wireless communication is a sign of a secondary education sector. technologically-connected and progressive society. 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 2
    • INTRODUCTION 3 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge
    • The Toronto Region Research Alliance (TRRA) launched the Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge (ATRIG) last TORONTO REGION PROFILE year provide an accurate diagnosis of the current strengths and weaknesses of the The Toronto Region, at the western end of Lake region’s innovation system relative to key international Ontario, consists of Durham, Halton, Hamilton, competitor regions. Guelph, Peel, Toronto, Waterloo, Wellington and York. Over seven million people live in the We believe that an annual analysis of the region’s Toronto Region, making it the fourth largest innovation performance, based on a range of urban area in North America after New York, internationally-accepted performance indicators, Los Angeles and Chicago. is helpful to sustain and enhance the Toronto Region’s innovation performance. For the purpose of this report The Toronto Region GDP is $328 billion, we have used the same definition of innovation adopted accounting for 22% of Canada’s GDP. The region by The Conference Board of Canada, “the ability to turn has a wide range of industrial sectors with knowledge into new and improved goods and services.”1 strong employment, including Manufacturing (529,000), Professional and Scientific services We hope that the Innovation Gauge will become an (326,000), and Finance, Insurance and Real increasingly comprehensive measure of the region’s Estate services (317,000). comparative innovation performance, and will help decision-makers undertake the changes needed to move The Toronto Region workforce is well-educated, the Toronto Region into the top R&D and innovation- highly-skilled and growing: every year, 75,000 based economies in the world. university and college graduates and 47,000 immigrants enter a very skilled workforce of The format of ATRIG 2007 was an important first step. more than 1.8 million. In consultation with the ATRIG Advisory Council, we INTRODUCTION modeled its approach on the Index of the Massachusetts The region is attractive to immigrants. Forty-five Innovation Economy (MA Index) developed by the percent of recent immigrants to Canada choose Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC). to live in the Toronto Region. In addition, 60% of these newcomers have at least one university While the MA Index offered a rigorous and comprehensive degree, which contributes to the region’s highly- framework for measuring innovation performance, we educated workforce. found that the Toronto Region lacked data routinely captured and available in the United States on numerous The Toronto Region is Canada’s largest centre innovation indicators – for the country as a whole and for for research and education, and is home to 9 the comparative regions in particular. With input from the universities, 8 colleges, and 12 research hospitals. ATRIG Advisory Council, we addressed these challenges in the 2008 report by selecting comparator regions and indicators more relevant to the Toronto Region. An understanding of the drivers of the economies of these We will continue to adapt the indicators we use for future regions and what makes them strong will yield important Innovation Gauge releases as the region continues to information and useful models for the Toronto Region. build on its capacity to monitor and assess the key elements of the innovation system. 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 4
    • ATRIG brings a Toronto Region voice to the growing chorus of organizations actively working to focus public HOW ATRIG SELECTED THIS YEAR’S attention on critical innovation issues and their COMPARATOR REGIONS relationship to our future competitiveness and prosperity. This report compares the Toronto Region to Reports alone, however, will not produce the changes Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal, needed to strengthen the region’s innovation performance. North Carolina’s Research Triangle and ATRIG is the first step in a broader process of informing, California’s Silicon Valley. engaging and building consensus among the Toronto Region innovation system stakeholders. Together, this We selected these comparator regions or states impressive group of innovation stakeholders can help because they are similar in character, size, shape the development of effective strategies, policies economic base or other attributes to the Toronto and programs to address the region’s weaknesses and Region, or because they have economies – or SPECIAL THANKS capitalize on its strengths. attributes which make them strong research- driven economies – to which we aspire. All TRRA invites readers to participate in this process and we have significant R&D and strong innovation welcome feedback. Please email us at info@trra.ca indicators, including many that show positive trends over time. In most cases ATRIG indicators are presented TRRA is grateful for the assistance and guidance per 100,000 population in order to provide an provided by the members of our ATRIG Advisory Council accurate picture of the scale of the various (please see our acknowledgements, on page 34, for indicators in the Toronto Region relative to a list of members). We look forward to their continued these comparator regions. For more information participation and advice as we adapt and enhance ATRIG about the comparator regions, please refer to in future years. Appendix 1. 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 5
    • COMPARATOR REGIONS The Innovation Gauge compares the Toronto Region’s performance to six regions that are – or have been – successful in innovation: Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal, Research Triangle and Silicon Valley. The comparators were selected based on: population, proximity, industrial make-up, strong manufacturing base, research intensity, and innovation performance. INDICATORS ATRIG indicators fall into three broad categories which paint a picture of the Toronto Region’s innovation performance: who we are – a description of the region’s population and economy; The Annual Toronto Region what we offer – factors that facilitate innovation; and how we Innovation Gauge analyzes perform – measures of innovative outputs. IN SUMMARY the region’s innovation performance, based on a range of innovation indicators. It highlights the current strengths and weaknesses of the The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large and region’s innovation system relative highly-educated population, diverse industries and high to selected comparator regions. employment rates, for instance – upon which it can build to improve its performance. But to compete successfully to become a truly innovative research base will require significantly more sustained efforts – and a collaborative approach between government, industry and the post- secondary education sector. © 2008 Toronto Region Research Alliance TORONTO REGION AT A GLANCE York Durham Peel Toronto Guelph Wellington Waterloo Halton 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge Hamilton- Wentworth 6
    • The population of the Toronto Region The Toronto Region has high levels is growing rapidly, fueled by an influx of post-secondary and post-graduate of skilled, educated immigrants from education in the 25-34 age range, Like the comparators, the Toronto around the world. The region’s with recent Business, Science and Region is publishing more and economy benefits from diverse Technology graduates poised to increasing its numbers of licenses, industrial sectors outside its become the next generation of inventions and patents. These traditional manufacturing base managers and entrepreneurs. This commercialization and knowledge (including “fast” companies with needs to be sustained. The scale of transfer mechanisms are tangible strong potential for growth), solid private and public R&D funding in the proof that R&D is being transferred employment levels, superior wages U.S. far outstrips Canada, although to the marketplace. The region is not and healthy household income. collaborative private/public sector performing as well as many of its funding for R&D in the Toronto comparators in terms of absolute Region universities is increasing. numbers of technology transfers or More government R&D investment relative impact – where it publishes would strengthen the universities’ and how much it commercializes. R&D facilities and human resources, improve graduate training, making the region more attractive to R&D- intense industries as partners. WHO WE ARE WHAT WE OFFER HOW WE ARE PERFORMING Average Relative Citations, 2000-2006 Silicon Valley 1.846 Massachusetts 1.841 Research Triangle 1.603 Illinois 1.511 Toronto Region 45% Rest of Michigan 1.511 55% Canada Toronto Region 1.409 Montreal 1.296 80,000 + average population increase in the region each year 29% in publications, a trend that matches all 45% of new comparator regions immigrants to Canada 65% of workforce settle in the Toronto 25-34 years of age Ahead of just one Region has a post-secondary comparator in average degree or diploma relative impact factors Ahead of only one comparator in the number of engineers graduating with a Average 14 “fast bachelor’s degree companies” per year over the last 6 years 2x increase in NSERC Collaborative Research 11 industrial sectors & Development project above the average funding (’98-’08), from Improving on total North American $5.1 to $10.2 million licenses, patents and concentration, more invention disclosures than comparator Lowest of all regions (’01-’06); however, the 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge regions in government R&D highest performing funding per capita regions produce 4x more than the Toronto Region 7
    • 8 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge WHO WE ARE
    • With a population of more than seven million people population, however, is a quarter the size of the Toronto (Fig. 1), the Toronto Region is the third largest of the Region. In absolute numbers, the Toronto Region grew comparator regions. It has fewer people than Illinois three times more – by approximately 140,000 people – and Michigan, but a larger population than the other than the Research Triangle, which grew by comparator regions. The region’s population growth rate, approximately 45,000 people. at almost 2% over the last 10 years (Fig. 2), is healthy, The Toronto Region’s net natural increase in population fueled by growing numbers of educated immigrants. (i.e. births in the region) has remained steady at THE TORONTO REGION HAS RELATIVELY Household income is relatively high, and many people approximately 40,000 persons per year. As Fig. 4 shows, STRONG POPULATION GROWTH subscribe to wireless services. Its industrial sectors on balance, the population of the region increases by are diverse, and the region fares well in the high more than 80,000 persons annually – largely fueled by technology-related fields. immigration, (i.e. adding births to immigrant numbers and subtracting migration from out of the region). Indeed, the number of immigrants to the Toronto Region has been more than double that of the Toronto Region’s As Fig. 3 indicates, the Toronto Region’s closest closest comparator, the Research Triangle, in each year comparator, the Research Triangle, has a greater between 2000 and 2006. annual net migration. The Research Triangle’s Population, 2007 Illinois 12.9 Michigan 10.1 Toronto Region 7.0 Massachusetts 6.4 Montreal 3.7 Silicon Valley 2.6 Research Triangle 1.6 Population, Compound Average Annual Growth, 1996-2007 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Persons (millions) Research Triangle 3.39% Sources: Statistics Canada, Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance Fig. 1 Toronto Region 1.92% Silicon Valley 1.04% Montreal 0.82% Illinois 0.55% Massachusetts 0.39% Michigan 0.31% 0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% Compound Average Annual Growth Rate Fig. 2 Sources: Statistics Canada, Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 9
    • Annual Net Migration (International and Domestic), 2000-2006 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Toronto Region Fig. 3 -20 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Montreal Massachusetts -40 Silicon Valley Research Triangle Annual Components of Population Change, Toronto Region, 2000-2006 Michigan Illinois Number of Migrants (thousands) Sources: Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance 131 128 100 100 100 93 140 92 120 100 80 60 40 -2 0 20 -14 -17 -17 -20 -26 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 -20 Net International Migration -40 Net Domestic Migration Fig. 4 Net Natural Increase Source: Conference Board of Canada Persons (Thousands) 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 10
    • MOST IMMIGRANTS ENTER THE REGION AS HIGHLY-EDUCATED WORKERS Canada, welcoming approximately 400,000 people. This represents approximately. 60,000 more immigrants than the region’s closest comparator, Silicon Valley, and three The Toronto Region has been, and continues to be, a times more than its Canadian comparator, Montreal. magnet for educated and experienced immigrants. Since 1961, more than a quarter of Ontario’s population (26.8%) This influx of immigrants is particularly good news for the has been born outside Canada. This proportion is 33.0% Toronto Region. In the years between 2000 and 2006, the in all city regions, but 43.4% in Toronto.2 Toronto Region welcomed increasing numbers of highly- educated and skilled immigrants as Fig. 6 shows. Of these Large numbers of educated immigrants are symptomatic immigrants, 73% are in the labour force (Fig. 6a) and, of of a national trend. In 1995, 21% of immigrants to Canada this, 88% or approximately 196,000, are employed. had a university degree; in 2000 this percentage had risen to 26%. The percentage of native-born Canadians with The positive contribution of educated immigrants to the university degrees rose at a much slower rate, from Toronto Region is corroborated by national studies, which 16% to 18% over the same period.3 show that a higher percentage of immigrants with post- secondary education are entering the workforce. According Results from the 2001 census indicated that immigration to a recent StatsCan study on immigrants to Canada, “in has continued to be of growing importance to the region’s 2007, the largest gains in immigrant employment were population.4 By 2006, of the 636,500 recent core working- among university-educated immigrants of core working age immigrants who arrived in Canada, the lion’s share age. While employment for immigrants with other levels went to Ontario’s labour market (51.1%), followed by of education was mostly unchanged, those with university Quebec (19.2%) and British Columbia (15.9%).5 As Fig. 5 degrees had an estimated gain of 62,000 (+7.0%), all in shows, between 2001 and 2006, the Toronto Region full time.”6 benefited from almost 45% of the new immigrants to Number of Immigrants as a Percentage of the National Number, 2001-2006 45% 50 40 15% 30 6% 5% 3% 20 2% 0% Toronto Region: 398,980 Montreal: 133,650 10 Silicon Valley: 341,207 Illinois: 279,358 Massachusetts: 178,329 0 Michigan: 119,974 Research Triangle: 17,593 Fig. 5 Percentage of National Immigration Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau n al y is tts n le lle o a o ng re ig gi se in Va t h Re ia on Ill hu ic Tr on M M o c sa nt h lic rc ro as Si a To M se Re 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 11
