2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge

2008Annual Toronto RegionInnovation Gauge

www.trra.ca

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

1

2

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

“Research is to see what everybody elsehas seen, and to think what nobodyelse has thought.”

- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi,Hungarian Biochemist, 1937 Nobel Prize for Medicine

The Toronto Region has an innovative research base witha highly-educated and growing population that benefitsfrom a diversified manufacturing base and other majoradvantages compared to its competition – that’s thegood news.

However, the Toronto Region faces some significantchallenges to meeting its full potential to become oneof the top research capitals in the world. The obstaclesto be overcome include the need for even more post-graduate students, stronger governmental support forresearch and development, more private sector R&D,and greater focus on knowledge and technology transfer.

That’s the conclusion reached from a review of the TorontoRegion’s research and innovation system conducted by theToronto Region Research Alliance (TRRA).

The second edition of the Toronto Region ResearchAlliance’s Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge(ATRIG) analyzes the current strengths and weaknessesof the region relative to other regions with strongresearch bases, like Silicon Valley in California andMassachusetts, and to more comparable researchcentres, like the Research Triangle in North Carolina,Montreal, Illinois and Michigan.

These findings will help key decision makers ingovernment, industry and post-secondary educationbetter understand how the Toronto Region can grow andprosper by focusing attention on building a strongerresearch base that will benefit us all.

WHO WE AREThe population of the Toronto Region is growing rapidly,fueled by an influx of skilled, educated immigrants fromaround the world. The region’s economy benefits fromdiverse industrial sectors outside its traditionalmanufacturing base (including “fast” companies withstrong potential for growth), solid employment levels,superior wages and healthy household income. Itshigh use of wireless communication is a sign of atechnologically-connected and progressive society.

WHAT WE OFFERThe Toronto Region is particularly strong in a criticallyimportant area that facilitates innovation – education inthe 25-34 age range. Its high and growing overall levelsof post-secondary and post-graduate residents includeBusiness, Science and Technology master’s and doctoralgraduates ready to become the next generation ofmanagers and entrepreneurs. The region would benefitfrom even more post-secondary graduates and post-graduate degree holders (master's and doctorates) aswell as initiatives to encourage entry to these programsfor even larger numbers of students.

The scale of R&D funding from private sources in theUnited States is much higher than in Canada, althoughcollaborative private/public sector funding for R&Din the Toronto Region universities is increasing.Unfortunately, the region performs relatively poorlycompared to other regions in government funding forR&D in the sciences, engineering and health relatedareas, and in private sector R&D. It would benefit frommore R&D investment from governments which wouldlead to its R&D facilities and human resources becomingstronger, and its universities building a base upon whichtheir capacity to train graduate students and attractR&D-intense industries as partners.

HOWWE ARE PERFORMINGThe Toronto Region is publishing more and increasingits numbers of licenses, inventions and patents. Thesecommercialization and knowledge transfer mechanismsare tangible proof that the region’s universities aretransferring their R&D to the marketplace. But the regionis not matching the competition. It is not performingas well as many of its comparator regions in terms ofrelative impact – where it publishes and how muchit commercializes.

IN SUMMARYThe Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large andhighly-educated population, diverse industries and highemployment rates, for instance – upon which it can buildto improve its performance. But to compete successfullyto become a truly innovative research base will requiresignificantly more sustained efforts – and a collaborativeapproach between government, industry and the post-secondary education sector.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

3

INTRODUCTION

The Toronto Region Research Alliance (TRRA) launchedthe Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge (ATRIG) lastyear provide an accurate diagnosisof the current strengths and weaknesses of theregion’s innovation system relative to key internationalcompetitor regions.

We believe that an annual analysis of the region’sinnovation performance, based on a range ofinternationally-accepted performance indicators,is helpful to sustain and enhance the Toronto Region’sinnovation performance. For the purpose of this reportwe have used the same definition of innovation adoptedby The Conference Board of Canada, “the ability to turnknowledge into new and improved goods and services.”1

We hope that the Innovation Gauge will become anincreasingly comprehensive measure of the region’scomparative innovation performance, and will helpdecision-makers undertake the changes needed to movethe Toronto Region into the top R&D and innovation-based economies in the world.

The format of ATRIG 2007 was an important first step.In consultation with the ATRIG Advisory Council, wemodeled its approach on the Index of the MassachusettsInnovation Economy (MA Index) developed by theMassachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC).

While the MA Index offered a rigorous and comprehensiveframework for measuring innovation performance, wefound that the Toronto Region lacked data routinelycaptured and available in the United States on numerousinnovation indicators – for the country as a whole and forthe comparative regions in particular. With input from theATRIG Advisory Council, we addressed these challengesin the 2008 report by selecting comparator regions andindicators more relevant to the Toronto Region. Anunderstanding of the drivers of the economies of theseregions and what makes them strong will yield importantinformation and useful models for the Toronto Region.

We will continue to adapt the indicators we use for futureInnovation Gauge releases as the region continues tobuild on its capacity to monitor and assess the keyelements of the innovation system.

INTRODUCTION

TORONTO REGION PROFILE

The Toronto Region, at the western end of LakeOntario, consists of Durham, Halton, Hamilton,Guelph, Peel, Toronto, Waterloo, Wellingtonand York. Over seven million people live in theToronto Region, making it the fourth largesturban area in North America after New York,Los Angeles and Chicago.

The Toronto Region GDP is $328 billion,accounting for 22% of Canada’s GDP. The regionhas a wide range of industrial sectors withstrong employment, including Manufacturing(529,000), Professional and Scientific services(326,000), and Finance, Insurance and RealEstate services (317,000).

The Toronto Region workforce is well-educated,highly-skilled and growing: every year, 75,000university and college graduates and 47,000immigrants enter a very skilled workforce ofmore than 1.8 million.

The region is attractive to immigrants. Forty-fivepercent of recent immigrants to Canada chooseto live in the Toronto Region. In addition, 60%of these newcomers have at least one universitydegree, which contributes to the region’s highly-educated workforce.

The Toronto Region is Canada’s largest centrefor research and education, and is home to 9universities, 8 colleges, and 12 research hospitals.

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

4

ATRIG brings a Toronto Region voice to the growingchorus of organizations actively working to focus publicattention on critical innovation issues and theirrelationship to our future competitiveness and prosperity.

Reports alone, however, will not produce the changesneeded to strengthen the region’s innovation performance.ATRIG is the first step in a broader process of informing,engaging and building consensus among the TorontoRegion innovation system stakeholders. Together, thisimpressive group of innovation stakeholders can helpshape the development of effective strategies, policiesand programs to address the region’s weaknesses andcapitalize on its strengths.

TRRA invites readers to participate in this process and wewelcome feedback. Please email us at [email protected]

SPECIAL THANKSTRRA is grateful for the assistance and guidanceprovided by the members of our ATRIG Advisory Council(please see our acknowledgements, on page 34, fora list of members). We look forward to their continuedparticipation and advice as we adapt and enhance ATRIGin future years.

HOW ATRIG SELECTED THIS YEAR’SCOMPARATOR REGIONS

This report compares the Toronto Region toIllinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal,North Carolina’s Research Triangle andCalifornia’s Silicon Valley.

We selected these comparator regions or statesbecause they are similar in character, size,economic base or other attributes to the TorontoRegion, or because they have economies – orattributes which make them strong research-driven economies – to which we aspire. Allhave significant R&D and strong innovationindicators, including many that show positivetrends over time.

In most cases ATRIG indicators are presentedper 100,000 population in order to provide anaccurate picture of the scale of the variousindicators in the Toronto Region relative tothese comparator regions. For more informationabout the comparator regions, please refer toAppendix 1.

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

5

AT A GLANCEThe Annual Toronto RegionInnovation Gauge analyzesthe region’s innovation performance,based on a range of innovationindicators. It highlights the currentstrengths and weaknesses of theregion’s innovation system relativeto selected comparator regions.

COMPARATOR REGIONS

The Innovation Gauge compares the Toronto Region’s performance tosix regions that are – or have been – successful in innovation: Illinois,Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal, Research Triangle and SiliconValley. 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 apicture of the Toronto Region’s innovation performance: whowe are – a description of the region’s population and economy;what we offer – factors that facilitate innovation; and how weperform – measures of innovative outputs.

IN SUMMARY

The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large andhighly-educated population, diverse industries and highemployment rates, for instance – upon which it can buildto improve its performance. But to compete successfullyto become a truly innovative research base will requiresignificantly more sustained efforts – and a collaborativeapproach between government, industry and the post-secondary education sector.

TORONTO REGION

Waterloo

Hamilton-Wentworth

Guelph

DurhamYork

Peel

Toronto

Wellington

Halton

6

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

© 2008 Toronto Region Research Alliance

WHO WE AREThe population of the Toronto Regionis growing rapidly, fueled by an influxof skilled, educated immigrants fromaround the world. The region’seconomy benefits from diverseindustrial sectors outside itstraditional manufacturing base(including “fast” companies withstrong potential for growth), solidemployment levels, superior wagesand healthy household income.

WHAT WE OFFERThe Toronto Region has high levelsof post-secondary and post-graduateeducation in the 25-34 age range,with recent Business, Science andTechnology graduates poised tobecome the next generation ofmanagers and entrepreneurs. Thisneeds to be sustained. The scale ofprivate and public R&D funding in theU.S. far outstrips Canada, althoughcollaborative private/public sectorfunding for R&D in the TorontoRegion universities is increasing.More government R&D investmentwould strengthen the universities’R&D facilities and human resources,improve graduate training, makingthe region more attractive to R&D-intense industries as partners.

HOW WE AREPERFORMINGLike the comparators, the TorontoRegion is publishing more andincreasing its numbers of licenses,inventions and patents. Thesecommercialization and knowledgetransfer mechanisms are tangibleproof that R&D is being transferredto the marketplace. The region is notperforming as well as many of itscomparators in terms of absolutenumbers of technology transfers orrelative impact – where it publishesand how much it commercializes.

in publications,a trend that matches allcomparator regions

average populationincrease in theregion each year

80,000 +

Average 14 “fastcompanies” per yearover the last 6 years

11 industrial sectorsabove the averageNorth Americanconcentration, morethan comparatorregions

of workforce25-34 years of agehas a post-secondarydegree or diploma

Ahead of only onecomparator in thenumber of engineersgraduating with abachelor’s degree

29%

increase in NSERCCollaborative Research& Development projectfunding (’98-’08), from$5.1 to $10.2 million

of all regionsin government R&Dfunding per capita

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

45% of newimmigrants to Canadasettle in the TorontoRegion

Improving on totallicenses, patents andinvention disclosures(’01-’06); however, thehighest performingregions produce4x more than theToronto Region

7

Ahead of just onecomparator in averagerelative impact factors

Average Relative Citations,2000-2006

Silicon Valley 1.846Massachusetts 1.841Research Triangle 1.603Illinois 1.511Michigan 1.511Toronto Region 1.409Montreal 1.296

65%

2x

Lowest

TorontoRegion Rest of

Canada45%

55%

8

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

WHO WE ARE

9

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

With a population of more than seven million people(Fig. 1), the Toronto Region is the third largest of thecomparator regions. It has fewer people than Illinoisand Michigan, but a larger population than the othercomparator regions. The region’s population growth rate,at almost 2% over the last 10 years (Fig. 2), is healthy,fueled by growing numbers of educated immigrants.Household income is relatively high, and many peoplesubscribe to wireless services. Its industrial sectorsare diverse, and the region fares well in the hightechnology-related fields.

