Over the last four years Industry Canada and Human Resources Development Canada have been working to develop an "Innovation Strategy" for Canada. Many faculty and student groups have expressed concerns that the objective of the strategy, to increase commercialization of university research through private sector partnerships, would alter the nature of Canadian post-secondary institutions and undermine basic research potential.

There is a fundamental difference between funding basic research that may have commercial value and funding only research that has immediate short-term potential in the marketplace.

At the recent National Summit on Innovation and Learning held in Toronto, the federal government released its revised innovation strategy. On university research the government committed itself to implementing the following initiatives: support for the indirect costs of university research, taking into account the needs of smaller and regional universities; leveraging the commercialization potential of publicly funded academic research (this involves identifying intellectual property with commercial potential and forging partnerships to commercialize it); and, providing internationally competitive research opportunities in Canada, primarily through increasing support to the granting councils.

At the summit, Industry Minister Allan Rock and Human Resources Development Minister Jane Stewart amplified this strategy. They unveiled a framework agreement on federally funded research between the government and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. As part of this agreement, released Nov. 18, Canadian universities, acting through AUCC, have committed to double the amount of research they perform and triple their commercialization performance, in return for additional government and private sector funding, including ongoing contributions to the indirect costs of research. AUCC has agreed to produce a periodic public report that demonstrates the collective progress made by universities in meeting these two objectives.

The agreement raises interesting questions. Will the university and college presidents, who entered into the framework accord, mostly without the knowledge of their senates and boards, now become actively involved in directing their faculty to take up commercial projects at the expense of basic research? How do the presidents plan on tripling their commercialization potential? Will they seek to assert ownership of their faculty's intellectual property to facilitate its commercialization? If some universities opt out of the commercialization derby will other universities be expected to take up the slack? What are the academic consequences of going down this road to commercialization?

While the government's commitment to provide additional funding for the indirect costs of research and for the granting councils is laudable, it is nonetheless a poor substitute for committing more money to the core funding of colleges and universities.

Delegates to the summit were asked to identify three primary recommendations, in sessions on five key themes, they believed would increase innovation. The recommendations were chosen from larger sets that reflected submissions presumably made at consultations leading up to the summit. The theme that most directly affected post-secondary education was Strengthening the Learning Culture. The first recommendation, to strengthen Pan-Canadian literacy, was expected as this had been highlighted in remarks from Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. The next two recommendations came as a sur-prise when they were read to the assembled cabinet ministers: expand capacity in the post-secondary system by increasing infrastructure (physical, human and financial) using cost-effective design principles; and, adjust the system of student financial assistance to meet the changing needs of students, the post-secondary education sector and the knowledge-based economy.

When asked to develop strategies to implement these recommendations, delegates suggested the need for a Post-Secondary Education Act, similar to what CAUT has been lobbying for over the last three years. This act would make funding from the federal government to provinces for post-secondary education contingent on the provinces satisfying the following standards: public administration, comprehensiveness, accessibility, collegial governance and academic freedom.

While one might speculate the delegates were CAUT plants, this was far from the case with only four of the more than 500 delegates representing student and faculty groups. The post-secondary education strategy was actually greeted with applause by the assembled delegates.

CAUT's proposed post-secondary education act was the cornerstone of recent lobbying efforts of CAUT Council delegations who met with politicians on Nov. 21. Increasingly, MPs from all political parties are recognizing the need to address the serious underfunding of Canadian post-secondary institutions and the need to restore core funding to pre-1990 levels. Each year more MPs state their support for CAUT's proposal.

Our message is strong and clear: the best way to innovate is to maintain the quality of all of Canada's universities by restoring core funding to support basic and applied research in the sciences, humanities, arts and social sciences, and to remove barriers to education that prevent future innovators from attending college or university.