    • Immigrants to the Toronto Region, Highest Level of Education, Period of Immigration, 1991-2006 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2006 20 0 High School Apprenticeship College Fig. 6 University 2006 Labour Force Status of Immigrants 2 Arriving Between 2001-2006 Years Not in 27% 170 WHY ARE POPULATION GROWTH Number of Immigrants (Thousands) 73% In Labour Force AND IMMIGRATION IMPORTANT? 12 109 86 85 81 Labour Force THE TORONTO REGION IMMIGRANT 59 EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL (TRIEC) 14 36 The high rate of population growth in the Toronto Region Established in September 2003, TRIEC is 26 is widely considered to be a requirement for economic 17 comprised of employers, labour, occupational 15 growth, providing human capital and a constant influx of regulatory bodies, post-secondary institutions, talent. As Dr. Larry Swanson, associate director of the assessment service providers, community Source: Statistics Canada University of Montana’s O’Connor Center for the Rocky organizations, and all three levels of government. Mountain West pointed out, “economic strength follows Its primary goal is to find and implement local population strength: population growth means economic solutions that help break down the barriers growth and diversification; population loss means immigrants face when looking for work in the Fig. 6a economic loss or stagnation.”7 Toronto Region. 73% of immigrants Immigrants – particularly the well-educated “The Toronto Region continues to attract large (221,000) arriving between immigrants who are coming to the Toronto Region – numbers of skilled immigrants who comprise are of particular importance in bolstering labour force 2001-2006 are in the labour virtually all net labour force growth in the region,” growth. Immigrants enrich the Toronto Region with their says TRIEC director Elizabeth McIsaac. “This force. Of this number: skills, training and life experiences, augmenting the offers the local economy a competitive advantage region’s foundation for innovation. In fact, the Caledon if the skills and knowledge of these workers can – 196,000 were employed (88%) Institute of Social Policy points to immigrants as a be effectively leveraged and integrated.” counterpoint to the much-debated “brain drain.”8 – 25,000 were unemployed (12%) 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 12
    • Immigrants also add what one researcher calls “knowledge spillover,” the learning and transfer of knowledge between ENCOURAGING IMMIGRATION OF SKILLED AND individuals and firms that precedes innovation. EDUCATED WORKERS “Innovations occur when individuals with high degrees • Ontario now has an uncapped number of work of existing creativity or knowledge make new and novel permits available to foreign workers. For intra- combinations of this knowledge with new insights observed company transfers, the process is fast and or learned through spillovers,” say Brian Knudsen, Richard straightforward: transferees can quickly obtain Florida, Gary Gates, and Kevin Stolarick in Urban Density, a work permit for up to seven years. Creativity, and Innovation. They go on to point out that such (www.cic.investinontario.com/bi) spillovers occur “when one individual’s creativity is transferred to another individual or firm. These creative • Ontario’s Provincial Nominee Program, an spillovers are in part believed to arise due to frequent expedited permanent resident visa program, face-to-face interactions and communication allows employers to permanently recruit high- between individuals.”9 end research staff and other workers within defined occupations. Is the Toronto Region taking full advantage of this (www.ontarioimmigration.ca/english/pnp.asp) latent potential? • The 2007 federal budget created a Foreign Recognition of immigrants’ credentials has been a Credential Recognition office (which has, stumbling block in the past. According to data from however, so far limited itself to giving referrals Status of Women Canada, just over half of foreign-trained to appropriate provincial offices).* professionals are working in professions or trades three years after immigrating.10 In addition, the human capital • In November 2007, Ottawa announced of increasing number of immigrants from eastern expanded foreign credential referral services Europe, south, east and west Asia and Africa who are in India and China that offer orientation EMPLOYMENT IN KEY INDUSTRIAL now arriving (rising from 35% in 1981 to 72% in 2001) sessions for potential immigrants.* SECTORS IS STRONG “may initially be less transferable due to potential issues regarding language, cultural differences, education quality, and possibly discrimination.”11 strong regional focus and expertise in many sectors outside its traditional manufacturing base. Fig. 7 shows The Toronto Region has high levels of employment in key that the Toronto Region has a wide range of industrial non-manufacturing industrial sectors, largely due to its * The Conference Board of Canada, The Canada Project Progress sectors, and that the majority of industries in the Toronto Report 2007: The Roads Not Travelled: Insights You Can Count On, (Ottawa: The Conference Board, 2008) Industry Sectors, by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American Concentration, Toronto Region, 2006 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 Finance & Insurance 50,000 Utilities 40,000 Health Care & Professional, Scientific Social Assistance & Technical Services 30,000 Public Information & Cultural Industries 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 Administration Educational Services 20,000 Retail Trade Construction Wholesale Trade 10,000 Other Services 0 Manufacturing Waste Management & Transportation and Warehousing Location Quotient Remediation Service Agriculture, Forestry, Real Estate & Fishing & Hunting Rental Leasing Arts, Entertainment Fig. 7 Accommodation & Food Services & Recreation Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau ($) Average Wage 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 13
    • Region are performing better than in the rest of Canada. The X-axis of this graph shows its Location Quotient (LQ) – the employment concentration of industry clusters in the Toronto Region compared to the same industry clusters across North America. Industries with a LQ of one are performing at the average level. Those with a score higher The region has high levels of employment in the than one have a higher competitive advantage. The Fig. 7 Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific and Technical also shows that salaries are high in many of the region’s sectors as well as in Finance, Insurance and Real Estate larger and stronger sectors. The relative size of the sector and compares favorably to Silicon Valley and – Meric Gertler, sphere shows the number of people employed in the Massachusetts, in each of these sectors (Fig. 8). This Dean of Arts and Science, University of Toronto sector, and many sectors in the region are quite large. is of particular importance as these regions are strong performers in both R&D and innovation performance. Industrial Employment, Percentage in Key Sectors, 2007 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 4.6% “…what you’re looking at here is really a 3.0% 2.9% story of diversity versus one of specialization.” 4.3% Toronto Region 5.1% Michigan 8.2% Illinois 4.1% Montreal Manufacturing Research Triangle Silicon Valley 7.6% Massachusetts 6.1% 5.2% 7.1% Toronto Region 3.5% Michigan 6.2% Illinois 4.3% Montreal Research Triangle Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Services Silicon Valley 4.4% Fig. 8 Massachusetts 2.2% 3.4% 3.4% Toronto Region 2.6% Michigan 2.6% Illinois 4.0% Montreal 0 2 4 6 8 Research Triangle Silicon Valley Massachusetts % of Total Employment in Area Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 14
    • EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARE DIVERSE MANY “FIRMS TO WATCH” The Toronto Region has a wide range of specializations The Toronto Region has many successful high-tech and many occupations within the working population “firms to watch.” As Fig. 10 shows, the region fares well (Fig. 9). Approximately 75% of these occupations require among its comparators with fastest-growing technology specialized training and education, indicating the region firms in North America between 2001 and 2007. has a labour force which is “rich” in specialized skills While the region pales in comparison to the numbers and education. in Silicon Valley and Massachusetts, it performs well in comparison to other selected regions, consistently out-performing Montreal, Research Triangle, Illinois and Michigan. Labour Force by Occupation, Toronto Region, 2006 and Utilities 7% A. Management 11% I. Primary Industry 1% J. Processing, Manufacturing and Related 13% and Administrative 21% H. Trades, Transport and G. Sales and Service 22% Equipment Operators B. Business, Finance Sciences and Related 8% D. Health 5% and Sport 4% C. Natural and Applied and Religion 8% F. Art, Culture, Recreation Technology “Fast 500 Companies” Annual Average Number, 2001-2007 E. Social Science, Education, Government Service Fig. 9 62 Source: Statistics Canada 70 60 35 50 40 14 8 8 7 30 2 20 10 0 Fig. 10 Source: Deloitte and Touche Average Number of Companies 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge y ts on al e is n le gl ga o et re gi l in n Va hi us t Re ia on Ill ic Tr ch on M M o sa nt h lic rc ro as Si a To M se Re 15
    • Median Household Income, Constant 2006 USD, 2000 and 2006 80 60 40 20 WHY IS A DIVERSE ECONOMY IMPORTANT? WHY IS HOUSEHOLD INCOME IMPORTANT? 2000 2006 Fig. 11 Diversity in the Toronto Region industry and multiple Good household income is a sign of overall economic 78.8 employment sectors has contributed to stronger prosperity and can act as an indicator of innovation. WIRELESS SUBSCRIBER RATE IS HIGH 73.3 population growth than in areas that are heavily reliant The Toronto Region ranks high in this category, likely ACROSS THE REGION on a manufacturing base. Furthermore, the region’s due to its diverse industrial sectors, relatively low Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics diverse areas of specialization add economic stability. unemployment rate, and the consistent growth in Because the Toronto Region is not dependent upon one its economy since the early 1990s. 56.2 54.4 53.6 53.4 sector, its economy may not be as vulnerable when one 50.5 ($) Thousands 50.3 49.3 49.3 48.8 47.1 sector is suffering, because others are available to support the economy. 38.9 HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROWTH IS HEALTHY 34.9 Many strong industrial sectors indicate that the Toronto The Toronto Region is keeping up with or is on par with Region is doing an excellent job of maintaining and the comparator regions with respect to number of growing non-manufacturing related industries and subscribers to wireless communications and services supplying the human capital required for these jobs. (Fig. 12). Since 2001, however, the region has fallen behind relative to its comparators. In 2001, the Toronto WHY IS WIRELESS SUBSCRIPTION IMPORTANT? y ts on le is al n Region had the highest number of subscribers, with a lle ga no ng et re gi Va hi us t i Re ia 10% advantage over its closest comparators, Silicon on Ill ic The Toronto Region’s average household income growth, Tr ch on M M to sa Valley and the Research Triangle. By 2006, the region ch lic n while lower than in Massachusetts and Silicon Valley, is ro as ar Si To had fallen to third in this indicator. M se healthy (see Fig. 11). The Toronto Region’s diverse Re industrial make-up will likely ensure that the region will continue to fare better than the U.S. comparator regions as the economic downturn in the United States begins to The Toronto Region’s high number of subscribers to affect America’s overall income growth. wireless communications indicates a technologically- Michigan and Illinois have already shown declines in connected and progressive society. household income due to the decline of manufacturing in these regions. A more diversified economy has prevented this from happening in the Toronto Region. 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 16
    • Suscribers to Wireless Communications and Services, Percentage of Population, 2001 and 2006 82 80 79 75 73 68 100 60 59 49 50 47 45 46 80 41 60 40 20 0 2001 2006 Fig. 12 THE BOTTOM LINE • Toronto Region has a strong and growing population base • Toronto Region attracts and retains skilled immigrants • Toronto Region has a diverse economy, with strong industrial clusters in key areas Sources: FCC, Statistics Canada Percent of Population • Toronto Region is tech savvy and inter-connected • The Toronto Region has “fast companies” with highlighted potential for growth y le on s tts n al lle oi ga ng re gi se in Va hi t Re ia on Ill hu ic Tr on M M to c sa ch lic n ro as ar Si To M se Re 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 17
    • 18 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge WHAT WE OFFER
    • Educated residents and funding for Research & While the region does not perform well in terms of Development (R&D) are essential for innovation. overall numbers of citizens with post-graduate and The Toronto Region has much to offer in these areas. professional degrees in the total workforce compared to The region has high and growing overall numbers the selected comparators in the U.S., there has been a of residents with post-secondary and post-graduate 2% overall increase in this measure (an increase of more degrees. In addition, both government and private sector than 17,000 people) since 2001 (Fig. 14). Only Montreal support for R&D in the region has increased, including has enjoyed comparable growth. Indeed, the dramatic collaborative R&D delivered by universities and colleges. increase in post-graduate and professional degrees HIGH AND GROWING LEVELS OF between 2001 and 2006 shows a healthy positive trend POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION that many of the comparators have failed to replicate. Some of the U.S. comparators experienced a decline in this category, and many showed very small growth. More Business, Science and Technology master’s and doctorate graduates are ready to become the next generation of managers and professionals. The Toronto Region is doing well with respect to overall level of education for the age range 25-34 years. These recent college and university graduates represent the GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR “new” workforce. POST-GRADUATE EDUCATION As Fig. 13 illustrates, the Toronto Region comes first The Reaching Higher plan, unveiled in the in college or university education in this age range and 2005 Ontario Budget, targeted 14,000 new within the comparator selection. A larger percentage post-graduate spaces school by 2009/10. of the Toronto Region’s population has a college or It also identified an additional 104 first-year university education than any of the comparator regions undergraduate medical spaces by 2008/09. in this age range, with more than 65% of the population This program was part of the Ontario in 2006 holding at least a college diploma or associate’s government’s $6.2 billion investment degree. This represents an increase from 56% in 2001. in post-secondary education. (www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/tcu/about/annualreport) Percent of Population 25-34 years with a Post-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006 EDUCATION 70 60 50 40 30 2001 2006 Fig. 13 65.2 Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau 60.3 56.8 55.2 % of Population 25-34 56 53.8 53.3 51.9 53 49.9 41.9 40.8 35.6 35.2 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge n al y tts e is n le gl io a o re ig se l in g n Va t h Re ia on Ill u ic Tr ch on M M o sa nt ch lic ro as ar Si To M se Re 19
