2008 ATRIG

2008
Annual Toronto Region
Innovation Gauge

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

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2008AnnualTorontoRegionInnovationGauge
1

2
“Research is to see what everybody else
has seen, and to think what nobody
else has thought.”
- Albert Szent-Gyorgyi,
Hungarian Biochemist, 1937 Nobel Prize for Medicine
The Toronto Region has an innovative research base with
a highly-educated and growing population that benefits
from a diversified manufacturing base and other major
advantages compared to its competition – that’s the
good news.
However, the Toronto Region faces some significant
challenges to meeting its full potential to become one
of the top research capitals in the world. The obstacles
to be overcome include the need for even more post-
graduate students, stronger governmental support for
research 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 Toronto
Region’s research and innovation system conducted by the
Toronto Region Research Alliance (TRRA).
The second edition of the Toronto Region Research
Alliance’s Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge
(ATRIG) analyzes the current strengths and weaknesses
of the region relative to other regions with strong
research bases, like Silicon Valley in California and
Massachusetts, and to more comparable research
centres, like the Research Triangle in North Carolina,
Montreal, Illinois and Michigan.
These findings will help key decision makers in
government, industry and post-secondary education
better understand how the Toronto Region can grow and
prosper by focusing attention on building a stronger
research base that will benefit us all.
WHO WE ARE
The population of the Toronto Region is growing rapidly,
fueled by an influx of skilled, educated immigrants from
around the world. The region’s economy benefits from
diverse industrial sectors outside its traditional
manufacturing base (including “fast” companies with
strong potential for growth), solid employment levels,
superior wages and healthy household income. Its
high use of wireless communication is a sign of a
technologically-connected and progressive society.
WHAT WE OFFER
The Toronto Region is particularly strong in a critically
important area that facilitates innovation – education in
the 25-34 age range. Its high and growing overall levels
of post-secondary and post-graduate residents include
Business, Science and Technology master’s and doctoral
graduates ready to become the next generation of
managers and entrepreneurs. The region would benefit
from even more post-secondary graduates and post-
graduate degree holders (master's and doctorates) as
well as initiatives to encourage entry to these programs
for even larger numbers of students.
The scale of R&D funding from private sources in the
United States is much higher than in Canada, although
collaborative private/public sector funding for R&D
in the Toronto Region universities is increasing.
Unfortunately, the region performs relatively poorly
compared to other regions in government funding for
R&D in the sciences, engineering and health related
areas, and in private sector R&D. It would benefit from
more R&D investment from governments which would
lead to its R&D facilities and human resources becoming
stronger, and its universities building a base upon which
their capacity to train graduate students and attract
R&D-intense industries as partners.
HOW WE ARE PERFORMING
The Toronto Region is publishing more and increasing
its numbers of licenses, inventions and patents. These
commercialization and knowledge transfer mechanisms
are tangible proof that the region’s universities are
transferring their R&D to the marketplace. But the region
is not matching the competition. It is not performing
as well as many of its comparator regions in terms of
relative impact – where it publishes and how much
it commercializes.
IN SUMMARY
The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large and
highly-educated population, diverse industries and high
employment rates, for instance – upon which it can build
to improve its performance. But to compete successfully
to become a truly innovative research base will require
significantly more sustained efforts – and a collaborative
approach between government, industry and the post-
secondary education sector.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3
INTRODUCTION