THE TORONTO REGION HAS RELATIVELYSTRONG POPULATION GROWTHAs Fig. 3 indicates, the Toronto Region’s closestcomparator, the Research Triangle, has a greaterannual net migration. The Research Triangle’s

population, however, is a quarter the size of the TorontoRegion. In absolute numbers, the Toronto Region grewthree times more – by approximately 140,000 people –than the Research Triangle, which grew byapproximately 45,000 people.

The Toronto Region’s net natural increase in population(i.e. births in the region) has remained steady atapproximately 40,000 persons per year. As Fig. 4 shows,on balance, the population of the region increases bymore than 80,000 persons annually – largely fueled byimmigration, (i.e. adding births to immigrant numbersand subtracting migration from out of the region).

Indeed, the number of immigrants to the Toronto Regionhas been more than double that of the Toronto Region’sclosest comparator, the Research Triangle, in each yearbetween 2000 and 2006.

0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5%

Illinois

Toronto Region

Massachusetts

Michigan

Montreal

Silicon Valley

Research Triangle

Compound Average Annual Growth Rate

Sources: Statistics Canada, Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance

3.39%

1.92%

1.04%

0.82%

0.55%

0.39%

0.31%

Population, Compound Average Annual Growth, 1996-2007

Illinois

Michigan

Toronto Region

Massachusetts

Montreal

Silicon Valley

Research Triangle

Persons (millions)

Sources: Statistics Canada, Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance

12.9

10.1

7.0

6.4

3.7

2.6

1.6

Population, 2007

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

10

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Num

ber

ofM

igra

nts

(tho

usan

ds)

Annual Net Migration (International and Domestic), 2000-2006

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Toronto Region

Montreal

Massachusetts

Silicon Valley

Research Triangle

Michigan

Illinois

Sources: Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance

Fig. 3

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Per

sons

(Tho

usan

ds)

Annual Components of Population Change, Toronto Region, 2000-2006

Net International Migration

Net Domestic Migration

Net Natural Increase

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

100

-2 0

-14 -17 -20 -17-26

131 128

93100

92100

Source: Conference Board of Canada

Fig. 4

11

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

MOST IMMIGRANTS ENTER THE REGION ASHIGHLY-EDUCATED WORKERSThe Toronto Region has been, and continues to be, amagnet for educated and experienced immigrants. Since1961, more than a quarter of Ontario’s population (26.8%)has been born outside Canada. This proportion is 33.0%in all city regions, but 43.4% in Toronto.2

Large numbers of educated immigrants are symptomaticof a national trend. In 1995, 21% of immigrants to Canadahad a university degree; in 2000 this percentage had risento 26%. The percentage of native-born Canadians withuniversity degrees rose at a much slower rate, from16% to 18% over the same period.3

Results from the 2001 census indicated that immigrationhas continued to be of growing importance to the region’spopulation.4 By 2006, of the 636,500 recent core working-age immigrants who arrived in Canada, the lion’s sharewent to Ontario’s labour market (51.1%), followed byQuebec (19.2%) and British Columbia (15.9%).5 As Fig. 5shows, between 2001 and 2006, the Toronto Regionbenefited from almost 45% of the new immigrants to

Canada, welcoming approximately 400,000 people. Thisrepresents approximately. 60,000 more immigrants thanthe region’s closest comparator, Silicon Valley, and threetimes more than its Canadian comparator, Montreal.

This influx of immigrants is particularly good news for theToronto Region. In the years between 2000 and 2006, theToronto Region welcomed increasing numbers of highly-educated and skilled immigrants as Fig. 6 shows. Of theseimmigrants, 73% are in the labour force (Fig. 6a) and, ofthis, 88% or approximately 196,000, are employed.

The positive contribution of educated immigrants to theToronto Region is corroborated by national studies, whichshow that a higher percentage of immigrants with post-secondary education are entering the workforce. Accordingto a recent StatsCan study on immigrants to Canada, “in2007, the largest gains in immigrant employment wereamong university-educated immigrants of core workingage. While employment for immigrants with other levelsof education was mostly unchanged, those with universitydegrees had an estimated gain of 62,000 (+7.0%), all infull time.”6

Per

cent

age

ofN

atio

nalI

mm

igra

tion

Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau

Number of Immigrants as a Percentage of the National Number, 2001-2006

45%

15%

6% 5% 3% 2% 0%0

10

20

30

40

50

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

Toronto Region: 398,980Montreal: 133,650Silicon Valley: 341,207Illinois: 279,358Massachusetts: 178,329Michigan: 119,974Research Triangle: 17,593

Fig. 5

2006 Labour Force Status of ImmigrantsArriving Between 2001-2006

2

27%

73% InLabour Force

Not inLabour Force

Source: Statistics Canada

12

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2006

Num

ber

ofIm

mig

rant

s(T

hous

ands

)

Years

Immigrants to the Toronto Region, Highest Level of Education, Period of Immigration, 1991-2006

High School

Apprenticeship

CollegeUniversity

109

85 81

26

17

59

14 36

86

12

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180 170

15

Fig. 6

WHY ARE POPULATION GROWTHAND IMMIGRATION IMPORTANT?

The high rate of population growth in the Toronto Regionis widely considered to be a requirement for economicgrowth, providing human capital and a constant influx oftalent. As Dr. Larry Swanson, associate director of theUniversity of Montana’s O’Connor Center for the RockyMountain West pointed out, “economic strength followspopulation strength: population growth means economicgrowth and diversification; population loss meanseconomic loss or stagnation.”7

Immigrants – particularly the well-educatedimmigrants who are coming to the Toronto Region –are of particular importance in bolstering labour forcegrowth. Immigrants enrich the Toronto Region with theirskills, training and life experiences, augmenting theregion’s foundation for innovation. In fact, the CaledonInstitute of Social Policy points to immigrants as acounterpoint to the much-debated “brain drain.”8

THE TORONTO REGION IMMIGRANTEMPLOYMENT COUNCIL (TRIEC)

Established in September 2003, TRIEC iscomprised of employers, labour, occupationalregulatory bodies, post-secondary institutions,assessment service providers, communityorganizations, and all three levels of government.Its primary goal is to find and implement localsolutions that help break down the barriersimmigrants face when looking for work in theToronto Region.

“The Toronto Region continues to attract largenumbers of skilled immigrants who comprisevirtually all net labour force growth in the region,”says TRIEC director Elizabeth McIsaac. “Thisoffers the local economy a competitive advantageif the skills and knowledge of these workers canbe effectively leveraged and integrated.”

Fig. 6a

73% of immigrants(221,000) arriving between2001-2006 are in the labourforce. Of this number:

– 196,000 were employed (88%)– 25,000 were unemployed (12%)

13

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Immigrants also add what one researcher calls “knowledgespillover,” the learning and transfer of knowledge betweenindividuals and firms that precedes innovation.

“Innovations occur when individuals with high degreesof existing creativity or knowledge make new and novelcombinations of this knowledge with new insights observedor learned through spillovers,” say Brian Knudsen, RichardFlorida, Gary Gates, and Kevin Stolarick in Urban Density,Creativity, and Innovation. They go on to point out that suchspillovers occur “when one individual’s creativity istransferred to another individual or firm. These creativespillovers are in part believed to arise due to frequentface-to-face interactions and communicationbetween individuals.”9

Is the Toronto Region taking full advantage of thislatent potential?

Recognition of immigrants’ credentials has been astumbling block in the past. According to data fromStatus of Women Canada, just over half of foreign-trainedprofessionals are working in professions or trades threeyears after immigrating.10 In addition, the human capitalof increasing number of immigrants from easternEurope, south, east and west Asia and Africa who arenow arriving (rising from 35% in 1981 to 72% in 2001)“may initially be less transferable due to potential issuesregarding language, cultural differences, educationquality, and possibly discrimination.”11

EMPLOYMENT IN KEY INDUSTRIALSECTORS IS STRONGThe Toronto Region has high levels of employment in keynon-manufacturing industrial sectors, largely due to its

strong regional focus and expertise in many sectorsoutside its traditional manufacturing base. Fig. 7 showsthat the Toronto Region has a wide range of industrialsectors, and that the majority of industries in the Toronto

($)A

vera

geW

age

Industry Sectors, by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North American Concentration, Toronto Region, 2006


Health Care &Social Assistance

Retail Trade

Construction

Other Services

Wholesale Trade

Information & Cultural Industries

Finance & Insurance

UtilitiesProfessional, Scientific & Technical Services

Educational Services

Manufacturing

Transportation and Warehousing

Arts, Entertainment& Recreation

Real Estate &Rental Leasing

Agriculture, Forestry,Fishing & Hunting

PublicAdministration

Waste Management &Remediation Service

Accommodation & Food Services0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Location Quotient

1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50

Fig. 7

ENCOURAGING IMMIGRATION OF SKILLED ANDEDUCATED WORKERS

• Ontario now has an uncapped number of workpermits available to foreign workers. For intra-company transfers, the process is fast andstraightforward: transferees can quickly obtaina work permit for up to seven years.(www.cic.investinontario.com/bi)

• Ontario’s Provincial Nominee Program, anexpedited permanent resident visa program,allows employers to permanently recruit high-end research staff and other workers withindefined occupations.(www.ontarioimmigration.ca/english/pnp.asp)

• The 2007 federal budget created a ForeignCredential Recognition office (which has,however, so far limited itself to giving referralsto appropriate provincial offices).*

• In November 2007, Ottawa announcedexpanded foreign credential referral servicesin India and China that offer orientationsessions for potential immigrants.*

* The Conference Board of Canada, The Canada Project ProgressReport 2007: The Roads Not Travelled: Insights You Can Count On,(Ottawa: The Conference Board, 2008)

Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Services

Manufacturing

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

Industrial Employment, Percentage in Key Sectors, 2007

4.6%3.0%2.9%

4.3%5.1%

8.2%4.1%

7.6%6.1%

5.2%7.1%

3.5%6.2%

4.3%

4.4%2.2%

3.4%3.4%

2.6%4.0%

0 2 4 6 8

2.6%

Toronto Region

Michigan

Illinois

Montreal

Research Triangle

Silicon Valley

Massachusetts

Toronto Region

Michigan

Illinois

Montreal

Research Triangle

Silicon Valley

Massachusetts

Toronto Region

Michigan

Illinois

Montreal

Research Triangle

Silicon Valley

Massachusetts


% of Total Employment in Area

Fig. 8

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

14

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 theToronto Region compared to the same industry clustersacross North America. Industries with a LQ of one areperforming at the average level. Those with a score higherthan one have a higher competitive advantage. The Fig. 7also shows that salaries are high in many of the region’slarger and stronger sectors. The relative size of thesphere shows the number of people employed in thesector, and many sectors in the region are quite large.