    • Percent of Population Aged 25-34 years with a Post-Graduate and Professional Degree, 2001 and 2006 18 17 15 14 14 13 20 10 10 16 8 8 8 7 6 6 12 8 4 0 2001 2006 Fig. 14 As Fig. 15 shows, in the period 2006-2007, the Toronto “Cities with larger concentrations of degree holders – Region graduated more students in the category “all measured as a percentage of the local employment other university fields” than in business, science and base – have, on balance, experienced faster employment technology. A closer look at the graduations in that growth – 2.0% per annum – than cities with smaller period, however, shows that a greater number of post- relative concentrations of degree holders – 1.6%. These graduate degrees were awarded in business science and differences may appear to be small but, due to Sources: Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, MA Index technology as well as in professional degrees in medical- compound growth, over the 20-year study period a city Percent of Population 25-34 related fields and law (Fig. 16). This indicates that the that grew at 2% would grow by 49%, while a city with a overall education of the population is good at the growth rate of 1.6% would grow by a more modest 37%.” undergraduate level and that more students are selecting professional post-graduate studies which adds to the talent pool of highly qualified individuals. Fig. 17 shows that the Toronto Region is graduating fewer This is likely to persist, with higher enrolment levels in engineers per 100,000 than comparator regions. There post-graduate programs in Toronto Region universities. has, however, been a positive upturn in the graduation rate These individuals are particularly important in light since 2001, with marked increases in undergraduate, – Desmond Beckstead, W. Mark Brown and Guy Gellatly, Cities and Growth: The Left Brain. Stats Canada, 2008, p. 17. of another important study, which found that in 2001, master’s and doctorate degrees in engineering. Ontario managers still had a way to go to catch up This rate of increase needs to be sustained and improved y ts le is on al n lle ga no ng et re with U.S. managers’ education levels. In 1996, 46% of gi Va hi us t in all professional, scientific and technical disciplines to i Re ia on Ill ic Tr U.S. managers had a university degree, compared to ch on M M to grow the workforce of the future. Even though the Toronto sa ch lic n considerably fewer (31%) of Ontario managers. Ontario ro as ar Si Region graduates fewer engineers, in absolute numbers, To M se results for 2001 indicated that although the educational Re than the comparator regions, the number of engineers attainment of Ontario managers has increased, the graduating has been steadily increasing, with 30% more province’s results in 2001 still did not match U.S. results bachelor’s between 2002 and 2007, for instance. for 1996. A higher percentage of Ontario managers had less than a high school diploma, and fewer Ontario managers had a high school diploma, a bachelor’s degree, or a graduate degree.12 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 20
    • Percent of Population 25-34 years with a Post-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006 Business, Science 21,000 and Technology All Other 26,000 University Fields 0 5,000 10,00 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 Post-graduate Business, Science and Technology, and Other Educational Degrees Awarded in the Toronto Region Number of Degrees 2006-2007 Academic Year Source: CUDO Business, Science 4,017 669 Fig. 15 and Technology All Other 3,460 543 University Fields Engineering Degrees Awarded, per 100,000 Population, 2002 and 2007 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 Master’s Number of Degrees Degree Doctorate 8 12 12 Source: CUDO 8 32 37 Fig. 16 150 57 76 5 4 3 3 125 8 3 3 28 21 22 21 13 100 88 83 24 1 13 3 4 8 46 40 41 45 10 12 40 32 41 40 30 39 75 21 20 50 25 0 2002 2007 Doctorate Master’s Bachelor’s Fig. 17 Sources: CUDO, American Assoication of Engineering Societies Inc., Montreal Universities Number of Degrees per 100,000 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge le y ts n al on is lle ga o ng et re gi in Va hi us t Re ia on Ill ic Tr ch on M M o sa nt ch lic ro as ar Si To M se Re 21
    • THE TORONTO REGION NEEDS MORE RESIDENTS WITH UNIVERSITY DEGREES, PARTICULARLY POST-GRADUATE DEGREES received by them and less skilled workers widens. As emerging economies, like China and India, advance, we can expect that less-skilled workers in the developed economies will fall further behind. There will also be The high level of residents in the age range 25-34 who greater competitive pressure on higher skilled workers, have first degrees and diplomas shows that the value of as China and India move up the value chain and compete education is recognized in the Toronto Region. on more sophisticated bases.” Overall, the Toronto Region has fewer citizens with university degrees than select U.S. comparators. The U.S. has, however, far more post-secondary institutions – “We find significant interactions between scientists and 4,000 colleges and universities13 – than Canada, including engineers and the broader cross-section of degree many private universities giving citizens greater access holders located in cities: the latter may be the primary to higher education. Canadian and US qualifications are mechanism through which scientists and engineers – Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Prosperity, Inequality and Poverty, Sept. 2007, p. 8. not, however, directly comparable as accreditation of contribute to the growth process. In short, scientists institutions is voluntary in the U.S., not regulated by and engineers – the left brain of cities – matter most for government as it is in Canada. Independent accrediting growth when combined with a large and diverse pool of organizations are approved by the government and define human capital.” minimum standards of education in the U.S. These organizations then certify whether schools, post- secondary institutions and other education providers’ academic program meet and maintain that standard.14 The entities which conduct accreditation are associations TORONTO REGION’S FLEXIBLE PART-TIME comprised of institutions and academic specialists in MASTER’S PROGRAM IN ENGINEERING – Desmond Beckstead, W. Mark Brown and Guy Gellatly, specific subjects.15 Cities and Growth: The Left Brain. Stats Canada, 2008, p. 32. Toronto’s Advanced Design and Manufacturing Furthermore, the region has relatively fewer residents Institute (ADMI) is a unique commitment to with post-graduate education; i.e., individuals who hold achieve excellence in graduate engineering master’s, professional degrees (such as M.B.A. or M.D.) education. The Faculties of Engineering and/or or doctorates. As Michael McKenzie points out in a 2007 Applied Science and the Business Schools of StatsCan report, “people who hold doctorates are an the partnering universities collaborate to deliver important piston in Canada’s labour force engine. They a quality master’s degree program in Design not only represent the highest educational attainment and Manufacturing. The program builds on the level in a knowledge-based economy, they are also highly expertise in manufacturing and design of four skilled industrial researchers and innovators, teachers of the strongest academic programs available and professors and scientists who take care of our in the province of Ontario, and integrates health as well.”16 the elements of business practices and More people with higher-level degrees would contribute management skills so essential in the WHY EDUCATION RESOURCES ARE IMPORTANT dollars as well as expertise to the Toronto Region competitive engineering marketplace. economy. The earning power of post-secondary graduates (www.admicanada.com) is considerably higher than for those who do not complete university or college. According to StatsCan figures for 2000, the average salary of a Canadian resident was $32,000. For an Ontario resident, it was $36,000. For a Toronto Region resident, it was $42,000. Science and In the past, the traditional Ontario manufacturing base engineering doctorates in Toronto earned about double: provided high-paying jobs which typically did not require $81,450 for doctorates working in the private sector and post-secondary education. Today, blue collar jobs that $83,321 for doctorates working in the public sector, for provide a middle class lifestyle are much less frequently an average annual income of $82,115 for both sectors.17 available to the new entrant to the workforce and are on Canada’s Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity the decline within the working population. corroborates these findings, pointing out that “In both the As a recent StatsCan study pointed out, “there has been stock and flow of science and engineering graduates, we a transformation of the work force toward workers with trail the U.S. in graduate degrees.”18 higher skill levels, and those cities that are better able to “…an emerging consensus is that as the world’s attract these kinds of workers may end up the winners in economies become even more sophisticated, highly this new age.”19 skilled workers are simply more valuable and earn higher incomes. And the difference in economic rewards 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 22
    • There has been a transition from “doing” to “thinking” A large number of scientists and engineers in a city jobs, and studies confirm that a highly-educated can make tremendous contributions to its research, workforce is essential for innovation. As one report economic growth and technological innovation. They completed for the government of Ontario says, “new can also forge important synergies with other degree- graduates, who have had the opportunity to participate in holders, and drive innovation much more forcefully than the conduct of basic research, enter industry equipped the other degree-holders could on their own. As the with training, knowledge, networks and expertise. They StatsCan paper Cities and Growth: The Left Brain puts bring to the firm knowledge of recent scientific research, it, “scientists and engineers – the left brain of cities – as well as an ability to solve complex problems, perform matter most for growth when combined with a large research, and develop ideas. The skills developed and diverse pool of human capital.”21 through their educational experience with advanced instrumentation, techniques and scientific methods are extremely valuable Students also bring with them a set of qualifications, helping set standards for knowledge in an industry.”20 THE BOTTOM LINE • The Toronto Region needs to sustain and grow its numbers of post-secondary graduates at the first degree or diploma level (bachelor’s degrees and college diplomas or certificates) • The Toronto Region needs to be able to translate its current competitive advantage into more master’s and doctorate degrees • Toronto Region needs to assess barriers to entry for students with respect to graduate degrees. We need to look at whether there are enough graduate positions, whether the system needs to be more flexible and accessible, and whether there should be more interaction with industry 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 23
    • educational resources available at Canadian post- secondary institutions and to train students in essential technical skills required by industry.25 Research & Development (R&D) funding includes support The scale of available government assistance and funding from the private sector, support from the public sector as for R&D in the U.S. is much higher than in Canada well as joint support from both, in collaboration with one (Fig. 19). Within Canada, Greater Montreal receives another. Research and development provides knowledge more R&D funding per capita than the Toronto Region. and technologies for transfer to the market and funding here is important to ensure sufficient supply of these. Private sector support for R&D in the Toronto Region is THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANADIAN AND increasing. In fact, by international G8 standards, Canada U.S. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF PRIVATE as a whole does well: the private sector funds more than SECTOR R&D 10% of university research.22 The Canadian and U.S. governments take a Research conducted at universities, whether at a basic significantly different approach to supporting level or in partnership with industry is fundamental to the private sector R&D. According to 2004 data, in development of a competitive R&D infrastructure and, Canada, government spends about 0.18% of GDP hence, innovation within Canada.23 whereas governments in the U.S. spend about 0.26% of GDP on such support. The countries As Fig. 18 shows, the Toronto Region is conducting differ in level of support provided relative to the increasing amounts of R&D which involves collaboration sizes of economies, with the US almost 45% between industry and universities. One important higher, and in the mix of direct versus indirect measure of this is the growing contribution that the funding. In Canada, about 84% of the support is National Sciences and Engineering Research Council in the form of tax credits (indirect), most notably (NSERC) Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) the Scientific Research & Experimental Grants program has been making to the Toronto Region. Development (SR&ED) program and the balance RESEARCH & NSERC is a federal agency that invests in university (16%) is direct (grants, loans, etc). In the U.S., DEVELOPMENT FUNDING research and training in the natural sciences and most support (76%) is in the form of direct engineering by encouraging Canadian companies to grants and similar payments, with the balance invest in university R&D.24 Its CRD grants program is (24%) in the form of tax incentives. intended to give companies that operate from a Canadian base access to the unique knowledge, expertise, and NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Project OECD, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2006 Expenditures in Toronto Region, 1997-2008 (Constant 2006 CAD) 10.0 8.4 10.3 12 6.9 8.4 5.7 5.8 7.8 10 6.0 6.3 8 4 5.1 6 2 0 Fig. 18 Source: NSERC Millions 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -9 -9 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 24
    • There is no single strategy that will improve this situation in the Toronto Region. The current range of strategies, PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR including some new initiatives, have the potential to R&D AND ADVANCED MANUFACTURING JOBS make an impact on and further strengthen the region’s Ontario will make $150 million available over growing ability to attract more research funds to the region’s institutions as well as more research-intensive the next five years to attract new or enhanced firms. These include an increasing number of government biopharmaceutical investments to the province, through its Biopharmaceutical Investment initiatives aimed at educational institutes and research- Program (BIP). The provincial government will intensive firms, as well as mechanisms to indirectly assist in funding private sector research such as federal use these funds to support up to 20% of total eligible project costs. This public sector R&D tax credits. investment will increase the province’s level Spending on R&D in both the private and public of new biopharmaceutical R&D and advanced sectors is low manufacturing, expand the footprint of local As Fig.19 shows, the Toronto Region ranks poorly businesses, create new high value jobs for and is fifth out of seven in the natural sciences and Ontarians, increase “deal flow” within Ontario’s infrastructure, faring better in social science, and last growing biotech cluster, and build capacity through in health. In addition, in terms of private sector R&D, collaborations with public research institutions. despite the increasing the amount of collaborative R&D The government is also funding the Strategic Oppor- it funds, the fact is clear that the Toronto Region is tunities Program (SOP), a five-year discretionary, considerably lower in reported per capita expenditures non-entitlement grant program that supports on R&D than all of the other comparator regions, except strategic, industry-led programs and projects in Montreal (Fig. 20). targeted areas of strength for Ontario including: • Bio-economy and clean technologies • Advanced health technologies, and • Digital media and Information and Federal Government R&D Funding Communications technologies (ICT). to Research Institutions, Per Capita, 2000-2007, Constant 2006 USD (www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/bip/ program.asp, www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/sop/ program.asp) 1,000 Federal Research Health Funding 800 Federal Research Natural Sciences Funding Federal Research Infrastructure Funding Federal Research Social Funding 600 400 200 Fig. 19 0 4,258 2,568 1,242 Sources: NSERC, CFI, CIHR, SSHRC, NIH, NSF Dollars 422 390 280 254 238 169 164 167 142 280 121 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 88 74 67 66 61 63 52 46 40 40 35 28 25 24 13 le ts is n on y al ga lle o ng et re in gi hi us Va ia t Re Ill on ic Tr ch on M M o sa ch nt lic as ar ro Si M se To Re 25