The Toronto Region Research Alliance (TRRA) launched
the Annual Toronto Region Innovation Gauge (ATRIG) last
year provide an accurate diagnosis
of the current strengths and weaknesses of the
region’s innovation system relative to key international
competitor regions.
We believe that an annual analysis of the region’s
innovation performance, based on a range of
internationally-accepted performance indicators,
is helpful to sustain and enhance the Toronto Region’s
innovation performance. For the purpose of this report
we have used the same definition of innovation adopted
by The Conference Board of Canada, “the ability to turn
knowledge into new and improved goods and services.”1
We hope that the Innovation Gauge will become an
increasingly comprehensive measure of the region’s
comparative innovation performance, and will help
decision-makers undertake the changes needed to move
the 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, we
modeled its approach on the Index of the Massachusetts
Innovation Economy (MA Index) developed by the
Massachusetts Technology Collaborative (MTC).
While the MA Index offered a rigorous and comprehensive
framework for measuring innovation performance, we
found that the Toronto Region lacked data routinely
captured and available in the United States on numerous
innovation indicators – for the country as a whole and for
the comparative regions in particular. With input from the
ATRIG Advisory Council, we addressed these challenges
in the 2008 report by selecting comparator regions and
indicators more relevant to the Toronto Region. An
understanding of the drivers of the economies of these
regions and what makes them strong will yield important
information and useful models for the Toronto Region.
We will continue to adapt the indicators we use for future
Innovation Gauge releases as the region continues to
build on its capacity to monitor and assess the key
elements of the innovation system.
INTRODUCTION
TORONTO REGION PROFILE
The Toronto Region, at the western end of Lake
Ontario, consists of Durham, Halton, Hamilton,
Guelph, Peel, Toronto, Waterloo, Wellington
and York. Over seven million people live in the
Toronto Region, making it the fourth largest
urban 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 region
has a wide range of industrial sectors with
strong employment, including Manufacturing
(529,000), Professional and Scientific services
(326,000), and Finance, Insurance and Real
Estate services (317,000).
The Toronto Region workforce is well-educated,
highly-skilled and growing: every year, 75,000
university and college graduates and 47,000
immigrants enter a very skilled workforce of
more than 1.8 million.
The region is attractive to immigrants. Forty-five
percent of recent immigrants to Canada choose
to live in the Toronto Region. In addition, 60%
of these newcomers have at least one university
degree, which contributes to the region’s highly-
educated workforce.
The Toronto Region is Canada’s largest centre
for research and education, and is home to 9
universities, 8 colleges, and 12 research hospitals.
4

ATRIG brings a Toronto Region voice to the growing
chorus of organizations actively working to focus public
attention on critical innovation issues and their
relationship to our future competitiveness and prosperity.
Reports alone, however, will not produce the changes
needed to strengthen the region’s innovation performance.
ATRIG is the first step in a broader process of informing,
engaging and building consensus among the Toronto
Region innovation system stakeholders. Together, this
impressive group of innovation stakeholders can help
shape the development of effective strategies, policies
and programs to address the region’s weaknesses and
capitalize on its strengths.
TRRA invites readers to participate in this process and we
welcome feedback. Please email us at info@trra.ca
SPECIAL THANKS
TRRA is grateful for the assistance and guidance
provided by the members of our ATRIG Advisory Council
(please see our acknowledgements, on page 34, for
a list of members). We look forward to their continued
participation and advice as we adapt and enhance ATRIG
in future years.
HOW ATRIG SELECTED THIS YEAR’S
COMPARATOR REGIONS
This report compares the Toronto Region to
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal,
North Carolina’s Research Triangle and
California’s Silicon Valley.
We selected these comparator regions or states
because they are similar in character, size,
economic base or other attributes to the Toronto
Region, or because they have economies – or
attributes which make them strong research-
driven economies – to which we aspire. All
have significant R&D and strong innovation
indicators, including many that show positive
trends over time.
In most cases ATRIG indicators are presented
per 100,000 population in order to provide an
accurate picture of the scale of the various
indicators in the Toronto Region relative to
these comparator regions. For more information
about the comparator regions, please refer to
Appendix 1.
5

AT A GLANCE
The Annual Toronto Region
Innovation Gauge analyzes
the region’s innovation performance,
based on a range of innovation
indicators. It highlights the current
strengths and weaknesses of the
region’s innovation system relative
to selected comparator regions.
COMPARATOR REGIONS
The Innovation Gauge compares the Toronto Region’s performance to
six regions that are – or have been – successful in innovation: Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Montreal, Research Triangle and Silicon
Valley. The comparators were selected based on: population,
proximity, industrial make-up, strong manufacturing base,
research intensity, and innovation performance.
INDICATORS
ATRIG indicators fall into three broad categories which paint a
picture of the Toronto Region’s innovation performance: who
we are – a description of the region’s population and economy;
what we offer – factors that facilitate innovation; and how we
perform – measures of innovative outputs.
IN SUMMARY
highly-educated population, diverse industries and high
employment rates, for instance – upon which it can build
to improve its performance. But to compete successfully
to become a truly innovative research base will require
significantly more sustained efforts – and a collaborative
approach between government, industry and the post-
secondary education sector.
TORONTO REGION
Waterloo
Hamilton-
Wentworth
Guelph
Durham
York
Peel
Toronto
Wellington
Halton
6
© 2008 Toronto Region Research Alliance