“…what you’re looking at here is really astory of diversity versus one of specialization.”

– Meric Gertler,Dean of Arts and Science, University of Toronto

The region has high levels of employment in theManufacturing and Professional, Scientific and Technicalsectors as well as in Finance, Insurance and Real Estatesector and compares favorably to Silicon Valley andMassachusetts, in each of these sectors (Fig. 8). Thisis of particular importance as these regions are strongperformers in both R&D and innovation performance.

Labour Force by Occupation, Toronto Region, 2006

A. Management 11%

J. Processing, Manufacturingand Utilities 7%

I. Primary Industry 1%

F. Art, Culture, Recreation and Sport 4%

H. Trades, Transport and Equipment Operators

and Related 13%

G. Sales and Service 22%

D. Health 5%E. Social Science, Education, Government Service

and Religion 8%

C. Natural and AppliedSciences and Related 8%

B. Business, Financeand Administrative 21%

Source: Statistics Canada

Fig. 9

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

15

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

Aver

age

Num

ber

ofC

ompa

nies

Technology “Fast 500 Companies” Annual Average Number, 2001-2007

62

35

148 8 7

20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Source: Deloitte and Touche

Fig. 10

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARE DIVERSEThe Toronto Region has a wide range of specializationsand many occupations within the working population(Fig. 9). Approximately 75% of these occupations requirespecialized training and education, indicating the regionhas a labour force which is “rich” in specialized skillsand education.

MANY “FIRMS TO WATCH”The Toronto Region has many successful high-tech“firms to watch.” As Fig. 10 shows, the region fares wellamong its comparators with fastest-growing technologyfirms in North America between 2001 and 2007.

While the region pales in comparison to the numbersin Silicon Valley and Massachusetts, it performs wellin comparison to other selected regions, consistentlyout-performing Montreal, Research Triangle, Illinoisand Michigan.

16

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

($)T

hous

ands

Sources: Statistics Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Labor-Bureau of Labor Statistics

Median Household Income, Constant 2006 USD, 2000 and 2006

73.3 78

.8

53.4 56

.2

49.3

50.5

48.8

50.3 54

.449

.3

34.9 38

.9

53.6

47.1

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

20

40

60

80

2000

2006

Fig. 11

WHY IS A DIVERSE ECONOMY IMPORTANT?Diversity in the Toronto Region industry and multipleemployment sectors has contributed to strongerpopulation growth than in areas that are heavily relianton a manufacturing base. Furthermore, the region’sdiverse areas of specialization add economic stability.Because the Toronto Region is not dependent upon onesector, its economy may not be as vulnerable when onesector is suffering, because others are available tosupport the economy.

Many strong industrial sectors indicate that the TorontoRegion is doing an excellent job of maintaining andgrowing non-manufacturing related industries andsupplying the human capital required for these jobs.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROWTH IS HEALTHYThe Toronto Region’s average household income growth,while lower than in Massachusetts and Silicon Valley, ishealthy (see Fig. 11). The Toronto Region’s diverseindustrial make-up will likely ensure that the region willcontinue to fare better than the U.S. comparator regionsas the economic downturn in the United States begins toaffect America’s overall income growth.

Michigan and Illinois have already shown declines inhousehold income due to the decline of manufacturing inthese regions. A more diversified economy has preventedthis from happening in the Toronto Region.

WHY IS HOUSEHOLD INCOME IMPORTANT?Good household income is a sign of overall economicprosperity and can act as an indicator of innovation.The Toronto Region ranks high in this category, likelydue to its diverse industrial sectors, relatively lowunemployment rate, and the consistent growth inits economy since the early 1990s.

WIRELESS SUBSCRIBER RATE IS HIGHACROSS THE REGIONThe Toronto Region is keeping up with or is on par withthe comparator regions with respect to number ofsubscribers to wireless communications and services(Fig. 12). Since 2001, however, the region has fallenbehind relative to its comparators. In 2001, the TorontoRegion had the highest number of subscribers, with a10% advantage over its closest comparators, SiliconValley and the Research Triangle. By 2006, the regionhad fallen to third in this indicator.

WHY ISWIRELESS SUBSCRIPTION IMPORTANT?The Toronto Region’s high number of subscribers towireless communications indicates a technologically-connected and progressive society.

17

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

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

• Toronto Region is tech savvy and inter-connected

• The Toronto Region has “fast companies” with highlighted potential for growth

Per

cent

ofP

opul

atio

n

Suscribers to Wireless Communications and Services, Percentage of Population, 2001 and 2006

49

82 80

50

79

60

75

45

73

47

68

41

59

46

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

2001

20060

20

40

60

80

100

Sources: FCC, Statistics Canada

Fig. 12

WHAT WE OFFER

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

18

19

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Educated residents and funding for Research &Development (R&D) are essential for innovation.The Toronto Region has much to offer in these areas.The region has high and growing overall numbersof residents with post-secondary and post-graduatedegrees. In addition, both government and private sectorsupport for R&D in the region has increased, includingcollaborative R&D delivered by universities and colleges.

EDUCATION

HIGH AND GROWING LEVELS OFPOST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONThe Toronto Region is doing well with respect to overalllevel of education for the age range 25-34 years. Theserecent college and university graduates represent the“new” workforce.

As Fig. 13 illustrates, the Toronto Region comes firstin college or university education in this age range andwithin the comparator selection. A larger percentageof the Toronto Region’s population has a college oruniversity education than any of the comparator regionsin this age range, with more than 65% of the populationin 2006 holding at least a college diploma or associate’sdegree. This represents an increase from 56% in 2001.

While the region does not perform well in terms ofoverall numbers of citizens with post-graduate andprofessional degrees in the total workforce compared tothe selected comparators in the U.S., there has been a2% overall increase in this measure (an increase of morethan 17,000 people) since 2001 (Fig. 14). Only Montrealhas enjoyed comparable growth. Indeed, the dramaticincrease in post-graduate and professional degreesbetween 2001 and 2006 shows a healthy positive trendthat many of the comparators have failed to replicate.Some of the U.S. comparators experienced a declinein this category, and many showed very small growth.

More Business, Science and Technology master’s anddoctorate graduates are ready to become the nextgeneration of managers and professionals.

%of

Pop

ulat

ion

25-3

4


Percent of Population 25-34 years with a Post-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006

5665

.2

60.3

55.2

53.3

53.8

51.9

53

49.9

56.8

40.841

.9

35.6

35.2

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

2001

200630

40

50

60

70

Fig. 13

GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FORPOST-GRADUATE EDUCATION

The Reaching Higher plan, unveiled in the2005 Ontario Budget, targeted 14,000 newpost-graduate spaces school by 2009/10.It also identified an additional 104 first-yearundergraduate medical spaces by 2008/09.This program was part of the Ontariogovernment’s $6.2 billion investmentin post-secondary education.(www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/tcu/about/annualreport)

20

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Per

cent

ofP

opul

atio

n25

-34

Sources: Conference Board of Canada, U.S. Census Bureau, California Department of Finance, MA Index

Percent of Population Aged 25-34 years with a Post-Graduate andProfessional Degree, 2001 and 2006

1817

1514

1314

1010

8

68

6

87

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

2001

20060

4

8

12

16

20

Fig. 14

As Fig. 15 shows, in the period 2006-2007, the TorontoRegion graduated more students in the category “allother university fields” than in business, science andtechnology. A closer look at the graduations in thatperiod, however, shows that a greater number of post-graduate degrees were awarded in business science andtechnology as well as in professional degrees in medical-related fields and law (Fig. 16). This indicates that theoverall education of the population is good at theundergraduate level and that more students areselecting professional post-graduate studies whichadds to the talent pool of highly qualified individuals.This is likely to persist, with higher enrolment levels inpost-graduate programs in Toronto Region universities.

These individuals are particularly important in lightof another important study, which found that in 2001,Ontario managers still had a way to go to catch upwith U.S. managers’ education levels. In 1996, 46% ofU.S. managers had a university degree, compared toconsiderably fewer (31%) of Ontario managers. Ontarioresults for 2001 indicated that although the educationalattainment of Ontario managers has increased, theprovince’s results in 2001 still did not match U.S. resultsfor 1996. A higher percentage of Ontario managers hadless than a high school diploma, and fewer Ontariomanagers had a high school diploma, a bachelor’sdegree, or a graduate degree.12

“Cities with larger concentrations of degree holders –measured as a percentage of the local employmentbase – have, on balance, experienced faster employmentgrowth – 2.0% per annum – than cities with smallerrelative concentrations of degree holders – 1.6%. Thesedifferences may appear to be small but, due tocompound growth, over the 20-year study period a citythat grew at 2% would grow by 49%, while a city with agrowth rate of 1.6% would grow by a more modest 37%.”

– Desmond Beckstead, W. Mark Brown and Guy Gellatly,Cities and Growth: The Left Brain. Stats Canada, 2008, p. 17.

Fig. 17 shows that the Toronto Region is graduating fewerengineers per 100,000 than comparator regions. Therehas, however, been a positive upturn in the graduation ratesince 2001, with marked increases in undergraduate,master’s and doctorate degrees in engineering.

This rate of increase needs to be sustained and improvedin all professional, scientific and technical disciplines togrow the workforce of the future. Even though the TorontoRegion graduates fewer engineers, in absolute numbers,than the comparator regions, the number of engineersgraduating has been steadily increasing, with 30% morebachelor’s between 2002 and 2007, for instance.