    • R&D expenditure per $1000 USD sales per 100,000 people, 2007 4.5 4.28 4.0 3.5 1.34 3.0 0.83 2.5 0.33 0.16 2.0 0.09 0.04 1.5 WHY R&D FUNDING IS IMPORTANT le y gl e ts a n is io n al l et ig in o tre 1.0 Va ia n s ich Il l eg on on Tr hu R ac M to M 0.5 lic h Si rc as s on a or 0 se M T Re technology from around the world, the latest tools, the latest techniques and processes learned from their work The presence of R&D facilities moves industry “up the under the very best researchers, they graduate with much food chain,” from branch plants that manufacture goods fanfare and go on to build the industry, institutions and into central facilities that create goods and wealth. society of our country.”28 R&D staff in industry seek and maintain good R&D jobs tend to be highly paid, and are taken by relationships with universities. This is encouraged professionals, raising the overall economic base and Fig. 20 Source: Standard and Poor’s COMPUSTAT by employers and strengthens the link between both socioeconomic level of a region. groups. Industries’ R&D departments add applicability to university training and add academic intelligence to Post-secondary graduates tend to be comfortable around industry, substantially benefitting both parties.26, 27 innovation and the adoption of new ideas and technologies, increasing the overall “innovativeness” of the area. R&D facilities in the private sector create opportunities for highly-trained post-secondary graduates. They create Government funding for R&D in universities upgrades high value-add employment for post-secondary graduates the supply of innovation by encouraging competition for trained in the Toronto Region, thereby encouraging them peer-reviewed R&D funding and interest from venture to stay in the region. They also ensure that the Toronto capitalists.29 Region can attract highly-educated immigrants and Support of R&D within the private sector supports the employ them at an appropriate level. In addition, they management talent necessary to commercialize R&D strengthen innovation within the region by stimulating ideas. As highlighted by Roger L. Martin, “technical networks and interactions between and among the strengths in science and technology are probably the academic community and its counterpart in industry. most important contributors to the quantity and quality of As Mike Lazaridis, founder, President and co-CEO of the supply of innovation. Management skills are critical to Waterloo-based Research in Motion said in his 2004 organizing R&D efforts, for setting priorities, developing presentation to the fourth annual Re$earch Money strategies, and acquiring resources. Good management Conference in Ottawa, “if you really want to understand skills also provide the pressure to ensure high quality commercialization, all you have to do is attend convocation resource allocation decisions among competing priorities at your local university ... Armed with cutting edge for research funding.”30 THE BOTTOM LINE • The Toronto Region needs R&D investment from the federal and provincial governments to strengthen the R&D infrastructure and build a base upon which to train graduate students and attract R&D-intense industries as partners • The Toronto Region needs to attract more R&D-intensive companies • The Toronto Region needs to look at barriers to R&D in the region and in general 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 26
    • PERFORMING HOW WE ARE 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 27
    • $205 MILLION IN NEW VENTURE CAPITAL FOR The Conference Board of Canada report Innovation INNOVATIVE, HIGH-GROWTH COMPANIES Overview (2008) states “Innovation is the ability to turn knowledge into new and improved goods and services.” In June 2008, the Ontario government and ATRIG looked at the quantitative measures of the Toronto leading institutional investors launched the new Region’s commercialization and knowledge transfer $205-million Ontario Venture Capital Fund to mechanisms – the publications, invention disclosures, strengthen the province’s venture capital sector patent applications, patents granted and licenses. In the to support growing innovation. TD Capital Private Toronto Region our institutions are important as they are Equity Investors is the fund manager. Other the main producers of these outputs and these provide leading intuitional partners include: OMERS tangible evidence that the region’s R&D is being transferred Capital Partners, RBC Capital Partners, Manulife from the region’s research institutions to the market. Financial, Business Development Bank of Canada, TD Bank Financial Group, and the Knowledge transfer in the Toronto Region is improving Government of Ontario. The Toronto Region is performing well with respect to The Ontario Venture Capital Fund will invest overall quantity of scientific publications. The number of primarily in Ontario-focused venture capital publications has increased over time (Fig. 21), however, and growth funds. These funds will enable the this upward trend is one which is being demonstrated province’s venture capital sector to better support by all comparator regions (Fig. 22). In fact, most of innovative, high-growth companies in Ontario by the comparators are publishing more, per 100,000 making it easier for them to find the investment, population, and only Illinois and Michigan trail the expertise and support they need. Toronto Region. Says Rob MacLellan, Chief Investment Officer, TD The impact of Toronto Region publications is low Bank, “as patient venture capital investors, we're The Toronto Region is publishing more, but the relative confident the Ontario Venture Capital Fund can R&D INDICATORS impact, as measured by Average Relative Impact Factor not only produce attractive returns but can also (a weighted measure of citations in science and social have a significant impact on creating a virtuous science journals that demonstrates the importance of a cycle that will drive incremental investment in journal to its field) is lower. Montreal is the only comparator world-class Ontario-based technology and region that has a lower relative impact (Fig. 23). innovation over the long term.”34, 35, 36 Number of Scientific Publications by Authors at Toronto Region Universities, 2000-2006 10,952 10,182 11,500 9,044 8,871 10,500 8,041 7,810 9,500 7,646 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 8,500 7,500 Fig. 21 Source: OST Number of Publications 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 28
    • Number of Scientific Publications per 100,000 Population, 2000-2006 800 700 600 Silicon Valley 500 Research Triangle 400 300 Massachusetts 200 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 100 Montreal 0 Average Relative Impact Factors (ARIF) of Publications, 2000-2006 Toronto Region Illinois Michigan Fig. 22 Source: OST 1.5 1.4 Massachusetts Silicon Valley 1.3 Research Triangle Illinois 1.2 Michigan 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Toronto Region 1.1 Montreal Fig. 23 Source: OST ARIF 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 29
    • Relative citations show the same pattern (Fig. 24). This indicator shows the average number of times papers MARS INNOVATION TO ACCELERATE from Toronto Region academics are referenced by other COMMERCIALIZATION academics, providing an indication of the relevance of the MaRS Innovation is one of 11 new federally-supported work as determined by academic peers. Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and The Toronto Region’s relative impact – where we Research (CECRs) announced in February 2008. publish and how much we commercialize – is low, MaRS Innovation is a joint venture between the but, is increasing. MaRS Centre, University of Toronto and Toronto’s In terms of the identification, protection and transfer research hospitals to offer global industry a one of intellectual property, the total licenses, discoveries, stop linkage into the Toronto research engine. patents and inventions from Toronto Region universities The partnership received $14.9 million in federal and research hospitals between 2001 and 2006 has CECR funding over five years to accelerate the almost doubled (Fig. 25). No other comparator region commercialization of promising research from has increased so dramatically. While the Toronto Region its member institutions. Joint teams from MaRS performs relatively poorly on technology commercialization Innovation and each institution will work with (as measured in patents granted and licensing revenue) researchers to identify discoveries that can be used in comparison to Silicon Valley and Massachusetts, the as the basis for new companies or used by existing region’s performance is, however, comparable to Illinois, companies. MaRS Innovation will focus on delivering Michigan, the Research Triangle and Montreal. the best of Toronto’s innovations in a timely, effective and industry focused manner. www.marsdd.com Average Relative Citations (ARC), 2000-2006 Silicon Valley 1.846 Massachusetts 1.841 Research Triangle 1.603 Illinois 1.511 Michigan 1.511 Toronto Region 1.409 Montreal 1.296 1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.85 Total Licenses, Patents (Applications and Issued), and Invention ARC Disclosures, Universities and Hospitals, per 100,000 Population, 2001 Silicon Valley 168 132 64 Source: OST Research Triangle 77 Massachusetts 58 Fig. 24 43 Montreal 13 13 Toronto Region 13 7 Illinois 12 8 Michigan 9 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2006 2001 Fig. 25 Source: AUTM 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 30
    • R&D indicators encourage collaboration and networking by publicizing work currently underway. As the MIT study also points out, in addition to education, universities also play an important indirect role in serving as a “public Transferring research to the market in the form of space for ongoing local conversations about the future publication or intellectual property allows universities direction of technologies and markets. The importance to realize their potential as economic drivers. Research of the public space role of the university and its papers developed in universities that result in patents contribution to local innovation performance is and licenses translate academic discoveries into often underestimated.”33 innovative approaches and tangible products which eventually make their way to the market. A large number of patents, publications and licenses indicates not only research excellence, but also innovation One study completed in 2006 for the University of Toronto’s capacity, the ability to transfer research to the market. Centre for International Studies Program on Globalization and Regional Innovation Systems put together a number The number of patents, publications and licenses of conclusions from various researchers about the communicate the status of the Toronto Region’s R&D importance of this knowledge transfer: compared to that of the rest of the world. • University research is important to local firms not just The number of disclosures, patents and licenses for the transfer of knowledge generated through the communicate the relevance of the Toronto Region’s university’s own research activities, but also as a conduit research activities to the market. enabling firms to access knowledge from the “global pipelines” of international academic research networks. • Universities serve as attractors of talent from THE ONTARIO CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (OCE) elsewhere that contributes to the “thickness” of the CENTRE FOR THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF local labour market. RESEARCH (CCR) WHY ARE THE OUTPUTS OF R&D • Universities often function as “good community The Centre for the Commercialization of players” rather than “ivory towers” insulated from their Research (CCR), led by The Ontario Centres IMPORTANT? community. They facilitate local linkages and networks, of Excellence, will help ensure that new and serve as “anchors of creativity” that sustain the technologies developed by Canada’s outstanding virtuous cycle of talent attraction and retention.31 research universities reach the global marketplace. Its initial focus will be on Another study, completed for the Massachusetts Institute commercializing new technology discoveries of Technology, points out that universities play an related to the environment, natural resources and important role in helping attract new human, knowledge energy, health and related life sciences, and and financial resources from elsewhere. In addition, “they digital media. CCR will also develop technical and can help to adapt knowledge originating elsewhere to managerial talent nationally, to more effectively local conditions. They can help to integrate previously commercialize technology.38 www.oce-ontario.org separate areas of technological activity. They can help to unlock and redirect knowledge that is already present in the region but not being put to productive use.”32 THE BOTTOM LINE • The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large and highly-educated population, diverse industries and high employment rates – upon which it can build to improve its performance • The Toronto Region has the programs and initiatives in place to strengthen its capacity and drivers for commercialization • The Toronto Region’s performance with respect to R&D outputs is relatively weak; the region needs to continue focusing on this area 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 31
    • 32 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge CONCLUSION