WHO WE ARE
The population of the Toronto Region
is growing rapidly, fueled by an influx
of skilled, educated immigrants from
around the world. The region’s
economy benefits from diverse
industrial sectors outside its
traditional manufacturing base
(including “fast” companies with
strong potential for growth), solid
employment levels, superior wages
and healthy household income.
WHAT WE OFFER
The Toronto Region has high levels
of post-secondary and post-graduate
education in the 25-34 age range,
with recent Business, Science and
Technology graduates poised to
become the next generation of
managers and entrepreneurs. This
needs to be sustained. The scale of
private and public R&D funding in the
U.S. far outstrips Canada, although
collaborative private/public sector
funding for R&D in the Toronto
Region universities is increasing.
More government R&D investment
would strengthen the universities’
R&D facilities and human resources,
improve graduate training, making
the region more attractive to R&D-
intense industries as partners.
HOW WE ARE
PERFORMING
Like the comparators, the Toronto
Region is publishing more and
increasing its numbers of licenses,
inventions and patents. These
commercialization and knowledge
transfer mechanisms are tangible
proof that R&D is being transferred
to the marketplace. The region is not
performing as well as many of its
comparators in terms of absolute
numbers of technology transfers or
relative impact – where it publishes
and how much it commercializes.
in publications,
a trend that matches all
comparator regions
average population
increase in the
region each year
80,000 +
Average 14 “fast
companies” per year
over the last 6 years
11 industrial sectors
above the average
North American
concentration, more
than comparator
regions
of workforce
25-34 years of age
has a post-secondary
degree or diploma
Ahead of only one
comparator in the
number of engineers
graduating with a
bachelor’s degree
29%
increase in NSERC
Collaborative Research
& Development project
funding (’98-’08), from
$5.1 to $10.2 million
of all regions
in government R&D
funding per capita
45% of new
immigrants to Canada
settle in the Toronto
Region
Improving on total
licenses, patents and
invention disclosures
(’01-’06); however, the
highest performing
regions produce
4x more than the
Toronto Region
7
Ahead of just one
comparator in average
relative impact factors
Average Relative Citations,
2000-2006
Silicon Valley 1.846
Massachusetts 1.841
Research Triangle 1.603
Illinois 1.511
Michigan 1.511
Toronto Region 1.409
Montreal 1.296
65%
2x
Lowest
Toronto
Region Rest of
Canada
45%
55%

8
WHO WE ARE

9
With a population of more than seven million people
(Fig. 1), the Toronto Region is the third largest of the
comparator regions. It has fewer people than Illinois
and Michigan, but a larger population than the other
comparator 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 people
subscribe to wireless services. Its industrial sectors
are diverse, and the region fares well in the high
technology-related fields.
THE TORONTO REGION HAS RELATIVELY
STRONG POPULATION GROWTH
As Fig. 3 indicates, the Toronto Region’s closest
comparator, the Research Triangle, has a greater
annual net migration. The Research Triangle’s
population, however, is a quarter the size of the Toronto
Region. In absolute numbers, the Toronto Region grew
three times more – by approximately 140,000 people –
than the Research Triangle, which grew by
approximately 45,000 people.
The Toronto Region’s net natural increase in population
(i.e. births in the region) has remained steady at
approximately 40,000 persons per year. As Fig. 4 shows,
on balance, the population of the region increases by
more than 80,000 persons annually – largely fueled by
immigration, (i.e. adding births to immigrant numbers
and subtracting migration from out of the region).
Indeed, the number of immigrants to the Toronto Region
has been more than double that of the Toronto Region’s
closest comparator, the Research Triangle, in each year
between 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
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
NumberofMigrants(thousands)
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
Persons(Thousands)
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
93
100
92
100
Source: Conference Board of Canada
Fig. 4