21

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Number of Degrees

Source: CUDO

Percent of Population 25-34 years with aPost-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006

21,000

26,000

0 5,000 10,00 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000

Business, Scienceand Technology

All OtherUniversity Fields

Fig. 15

Number of Degrees

Source: CUDO

Post-graduate Business, Science and Technology, and Other Educational Degrees Awarded in the Toronto Region 2006-2007 Academic Year

Business, Scienceand Technology

All OtherUniversity Fields

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000

Master’s Degree

Doctorate

4,017

3,460

669

543

Fig. 16

Num

ber

ofD

egre

espe

r10

0,00

0

Sources: CUDO, American Assoication of Engineering Societies Inc., Montreal Universities

Engineering Degrees Awarded, per 100,000 Population, 2002 and 2007

8

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

2002 2007

Doctorate

Master’s

Bachelor’s

32

88

12

37

83

8

57

46

12

76

40

5

28

40

8

24

32

3

21

41

3

22

40

313

41

4

21

45

18

30

313

39

31021

41220

Fig. 17

22

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

THE TORONTO REGION NEEDS MORERESIDENTS WITH UNIVERSITY DEGREES,PARTICULARLY POST-GRADUATE DEGREESThe high level of residents in the age range 25-34 whohave first degrees and diplomas shows that the value ofeducation is recognized in the Toronto Region.

Overall, the Toronto Region has fewer citizens withuniversity degrees than select U.S. comparators. TheU.S. has, however, far more post-secondary institutions –4,000 colleges and universities13 – than Canada, includingmany private universities giving citizens greater accessto higher education. Canadian and US qualifications arenot, however, directly comparable as accreditation ofinstitutions is voluntary in the U.S., not regulated bygovernment as it is in Canada. Independent accreditingorganizations are approved by the government and defineminimum standards of education in the U.S. Theseorganizations 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 associationscomprised of institutions and academic specialists inspecific subjects.15

Furthermore, the region has relatively fewer residentswith post-graduate education; i.e., individuals who holdmaster’s, professional degrees (such as M.B.A. or M.D.)or doctorates. As Michael McKenzie points out in a 2007StatsCan report, “people who hold doctorates are animportant piston in Canada’s labour force engine. Theynot only represent the highest educational attainmentlevel in a knowledge-based economy, they are also highlyskilled industrial researchers and innovators, teachersand professors and scientists who take care of ourhealth as well.”16

More people with higher-level degrees would contributedollars as well as expertise to the Toronto Regioneconomy. The earning power of post-secondary graduatesis considerably higher than for those who do not completeuniversity or college. According to StatsCan figures for2000, the average salary of a Canadian resident was$32,000. For an Ontario resident, it was $36,000. For aToronto Region resident, it was $42,000. Science andengineering doctorates in Toronto earned about double:$81,450 for doctorates working in the private sector and$83,321 for doctorates working in the public sector, foran average annual income of $82,115 for both sectors.17

Canada’s Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperitycorroborates these findings, pointing out that “In both thestock and flow of science and engineering graduates, wetrail the U.S. in graduate degrees.”18

“…an emerging consensus is that as the world’seconomies become even more sophisticated, highlyskilled workers are simply more valuable and earnhigher incomes. And the difference in economic rewards

received by them and less skilled workers widens. Asemerging economies, like China and India, advance, wecan expect that less-skilled workers in the developedeconomies will fall further behind. There will also begreater competitive pressure on higher skilled workers,as China and India move up the value chain and competeon more sophisticated bases.”

– Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity,Prosperity, Inequality and Poverty, Sept. 2007, p. 8.

“We find significant interactions between scientists andengineers and the broader cross-section of degreeholders located in cities: the latter may be the primarymechanism through which scientists and engineerscontribute to the growth process. In short, scientistsand engineers – the left brain of cities – matter most forgrowth when combined with a large and diverse pool ofhuman capital.”

– Desmond Beckstead, W. Mark Brown and Guy Gellatly,Cities and Growth: The Left Brain. Stats Canada, 2008, p. 32.

WHY EDUCATION RESOURCES ARE IMPORTANTIn the past, the traditional Ontario manufacturing baseprovided high-paying jobs which typically did not requirepost-secondary education. Today, blue collar jobs thatprovide a middle class lifestyle are much less frequentlyavailable to the new entrant to the workforce and are onthe decline within the working population.

As a recent StatsCan study pointed out, “there has beena transformation of the work force toward workers withhigher skill levels, and those cities that are better able toattract these kinds of workers may end up the winners inthis new age.”19

TORONTO REGION’S FLEXIBLE PART-TIMEMASTER’S PROGRAM IN ENGINEERING

Toronto’s Advanced Design and ManufacturingInstitute (ADMI) is a unique commitment toachieve excellence in graduate engineeringeducation. The Faculties of Engineering and/orApplied Science and the Business Schools ofthe partnering universities collaborate to delivera quality master’s degree program in Designand Manufacturing. The program builds on theexpertise in manufacturing and design of fourof the strongest academic programs availablein the province of Ontario, and integratesthe elements of business practices andmanagement skills so essential in thecompetitive engineering marketplace.(www.admicanada.com)

23

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

There has been a transition from “doing” to “thinking”jobs, and studies confirm that a highly-educatedworkforce is essential for innovation. As one reportcompleted for the government of Ontario says, “newgraduates, who have had the opportunity to participate inthe conduct of basic research, enter industry equippedwith training, knowledge, networks and expertise. Theybring to the firm knowledge of recent scientific research,as well as an ability to solve complex problems, performresearch, and develop ideas. The skills developedthrough their educational experience with advancedinstrumentation, techniques and scientific methods areextremely valuable Students also bring with them a setof qualifications, helping set standards for knowledgein an industry.”20

A large number of scientists and engineers in a citycan make tremendous contributions to its research,economic growth and technological innovation. Theycan also forge important synergies with other degree-holders, and drive innovation much more forcefully thanthe other degree-holders could on their own. As theStatsCan paper Cities and Growth: The Left Brain putsit, “scientists and engineers – the left brain of cities –matter most for growth when combined with a largeand diverse pool of human capital.”21

THE BOTTOM LINE

• The Toronto Region needs to sustain and grow its numbers of post-secondary graduates at the first degreeor 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 anddoctorate degrees

• Toronto Region needs to assess barriers to entry for students with respect to graduate degrees. We needto look at whether there are enough graduate positions, whether the system needs to be more flexible andaccessible, and whether there should be more interaction with industry

24

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

RESEARCH &DEVELOPMENT FUNDINGResearch & Development (R&D) funding includes supportfrom the private sector, support from the public sector aswell as joint support from both, in collaboration with oneanother. Research and development provides knowledgeand technologies for transfer to the market and fundinghere is important to ensure sufficient supply of these.

Private sector support for R&D in the Toronto Region isincreasing. In fact, by international G8 standards, Canadaas a whole does well: the private sector funds more than10% of university research.22

Research conducted at universities, whether at a basiclevel or in partnership with industry is fundamental to thedevelopment of a competitive R&D infrastructure and,hence, innovation within Canada.23

As Fig. 18 shows, the Toronto Region is conductingincreasing amounts of R&D which involves collaborationbetween industry and universities. One importantmeasure of this is the growing contribution that theNational Sciences and Engineering Research Council(NSERC) Collaborative Research and Development (CRD)Grants program has been making to the Toronto Region.NSERC is a federal agency that invests in universityresearch and training in the natural sciences andengineering by encouraging Canadian companies toinvest in university R&D.24 Its CRD grants program isintended to give companies that operate from a Canadianbase access to the unique knowledge, expertise, and

educational resources available at Canadian post-secondary institutions and to train students in essentialtechnical skills required by industry.25

The scale of available government assistance and fundingfor R&D in the U.S. is much higher than in Canada(Fig. 19). Within Canada, Greater Montreal receivesmore R&D funding per capita than the Toronto Region.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANADIAN ANDU.S. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF PRIVATESECTOR R&D

The Canadian and U.S. governments take asignificantly different approach to supportingprivate sector R&D. According to 2004 data, inCanada, government spends about 0.18% of GDPwhereas governments in the U.S. spend about0.26% of GDP on such support. The countriesdiffer in level of support provided relative to thesizes of economies, with the US almost 45%higher, and in the mix of direct versus indirectfunding. In Canada, about 84% of the support isin the form of tax credits (indirect), most notablythe Scientific Research & ExperimentalDevelopment (SR&ED) program and the balance(16%) is direct (grants, loans, etc). In the U.S.,most support (76%) is in the form of directgrants and similar payments, with the balance(24%) in the form of tax incentives.

OECD, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2006

Mill

ions

Source: NSERC

NSERC Collaborative Research and Development ProjectExpenditures in Toronto Region, 1997-2008 (Constant 2006 CAD)

5.1

5.7

6.0

5.8

6.3

6.97.8

8.4

8.4

10.0

10.3

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Fig. 18

25

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

There is no single strategy that will improve this situationin the Toronto Region. The current range of strategies,including some new initiatives, have the potential tomake an impact on and further strengthen the region’sgrowing ability to attract more research funds to theregion’s institutions as well as more research-intensivefirms. These include an increasing number of governmentinitiatives aimed at educational institutes and research-intensive firms, as well as mechanisms to indirectlyassist in funding private sector research such as federalR&D tax credits.

Spending on R&D in both the private and publicsectors is low

As Fig.19 shows, the Toronto Region ranks poorlyand is fifth out of seven in the natural sciences andinfrastructure, faring better in social science, and lastin health. In addition, in terms of private sector R&D,despite the increasing the amount of collaborative R&Dit funds, the fact is clear that the Toronto Region isconsiderably lower in reported per capita expenditureson R&D than all of the other comparator regions, exceptMontreal (Fig. 20).

280

5288

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Dol

lars

Federal Government R&D Fundingto Research Institutions, Per Capita, 2000-2007, Constant 2006 USD

Sources: NSERC, CFI, CIHR, SSHRC, NIH, NSF

Federal Research Health Funding

Federal Research Natural Sciences Funding

Federal Research Infrastructure Funding

Federal Research Social Funding

4,258

280

2,568

238

40121

1,242

164

2466

422

6728 25

390

6113 35

254

167

63 74

169

142

40 46

Silicon Valle

y

Massach

usetts

Toro

ntoRegion

Montreal

Researc

h Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

Fig. 19

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FORR&D AND ADVANCED MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ontario will make $150 million available overthe next five years to attract new or enhancedbiopharmaceutical investments to the province,through its Biopharmaceutical InvestmentProgram (BIP). The provincial government willuse these funds to support up to 20% of totaleligible project costs. This public sectorinvestment will increase the province’s levelof new biopharmaceutical R&D and advancedmanufacturing, expand the footprint of localbusinesses, create new high value jobs forOntarians, increase “deal flow” within Ontario’sgrowing biotech cluster, and build capacity throughcollaborations with public research institutions.

The government is also funding the Strategic Oppor-tunities Program (SOP), a five-year discretionary,non-entitlement grant program that supportsstrategic, industry-led programs and projects intargeted areas of strength for Ontario including:

• Bio-economy and clean technologies• Advanced health technologies, and• Digital media and Information andCommunications technologies (ICT).