    • The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large and OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT educated population and diverse industries, among other pillars of strength. Even though the Toronto Region is • More R&D investment in the Toronto Region from the publishing more, and issuing more patents and licenses, public and private sectors it is important to build on these strengths through more • Better public recognition for the R&D strengths and TORONTO REGION STRENGTHS private and public sector investment in R&D. These other related “attributes” in the region, as well as a initiatives will ensure that the Toronto Region starts better understanding of the strengths we have. producing and reaches its potential for innovation. The Toronto Region is strong in the “feeders” for innovation: Future TRRA reports will focus in on specific areas of • Population growth research that indicate how the Toronto Region is doing in innovation in addition to comparing the Toronto Region to • Positive immigration others. TRRA will be sharing: • Attraction of skilled and educated immigrants • The results of our study on the Toronto Region’s labour • Strong key industrial sectors including sectors outside force manufacturing, which have high levels of employment • Our research and initial findings on networks within the • Good postsecondary education levels in society and advanced manufacturing labour market IMPROVEMENTS “IN THE WORKS” strong growth in level of educational attainment • A look on the products of innovation in the Toronto • A growing number of licenses, patents and inventions Region – influences on and increases in our from its universities and hospitals. performance with respect to patents, research papers and licenses • An in-depth look at key areas of immigration in the The Toronto Region is taking measures to improve Toronto Region as well as effectively immigrants are some of its weaker areas – graduate education and being integrated and engaged commercialization: • A look at how the Toronto region compares with respect • Large increases in the enrolment numbers of to copyright materials, an aspect of innovation not students to graduate programs at the master’s and considered in ATRIG this year. doctorate level COMING UP IN FUTURE • Federal initiatives and provincial programs to encourage the discovery process and increase output TRRA REPORTS of innovations from our institutions • Provincial programs to encourage companies to hire staff in high-value jobs. 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 33
    • Mr. Michael Benedict Mr. John Tennant Principal, MCB Strategies Inc. CEO Canada’s Technology Triangle Inc. Mr. Charles Davis Edward S. Rogers Sr. Research Chair in Media Dr. David Wolfe Management and Entrepreneurship Co-Director, Program on Globalization and Regional PRIMARY AUTHOR Ryerson University Innovation Systems University of Toronto Dr. Paul Genest President & CEO Council of Ontario Universities Mr. John Hoicka Senior Research and Policy Advisor Dr. Karen Sievewright RESEARCH ASSISTANTS Colleges Ontario Director, Research Ms. Elizabeth McIsaac TRRA Executive Director TRIEC Mr. James Milway Executive Director Bettina Cheung Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity Odila Duru Martin Prosperity Institute Alex Hunt Ms. Avvey Peters Richard Liang ATRIG ADVISORY COUNCIL Executive Director, Communications Michael Wolfe & Government Relations Andrew Wong Communitech Mr. Shahrokh Shahabi-Azad Senior Economist, Innovation and Corporate Policy Branch, Ministry of Research and Innovation Ms. José Sigouin Research and Information Analysis University of Toronto Ms. Natasha Tang Kai Senior Advisor, Performance Measurement and Results Ministry of Research and Innovation 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 34
    • ENDNOTES APPENDICES & 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 35
    • Six regions were chosen against which to compare the Toronto Region’s performance. These regions are – or have been – successful in areas similar to the Toronto Region, and many represent the best in their respective areas of success. The following criteria were considered when choosing the comparators: Population: While the spread in population of our comparators is quite large (1.6 to 12.9 million), the Toronto Region comes fairly close to the average at 7 million. Regions with too small or too large a population were excluded. Proximity: Geographically close regions with similar natural attributes were selected as these have similar economic and infrastructural influences. Industrial make-up: The selected regions have a similar range of industries and employment levels within these industries. Strong manufacturing base: While the Toronto Region historically has had a very strong manufacturing base, the sector has experienced recent declines. Due to the significance of this industry, certain other regions strong in manufacturing were selected to compare to the Toronto Region. Research intensity: Research and innovation are key contributors to the new knowledge-based economy. The Toronto Region, therefore, is compared to other research-intensive areas. Model regions: Regions which present models that the Toronto Region could aspire to become were selected. The comparator regions are all considered to be successful in one aspect or another. For example, Silicon Valley performs very well in certain indicators and, even though it is not realistic that the Toronto Region performs on par or better than this area, it is still useful to see where the Toronto Region ranks in relation to successful regions. APPENDIX 1 – SELECTION OF COMPARATOR REGIONS 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 36
    • COMPARATOR REGIONS Illinois: Illinois has a strong economy and is geographically close to the Toronto Region. These similarities warrant its inclusion in the 2008 report. The state is located just south of Lake Michigan, and has a population of 12.9 million people.46 In 2006, the gross state product in Illinois was $589 billion US dollars. Much of the state’s economic success occurs in Chicago, a major financial and high technology city.47 Chicago has high employment in information technology industries,48 with manufacturing also playing an important, but declining, role in the city’s economy. The city is an important financial centre, and home to three major financial exchanges. Many large organizations and businesses are headquartered in Chicago, including a number of Fortune 500 companies. Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American Illinois is a R&D centre and nine universities are located in the state. The University of Chicago and Northwestern Concentration, Illinois, 2006 University perform extremely well in various school rankings.49 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 Utilities Finance & Insurance 50,000 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 40,000 Information & Cultural Industries Wholesale Trade 30,000 Health Care & Manufacturing 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 Real Estate & 20,000 Social Assistance Rental Leasing 10,000 0 Construction Retail Trade Transportation & Warehousing Location Quotient Educational Other Services Arts, Entertainment Services & Recreation Waste Management & Accommodation & Remediation Service Food Services Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau ($) Average Wage 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 37
    • Massachusetts: Massachusetts is a successful state, with a gross state product of $338 billion US dollars. At 6.4 million people, it is very similar in size to the Toronto Region.50 Massachusetts has transitioned from a manufacturing economy,51 to one that is a centre of higher education, biotechnology and finance. Massachusetts is in the northeastern United States. Boston is the major urban centre in the state and is a major component of the Massachusetts economy. The state is a R&D-intensive area, supported by many universities and colleges. The Greater Boston area has over 40 colleges and universities, a number of which are highly-respected and ranked. Massachusetts is an ideal comparator for the Toronto Region, as its proximity and population allow for similar Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American conditions. The state is also an important model, having successfully transformed its economy to take advantage of Concentration, Massachusetts, 2006 new technologies and research. 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 Finance & Insurance Professional, Scientific 60,000 & Technical Services Utilities 50,000 Wholesale Trade Management of Companies & Enterprises 40,000 Manufacturing 30,000 Construction Real Estate & 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 20,000 Rental Leasing Information & 10,000 Cultural Industries Other Services 0 Health Care & Transportation Social Assistance & Warehousing Location Quotient Arts, Entertainment Educational Services Retail Trade & Recreation Waste Management Accommodation & Remediation Service & Food Services Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau ($) Average Wage 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 38
    • Michigan: Similar to Illinois, Michigan is good comparator region. It is close to the Toronto Region and is known for its strong manufacturing base. The state is just east of Lake Michigan, which composes the bulk of its enormous shoreline.52 Michigan’s population is 10.1 million, and its largest city is Detroit, with a population of just over 900 000 people.53, 54 While best known for its automotive industry, the state has diversified lately, partly in response to the decline manufacturing has experienced. The economy now includes information technology and life sciences industries,55 and has increased R&D expenditures in these areas.56, 57 Michigan is home to the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American (a $1 billion biotech initiative),58 and has a number of large research institutions. Concentration, Michigan, 2006 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 Finance & Insurance Professional, Scientific Utilities & Technical Services 40,000 Information & Management of Cultural Industries Wholesale Trade Companies & Enterprises 30,000 Manufacturing Health Care & Construction 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 20,000 Social Assistance Waste Management & 10,000 Real Estate & Remediation Service Rental Leasing 0 Transportation & Warehousing Arts, Entertainment Location Quotient & Recreation Retail Trade Accommodation Other Services & Food Services Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau ($) Average Wage 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 39
    • Montreal: Montreal is the second largest census metropolitan area (CMA) in Canada,39 with a population of just over 3.5 million people. The CMA includes the island of Montreal and a number of densely-populated suburbs. In 2007, Montreal’s GDP was $123 billion40 and the region has industrial strengths in aerospace, electronics, pharmaceuticals, software engineering, finance and higher education.41 Many research facilities and agencies are located in the Montreal CMA, including the Canadian Space Agency and the National Research Council.42, 43 There are 11 universities and 12 public colleges located in the region, making the region the second-highest ratio of students per capita in North America 44, 45 Montreal conducts and receives significant research and research dollars as is shown in exhibits 19 and 22. Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American Montreal was selected as the only Canadian comparator in the 2008 Innovation Gauge because of its strong research Concentration, Montreal, 2006 focus, proximity to the Toronto Region, and its successful economy. 70,000 60,000 50,000 Finance & Insurance 40,000 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services Transportation & 30,000 Warehousing Manufacturing Health Care & Social Assistance Retail Trade 20,000 Real Estate & Rental and Leasing 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 10,000 Utilities Information & 0 Cultural Industries Arts, Entertainment Construction & Recreation Location Quotient Other Services Wholesale Trade Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau ($) Average Wage 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 40
    • Silicon Valley: Silicon Valley is located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area. The region has a population of 2.6 million people, and is commonly recognized as one of the most successful regions in North America.59 Silicon Valley is a leader in high technology with thousands of related companies operating within its boundaries. The region also has a high number of Fortune 1000 companies.60 Silicon Valley attracts a large number of engineers and venture capital. There are five universities within Silicon Valley, with Carnegie Melon and Stanford being amongst them. Because of this, and the nature of the businesses and research in Silicon Valley, the population is highly-educated and the region Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American attracts a large amount of public research funding.61 Often the pinnacle in North American innovation, research, and Concentration, Silicon Valley, 2006 development, Silicon Valley represents a compelling story for the possibilities provided through innovation. 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 Management of 100,000 Companies & Enterprises 80,000 Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Information & 60,000 Finance & Insurance Cultural Industries 40,000 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 Construction Transportation & Warehousing 20,000 Health Care & Social Assistance Educational Services 0 Real Estate & Rental Leasing Professional, Scientific & Technical Services Waste Management & Location Quotient Other Remediation Service Services Arts, Entertainment Accommodation & Recreation Retail Trade & Food Services Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau ($) Average Wage 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 41
    • Research Triangle: Located in North Carolina, the Research Triangle is made up of three cities – Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill – and has a population of 1.6 million people.62 The region consists of numerous high technology businesses and has a highly-educated population.63 The region is home to Research Triangle Park, one of the largest research parks in the United States.64 A growing number of high technology firms have contributed to the region’s growth over the past years.65 IBM, Nortel Networks, and Cisco Systems all have large offices in the Research Triangle. There are over 10 colleges and universities within the Research Triangle.66 This dense research infrastructure makes the Research Triangle similar to the Toronto Region in many ways, and sets many goals that the Toronto Region should try and emulate in some capacity. Note: In three cases, entire states were used over municipalities for the U.S. comparators (e.g., Massachusetts instead of Boston) as they were thought to be a more suitable comparison to the Toronto Region because they include both Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American urban and rural areas and due to limitations in the data available at the municipal level. Concentration, Research Triangle, 2006 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 Wholesale Trade Professional, Scientific 40,000 Finance & Insurance & Technical Services Manufacturing 30,000 Health Care & Social Assistance Construction 20,000 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 Management of Companies 10,000 & Enterprises Real Estate & 0 Rental Leasing Transportation Other Educational Services Retail Trade & Warehousing Services Location Quotient Accommodation & Food Services Waste Management & Remediation Service Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau ($) Average Wage 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 42
