ARCHIVED - Inter-Sectoral Partnerships for Non-Regulatory Federal Laboratories

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page

This page has been archived.

Section 4 – Identification of Early Candidates for New Management Arrangements

As part of its mandate, the Panel was tasked to identify and recommend five "early candidates" for potential transfer to alternative management arrangements. The Panel invited submission of proposals for transfer initiatives and developed a template for identifying the topics proponents were to address in formulating proposals (Appendix IV).

Given the nature of the Panel's mandate and the time available, the template focused on key qualitative characteristics of the proposed transfer, including: identification of the federal laboratories to be involved, the proponents of the transfer initiative and the main potential partners; and a description of essential components of the governance and management arrangements and the roles of the partners. Proponents were asked to indicate how the proposed initiative would improve on the status quo and to describe the anticipated benefits and impacts of the initiative - in particular how the initiative would contribute to the achievement of the four core objectives of the transfer strategy. They were also asked to identify milestone and timelines for, and any challenges and risks associated with, implementing the proposed initiative. They were neither expected to, nor in general could they in the time available, undertake the in-depth consultations necessary to develop and submit full business plans and estimates of implementation costs associated with proposed initiatives.

In the course of its discussions with stakeholders, the Panel encouraged potential proponents of transfer initiatives to consider the full range of alternative management arrangements – from full divestiture by government to various forms of partnering of government with academic and private sector organizations in joint governance and management of assets and/or S&T programs.

4.1 General Observations

In response to the Panel's solicitation of proposals, 56 submissions were received. They varied somewhat in how far advanced the proposals were in, for example, the extent of interaction between proponent organizations and potential partners in the course of preparing proposals. Several organizations indicated a strong interest in developing proposals in the future but stated they were not in a position to undertake the necessary consultations and explorations for preparing specific proposals for the current round of submissions.

The Panel regards the level of response and the outcome of its consultations with stakeholders as indicating a highly significant level of support for ISTI as a strategic objective of the federal government, extending beyond any follow-on actions that may be taken in respect of the Panel's identification of early candidates for transfer.

The proposals came from organizations in all regions of the country and covered a wide range of fields.^[10] Not surprisingly, a majority of the proponent organizations were from, or included, academic institutions and federal laboratories engaged in, or with significant past experience in, inter-sectoral S&T collaboration. In a few cases, this experience has included actual S&T integration.

Submissions from the proponent organizations identified a variety of other organizations in government, universities and the private sector as potential partners in the sponsorship and management of new entities formed in implementing the proposed initiative. In aggregate, some 300 potential collaborations, involving organizations or laboratories and S&T programs within organizations, were cited in the proposals received.

Some provinces have indicated strong interest in, and support for, the concept of partnering in ISTI, and this interest has been reflected in provincial entities being identified as collaborators and potential partners in several of the proposals submitted to the Panel.

The types of alternative arrangements contemplated in the submissions included:

• Establishing a new entity involving joint sponsorship and management of S&T activities by the federal government, an academic institution, and/or the private sector. In some cases, the entity would be a not-for-profit corporation. In most, the proposed entity would operate under what has been termed a "co-operative research and development agreement." Several proposals included participation by more than one organization;
• Co-location of scientific personnel, involving existing proximities or through new co-location initiatives. Nearly all locations designated are on or near university campuses, in research parks or in other cluster arrangements. In a few instances, the arrangements would involve seconding university S&T personnel to government laboratories; and,
• In some instances, a proposed divestiture by government of physical assets, human resources or intellectual property (e.g., data resources) or personnel, by transfer to non-governmental entities.

Several submissions indicated that the models of ISTI being proposed were seen as the initial arrangement in an evolving relationship that could result in, for example, a move from a joint sponsorship arrangement involving government to one in which the federal government is no longer involved in ownership, governance or management.

Most of the transfer arrangements proposed were "new" in the sense they involved an alternative to sole ownership and management of assets, personnel and programs by the federal government. None of the arrangements constituted an entirely novel model. The Panel did identify, however, the potential for Canada to build on it leadership in developing research networks by fostering the formation of networks of centres of S&T integration in fields of major strategic importance.