11
MOST IMMIGRANTS ENTER THE REGION AS
HIGHLY-EDUCATED WORKERS
The Toronto Region has been, and continues to be, a
magnet for educated and experienced immigrants. Since
1961, 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 symptomatic
of a national trend. In 1995, 21% of immigrants to Canada
had a university degree; in 2000 this percentage had risen
to 26%. The percentage of native-born Canadians with
university degrees rose at a much slower rate, from
16% to 18% over the same period.3
Results from the 2001 census indicated that immigration
has continued to be of growing importance to the region’s
population.4
By 2006, of the 636,500 recent core working-
age immigrants who arrived in Canada, the lion’s share
went to Ontario’s labour market (51.1%), followed by
Quebec (19.2%) and British Columbia (15.9%).5
As Fig. 5
shows, between 2001 and 2006, the Toronto Region
benefited from almost 45% of the new immigrants to
Canada, welcoming approximately 400,000 people. This
represents approximately. 60,000 more immigrants than
the region’s closest comparator, Silicon Valley, and three
times more than its Canadian comparator, Montreal.
This influx of immigrants is particularly good news for the
Toronto Region. In the years between 2000 and 2006, the
Toronto Region welcomed increasing numbers of highly-
educated and skilled immigrants as Fig. 6 shows. Of these
immigrants, 73% are in the labour force (Fig. 6a) and, of
this, 88% or approximately 196,000, are employed.
The positive contribution of educated immigrants to the
Toronto Region is corroborated by national studies, which
show that a higher percentage of immigrants with post-
secondary education are entering the workforce. According
to a recent StatsCan study on immigrants to Canada, “in
2007, the largest gains in immigrant employment were
among university-educated immigrants of core working
age. While employment for immigrants with other levels
of education was mostly unchanged, those with university
degrees had an estimated gain of 62,000 (+7.0%), all in
full time.”6
PercentageofNationalImmigration
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
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
Toronto Region: 398,980
Montreal: 133,650
Silicon Valley: 341,207
Illinois: 279,358
Massachusetts: 178,329
Michigan: 119,974
Research Triangle: 17,593
Fig. 5

2006 Labour Force Status of Immigrants
Arriving Between 2001-2006
2
27%
73% In
Labour Force
Not in
Labour Force
Source: Statistics Canada
12
1991-1995 1996-2000 2001-2006
NumberofImmigrants(Thousands)
Years
Immigrants to the Toronto Region, Highest Level of Education,
Period of Immigration, 1991-2006
High School
Apprenticeship
College
University
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 GROWTH
AND IMMIGRATION IMPORTANT?
The high rate of population growth in the Toronto Region
is widely considered to be a requirement for economic
growth, providing human capital and a constant influx of
talent. As Dr. Larry Swanson, associate director of the
University of Montana’s O’Connor Center for the Rocky
Mountain West pointed out, “economic strength follows
population strength: population growth means economic
growth and diversification; population loss means
economic loss or stagnation.”7
Immigrants – particularly the well-educated
immigrants who are coming to the Toronto Region –
are of particular importance in bolstering labour force
growth. Immigrants enrich the Toronto Region with their
skills, training and life experiences, augmenting the
region’s foundation for innovation. In fact, the Caledon
Institute of Social Policy points to immigrants as a
counterpoint to the much-debated “brain drain.”8
THE TORONTO REGION IMMIGRANT
EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL (TRIEC)
Established in September 2003, TRIEC is
comprised of employers, labour, occupational
regulatory bodies, post-secondary institutions,
assessment service providers, community
organizations, and all three levels of government.
Its primary goal is to find and implement local
solutions that help break down the barriers
immigrants face when looking for work in the
Toronto Region.
“The Toronto Region continues to attract large
numbers of skilled immigrants who comprise
virtually all net labour force growth in the region,”
says TRIEC director Elizabeth McIsaac. “This
offers the local economy a competitive advantage
if the skills and knowledge of these workers can
be effectively leveraged and integrated.”
Fig. 6a
73% of immigrants
(221,000) arriving between
2001-2006 are in the labour
force. Of this number:
– 196,000 were employed (88%)
– 25,000 were unemployed (12%)