(www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/bip/ program.asp,www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/sop/ program.asp)

26

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

WHY R&D FUNDING IS IMPORTANTThe presence of R&D facilities moves industry “up thefood chain,” from branch plants that manufacture goodsinto central facilities that create goods and wealth.

R&D staff in industry seek and maintain goodrelationships with universities. This is encouragedby employers and strengthens the link between bothgroups. Industries’ R&D departments add applicabilityto university training and add academic intelligence toindustry, substantially benefitting both parties.26, 27

R&D facilities in the private sector create opportunitiesfor highly-trained post-secondary graduates. They createhigh value-add employment for post-secondary graduatestrained in the Toronto Region, thereby encouraging themto stay in the region. They also ensure that the TorontoRegion can attract highly-educated immigrants andemploy them at an appropriate level. In addition, theystrengthen innovation within the region by stimulatingnetworks and interactions between and among theacademic community and its counterpart in industry.

As Mike Lazaridis, founder, President and co-CEO ofWaterloo-based Research in Motion said in his 2004presentation to the fourth annual Re$earch MoneyConference in Ottawa, “if you really want to understandcommercialization, all you have to do is attend convocationat your local university ... Armed with cutting edge

technology from around the world, the latest tools, thelatest techniques and processes learned from their workunder the very best researchers, they graduate with muchfanfare and go on to build the industry, institutions andsociety of our country.”28

R&D jobs tend to be highly paid, and are taken byprofessionals, raising the overall economic base andsocioeconomic level of a region.

Post-secondary graduates tend to be comfortable aroundinnovation and the adoption of new ideas and technologies,increasing the overall “innovativeness” of the area.

Government funding for R&D in universities upgradesthe supply of innovation by encouraging competition forpeer-reviewed R&D funding and interest from venturecapitalists.29

Support of R&D within the private sector supports themanagement talent necessary to commercialize R&Dideas. As highlighted by Roger L. Martin, “technicalstrengths in science and technology are probably themost important contributors to the quantity and quality ofthe supply of innovation. Management skills are critical toorganizing R&D efforts, for setting priorities, developingstrategies, and acquiring resources. Good managementskills also provide the pressure to ensure high qualityresource allocation decisions among competing prioritiesfor research funding.”30

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Source: Standard and Poor’s COMPUSTAT

R&D expenditure per $1000 USD sales per 100,000 people, 2007

4.28

1.340.83

0.33 0.16 0.09 0.04

Silicon Valle

y

Massachusetts

Toronto

Region

Montreal

Research Triangle

Illinois

Michigan

Fig. 20

THE BOTTOM LINE

• The Toronto Region needs R&D investment from the federal and provincial governments to strengthen theR&D infrastructure and build a base upon which to train graduate students and attract R&D-intenseindustries 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

HOW WE AREPERFORMING

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

27

28

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

R&D INDICATORSThe Conference Board of Canada report InnovationOverview (2008) states “Innovation is the ability to turnknowledge into new and improved goods and services.”ATRIG looked at the quantitative measures of the TorontoRegion’s commercialization and knowledge transfermechanisms – the publications, invention disclosures,patent applications, patents granted and licenses. In theToronto Region our institutions are important as they arethe main producers of these outputs and these providetangible evidence that the region’s R&D is being transferredfrom the region’s research institutions to the market.

Knowledge transfer in the Toronto Region is improving

The Toronto Region is performing well with respect tooverall quantity of scientific publications. The number ofpublications has increased over time (Fig. 21), however,this upward trend is one which is being demonstratedby all comparator regions (Fig. 22). In fact, most ofthe comparators are publishing more, per 100,000population, and only Illinois and Michigan trail theToronto Region.

The impact of Toronto Region publications is low

The Toronto Region is publishing more, but the relativeimpact, as measured by Average Relative Impact Factor(a weighted measure of citations in science and socialscience journals that demonstrates the importance of ajournal to its field) is lower. Montreal is the only comparatorregion that has a lower relative impact (Fig. 23).

Num

ber

ofP

ublic

atio

ns

Source: OST

Number of Scientific Publications by Authors at Toronto Region Universities, 2000-2006

7,810 7,6468,041

8,8719,044

10,182

10,952

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 20067,500

8,500

9,500

10,500

11,500

Fig. 21

$205 MILLION IN NEW VENTURE CAPITAL FORINNOVATIVE, HIGH-GROWTH COMPANIES

In June 2008, the Ontario government andleading institutional investors launched the new$205-million Ontario Venture Capital Fund tostrengthen the province’s venture capital sectorto support growing innovation. TD Capital PrivateEquity Investors is the fund manager. Otherleading intuitional partners include: OMERSCapital Partners, RBC Capital Partners, ManulifeFinancial, Business Development Bank ofCanada, TD Bank Financial Group, and theGovernment of Ontario.

The Ontario Venture Capital Fund will investprimarily in Ontario-focused venture capitaland growth funds. These funds will enable theprovince’s venture capital sector to better supportinnovative, high-growth companies in Ontario bymaking it easier for them to find the investment,expertise and support they need.

Says Rob MacLellan, Chief Investment Officer, TDBank, “as patient venture capital investors, we'reconfident the Ontario Venture Capital Fund cannot only produce attractive returns but can alsohave a significant impact on creating a virtuouscycle that will drive incremental investment inworld-class Ontario-based technology andinnovation over the long term.”34, 35, 36

29

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Number of Scientific Publications per 100,000 Population, 2000-2006

Source: OST

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Silicon Valley

Research Triangle

Massachusetts

MontrealToronto RegionIllinoisMichigan

Fig. 22

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

AR

IF

Average Relative Impact Factors (ARIF) of Publications, 2000-2006

Toronto Region

Montreal

MassachusettsSilicon Valley

Research Triangle

MichiganIllinois

Source: OST

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

Fig. 23

30

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Total Licenses, Patents (Applications and Issued), and InventionDisclosures, Universities and Hospitals, per 100,000 Population, 2001

Source: AUTM

Silicon Valley

Research Triangle

Massachusetts

Montreal

Toronto Region

Illinois

Michigan

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

2006

2001

168132

6477

5843

131313

712

89

7

Fig. 25

Average Relative Citations (ARC), 2000-2006

Source: OST

Silicon Valley

Research Triangle

Massachusetts

Montreal

Toronto Region

Illinois

Michigan

1.25 1.35 1.45 1.55

ARC

1.65 1.75 1.85

1.296

1.409

1.511

1.511

1.603

1.841

1.846

Fig. 24

Relative citations show the same pattern (Fig. 24). Thisindicator shows the average number of times papersfrom Toronto Region academics are referenced by otheracademics, providing an indication of the relevance of thework as determined by academic peers.

The Toronto Region’s relative impact – where wepublish and how much we commercialize – is low,but, is increasing.

In terms of the identification, protection and transferof intellectual property, the total licenses, discoveries,patents and inventions from Toronto Region universitiesand research hospitals between 2001 and 2006 hasalmost doubled (Fig. 25). No other comparator regionhas increased so dramatically. While the Toronto Regionperforms relatively poorly on technology commercialization(as measured in patents granted and licensing revenue)in comparison to Silicon Valley and Massachusetts, theregion’s performance is, however, comparable to Illinois,Michigan, the Research Triangle and Montreal.

MARS INNOVATION TO ACCELERATECOMMERCIALIZATION

MaRS Innovation is one of 11 new federally-supportedCentres of Excellence for Commercialization andResearch (CECRs) announced in February 2008.MaRS Innovation is a joint venture between theMaRS Centre, University of Toronto and Toronto’sresearch hospitals to offer global industry a onestop linkage into the Toronto research engine.

The partnership received $14.9million in federalCECR funding over five years to accelerate thecommercialization of promising research fromitsmember institutions. Joint teams fromMaRSInnovation and each institution will work withresearchers to identify discoveries that can be usedas the basis for new companies or used by existingcompanies. MaRS Innovation will focus on deliveringthe best of Toronto’s innovations in a timely, effectiveand industry focusedmanner. www.marsdd.com

31

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

geTHE BOTTOM LINE

• The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large and highly-educated population, diverse industries andhigh 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 forcommercialization

• The Toronto Region’s performance with respect to R&D outputs is relatively weak; the region needs tocontinue focusing on this area

WHY ARE THE OUTPUTS OF R&DIMPORTANT?Transferring research to the market in the form ofpublication or intellectual property allows universitiesto realize their potential as economic drivers. Researchpapers developed in universities that result in patentsand licenses translate academic discoveries intoinnovative approaches and tangible products whicheventually make their way to the market.

One study completed in 2006 for the University of Toronto’sCentre for International Studies Program on Globalizationand Regional Innovation Systems put together a numberof conclusions from various researchers about theimportance of this knowledge transfer:

• University research is important to local firms not justfor the transfer of knowledge generated through theuniversity’s own research activities, but also as a conduitenabling firms to access knowledge from the “globalpipelines” of international academic research networks.

• Universities serve as attractors of talent fromelsewhere that contributes to the “thickness” of thelocal labour market.

• Universities often function as “good communityplayers” rather than “ivory towers” insulated from theircommunity. They facilitate local linkages and networks,and serve as “anchors of creativity” that sustain thevirtuous cycle of talent attraction and retention.31

Another study, completed for the Massachusetts Instituteof Technology, points out that universities play animportant role in helping attract new human, knowledgeand financial resources from elsewhere. In addition, “theycan help to adapt knowledge originating elsewhere tolocal conditions. They can help to integrate previouslyseparate areas of technological activity. They can help tounlock and redirect knowledge that is already present inthe region but not being put to productive use.”32

R&D indicators encourage collaboration and networkingby publicizing work currently underway. As the MIT studyalso points out, in addition to education, universities alsoplay an important indirect role in serving as a “publicspace for ongoing local conversations about the futuredirection of technologies and markets. The importanceof the public space role of the university and itscontribution to local innovation performance isoften underestimated.”33

A large number of patents, publications and licensesindicates not only research excellence, but also innovationcapacity, the ability to transfer research to the market.

The number of patents, publications and licensescommunicate the status of the Toronto Region’s R&Dcompared to that of the rest of the world.

The number of disclosures, patents and licensescommunicate the relevance of the Toronto Region’sresearch activities to the market.

THE ONTARIO CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (OCE)CENTRE FOR THE COMMERCIALIZATION OFRESEARCH (CCR)

The Centre for the Commercialization ofResearch (CCR), led by The Ontario Centresof Excellence, will help ensure that newtechnologies developed by Canada’s outstandingresearch universities reach the globalmarketplace. Its initial focus will be oncommercializing new technology discoveriesrelated to the environment, natural resources andenergy, health and related life sciences, anddigital media. CCR will also develop technical andmanagerial talent nationally, to more effectivelycommercialize technology.38 www.oce-ontario.org

32

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

CONCLUSION

33

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large andeducated population and diverse industries, among otherpillars of strength. Even though the Toronto Region ispublishing more, and issuing more patents and licenses,it is important to build on these strengths through moreprivate and public sector investment in R&D. Theseinitiatives will ensure that the Toronto Region startsproducing and reaches its potential for innovation.