    • DEFINITION OF REGIONS Toronto Region (TR): Unless otherwise stated, the Toronto Region data is calculated by using five Census Metropolitan Areas (CMA): Guelph, Hamilton, Kitchener, Oshawa and Toronto. Montreal (MTL): Unless otherwise stated, Montreal is defined as the Statistics Canada CMA. Research Triangle (RT): Unless otherwise stated, the RT is defined as the micropolitan area of Raleigh-Carey-Dunn. Silicon Valley (SV): Unless otherwise stated, SV is defined as the counties Santa Clara and San Mateo. Illinois (IL): IL refers to the state of Illinois. ( # of 1years ) -1 Massachusetts (MA): MA refers to the state of Massachusetts. ( ) Michigan (MI): MI refers to the state of Michigan. Fig. 1 – Population, 2007 The data was found from population surveys from the US Census Bureau, the California Department of Finance, Statistics Canada, and additional data from the Conference Board of Canada. Sources Silicon Valley: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E2/documents/E-2%20Report.xls http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E6/E6-90-00/documents/E-6_90-00.xls APPENDIX 2 – METHODOLOGY/DATA SOURCES Toronto Region: Conference Board - Population - TR - 1996-2012 - Nov 2007 (private purchased data) *does not include Guelph Montreal: http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi- win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&RootDir=CII/&ResultTemplate=CII/CII___&Array_Pick=1&ArrayId=0510034 U.S. Comparator States: http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2007-01.xls http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/metro/files/2007/CSA-EST2007-alldata.csv http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/archives/1990s/ST-99-03.txt Fig. 2 – Population, Compound Average Annual Growth, 1996-2007 The population data from Figure 1 was used to calculate the compound annual growth rate from 1996-2007. The formula was: CAGR = Ending Value Beginning Value Sources Silicon Valley: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E2/documents/E-2%20Report.xls http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E6/E6-90-00/documents/E-6_90-00.xls Toronto Region: *does not include Guelph Conference Board - Population - TR - 1996-2012 - Nov 2007 (private purchased data) 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 43
    • Montreal: http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi- win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&RootDir=CII/&ResultTemplate=CII/CII___&Array_Pick=1&ArrayId=0510034 U.S. Comparator States: http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2007-01.xls http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/metro/files/2007/CSA-EST2007-alldata.csv http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/archives/1990s/ST-99-03.txt Fig. 3 – Annual Net Migration (International and Domestic), 2000-2006 For the U.S. states and the RT the data was taken from the U.S. intercensal estimates. The data for SV came from the California Department of Finance. Both the Toronto Region data and the Montreal data are from the Conference Board of Canada. For the Toronto Region and Montreal, the net domestic migration was calculated by adding the net interprovincial migration with the net intercity migration. The net migration was calculated by adding the net international migration, the net interprovincial migration, and the net intercity migration. Sources Toronto Region: Conference Board - Population - TR - 1996-2012 - Nov 2007 (private purchased data) Montreal: Conference Board – Demograhpics – TR, Van, Mtl, Cgy – 1995-2010 (private purchased data) U.S. Comparator States: http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2007-01.xls http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/metro/files/2007/CSA-EST2007-alldata.csv http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/archives/1990s/ST-99-03.txt Research Triangle: http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/archives/1990s/co-99-08/99C8_37.txt http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/metro/files/2007/CBSA-EST2007-alldata.csv http://www.censU.S..gov/popest/metro/files/2007/CSA-EST2007-alldata.csv Silicon Valley: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E2/documents/E-2%20Report.xls Fig. 4 – Annual Components of Population Change, Toronto Region 2000-2006 The Toronto Region data is from the Conference Board of Canada. For the Toronto Region, the net domestic migration was calculated by adding the net interprovincial migration with the net intercity migration. The net migration was calculated by adding the net international migration, the net interprovincial migration, and the net intercity migration. Source Toronto Region: Conference Board - Population - TR - 1996-2012 - Nov 2007 (private purchased data) Fig. 5 – Number of Immigrants as a Percentage of the National Number, 2001-2006 The number of immigrants in was summed for each of ATRIG Comparitor regions between 2001-2006. This number was then calculated as a percent of the total national number of immigrants. 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 44
    • Sources Toronto Region & Montreal: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&PID=93716&GID=8 37928&METH=1&APATH=3&PTYPE=88971&THEME=72&AID=&FREE=0&FOCU.S.=&VID=0&GC=99&GK=NA&RL=0&d1= 5&d2=6&d3=0&d4=0 U.S. Comparator States: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table04.xls Research Triangle & Silicon Valley: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table05.xls Fig. 6 – Immigrants to the Toronto Region, Highest Level of Education, Period of Immigration, 1991-2006 The TR data is from Statistics Canada. For the TR, the number of immigrants at different education levels was summed from 1991-2006 at 5 year intervals. They were separated by highest level of reported education, high school, apprenticeship, college, and university, as seen in the charts, and then graphed to show the trend over 3 time periods. For the year 2006, this chart includes only the immigration numbers from January 2006 to May 16, 2006. Source Toronto Region: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&PID=93716&GID=8 37928&METH=1&APATH=3&PTYPE=88971&THEME=72&AID=&FREE=0&FOCU.S.=&VID=0&GC=99&GK=NA&RL=0&d1= 5&d2=6&d3=0&d4=0 Fig. 7 – Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage and Relative North American Concentration, Toronto Region, 2006 The data was taken from the U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada. To make the NAICS codes comparable across Canada and the United States, NAICS 99 (industry unclassified) was removed for the U.S. comparators, as this data does not exist for the Canadian comparators. Also, the U.S. NAICS code 42 was changed to 41 to match the Canadian NAICS, both of which are for ‘wholesale trade.’ As Statistics Canada does not provide data on the average wage for particular NAICS codes, this was estimated using the following method. The average wage for Montreal and the TR was calculated by summing the number of employees in each North American Occupation Classification (NOC) sub code from each CMA into each major NOC code. Secondly, the average wages of each NOC sub code was used to calculate the average wages for the major NOC codes for each CMA. The average wage for each major NOC code for each NAICS code was then calculated using a weighted average based on the number of employees. Finally, the average wage for each NOC code for each NAICS code was weighted by the number of employees in the corresponding NOC code and then summed. Sources Toronto Region and Montreal: http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi- win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&RootDir=CII/&ResultTemplate=CII/CII___&Array_Pick=1&ArrayId=2020107 http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=97- 559-XCB2006023&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=0&IPS=97-559-XCB2006023 &METH=0&ORDER=&PID=92116&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=&StartRow=&SUB=&Temporal=2006&Theme=7 4&VID=&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF= Canada: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/highlights/labour/Table602.cfm?Lang=E&T=602&GH=4&SC=1&SO=9 9&O=A United States: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000U.S.&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-_lang=en 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 45
    • Research Triangle: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=31000U.S.20380&-_lang=en http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=31000U.S.20500&-_lang=en http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=31000U.S.39580&-_lang=en Silicon Valley: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=05000U.S.06081&-_lang=en http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=05000U.S.06085&-_lang=en Massachusetts: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=04000U.S.25&-_lang=en Michigan: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=04000U.S.26&-_lang=en Illinois: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=04000U.S.17&-_lang=en Fig. 8 – Industrial Employment, Percentage in Key Sectors, 2007 The data was taken from the U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada. To make the NAICS codes comparable across Canada and the United States, NAICS 99 (industry unclassified) was removed for the U.S. comparators, as this data does not exist for the Canadian comparators. Also, the U.S. NAICS code 42 was changed to 41 to match the Canadian NAICS, both of which are for ‘wholesale trade.’ As Statistics Canada does not provide data on the average wage for particular NAICS codes, this was estimated using the following method. The average wage for Montreal and the TR was calculated by summing the number of employees in each North American Occupation Classification (NOC) sub code from each CMA into each major NOC code. Secondly, the average wages of each NOC sub code was used to calculate the average wages for the major NOC codes for each CMA. The average wage for each major NOC code for each NAICS code was then calculated using a weighted average based on the number of employees. Finally, the average wage for each NOC code for each NAICS code was weighted by the number of employees in the corresponding NOC code and then summed. Sources Toronto Region and Montreal: http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi- win/cnsmcgi.exe?Lang=E&RootDir=CII/&ResultTemplate=CII/CII___&Array_Pick=1&ArrayId=2020107 http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=97- 559-XCB2006023&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=0&IPS=97-559-XCB2006023 &METH=0&ORDER=&PID=92116&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=&StartRow=&SUB=&Temporal=2006&Theme=7 4&VID=&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF= Canada: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/highlights/labour/Table602.cfm?Lang=E&T=602&GH=4&SC=1&SO=9 9&O=A United States: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000U.S.&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-_lang=en Research Triangle: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=31000U.S.20380&-_lang=en http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=31000U.S.20500&-_lang=en http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=31000U.S.39580&-_lang=en 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 46
    • Silicon Valley: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=05000U.S.06081&-_lang=en http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=05000U.S.06085&-_lang=en Massachusetts: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=04000U.S.25&-_lang=en Michigan: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=04000U.S.26&-_lang=en Illinois: http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=04000U.S.17&-_lang=en Fig. 9 – Labour Force by Occupation, Toronto Region, 2006 The data is from Statistics Canada. The minor NOC codes within each major NOC code were summed for each comparator region. Source http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=97- 559-XCB2006023&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=0&IPS=97-559-XCB2006023 &METH=0&ORDER=&PID=92116&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=&StartRow=&SUB=&Temporal=2006&Theme=7 4&VID=&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF= Fig. 10 – Technology “Fast 500 Companies”, Annual Average Number, 2001-2007 The data was taken from the Deloitte and Touche annual list of technology fast 500 companies in North America from 2001 to 2007. The number for each year was added, then divided by 7 to derive the average annual number over the period. Sources http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/section_node/0,1042,sid%253D56072,00.html Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2001 Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2002 Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2003 Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2004 Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2005 Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2006 Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2007 Fig. 11 – Median Household Income, Constant 2006 USD, 2000 and 2006 The data was taken from Statistics Canada, the U.S. Census. Bureau, and the U.S. Department of Labour. The three year median income was found for the TR and all of the Comparators. These numbers were then converted into constant 2005 dollars, which were then converted into 2006 dollars using the GDP/CPI Index. Finally, the TR and Montreal data was converted to U.S. dollars using the Organisation for Economic Development’s (OECD) purchasing power parity (PPP) numbers. Sources Toronto Region: 2000 Median Income: Statistics Canada - CANSIM 2020411 2006 Median Income: OECD - Purchasing Power Parities Data http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,3343,en_2649_34347_36202863_1_1_1_1,00.html#ppp 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 47
    • Montreal: 2000 Median Income: Statistics Canada - CANSIM 3800056 2006 Median Income: OECD - Purchasing Power Parities Data http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,3343,en_2649_34347_36202863_1_1_1_1,00.html#ppp Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan 2000 Median Income and 2006 Median Income: US Census Bureau - Current Population Survey http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08b.html Silicon Valley: 2000 Median Income: Census 2000- The number was taken off an interactive map for theSanta Clara and San Mateo Counties. Because the information was not available before Census 2000, this number was weighted by population and taken as the median household income for that 3 year average. Link: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=zoom&-errMsg=&- _useSS=N&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=10&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024&-tm_config=|b=50|l =en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.9557697048764706E7|dh=1.4455689123E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMap Extent|if=gif|cx=- 1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368 |g=01000US|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=040|mn=9243|mx=82929|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Dollars|pr=0| th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=01000US&- _pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identi fy#?416,218 2006 Median Household Income: US Census Bureau - American Community Survey http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en Research Triangle: 2000 Median Income: Census 2000- The number was taken off an interactive map for the Raleigh-Dunn-Chapel Hill Metropolitan area Because the information was not available before Census 2000, this number was taken as the median household income for that 3 year average. Link: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=zoom&-errMsg=&- _useSS=N&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=10&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024&-tm_config=|b=50|l =en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.9557697048764706E7|dh=1.4455689123E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMap Extent|if=gif|cx=- 1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368 |g=01000US|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=040|mn=9243|mx=82929|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Dollars|pr=0| th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=01000US&- _pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identi fy#?416,218 2006 Median Household Income: US Census Bureau http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&- ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=306&-keyword=Durham&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect &-geo_id=31000US20380&-format=&-_lang=en http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&- ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=306&-keyword=Durham&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect &-geo_id=31000US20500&-format=&-_lang=en http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&- ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=306&-keyword=Durham&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect &-geo_id=31000US39580&-format=&-_lang=en 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 48