13
Immigrants also add what one researcher calls “knowledge
spillover,” the learning and transfer of knowledge between
individuals and firms that precedes innovation.
“Innovations occur when individuals with high degrees
of existing creativity or knowledge make new and novel
combinations of this knowledge with new insights observed
or learned through spillovers,” say Brian Knudsen, Richard
Florida, Gary Gates, and Kevin Stolarick in Urban Density,
Creativity, and Innovation. They go on to point out that such
spillovers occur “when one individual’s creativity is
transferred to another individual or firm. These creative
spillovers are in part believed to arise due to frequent
face-to-face interactions and communication
between individuals.”9
Is the Toronto Region taking full advantage of this
latent potential?
Recognition of immigrants’ credentials has been a
stumbling block in the past. According to data from
Status of Women Canada, just over half of foreign-trained
professionals are working in professions or trades three
years after immigrating.10
In addition, the human capital
of increasing number of immigrants from eastern
Europe, south, east and west Asia and Africa who are
now arriving (rising from 35% in 1981 to 72% in 2001)
“may initially be less transferable due to potential issues
regarding language, cultural differences, education
quality, and possibly discrimination.”11
EMPLOYMENT IN KEY INDUSTRIAL
SECTORS IS STRONG
The Toronto Region has high levels of employment in key
non-manufacturing industrial sectors, largely due to its
strong regional focus and expertise in many sectors
outside its traditional manufacturing base. Fig. 7 shows
that the Toronto Region has a wide range of industrial
sectors, and that the majority of industries in the Toronto
($)AverageWage
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
Utilities
Professional, Scientific
& Technical Services
Educational Services
Manufacturing
Transportation and Warehousing
Arts, Entertainment
& Recreation
Real Estate &
Rental Leasing
Agriculture, Forestry,
Fishing & Hunting
Public
Administration
Waste Management &
Remediation Service
Accommodation & Food Services
0
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 AND
EDUCATED WORKERS
• Ontario now has an uncapped number of work
permits available to foreign workers. For intra-
company transfers, the process is fast and
straightforward: transferees can quickly obtain
a work permit for up to seven years.
(www.cic.investinontario.com/bi)
• Ontario’s Provincial Nominee Program, an
expedited permanent resident visa program,
allows employers to permanently recruit high-
end research staff and other workers within
defined occupations.
(www.ontarioimmigration.ca/english/pnp.asp)
• The 2007 federal budget created a Foreign
Credential Recognition office (which has,
however, so far limited itself to giving referrals
to appropriate provincial offices).*
• In November 2007, Ottawa announced
expanded foreign credential referral services
in India and China that offer orientation
sessions for potential immigrants.*
* The Conference Board of Canada, The Canada Project Progress
Report 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
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 the
Toronto Region compared to the same industry clusters
across North America. Industries with a LQ of one are
performing at the average level. Those with a score higher
than one have a higher competitive advantage. The Fig. 7
also shows that salaries are high in many of the region’s
larger and stronger sectors. The relative size of the
sphere shows the number of people employed in the
sector, and many sectors in the region are quite large.
“…what you’re looking at here is really a
story of diversity versus one of specialization.”
– Meric Gertler,
Dean of Arts and Science, University of Toronto
The region has high levels of employment in the
Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific and Technical
sectors as well as in Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
sector and compares favorably to Silicon Valley and
Massachusetts, in each of these sectors (Fig. 8). This
is of particular importance as these regions are strong
performers in both R&D and innovation performance.

Labour Force by Occupation, Toronto Region, 2006
A. Management 11%
J. Processing, Manufacturing
and 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 Applied
Sciences and Related 8%
B. Business, Finance
and Administrative 21%
Source: Statistics Canada
Fig. 9
15
Silicon
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontrealResearch
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
AverageNumberofCompanies
Technology “Fast 500 Companies” Annual Average Number, 2001-2007
62
35
14
8 8 7
2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Source: Deloitte and Touche
Fig. 10
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ARE DIVERSE
The Toronto Region has a wide range of specializations
and many occupations within the working population
(Fig. 9). Approximately 75% of these occupations require
specialized training and education, indicating the region
has a labour force which is “rich” in specialized skills
and education.
MANY “FIRMS TO WATCH”
The Toronto Region has many successful high-tech
“firms to watch.” As Fig. 10 shows, the region fares well
among its comparators with fastest-growing technology
firms in North America between 2001 and 2007.
While the region pales in comparison to the numbers
in Silicon Valley and Massachusetts, it performs well
in comparison to other selected regions, consistently
out-performing Montreal, Research Triangle, Illinois
and Michigan.