TORONTO REGION STRENGTHSThe Toronto Region is strong in the “feeders”for innovation:

• Population growth

• Positive immigration

• Attraction of skilled and educated immigrants

• Strong key industrial sectors including sectors outsidemanufacturing, which have high levels of employment

• Good postsecondary education levels in society andstrong growth in level of educational attainment

• A growing number of licenses, patents and inventionsfrom its universities and hospitals.

IMPROVEMENTS “IN THE WORKS”The Toronto Region is taking measures to improvesome of its weaker areas – graduate education andcommercialization:

• Large increases in the enrolment numbers ofstudents to graduate programs at the master’s anddoctorate level

• Federal initiatives and provincial programs toencourage the discovery process and increase outputof innovations from our institutions

• Provincial programs to encourage companies to hirestaff in high-value jobs.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT• More R&D investment in the Toronto Region from thepublic and private sectors

• Better public recognition for the R&D strengths andother related “attributes” in the region, as well as abetter understanding of the strengths we have.

COMING UP IN FUTURETRRA REPORTSFuture TRRA reports will focus in on specific areas ofresearch that indicate how the Toronto Region is doing ininnovation in addition to comparing the Toronto Region toothers. TRRA will be sharing:

• The results of our study on the Toronto Region’s labourforce

• Our research and initial findings on networks within theadvanced manufacturing labour market

• A look on the products of innovation in the TorontoRegion – influences on and increases in ourperformance with respect to patents, research papersand licenses

• An in-depth look at key areas of immigration in theToronto Region as well as effectively immigrants arebeing integrated and engaged

• A look at how the Toronto region compares with respectto copyright materials, an aspect of innovation notconsidered in ATRIG this year.

34

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Mr. Michael BenedictPrincipal, MCB Strategies Inc.

Mr. Charles DavisEdward S. Rogers Sr. Research Chair in MediaManagement and EntrepreneurshipRyerson University

Dr. Paul GenestPresident & CEOCouncil of Ontario Universities

Mr. John HoickaSenior Research and Policy AdvisorColleges Ontario

Ms. Elizabeth McIsaacExecutive DirectorTRIEC

Mr. James MilwayExecutive DirectorInstitute for Competitiveness and ProsperityMartin Prosperity Institute

Ms. Avvey PetersExecutive Director, Communications& Government RelationsCommunitech

Mr. Shahrokh Shahabi-AzadSenior Economist, Innovation and Corporate PolicyBranch, Ministry of Research and Innovation

Ms. José SigouinResearch and Information AnalysisUniversity of Toronto

Ms. Natasha Tang KaiSenior Advisor, Performance Measurement and ResultsMinistry of Research and Innovation

Mr. John TennantCEOCanada’s Technology Triangle Inc.

Dr. David WolfeCo-Director, Program on Globalization and RegionalInnovation SystemsUniversity of Toronto

PRIMARY AUTHOR

Dr. Karen SievewrightDirector, ResearchTRRA

RESEARCH ASSISTANTSBettina CheungOdila DuruAlex HuntRichard LiangMichael WolfeAndrew Wong

ATRIG ADVISORY COUNCIL

35

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

APPENDICES &ENDNOTES

36

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

APPENDIX 1 – SELECTION OF COMPARATOR REGIONSSix 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 Regioncomes 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 economicand infrastructural influences.

Industrial make-up: The selected regions have a similar range of industries and employment levels withinthese industries.

Strong manufacturing base: While the Toronto Region historically has had a very strong manufacturing base, thesector has experienced recent declines. Due to the significance of this industry, certain other regions strong inmanufacturing were selected to compare to the Toronto Region.

Research intensity: Research and innovation are key contributors to the new knowledge-based economy. The TorontoRegion, therefore, is compared to other research-intensive areas.

Model regions: Regions which present models that the Toronto Region could aspire to become were selected. Thecomparator regions are all considered to be successful in one aspect or another. For example, Silicon Valley performs verywell in certain indicators and, even though it is not realistic that the Toronto Region performs on par or better than thisarea, it is still useful to see where the Toronto Region ranks in relation to successful regions.

37

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

COMPARATOR REGIONS

Illinois: Illinois has a strong economy and is geographically close to the Toronto Region. These similarities warrantits inclusion in the 2008 report. The state is located just south of Lake Michigan, and has a population of 12.9 millionpeople.46 In 2006, the gross state product in Illinois was $589 billion US dollars. Much of the state’s economic successoccurs 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, butdeclining, 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.Illinois is a R&D centre and nine universities are located in the state. The University of Chicago and NorthwesternUniversity perform extremely well in various school rankings.49

($)A

vera

geW

age


Retail TradeConstruction

Other Services

Wholesale Trade


Finance & InsuranceUtilities

Professional, Scientific & Technical Services

EducationalServices

Manufacturing

Transportation & Warehousing



Waste Management & Remediation ServiceAccommodation &

Food Services

20,000

10,000

0

50,000

40,000

30,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

Location Quotient

1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25

Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North AmericanConcentration, Illinois, 2006


38

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Massachusetts: Massachusetts is a successful state, with a gross state product of $338 billion US dollars. At 6.4 millionpeople, it is very similar in size to the Toronto Region.50 Massachusetts has transitioned from a manufacturingeconomy,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 majorcomponent 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 similarconditions. The state is also an important model, having successfully transformed its economy to take advantage ofnew technologies and research.

($)A

vera

geW

age

Health Care & Social Assistance

Retail Trade

Construction

Other Services

Wholesale Trade


Finance & Insurance

Utilities



Manufacturing



Real Estate & Rental Leasing

Waste Management & Remediation Service

Accommodation& Food Services0

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75

Location Quotient

2.00 2.25 2.50

Management of Companies & Enterprises

Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North AmericanConcentration, Massachusetts, 2006


39

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Michigan: Similar to Illinois, Michigan is good comparator region. It is close to the Toronto Region and is known for itsstrong 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 declinemanufacturing 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(a $1 billion biotech initiative),58 and has a number of large research institutions.

($)A

vera

geW

age


Retail Trade

Construction

Other Services

Wholesale TradeInformation & Cultural Industries

Finance & Insurance UtilitiesProfessional, Scientific & Technical Services

Manufacturing

Transportation & Warehousing Arts, Entertainment

& Recreation




40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10

Location Quotient

1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50


Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North AmericanConcentration, Michigan, 2006


40

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Montreal: Montreal is the second largest census metropolitan area (CMA) in Canada,39 with a population of just over3.5 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 theNational Research Council.42, 43 There are 11 universities and 12 public colleges located in the region, making the regionthe second-highest ratio of students per capita in North America 44, 45 Montreal conducts and receives significantresearch and research dollars as is shown in exhibits 19 and 22.

Montreal was selected as the only Canadian comparator in the 2008 Innovation Gauge because of its strong researchfocus, proximity to the Toronto Region, and its successful economy.

($)A

vera

geW

age

Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North AmericanConcentration, Montreal, 2006

Health Care &Social Assistance Retail Trade

Construction

Other ServicesWholesale Trade


Finance & Insurance

Utilities


Manufacturing



Real Estate &Rental and Leasing

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20

Location Quotient

1.30 1.40 1.50


41

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Silicon Valley: Silicon Valley is located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area. The region has a populationof 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. Theregion also has a high number of Fortune 1000 companies.60 Silicon Valley attracts a large number of engineers andventure capital.

There are five universities within Silicon Valley, with Carnegie Melon and Stanford being amongst them. Because ofthis, and the nature of the businesses and research in Silicon Valley, the population is highly-educated and the regionattracts a large amount of public research funding.61 Often the pinnacle in North American innovation, research, anddevelopment, Silicon Valley represents a compelling story for the possibilities provided through innovation.

($)A

vera

geW

age


Retail Trade

Construction

OtherServices

Wholesale Trade Information & Cultural IndustriesFinance & Insurance



Manufacturing





Waste Management &Remediation Service


60,000

40,000

20,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75

Location Quotient

2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75

Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North AmericanConcentration, Silicon Valley, 2006


42

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Research Triangle: Located in North Carolina, the Research Triangle is made up of three cities – Raleigh, Durham andChapel Hill – and has a population of 1.6 million people.62 The region consists of numerous high technology businessesand 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 growingnumber 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 makesthe Research Triangle similar to the Toronto Region in many ways, and sets many goals that the Toronto Region shouldtry and emulate in some capacity.

Note: In three cases, entire states were used over municipalities for the U.S. comparators (e.g., Massachusetts insteadof Boston) as they were thought to be a more suitable comparison to the Toronto Region because they include bothurban and rural areas and due to limitations in the data available at the municipal level.

($)A

vera

geW

age


Retail Trade

Construction

OtherServices

Wholesale Trade

Finance & InsuranceProfessional, Scientific & Technical Services


Manufacturing





Accommodation &Food Services

0

30,000

20,000

10,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40

Location Quotient

1.60 1.80

Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage, and Relative North AmericanConcentration, Research Triangle, 2006


43

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

APPENDIX 2 – METHODOLOGY/DATA SOURCES

DEFINITION OF REGIONS

Toronto Region (TR): Unless otherwise stated, the Toronto Region data is calculated by using five Census MetropolitanAreas (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.

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

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. Theformula was:

( Ending Value )Sources

Silicon Valley:


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)

( 1 )Beginning Value

# of yearsCAGR = -1

44

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Montreal:






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 theCalifornia Department of Finance. Both the Toronto Region data and the Montreal data are from the Conference Boardof Canada. For the Toronto Region and Montreal, the net domestic migration was calculated by adding the netinterprovincial migration with the net intercity migration. The net migration was calculated by adding the netinternational migration, the net interprovincial migration, and the net intercity migration.

Sources

Toronto Region:


Montreal:

Conference Board – Demograhpics – TR, Van, Mtl, Cgy – 1995-2010 (private purchased data)





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


Silicon Valley:


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 migrationwas calculated by adding the net interprovincial migration with the net intercity migration. The net migration wascalculated by adding the net international migration, the net interprovincial migration, and the net intercity migration.

Source

Toronto Region:


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 numberwas then calculated as a percent of the total national number of immigrants.