    • Fig. 12 – Subscribers to Communications and Services, Percentage of Population, 2001 and 2006 The data is from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Statistics Canada. The population numbers from Fig. 1 were used to calculate percentages. Sources U.S. Comparator Regions: 2006 FCC Report http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-28A1.pdf 2004,5 FCC Report http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-142A1.pdf 2002,3 FCC Report http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-216A1.pdf 2001 FCC Report; http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-179A1.pdf Canada – Toronto Region & Montreal: http://cansim2.statcan.ca/cgi- win/cnsmcgi.pgm?regtkt=&C2Sub=&ARRAYID=2030020&C2DB=&VEC=&LANG=E&SrchVer=&ChunkSize=&SDDSLOC= &ROOTDIR=CII/&RESULTTEMPLATE=CII/CII_PICK&ARRAY_PICK=1&SDDSID=&SDDSDESC= (subscription required) Fig. 13 – Percent of Population 25-34 Years with a Post-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006 The TR data is from Statistics Canada’s Education Attainment data and the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey. The percentages were calculated using the population numbers from Fig. 1. Sources U.S. Comparator Regions: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enEleva tors B15001. SEX BY AGE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER - Universe: POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER B15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER - Universe: POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER Canada – Toronto Region & Montreal: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&C ATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=9 3609&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&Theme=75&VID=0&VNAMEE=&V NAMEF= Fig. 14 – Percent of Population Aged 25-34 with a Post-Graduate or Professional Degree, 2001 and 2006 The data is from Statistics Canada and the U.S. Census. Bureau. The percentages were calculated using the population numbers from Fig. 1. Professional degrees include medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and optometry. Sources U.S. Comparator Regions: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enEleva tors 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 49
    • B15001. SEX BY AGE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER - Universe: POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER B15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER - Universe: POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER Canada – Toronto Region & Montreal: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&C ATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=9 3609&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&Theme=75&VID=0&VNAMEE=&V NAMEF= Fig. 15 – Percent of Population 25-34 Years with a Post-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006 All of the data was obtained from Common University Data Ontario (CUDO). Source Toronto Region: http://www.cou.on.ca/_bin/relatedSites/cudo.cfm Fig. 16 – Business, Science and Technology, and Other Education Degrees Awarded in the Toronto Region, 2006-2007 Academic Year All of the data was obtained from Common University Data Ontario (CUDO). Source Toronto Region: http://www.cou.on.ca/_bin/relatedSites/cudo.cfm Fig. 17 – Engineering Degrees Awarded per 100,000 Population, 2002 and 2007 The data for the U.S. comparator regions was obtained from the Engineering Workforce Commission of the American Association of Engineering Societies, Inc. (AAES) in their publication ‘Engineering & Technology Degrees’. The data for the TR is from CUDO, and the data for Montreal was obtained by contacting each University individually and obtaining data. Totals were divided by the population numbers from Fig. 1. Source U.S. Comparator Regions: “Engineering & Technology Degrees” (publication purchased from the AAES) Toronto Region: CUDO (Common University Data Ontario) http://www.cou.on.ca/_bin/relatedSites/cudo.cfm Fig. 18 – NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Project Funding in the Toronto Region, 1997-2008 (Constant 2006 CAD) The data was obtained from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) published grant reports and the NSERC searchable database. It was then summed for each year. Sources Toronto Region 2007: http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_oct-dec-07_e.pdf http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_july-sept2007_e.pdf http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_reports_apr-july2007_e.pdf http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_jan-mar2007_e.pdf 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 50
    • Toronto Region prior to 2007: http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/stats/2004-2005/en/tables/FF04-05E.xls Fig. 19 – Federal Government R&D Funding to Research Institutions, per capita, 2000-2007, Constant 2006 USD The data for the TR and Montreal was obtained from NSERC, the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), the Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The data for the US comparators was obtained from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The values were converted to standard 2006 dollars. The data for the TR and Montreal was then converted to 2006 USD using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Sources Toronto Region & Montreal: http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_oct-dec-07_e.pdf http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_july-sept2007_e.pdf http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_reports_apr-july2007_e.pdf http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_jan-mar2007_e.pdf http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/stats/2004-2005/en/tables/FF04-05E.xls http://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/funding/Search?p_language=E&p_version=CIHR http://www.outil.ost.uqam.ca/CRSH/RechProj.aspx?vLangue=Anglais or http://www.sshrc.ca/web/about/stats/tables_e.asp http://www.innovation.ca/projects/CFIawards100608.xls U.S. Comparator Regions: http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/State_Congressional/StateOverview.cfm http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/tab.do?dispatch=4 Fig. 20 – Private R&D expenditure per $1000 USD sales per 100,000 people, 2007 The data was purchased from Standard & Poor’s Compustat. Then total R&D expenditure for each comparator and the Toronto Region was divided into the total sales. This number was then multiplied by 1000 to give the R&D expenditure per $1000 in sales figure. Finally, this number was divided by the total population for each region, and then multiplied by 100 000 which gives the private R&D expenditure per $1000 sales per 100 000 people. Source www.compustat.com (private purchased data from compustat) Fig. 21 – Number of Scientific Publications by Authors at Toronto Region Universities, 2000-2006 The data was purchased from the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST). Source OST - Patents and Publications - TR, MTL, SV, RT, MA, MI, IL - 2000-2006 (private purchased data) Fig. 22 – Number of Scientific Publications per 100,000 Population, 2000-2006 The data was purchased from the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST). Source OST - Patents and Publications - TR, MTL, SV, RT, MA, MI, IL - 2000-2006 (private purchased data) 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 51
    • Fig. 23 – Average Relative Impact Factors (ARIF) of Publications 2000-2006 The data was purchased from the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST). Source OST - Patents and Publications – TR, MTL, SV, RT, MA, MI, IL - 2000-2006 (private purchased data) Fig. 24 – Average Relative Citations (ARC), 2000-2006 The data was purchased from the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST). Source OST - Patents and Publications - TR, MTL, SV, RT, MA, MI, IL - 2000-2006 (private purchased data) Fig. 25 – Total Licenses, Patents (Applications and Issued), and Invention Disclosures, Universities and Hospitals per 100 000 Population, 2001 and 2006 The data is from the Association of University Technology Mangers (AUTM) Licensing Survey. The universities and institutions belonging to each region were identified and their data was summed. Source 2006 Licensing Survey- http://www.autm.net/about/dsp.pubDetail2.cfm?pid=41 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 52
    • INTRODUCTION The Toronto Region benefits from a diverse economy with expertise and strength in a wide range of economic sectors. Within this broad range of industries, the Toronto Region is home to numerous world-ranked clusters of R&D. The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) worked with TRRA to determine where the region’s research and development strengths lie. This effort identified over 30 research-intensive APPENDIX 3 – SELECTED SECTOR PROFILES clusters in which the Toronto Region has developed a critical mass of research, development and business capacity. The top R&D clusters are defined using six key attributes: specialized labour, anchor companies, leading customers, suppliers and infrastructure, public sector R&D, and supportive public policies. In this section, we profile two research-intensive clusters – Water Technologies and Risk, Fraud, IT Security & Cryptography – which are both topical and pertinent to the regional economy. Public health issues and growing scientific interest in the environment, coupled with the Toronto Region’s proximity to the Great Lakes, have resulted in a high concentration of water-related research and business activity in the region. The Toronto Region is the second largest financial services centre in North America and also is home to several universities with exceptionally strong computer science, engineering and mathematical expertise and programs. It is not surprising, therefore, that a vibrant Risk, Fraud, IT Security and Cryptography cluster has emerged. 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 53
    • THE TORONTO REGION IS…. • Producing a growing highly-educated and highly skilled workforce in this field: • The site of a strong Fraud, Risk, IT Security & Cryptography cluster, and which provides important – 11,200 university graduates (all levels) in computer support to the region’s financial services sector science, physical science, engineering and (This cluster is the second largest financial centre mathematics in 2006, 18% more than in 2005 in North America) – 2,225 technology graduates from colleges/institutes • A growing hub of more than 100 companies that provide of technology in 2006, 70% more than in 2005 IT security products and services, including industry leaders such as: Bioscript, Certicom Co., Cisco Systems Canada, Digital Cement, Diversinet, IBM Canada, L-1 Growing Number Of Graduates, 2005-2006 Identity Solutions, Lorex technology Inc., McAfee Canada, Microsoft Canada, Open Text Corporation, Pharma Algorithms, Route1 Inc., SAP Canada, Symantec Canada, Teranet,Thomson Reuters, and Visual Defence • The location of a sophisticated customer base that includes major financial institutions (e.g., Royal Bank of Canada, Manulife Financial, and Toronto Stock Exchange), COMPUTER FRAUD, RISK, IT SECURITY & CRYPTOGRAPHY and corporations such as Pitney Bowes, Alcatel-Lucent, Research in Motion, Xerox Canada, and COM DEV IN THE TORONTO REGION • Home to the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo which are ranked among the top 10 universities in North America to publish articles related WORLD CLASS INDEPENDENT RESEARCH to IT security and cryptography AND EDUCATION Top 10 Publishers (North America) on Computer Fraud, Risk and Security and Cryptography by University from 2000-2007 – Dan Fortin, President, • Toronto Region universities are a hub of research IBM Canada Ltd. excellence recognized by the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC): Harvard University 213 University of Texas 182 – $1.7 million (40% of all NSERC funding in 2006/07) Institution Number of publications went to the Toronto Region Stanford University 157 4.6% COMPUTER ENGINEERING University of Washington 132 11.6% COMPUTER SCIENCE University of Toronto 116 NSERC Funding* for IT Security and University of Waterloo 115 31.0% MATHEMATICS Cryptography, Canada, 2007 University of California, 40% Los Angeles 114 Columbia University 113 “The Toronto Region is home to one of the 60% Toronto University of Maryland 113 Region largest and most productive concentrations University of Wisconsin 113 Rest of of research and development talent in the Canada world, and serves as a portal to all of North America’s major markets and institutions.” Source: ISI $1.7M CDN * Includes all grant and scholarship programs 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 54
    • WORLD CLASS INDEPENDENT RESEARCH AND EDUCATION (CONTINUED) – 24 of 41 (59%) Canada Research Chairs and NSERC Researchers in Cryptography • Institute for Quantum Computing – 30 of 98 (31%) Canada Research Chairs and NSERC • Canadian Centre of Arts and Technology University of Waterloo Researchers in IT Security • Centre for Applied Cryptographic Research – 7 of 19 (37%) Canada Research Chairs in • Institute for Computer Research Computer Security • Centre for Computational Mathematics in Industry • Toronto Region produces almost half of all IT security and Commerce and cryptography publications originating from • GigatoNanoelectronics (G2N) Centre Canadian universities, and 30% of all citations • Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) • Over 40 computer science, engineering and mathematics programs are offered at Toronto Region universities and colleges/institutes • Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences • Centre for Applied Power Electronics • Independent research institutes include: Perimeter University of Toronto Institute for Theoretical Physics and Guelph-Waterloo • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Centre Physics Institute • Testbed; Adaptive Technology Resource Centre • Emerging Communications Technology Institute • Knowledge Media and Design Institute • Nortel Institute for Telecommunications • Bell University Labs • Ontario Network on the Regional Innovation System • Centre for Emerging Device Technologies • Centre for the Effective Design of Structures McMaster University • Rogers Communication Centre • Institute for Innovation and Technology Ryerson University • Management (IITM) – Bill Gates, Founder and Chairman, Microsoft Inc. • Hacker Lab University of Ontario Institute of Technology “…So just in terms of scale...and focus on computer science, Waterloo stands out, even on a global basis stands out very, very well…There are many years where Waterloo is the university we hired the most people from of any in the world, and Waterloo has always been in the top five every year…” 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 55