16
($)Thousands
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
54.4
49.3
34.9
38.9
53.6
47.1
Silicon
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
20
40
60
80
2000
2006
Fig. 11
WHY IS A DIVERSE ECONOMY IMPORTANT?
Diversity in the Toronto Region industry and multiple
employment sectors has contributed to stronger
population growth than in areas that are heavily reliant
on a manufacturing base. Furthermore, the region’s
diverse areas of specialization add economic stability.
Because the Toronto Region is not dependent upon one
sector, its economy may not be as vulnerable when one
sector is suffering, because others are available to
support the economy.
Many strong industrial sectors indicate that the Toronto
Region is doing an excellent job of maintaining and
growing non-manufacturing related industries and
supplying the human capital required for these jobs.
HOUSEHOLD INCOME GROWTH IS HEALTHY
The Toronto Region’s average household income growth,
while lower than in Massachusetts and Silicon Valley, is
healthy (see Fig. 11). The Toronto Region’s diverse
industrial make-up will likely ensure that the region will
continue to fare better than the U.S. comparator regions
as the economic downturn in the United States begins to
affect America’s overall income growth.
Michigan and Illinois have already shown declines in
household income due to the decline of manufacturing in
these regions. A more diversified economy has prevented
this from happening in the Toronto Region.
WHY IS HOUSEHOLD INCOME IMPORTANT?
Good household income is a sign of overall economic
prosperity and can act as an indicator of innovation.
The Toronto Region ranks high in this category, likely
due to its diverse industrial sectors, relatively low
unemployment rate, and the consistent growth in
its economy since the early 1990s.
WIRELESS SUBSCRIBER RATE IS HIGH
ACROSS THE REGION
The Toronto Region is keeping up with or is on par with
the comparator regions with respect to number of
subscribers to wireless communications and services
(Fig. 12). Since 2001, however, the region has fallen
behind relative to its comparators. In 2001, the Toronto
Region had the highest number of subscribers, with a
10% advantage over its closest comparators, Silicon
Valley and the Research Triangle. By 2006, the region
had fallen to third in this indicator.
WHY IS WIRELESS SUBSCRIPTION IMPORTANT?
The Toronto Region’s high number of subscribers to
wireless communications indicates a technologically-
connected and progressive society.

17
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
PercentofPopulation
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
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
2001
2006
0
20
40
60
80
100
Sources: FCC, Statistics Canada
Fig. 12

WHAT WE OFFER
18

19
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 numbers
of residents with post-secondary and post-graduate
degrees. In addition, both government and private sector
support for R&D in the region has increased, including
collaborative R&D delivered by universities and colleges.
EDUCATION
HIGH AND GROWING LEVELS OF
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
The Toronto Region is doing well with respect to overall
level of education for the age range 25-34 years. These
recent college and university graduates represent the
“new” workforce.
As Fig. 13 illustrates, the Toronto Region comes first
in college or university education in this age range and
within the comparator selection. A larger percentage
of the Toronto Region’s population has a college or
university education than any of the comparator regions
in this age range, with more than 65% of the population
in 2006 holding at least a college diploma or associate’s
degree. This represents an increase from 56% in 2001.
While the region does not perform well in terms of
overall numbers of citizens with post-graduate and
professional degrees in the total workforce compared to
the selected comparators in the U.S., there has been a
2% overall increase in this measure (an increase of more
than 17,000 people) since 2001 (Fig. 14). Only Montreal
has enjoyed comparable growth. Indeed, the dramatic
increase in post-graduate and professional degrees
between 2001 and 2006 shows a healthy positive trend
that many of the comparators have failed to replicate.
Some of the U.S. comparators experienced a decline
in this category, and many showed very small growth.
More Business, Science and Technology master’s and
doctorate graduates are ready to become the next
generation of managers and professionals.
%ofPopulation25-34
Percent of Population 25-34 years with a Post-Secondary Degree
or Diploma, 2001 and 2006
56
65.2
60.3
55.2
53.3
53.8
51.9
53
49.9
56.8
40.8
41.9
35.6
35.2
Silicon
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
2001
2006
30
40
50
60
70
Fig. 13
GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
POST-GRADUATE EDUCATION
The Reaching Higher plan, unveiled in the
2005 Ontario Budget, targeted 14,000 new
post-graduate spaces school by 2009/10.
It also identified an additional 104 first-year
undergraduate medical spaces by 2008/09.
This program was part of the Ontario
government’s $6.2 billion investment
in post-secondary education.
(www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/tcu/about/annualreport)