Some proposals involved full divestiture by the federal government; but, for the most part, divestiture was not seen as optimizing the achievement of the core objectives of the transfer strategy to the same extent as a partnership model. The central feature of the partnership model is a jointly agreed upon research agenda the implementation of which is facilitated by bringing together the resources of the partners and by sharing costs related to research operations and to the development and maintenance of physical facilities. Non-federal parties are generally unwilling to undertake ownership of federal laboratories without long-term funding to defray the cost of operating and maintaining the facilities. Moreover, the opportunities for full transfer are limited by the fact that some federal laboratories undertake science activities that do not fit with the interests and capabilities of academia or the private sector.

4.2 Selection of Early Candidates

The Panel first reviewed all submissions thoroughly to identify possible "early" candidates. The Panel identified 24 proposals that:

• included one or more federal laboratories as proponents of a transfer arrangement or in respect of which one or more federal laboratories had been consulted and indicated significant interest;
• identified new governance/management arrangements; and,
• addressed the relevance of the proposal to the achievement of the objectives of the ISTI strategy.

The 24 proposals were then rated by each Panellist independently on each of five criteria using a predetermined numerical rating system. The criteria were: probability of success in achieving primary objectives, impact, feasibility, governance and management considerations, and timeliness (See Section 5.2.4). The resulting ratings were reviewed by the Panel as a whole.

The following five laboratories (listed alphabetically by department or agency in which the laboratories are located) were identified unanimously for recommendation as early candidates for transfer. They represent excellent opportunities for S&T integration; can be implemented within a 12-month period; and, represent a range of fields and departments.^[11] It is critical that initial stages of implementation of the five early candidate proposals focus intensively on governance and accountability, more detailed delineation of an integrated research program, and identification of effective managerial and scientific leadership.

1. Agriculture And Agri-Food Canada – Cereal Research Centre The partners in the proposed Centre of Excellence in Grain Crops are the Cereal Research Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, the University of Manitoba, some components of the Grain Research Laboratory of the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian International Grains Institute, the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre, the Province of Manitoba and the Canadian Wheat Board. Under the proposal, the Centre will integrate the management of personnel, physical infrastructure, and intellectual property to foster innovation and competitiveness along the full value chain of grain crops, from basic discovery of traits and cultivars to international marketing efforts. Researchers, producers, processors and marketers will come together to focus on increasing productivity and scientific excellence through integration, acceleration and enhancement of research and development activities of researchers, and through the outreach and commercialization efforts of the Centre's partners. Increased efficiency and value to funders and to industry will be achieved through combined, targeted activity facilitated by common access to leading-edge equipment and infrastructure, through enhanced training opportunities and through the early dissemination and implementation of research findings. The proposed Centre will involve a shift from independent research planning and implementation by each organization to a fully integrated research planning and implementation model involving joint appointments of research scientists and coordinated management of infrastructure and support services.

 

2. Environment Canada – Wastewater Technology Centre The partners in the proposed Water-Health Collaborative Network are Environment Canada's Wastewater Technology Centre (WTC), other Environment Canada laboratory capacities, McMaster University, the University of Guelph, the University of Waterloo, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and the United Nations University – International Network on Water, Environment and Health located in Hamilton. The proposed network will pursue three core research themes: Urban and Rural Water, Water and Health, and Energy and Water. The Network will focus on integrating complementary research conducted in the universities with the technical expertise of the Wastewater Technology Centre in order to increase the efficiency and quality of the research programs and to promote knowledge transfer in an area of national and international importance. The Network will form the basis of a planned transformation into an independent entity governed by a Management Board with representatives from the partner organizations; i.e. federal government, academia and the private sector.