45

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Sources

Toronto Region & Montreal:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&PID=93716&GID=837928&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


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 summedfrom 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=837928&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 acrossCanada and the United States, NAICS 99 (industry unclassified) was removed for the U.S. comparators, as this data doesnot 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 usingthe following method. The average wage for Montreal and the TR was calculated by summing the number of employeesin 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 eachCMA. The average wage for each major NOC code for each NAICS code was then calculated using a weighted averagebased on the number of employees. Finally, the average wage for each NOC code for each NAICS code was weighted bythe number of employees in the corresponding NOC code and then summed.

Sources

Toronto Region and Montreal:


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=74&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=99&O=A

United States:

http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000U.S.&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-_lang=en

46

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Research Triangle:

http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-geo_id=31000U.S.20380&-_lang=en



Silicon Valley:



Massachusetts:


Michigan:


Illinois:


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 acrossCanada and the United States, NAICS 99 (industry unclassified) was removed for the U.S. comparators, as this datadoes not exist for the Canadian comparators. Also, the U.S. NAICS code 42 was changed to 41 to match the CanadianNAICS, 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 usingthe following method. The average wage for Montreal and the TR was calculated by summing the number of employeesin 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 eachCMA. The average wage for each major NOC code for each NAICS code was then calculated using a weighted averagebased on the number of employees. Finally, the average wage for each NOC code for each NAICS code was weighted bythe number of employees in the corresponding NOC code and then summed.

Sources

Toronto Region and Montreal:



Canada:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/highlights/labour/Table602.cfm?Lang=E&T=602&GH=4&SC=1&SO=99&O=A

United States:

http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000U.S.&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-_lang=en

Research Triangle:




47

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Silicon Valley:



Massachusetts:


Michigan:


Illinois:


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 eachcomparator region.

Source


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 Americafrom 2001 to 2007. The number for each year was added, then divided by 7 to derive the average annual number overthe period.

Sources

http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/section_node/0,1042,sid%253D56072,00.html

Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2001







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 threeyear median income was found for the TR and all of the Comparators. These numbers were then converted intoconstant 2005 dollars, which were then converted into 2006 dollars using the GDP/CPI Index. Finally, the TR andMontreal data was converted to U.S. dollars using the Organisation for Economic Development’s (OECD) purchasingpower 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

48

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

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 MateoCounties. Because the information was not available before Census 2000, this number was weighted by population andtaken 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.LSRMapExtent|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=Identify#?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 HillMetropolitan area Because the information was not available before Census 2000, this number was taken as themedian 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.LSRMapExtent|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=Identify#?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



49

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

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 fromFig. 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


2002,3 FCC Report


2001 FCC Report;


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 CommunitySurvey. The percentages were calculated using the population numbers from Fig. 1.

Sources


http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enElevators

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 25YEARS AND OVER


http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=93609&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&Theme=75&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

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 populationnumbers from Fig. 1. Professional degrees include medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and optometry.

Sources


http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enElevators

50

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

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 25YEARS AND OVER


http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=93609&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&Theme=75&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

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, 2006-2007Academic 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 AmericanAssociation of Engineering Societies, Inc. (AAES) in their publication ‘Engineering & Technology Degrees’. The data forthe TR is from CUDO, and the data for Montreal was obtained by contacting each University individually and obtainingdata. Totals were divided by the population numbers from Fig. 1.

Source


“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 reportsand 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

51

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

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), theCanadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The datafor 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 to2006 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


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 theToronto Region was divided into the total sales. This number was then multiplied by 1000 to give the R&D expenditureper $1000 in sales figure. Finally, this number was divided by the total population for each region, and then multipliedby 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


Source


52

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

Fig. 23 – Average Relative Impact Factors (ARIF) of Publications 2000-2006


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


Source


Fig. 25 – Total Licenses, Patents (Applications and Issued), and Invention Disclosures, Universities and Hospitals per100 000 Population, 2001 and 2006

The data is from the Association of University Technology Mangers (AUTM) Licensing Survey. The universities andinstitutions 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

53

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

INTRODUCTIONThe Toronto Region benefits from a diverse economy withexpertise and strength in a wide range of economic sectors.Within this broad range of industries, the Toronto Region ishome to numerous world-ranked clusters of R&D.

The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) worked with TRRA todetermine where the region’s research and developmentstrengths lie. This effort identified over 30 research-intensiveclusters in which the Toronto Region has developed a criticalmass of research, development and business capacity. The topR&D clusters are defined using six key attributes: specializedlabour, anchor companies, leading customers, suppliers andinfrastructure, public sector R&D, and supportive public policies.

In this section, we profile two research-intensive clusters – WaterTechnologies and Risk, Fraud, IT Security & Cryptography – whichare both topical and pertinent to the regional economy. Publichealth 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 researchand business activity in the region. The Toronto Region is thesecond largest financial services centre in North America andalso is home to several universities with exceptionally strongcomputer science, engineering and mathematical expertise andprograms. It is not surprising, therefore, that a vibrant Risk,Fraud, IT Security and Cryptography cluster has emerged.

APPENDIX 3 – SELECTED SECTOR PROFILES

THE TORONTO REGION IS….• The site of a strong Fraud, Risk, IT Security &Cryptography cluster, and which provides importantsupport to the region’s financial services sector(This cluster is the second largest financial centrein North America)

• A growing hub of more than 100 companies that provideIT security products and services, including industryleaders such as: Bioscript, Certicom Co., Cisco SystemsCanada, Digital Cement, Diversinet, IBM Canada, L-1Identity Solutions, Lorex technology Inc., McAfeeCanada, Microsoft Canada, Open Text Corporation,Pharma Algorithms, Route1 Inc., SAP Canada,Symantec Canada, Teranet,Thomson Reuters, andVisual Defence

• The location of a sophisticated customer base thatincludes major financial institutions (e.g., Royal Bank ofCanada, Manulife Financial, and Toronto Stock Exchange),and corporations such as Pitney Bowes, Alcatel-Lucent,Research in Motion, Xerox Canada, and COM DEV

• Home to the University of Toronto and the University ofWaterloo which are ranked among the top 10universities in North America to publish articles relatedto IT security and cryptography

• Producing a growing highly-educated and highly skilledworkforce in this field:

– 11,200 university graduates (all levels) in computerscience, physical science, engineering andmathematics in 2006, 18%more than in 2005

– 2,225 technology graduates from colleges/institutesof technology in 2006, 70%more than in 2005

WORLD CLASS INDEPENDENT RESEARCHAND EDUCATION• Toronto Region universities are a hub of researchexcellence recognized by the National Science andEngineering Research Council (NSERC):

– $1.7 million (40% of all NSERC funding in 2006/07)went to the Toronto Region

54

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

“The Toronto Region is home to one of thelargest and most productive concentrationsof research and development talent in theworld, and serves as a portal to all of NorthAmerica’s major markets and institutions.”

– Dan Fortin, President,IBM Canada Ltd.

COMPUTER FRAUD, RISK, IT SECURITY & CRYPTOGRAPHYIN THE TORONTO REGION

TorontoRegion

Rest ofCanada

40%$1.7MCDN60%

* Includes all grant and scholarship programs

NSERC Funding* for IT Security and Cryptography, Canada, 2007

Growing Number Of Graduates, 2005-2006

COMPUTER ENGINEERING

COMPUTER SCIENCE

MATHEMATICS

4.6%

11.6%

31.0%

Top 10 Publishers (North America) on Computer Fraud,Risk and Security and Cryptography by University from2000-2007

Institution Number of publications

Harvard University 213

University of Texas 182

Stanford University 157

University of Washington 132

University of Toronto 116

University of Waterloo 115

University of California,Los Angeles 114

Columbia University 113

University of Maryland 113

University of Wisconsin 113

Source: ISI

55

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

WORLD CLASS INDEPENDENT RESEARCHAND EDUCATION (CONTINUED)

– 24 of 41 (59%) Canada Research Chairs and NSERCResearchers in Cryptography

– 30 of 98 (31%) Canada Research Chairs and NSERCResearchers in IT Security

– 7 of 19 (37%) Canada Research Chairs inComputer Security

• Toronto Region produces almost half of all IT securityand cryptography publications originating fromCanadian universities, and 30% of all citations

• Over 40 computer science, engineering andmathematics programs are offered at Toronto Regionuniversities and colleges/institutes

• Independent research institutes include: PerimeterInstitute for Theoretical Physics and Guelph-WaterlooPhysics Institute

“…So just in terms of scale...and focus oncomputer science, Waterloo stands out,even on a global basis stands out very, verywell…There are many years where Waterloois the university we hired the most peoplefrom of any in the world, and Waterloo hasalways been in the top five every year…”

– Bill Gates, Founder and Chairman,Microsoft Inc.

University of Waterloo

• Institute for Quantum Computing

• Canadian Centre of Arts and Technology

• Centre for Applied Cryptographic Research

• Institute for Computer Research

• Centre for Computational Mathematics in Industryand Commerce

• GigatoNanoelectronics (G2N) Centre

• Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI)

University of Toronto

• Fields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences

• Centre for Applied Power Electronics

• Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Centre

• 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

McMaster University

• Centre for Emerging Device Technologies

• Centre for the Effective Design of Structures

Ryerson University

• Rogers Communication Centre

• Institute for Innovation and Technology

• Management (IITM)

University of Ontario Institute of Technology

• Hacker Lab

56

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

THE TORONTO REGION IS…..• Located on the shores of the Great Lakes – the world’slargest fresh water source

• Home to over 400 companies providing water-relatedproducts and services, including globally-recognizedcompanies such as: GE Water & ProcessesTechnologies (Zenon International); Pipeline InspectionCompany; Pathogen Detection Systems; Enwave EnergyCorporation; Siemens Water; and Veolia Water

• A focal point for water-related research in three keyareas: drinking water, wastewater and source water

WORLD-LEADING RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

• Toronto Region universities received 30% ($11.4 million)of National Science and Engineering Research Council(NSERC) funding in 2006-07 for research in water-relatedfields, including: drinking water, waste water and waterresourcemanagement, and aquatic ecosystems and species.