20
PercentofPopulation25-34
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 and
Professional Degree, 2001 and 2006
18
17
15
14
13
14
1010
8
6
8
6
8
7
Silicon
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
2001
2006
0
4
8
12
16
20
Fig. 14
As Fig. 15 shows, in the period 2006-2007, the Toronto
Region graduated more students in the category “all
other university fields” than in business, science and
technology. A closer look at the graduations in that
period, however, shows that a greater number of post-
graduate degrees were awarded in business science and
technology as well as in professional degrees in medical-
related fields and law (Fig. 16). This indicates that the
overall education of the population is good at the
undergraduate level and that more students are
selecting professional post-graduate studies which
adds to the talent pool of highly qualified individuals.
This is likely to persist, with higher enrolment levels in
post-graduate programs in Toronto Region universities.
These individuals are particularly important in light
of another important study, which found that in 2001,
Ontario managers still had a way to go to catch up
with U.S. managers’ education levels. In 1996, 46% of
U.S. managers had a university degree, compared to
considerably fewer (31%) of Ontario managers. Ontario
results for 2001 indicated that although the educational
attainment of Ontario managers has increased, the
province’s results in 2001 still did not match U.S. results
for 1996. A higher percentage of Ontario managers had
less than a high school diploma, and fewer Ontario
managers had a high school diploma, a bachelor’s
degree, or a graduate degree.12
“Cities with larger concentrations of degree holders –
measured as a percentage of the local employment
base – have, on balance, experienced faster employment
growth – 2.0% per annum – than cities with smaller
relative concentrations of degree holders – 1.6%. These
differences may appear to be small but, due to
compound growth, over the 20-year study period a city
that grew at 2% would grow by 49%, while a city with a
growth 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 fewer
engineers per 100,000 than comparator regions. There
has, however, been a positive upturn in the graduation rate
since 2001, with marked increases in undergraduate,
master’s and doctorate degrees in engineering.
This rate of increase needs to be sustained and improved
in all professional, scientific and technical disciplines to
grow the workforce of the future. Even though the Toronto
Region graduates fewer engineers, in absolute numbers,
than the comparator regions, the number of engineers
graduating has been steadily increasing, with 30% more
bachelor’s between 2002 and 2007, for instance.

21
Number of Degrees
Source: CUDO
Percent of Population 25-34 years with a
Post-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, Science
and Technology
All Other
University 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, Science
and Technology
All Other
University Fields
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Master’s
Degree
Doctorate
4,017
3,460
669
543
Fig. 16
NumberofDegreesper100,000
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
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
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
3
13
41
4
21
45
1
8
30
3
13
39
3
10
21
4
12
20
Fig. 17