 

3. Health Canada – Safe Environments Laboratories This proposed Canadian Laboratory for Environmental Health will bring together the scientists of the Safe Environments Program of the Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch of Health Canada with a broad range of colleagues in health and environmental research at the University of Ottawa. The new laboratory will be built at the Smyth Road Campus of the University of Ottawa – the site of health and medical faculties, major research hospitals and the Ottawa Health Research Institute. Joint research planning and operations will foster synergy in scientific creativity and outputs, and will enhance the amount, quality and timeliness of research and its contribution to innovation. Research results will be available to inform policy and regulations. Private-sector involvement will be facilitated to help guide access to, and interest in, commercially-viable technologies. Subsequent developments could see a national network of health and environmental scientists. The Laboratory will increase knowledge transfer by attracting and retaining young scientists and students to build Canadian capacity in an important area of national interest. Under the proposed governance model, the director will be responsible to a joint Research Management Committee and report jointly to the Deputy Minister of Health (or designate) and the Vice-President Research of the University of Ottawa. The Committee will oversee the operations of the laboratory and the setting of a common research agenda. A Scientific Advisory Board will assist the director in elaborating laboratory programs of research, training, commercialization and external linkages.

4. National Research Council – Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Centre This proposal will establish the foundations of a broad collaborative Network in Aerospace Research built around the Aerospace Manufacturing Technology Centre of NRC's Institute for Aerospace Research, l'École Polytechnique de Montréal, and other Quebec-based universities. The network will link to the existing Consortium for Research and Innovation in Aerospace in Quebec, which in itself links some 30 private sector firms that constitute a major portion of Canada's aerospace industry. The initiative will involve a number of College Centres for Technology Transfer and other organizations focused on the commercialization of technology. Once it is formally established as a not-for-profit corporate entity, the consortium intends to expand to include the Canadian aerospace industry sector. The initiative will build from Quebec's recognized leadership in this industry sector to become national in scope, and will link the remaining federal research capacity in aerospace innovation, most notably NRC's Institute for Aerospace Research, located in Ottawa, with the efforts of both academic and private sector partners.

5. Natural Resources Canada – Geoscience Laboratories This proposal calls for the establishment of the Central Canada Institute of Environmental Geosciences and Natural Resources as a joint effort of the research and teaching facilities of the Department of Earth Sciences and Environmental Studies of the University of Ottawa and the scientific team of the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) of Natural Resources Canada. The initiative will group over 150 scientists and technicians from the Central and Northern Divisions of the GSC (Booth Street Complex) with 80 full-time and adjunct professors at the Universities of Ottawa and Carleton. The initiative reflects the urgent need for infrastructure renewal at the GSC and proposes the eventual development of new facilities by the University of Ottawa in which federal and academic researchers will be co-located. Under the proposed governance structure of the institute, the director will report to a management board comprising representatives from government, academia and industry. The proposal calls for immediate close linkages to the new Canadian Shield Research Institute, as well to the shared facilities of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre.

4.3 Overall Assessment of Proposals

The Panel was impressed by the quality, scope and potential impact of the proposals submitted. In aggregate they involve some 70 laboratories or major research programs within the federal government and links to over 150 non-federal entities including Canadian universities, independent research organizations, and individual firms or industry associations. The following table provides a breakdown of the number of laboratories and proposals arranged by Ministerial portfolio.

Portfolio	Number of laboratories potentially involved	Number of proposals involving department
Agriculture and Agri-Food	21	14
Environment	4	7
Fisheries and Oceans	5	7
Health	7	5
Industry	20	21
National Defence	1	2
Natural Resources	11	11
Public Safety	1	1
Total*	70	68

* some of the 56 proposals referenced more than one federal laboratory or department

Nearly all of the proposals received were viewed as being potential candidates for future consideration in the implementation of a longer-term federal strategy for inter-sectoral S&T integration. In addition to the five Recommended Proposals, the Panel identified a number of other highly ranked proposals that were at a relatively advanced stage of development and took special note of a number of other proposals that, while less developed, had considerable potential in areas of national strategic importance.

• Previous Page
• Table of Contents
• Next Page