    • THE TORONTO REGION IS….. – University of Guelph: Canada Research Chair in Water Security Supply; Guelph Water Management Group; • Located on the shores of the Great Lakes – the world’s Groundwater Contamination; Integrated Watershed largest fresh water source Management • Home to over 400 companies providing water-related – McMaster University: Water Resources and products and services, including globally-recognized Hydrologic Modeling Laboratory; United Nations companies such as: GE Water & Processes University International Network on Water, Technologies (Zenon International); Pipeline Inspection Environment and Health; Groundwater Company; Pathogen Detection Systems; Enwave Energy WORLD-LEADING RESEARCH AND EDUCATION Contamination; Great Lakes; Water Resource Corporation; Siemens Water; and Veolia Water management; Water Resource Public Policy • A focal point for water-related research in three key areas: drinking water, wastewater and source water Top Talent at Toronto Region Universities • Toronto Region universities received 30% ($11.4 million) of National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) funding in 2006-07 for research in water-related • Canada Research Chair in Groundwater Remediation fields, including: drinking water, waste water and water • Canada Research Chair in Water Quality Protection University of Waterloo resource management, and aquatic ecosystems and species. WATER TECHNOLOGIES IN THE TORONTO REGION: • Canada Research Chair in Quantitative Hydrogeology AN IMPORTANT AND GROWING CLUSTER NSERC Funding* for Water Research, Canada, 2007 • Canada Research Chair in Limnology (study of inland waters) • NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Water Treatment Toronto 30% Region Rest of • Canada Research Chair in Water Management, 70% Canada • Canada Research Chair in Water Supply Security University of Guelph • NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Groundwater Contamination in Fractured Media • NSERC/University of Guelph Chair in Urban Systems Environmental Design $11.4M • 38% of NSERC Industrial Research Chairs are awarded to Toronto Region researchers • Canada Research Chair in Interfacial Technologies (focus water purification) * Includes all grant and scholarship programs • Home to leading scientists and research programs: McMaster University • Canada Research Chair in Environment and Health – University of Waterloo: National Science and Engineering Research Council Industrial Research • Canada Research Chair in Cold Regions Hydrology Chair in Water Treatment; International Chair in Water; University Consortium for Field Focused • NSERC Northern Research Chair in Present and Past Wilfrid Laurier University Groundwater Contamination Research; Centre for Hydro-ecology of the Mackenzie Basin Deltas, Advancement of Trenchless Technology – University of Toronto: National Science and • Canada Research Chair in Environmental Interfaces Engineering Research Council Industrial Research and Biofilms Ryerson University Chair in Drinking Water; Drinking Water Research Group; groundwater contamination; • Canada Research Chair in Aquatic Toxicology University of Ontario Institute of Technology • NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Drinking Water Research University of Toronto 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 56
    • BREADTH AND DEPTH OF WATER-RELATED RESEARCH IN TORONTO REGION UNIVERSITIES WASTE WATER DRINKING WATER SOURCE WATER Infrastructure and equipment – New Treatment Technologies to Software – Wells, Extraction, Water deal with challenging pollutants Pollutant/Contamination Management and Fluid Handling (e.g. pharmaceuticals, etc) Modeling and Water Resource Buried Infrastructure – storage Management and distribution Wetland Management Maintenance, replacement and Watershed Modeling new build Well Management Advanced Materials – membranes, removal technologies Transportation Impact – shipping, roadway runoff, etc. Advanced Materials – membranes, absorption technologies Emission Reduction – GHG and Odour Energy Conservation and Efficiency Sensor / Detector Technology Energy from waste biomass Biotechnology – pollutants, treatments, groundwater remediation 11 Canada Research Chairs 5 NSERC Industrial Research Chairs 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 57
    • AAES American Association of Engineering Societies ADMI Advanced Design and Manufacturing Institute ATRIG Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge AUTM The Association of University Technology Managers CCR Centre for the Commercialization of Research CECRs Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research CFI Canada Foundation for Innovation CIHR Canadian Institutes of Health Research CMA Census Metropolitan Area CRD Collaborative Research and Development CUDO Common University Data Ontario FCC Federal Communications Commission LC Location Quotient MA Index Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy MTC Massachusetts Technology Collaborative APPENDIX 4 – LIST OF ACRONYMS NIH National Institutes of Health NSERC Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council NSF National Science Foundation OCE Ontario Centres of Excellence OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OST Observatoire des sciences et des technologies R&D Research and Development SBIR Small Business Innovation on Research SSHRC Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Stats Canada Statistics Canada STTR Small Business Technology Transfer GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS TRIEC Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council TRRA Toronto Region Research Alliance TR Toronto Region MTL Montreal RT Research Triangle SV Silicon Valley IL State of Illinois MA State of Massachusetts MI State of Michigan 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 58
    • The Conference Board of Canada, “Innovation Overview,” http://sso.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/overview/innovation-overview.aspx The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Missing 0pportunities: Ontario’s urban prosperity gap (Toronto: Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 2003), p.26, www.competeprosper.ca/images/uploads/wp03.pdf The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Prosperity, Inequality and Poverty (Toronto: Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 2007), p.36, www.competeprosper.ca/download.php?file=WP10.pdf See note 2. Statistics Canada, Canada’s Changing Labour Force, 2006 Census (Ottawa: Statistics Canada., 2008), p.30, www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/labour/pdf/97-559-XIE2006001.pdf 1 Statistics Canada, The Immigrant Labour Force Analysis Series: The Canadian Immigrant Labour Market in 2007. (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2008), p.8, www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/71-606-XIE/71-606-XIE2008003.pdf 2 Larry Swanson, “Montana on the Move: Summary of Statewide Roundtable 2004, March 6,” www.crmw.org/MontanaOnTheMove/data/March_6_Summary.pdf 3 See note 2. Brian Knudsen et al., Urban Density, Creativity, and Innovation, (Creative Class, 2007), p.9, 4 www.creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/Urban_Density_Creativity_and_Innovation.pdf 5 See note 2 at p.27. Garnett Picot and Arthur Sweetman quoted in The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity see note 2 at p.37. 6 The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Reinventing Innovation and Commercialization Policy in Ontario, ENDNOTES (Toronto: Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 2004), p.40, http://204.15.35.174/images/uploads/wp06.pdf 7 USA Study Guide, “Choosing a School: Choosing universities, schools, and colleges for international students,” www.usastudyguide.com/choosingschool.htm 8 Ibid. 9 U.S. Department of Education, “USNEI: Accreditation and Quality Assurance,” www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-accreditation.html 10 Michael McKenzie, Science and Engineering PhDs: A Canadian Portrait (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2007), p.3, 11 www.statcan.ca/english/research/11-621-MIE/11-621-MIE2007063.pdf 12 Ibid., at p.4. The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Reinventing Innovation and Commercialization Policy in Ontario 13 (Toronto: Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 2004), p.30, http://204.15.35.174/images/uploads/wp06.pdf Desmond Beckstead, W. Mark Brown and Guy Gellatly, Cities and Growth: The Left Brain of North American Cities: 14 Scientists and Engineers and Urban Growth (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2008), p.8, 15 www.statcan.ca/english/research/11-622-MIE/11-622-MIE2008017.pdf David A. Wolfe, Knowledge and Innovation: A Discussion Paper (Ontario, 2006), p.23, 16 www.utoronto.ca/onris/research_review/WorkingPapers/WorkingDOCS/Working06/Wolfe06_Discussion.pdf See note 19 at p.32. 17 Maryann P. Feldman and Ian Stewart, Knowledge transfer and innovation: a review of the policy relevant literature 18 (Ontario, 2006), p.40 Ibid., at p.2. 19 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, “About NSERC,” www.nserc.gc.ca/about/about_e.asp Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, “Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) Grants,” www.nserc.gc.ca/partners/indust/prog_profile_e.asp?pro=005 20 Alice Lam, “Work Roles and Careers of R&D Scientists in Network Organizations,” Industrial Relations, 44, no. 2 (2005), 242-275, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=684328 21 22 23 24 25 26 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 59
    • The National Academies, “Industry-University Research Partnerships: What Are the Limits of Intimacy?,” www7.nationalacademies.org/guirr/Industry_University_Partnerships_Limits.html See note 20 at p.24. Roger L. Martin and James B. Milway, Strengthening management for prosperity (Toronto: Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 2007), p.3, www.competeprosper.ca/images/uploads/ManagementPaper_May07.pdf Ibid., at p.5. Allison Bramwell and David A. Wolfe, “Universities and Regional Economic Development: The Entrepreneurial University of Waterloo” Research Policy (submitted). 27 www.utoronto.ca/progris/pdf_files/UW%20and%20Regional%20Economic%20Development_rev15Feb06.pdf Richard K. Lester, Universities, Innovation, and the Competitiveness of Local Economies: summary report from the local innovation project (Massachusetts: Industrial Performance Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 28 2005), p.30, http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/05-010.pdf 29 Ibid., at p.3. Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, “Investing in the Jobs of the Future: $165-Million Fund To Attract 30 Investment In High-Growth Companies,” www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/news/VCF111407.asp 31 Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, “$205 million investment fund to grow jobs of the future: McGuinty Government Partners with Top Investors To Launch Ontario Venture Capital Fund,” www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/news/VClaunch061108.asp “Ontario unveils $205-million venture fund,” The Ottawa Citizen, June 12, 2008. 32 www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/bustech/story.html?id=5d015260-9069-447d-9d0e-a5eb5e9709f6 U.S. Small Business Administration, “SBIR and STTR Programs and Awards,” www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html 33 Networks of Centres of Excellence, “CCR – Centre for the Commercialization of Research,” www.nce- 34 rce.gc.ca/cecrs/ccr_e.htm Statistics Canada, Population and dwelling counts, for census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2006 35 and 2001 censuses. www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=201&S=3&O=D&RPP=150 Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, “Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2007,” www.tableaudebordmontreal.com/indicateurs/activiteeconomique/pib.en.html 36 Ministère des Finances Québec. Economic and Financial Profile of Québec 2008 (Québec: Ministère des Finances, 2008), p. 4-5, www.finances.gouv.qc.ca/documents/autres/en/AUTEN_profil2008.pdf 37 Investissement Québec, “Canadian Space Agency”. www.investquebec.com/en/index.aspx?page=1821#1 38 National Research Council Canada, “NRC Biotechnology Research Institute,” www.irb-bri.cnrc- nrc.gc.ca/home/index_e.html 39 Ministère des Finances Québec. Economic and Financial Profile of Québec 2006 (Québec: Ministère des Finances, 2006), p.5, www.finances.gouv.qc.ca/documents/Autres/en/pfq_2006.pdf 40 Montreal International, “The College Network.,” www.montrealinternational.com/en/vivre/collegial.aspx TRRA compilation based on U.S. Census, “Annual Population Estimates 2000 to 2007,” 41 www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html The United States Conference of Mayors, “U.S. Metro economies, gross metropolitan product and housing outlook: 42 Key Findings,” www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport_keyfindings.pdf 43 Karen Chapple et al., “Gauging Metropolitan ‘High-Tech’ and ‘I-Tech’ ", Activity Economic Development Quarterly 18, no. 1, (2004), 10-29, 44 http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/10?ijkey=50c44cb29d68315499a2aa3771131b328064bf28&keytyp e2=tf_ipsecsha 45 “America’s Best Colleges 2008: National Universities, Top School,” http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php 46 U.S. Census, “State & Country QuickFacts: Massachusetts,” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25000.html 47 48 49 50 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 60
    • Government of Massachusetts, “Patrick-Murray Administration Highlights Growth In Robotics Sector, Manufacturing,” www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdpressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Elwd&b=pressrelease&f=irobot&csid=Elwd U.S. Department of Commerce, “Ocean and Coastal Management in Michigan,” http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/mi.html U.S. Census, “State & Country QuickFacts: Michigan,” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html U.S. Census, “Cities & towns - Places over 100,000: 2000 to 2007,” www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html MEDC, “Michigan: High Technology Focus,” http://ref.michigan.org/medc/hitechfocus/ Richard J. Bennof, Data Brief: R&D Spending is Highly Concentrated in a Small Number of States. (Arlington: 51 National Science Foundation, 2001) www.nsf.gov/statistics/databrf/nsf01320/sdb01320.htm MEDC, “Growth Industries,” www.michiganadvantage.org/Targeted-Initiatives/Life-Sciences/Default.aspx 52 Ibid. TRRA compilation based on California Department of Finance, “California County Population Estimates and 53 Components of Change by Year — July 1, 2000–2007,” www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E2/E-2_2000-07.php 54 “Fortune 1000,” http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/ 55 2008 Index of Silicon Valley (San Jose, CA: Joint Venture, Silicon Valley Network, 2008). 56 www.jointventure.org/publicatons/index/2008Index/2008%20Silicon%20Valley%20Index.pdf U.S. Census, “National population datasets,” www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html 57 Research Triangle Region, “Why Research Triangle Region,” www.researchtriangle.org/pages.php?page_id=2 58 “The Research Triangle Park,” www.rtp.org/main/ 59 Research Triangle Region, “Why Research Triangle Region,” www.researchtriangle.org/Why%20Research%20Triangle%20Region/ 60 Research Triangle Region, “Colleges & Universities,” www.researchtriangle.org/pages.php?page1=52&page2=79&page3=80&page_id=80 61 62 63 64 65 66 2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge 61
    • MaRS Centre, Heritage Building 101 College Street, Suite HL30 Toronto, ON M5G 1L7 Tel 416 673 6670 Fax 416 673 6671 Email info@trra.ca Visit us a www.trra.ca © 2008 Toronto Region Research Alliance