• 38% of NSERC Industrial Research Chairs are awardedto Toronto Region researchers

• Home to leading scientists and research programs:

– University of Waterloo: National Science andEngineering Research Council Industrial ResearchChair in Water Treatment; International Chair inWater; University Consortium for Field FocusedGroundwater Contamination Research; Centre forAdvancement of Trenchless Technology

– University of Toronto: National Science andEngineering Research Council Industrial ResearchChair in Drinking Water; Drinking Water ResearchGroup; groundwater contamination;

– University of Guelph: Canada Research Chair in WaterSecurity Supply; Guelph Water Management Group;Groundwater Contamination; Integrated WatershedManagement

– McMaster University: Water Resources andHydrologic Modeling Laboratory; United NationsUniversity International Network on Water,Environment and Health; GroundwaterContamination; Great Lakes; Water Resourcemanagement; Water Resource Public Policy

WATER TECHNOLOGIES IN THE TORONTO REGION:AN IMPORTANT AND GROWING CLUSTER

Top Talent at Toronto Region Universities

University of Waterloo

• Canada Research Chair in Groundwater Remediation

• Canada Research Chair in Water Quality Protection

• Canada Research Chair in Quantitative Hydrogeology

• Canada Research Chair in Limnology (study ofinland waters)

• NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Water Treatment

University of Guelph

• Canada Research Chair in Water Management,

• Canada Research Chair in Water Supply Security

• NSERC Industrial Research Chair in GroundwaterContamination in Fractured Media

• NSERC/University of Guelph Chair in Urban SystemsEnvironmental Design

McMaster University

• Canada Research Chair in Interfacial Technologies(focus water purification)

• Canada Research Chair in Environment and Health

Wilfrid Laurier University

• Canada Research Chair in Cold Regions Hydrology

• NSERC Northern Research Chair in Present and PastHydro-ecology of the Mackenzie Basin Deltas,

Ryerson University

• Canada Research Chair in Environmental Interfacesand Biofilms

University of Ontario Institute of Technology

• Canada Research Chair in Aquatic Toxicology

University of Toronto

• NSERC Industrial Research Chair in DrinkingWater Research

TorontoRegion

Rest ofCanada

70%

* Includes all grant and scholarship programs

NSERC Funding* for Water Research, Canada, 2007

30%$11.4M

57

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

BREADTH AND DEPTH OF WATER-RELATED RESEARCH IN TORONTO REGION UNIVERSITIES

New Treatment Technologies todeal with challenging pollutants(e.g. pharmaceuticals, etc)

Buried Infrastructure – storageand distribution

Maintenance, replacement andnew build

Advanced Materials – membranes,removal technologies

Advanced Materials – membranes, absorption technologies

Emission Reduction – GHG and Odour

Energy Conservation and Efficiency

Infrastructure and equipment –Wells, Extraction, WaterManagement and Fluid Handling

Software –Pollutant/Contamination

Modeling and Water ResourceManagement

Wetland Management

Watershed Modeling

Well Management

Transportation Impact – shipping,roadway runoff, etc.

Sensor / Detector Technology

Energy from waste biomass

Biotechnology – pollutants, treatments,groundwater remediation

11 Canada Research Chairs

5 NSERC Industrial Research Chairs

WASTE WATER DRINKING WATER SOURCE WATER

58

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

APPENDIX 4 – LIST OF ACRONYMS

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

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

TRIEC Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council

TRRA Toronto Region Research Alliance

GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONSTR Toronto Region

MTL Montreal

RT Research Triangle

SV Silicon Valley

IL State of Illinois

MA State of Massachusetts

MI State of Michigan

59

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

ENDNOTES1 The Conference Board of Canada, “Innovation Overview,”http://sso.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/overview/innovation-overview.aspx

2 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

3 The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Prosperity, Inequality and Poverty (Toronto: Institute forCompetitiveness and Prosperity, 2007), p.36, www.competeprosper.ca/download.php?file=WP10.pdf

4 See note 2.5 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

6 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

7 Larry Swanson, “Montana on the Move: Summary of Statewide Roundtable 2004, March 6,”www.crmw.org/MontanaOnTheMove/data/March_6_Summary.pdf

8 See note 2.9 Brian Knudsen et al., Urban Density, Creativity, and Innovation, (Creative Class, 2007), p.9,www.creativeclass.com/rfcgdb/articles/Urban_Density_Creativity_and_Innovation.pdf

10 See note 2 at p.27.11 Garnett Picot and Arthur Sweetman quoted in The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity see note 2 at p.37.12 The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Reinventing Innovation and Commercialization Policy in Ontario,(Toronto: Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 2004), p.40, http://204.15.35.174/images/uploads/wp06.pdf

13 USA Study Guide, “Choosing a School: Choosing universities, schools, and colleges for international students,”www.usastudyguide.com/choosingschool.htm

14 Ibid.15 U.S. Department of Education, “USNEI: Accreditation and Quality Assurance,”www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-accreditation.html

16 Michael McKenzie, Science and Engineering PhDs: A Canadian Portrait (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2007), p.3,www.statcan.ca/english/research/11-621-MIE/11-621-MIE2007063.pdf

17 Ibid., at p.4.18 The Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, Reinventing Innovation and Commercialization Policy in Ontario(Toronto: Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, 2004), p.30, http://204.15.35.174/images/uploads/wp06.pdf

19 Desmond Beckstead, W. Mark Brown and Guy Gellatly, Cities and Growth: The Left Brain of North American Cities:Scientists and Engineers and Urban Growth (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2008), p.8,www.statcan.ca/english/research/11-622-MIE/11-622-MIE2008017.pdf

20 David A. Wolfe, Knowledge and Innovation: A Discussion Paper (Ontario, 2006), p.23,www.utoronto.ca/onris/research_review/WorkingPapers/WorkingDOCS/Working06/Wolfe06_Discussion.pdf

21 See note 19 at p.32.22 Maryann P. Feldman and Ian Stewart, Knowledge transfer and innovation: a review of the policy relevant literature(Ontario, 2006), p.40

23 Ibid., at p.2.24 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, “About NSERC,” www.nserc.gc.ca/about/about_e.asp25 Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, “Collaborative Research and Development (CRD) Grants,”www.nserc.gc.ca/partners/indust/prog_profile_e.asp?pro=005

26 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

60

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

27 The National Academies, “Industry-University Research Partnerships: What Are the Limits of Intimacy?,”www7.nationalacademies.org/guirr/Industry_University_Partnerships_Limits.html

28 See note 20 at p.24.29 Roger L. Martin and James B. Milway, Strengthening management for prosperity (Toronto: Institute forCompetitiveness and Prosperity, 2007), p.3,www.competeprosper.ca/images/uploads/ManagementPaper_May07.pdf

30 Ibid., at p.5.31 Allison Bramwell and David A. Wolfe, “Universities and Regional Economic Development: The EntrepreneurialUniversity of Waterloo” Research Policy (submitted).www.utoronto.ca/progris/pdf_files/UW%20and%20Regional%20Economic%20Development_rev15Feb06.pdf

32 Richard K. Lester, Universities, Innovation, and the Competitiveness of Local Economies: summary report from thelocal innovation project (Massachusetts: Industrial Performance Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,2005), p.30, http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/05-010.pdf

33 Ibid., at p.3.34 Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, “Investing in the Jobs of the Future: $165-Million Fund To AttractInvestment In High-Growth Companies,” www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/news/VCF111407.asp

35 Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation, “$205 million investment fund to grow jobs of the future: McGuintyGovernment Partners with Top Investors To Launch Ontario Venture Capital Fund,”www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/news/VClaunch061108.asp

36 “Ontario unveils $205-million venture fund,” The Ottawa Citizen, June 12, 2008.www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/bustech/story.html?id=5d015260-9069-447d-9d0e-a5eb5e9709f6

37 U.S. Small Business Administration, “SBIR and STTR Programs and Awards,” www.sba.gov/SBIR/indexsbir-sttr.html38 Networks of Centres of Excellence, “CCR – Centre for the Commercialization of Research,” www.nce-rce.gc.ca/cecrs/ccr_e.htm

39 Statistics Canada, Population and dwelling counts, for census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2006and 2001 censuses. www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/popdwell/Table.cfm?T=201&S=3&O=D&RPP=150

40 Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, “Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2007,”www.tableaudebordmontreal.com/indicateurs/activiteeconomique/pib.en.html

41 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

42 Investissement Québec, “Canadian Space Agency”. www.investquebec.com/en/index.aspx?page=1821#143 National Research Council Canada, “NRC Biotechnology Research Institute,” www.irb-bri.cnrc-nrc.gc.ca/home/index_e.html

44 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

45 Montreal International, “The College Network.,” www.montrealinternational.com/en/vivre/collegial.aspx46 TRRA compilation based on U.S. Census, “Annual Population Estimates 2000 to 2007,”www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

47 The United States Conference of Mayors, “U.S. Metro economies, gross metropolitan product and housing outlook:Key Findings,” www.usmayors.org/metroeconomies/0107/GMPreport_keyfindings.pdf

48 Karen Chapple et al., “Gauging Metropolitan ‘High-Tech’ and ‘I-Tech’ ", Activity Economic Development Quarterly 18,no. 1, (2004), 10-29,http://edq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/10?ijkey=50c44cb29d68315499a2aa3771131b328064bf28&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

49 “America’s Best Colleges 2008: National Universities, Top School,”http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php

50 U.S. Census, “State & Country QuickFacts: Massachusetts,” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25000.html

61

20

08

Ann

ualT

oron

toR

egio

nIn

nova

tion

Gau

ge

51 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

52 U.S. Department of Commerce, “Ocean and Coastal Management in Michigan,”http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/mi.html

53 U.S. Census, “State & Country QuickFacts: Michigan,” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26000.html54 U.S. Census, “Cities & towns - Places over 100,000: 2000 to 2007,” www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html55 MEDC, “Michigan: High Technology Focus,” http://ref.michigan.org/medc/hitechfocus/56 Richard J. Bennof, Data Brief: R&D Spending is Highly Concentrated in a Small Number of States. (Arlington:National Science Foundation, 2001) www.nsf.gov/statistics/databrf/nsf01320/sdb01320.htm

57 MEDC, “Growth Industries,” www.michiganadvantage.org/Targeted-Initiatives/Life-Sciences/Default.aspx58 Ibid.59 TRRA compilation based on California Department of Finance, “California County Population Estimates andComponents of Change by Year — July 1, 2000–2007,”www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/Estimates/E2/E-2_2000-07.php

60 “Fortune 1000,” http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/full_list/61 2008 Index of Silicon Valley (San Jose, CA: Joint Venture, Silicon Valley Network, 2008).www.jointventure.org/publicatons/index/2008Index/2008%20Silicon%20Valley%20Index.pdf

62 U.S. Census, “National population datasets,” www.census.gov/popest/datasets.html63 Research Triangle Region, “Why Research Triangle Region,” www.researchtriangle.org/pages.php?page_id=264 “The Research Triangle Park,” www.rtp.org/main/65 Research Triangle Region, “Why Research Triangle Region,”www.researchtriangle.org/Why%20Research%20Triangle%20Region/

66 Research Triangle Region, “Colleges & Universities,”www.researchtriangle.org/pages.php?page1=52&page2=79&page3=80&page_id=80

MaRS Centre, Heritage Building101 College Street, Suite HL30Toronto, ON M5G 1L7

Tel 416 673 6670Fax 416 673 6671

Email [email protected] us a www.trra.ca

© 2008 Toronto Region Research Alliance

2008 Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge

Technology

toronto region universities

region relative

regions research

innovative research

research triangle

research bases

research capitals

innovation education