22
THE TORONTO REGION NEEDS MORE
RESIDENTS WITH UNIVERSITY DEGREES,
PARTICULARLY POST-GRADUATE DEGREES
The high level of residents in the age range 25-34 who
have first degrees and diplomas shows that the value of
education is recognized in the Toronto Region.
Overall, the Toronto Region has fewer citizens with
university degrees than select U.S. comparators. The
U.S. has, however, far more post-secondary institutions –
4,000 colleges and universities13
– than Canada, including
many private universities giving citizens greater access
to higher education. Canadian and US qualifications are
not, however, directly comparable as accreditation of
institutions is voluntary in the U.S., not regulated by
government as it is in Canada. Independent accrediting
organizations are approved by the government and define
minimum standards of education in the U.S. These
organizations then certify whether schools, post-
secondary institutions and other education providers’
academic program meet and maintain that standard.14
The entities which conduct accreditation are associations
comprised of institutions and academic specialists in
specific subjects.15
Furthermore, the region has relatively fewer residents
with post-graduate education; i.e., individuals who hold
master’s, professional degrees (such as M.B.A. or M.D.)
or doctorates. As Michael McKenzie points out in a 2007
StatsCan report, “people who hold doctorates are an
important piston in Canada’s labour force engine. They
not only represent the highest educational attainment
level in a knowledge-based economy, they are also highly
skilled industrial researchers and innovators, teachers
and professors and scientists who take care of our
health as well.”16
More people with higher-level degrees would contribute
dollars as well as expertise to the Toronto Region
economy. The earning power of post-secondary graduates
is considerably higher than for those who do not complete
university or college. According to StatsCan figures for
2000, the average salary of a Canadian resident was
$32,000. For an Ontario resident, it was $36,000. For a
Toronto Region resident, it was $42,000. Science and
engineering 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, for
an average annual income of $82,115 for both sectors.17
Canada’s Institute for Competitiveness & Prosperity
corroborates these findings, pointing out that “In both the
stock and flow of science and engineering graduates, we
trail the U.S. in graduate degrees.”18
“…an emerging consensus is that as the world’s
economies become even more sophisticated, highly
skilled workers are simply more valuable and earn
higher incomes. And the difference in economic rewards
received by them and less skilled workers widens. As
emerging economies, like China and India, advance, we
can expect that less-skilled workers in the developed
economies will fall further behind. There will also be
greater competitive pressure on higher skilled workers,
as China and India move up the value chain and compete
on more sophisticated bases.”
– Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity,
Prosperity, Inequality and Poverty, Sept. 2007, p. 8.
“We find significant interactions between scientists and
engineers and the broader cross-section of degree
holders located in cities: the latter may be the primary
mechanism through which scientists and engineers
contribute to the growth process. In short, scientists
and engineers – the left brain of cities – matter most for
growth when combined with a large and diverse pool of
human capital.”
– Desmond Beckstead, W. Mark Brown and Guy Gellatly,
Cities and Growth: The Left Brain. Stats Canada, 2008, p. 32.
WHY EDUCATION RESOURCES ARE IMPORTANT
In the past, the traditional Ontario manufacturing base
provided high-paying jobs which typically did not require
post-secondary education. Today, blue collar jobs that
provide a middle class lifestyle are much less frequently
available to the new entrant to the workforce and are on
the decline within the working population.
As a recent StatsCan study pointed out, “there has been
a transformation of the work force toward workers with
higher skill levels, and those cities that are better able to
attract these kinds of workers may end up the winners in
this new age.”19
TORONTO REGION’S FLEXIBLE PART-TIME
MASTER’S PROGRAM IN ENGINEERING
Toronto’s Advanced Design and Manufacturing
Institute (ADMI) is a unique commitment to
achieve excellence in graduate engineering
education. The Faculties of Engineering and/or
Applied Science and the Business Schools of
the partnering universities collaborate to deliver
a quality master’s degree program in Design
and Manufacturing. The program builds on the
expertise in manufacturing and design of four
of the strongest academic programs available
in the province of Ontario, and integrates
the elements of business practices and
management skills so essential in the
competitive engineering marketplace.
(www.admicanada.com)

23
There has been a transition from “doing” to “thinking”
jobs, and studies confirm that a highly-educated
workforce is essential for innovation. As one report
completed for the government of Ontario says, “new
graduates, who have had the opportunity to participate in
the conduct of basic research, enter industry equipped
with training, knowledge, networks and expertise. They
bring to the firm knowledge of recent scientific research,
as well as an ability to solve complex problems, perform
research, and develop ideas. The skills developed
through their educational experience with advanced
instrumentation, techniques and scientific methods are
extremely valuable Students also bring with them a set
of qualifications, helping set standards for knowledge
in an industry.”20
A large number of scientists and engineers in a city
can make tremendous contributions to its research,
economic growth and technological innovation. They
can also forge important synergies with other degree-
holders, and drive innovation much more forcefully than
the other degree-holders could on their own. As the
StatsCan paper Cities and Growth: The Left Brain puts
it, “scientists and engineers – the left brain of cities –
matter most for growth when combined with a large
and 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 degree
or diploma level (bachelor’s degrees and college diplomas or certificates)
• The Toronto Region needs to be able to translate its current competitive advantage into more master’s and
doctorate degrees
• Toronto Region needs to assess barriers to entry for students with respect to graduate degrees. We need
to look at whether there are enough graduate positions, whether the system needs to be more flexible and
accessible, and whether there should be more interaction with industry

24
RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT FUNDING
Research & Development (R&D) funding includes support
from the private sector, support from the public sector as
well as joint support from both, in collaboration with one
another. Research and development provides knowledge
and technologies for transfer to the market and funding
here is important to ensure sufficient supply of these.
Private sector support for R&D in the Toronto Region is
increasing. In fact, by international G8 standards, Canada
as a whole does well: the private sector funds more than
10% of university research.22
Research conducted at universities, whether at a basic
level or in partnership with industry is fundamental to the
development of a competitive R&D infrastructure and,
hence, innovation within Canada.23
As Fig. 18 shows, the Toronto Region is conducting
increasing amounts of R&D which involves collaboration
between industry and universities. One important
measure of this is the growing contribution that the
National 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 university
research and training in the natural sciences and
engineering by encouraging Canadian companies to
invest in university R&D.24
Its CRD grants program is
intended to give companies that operate from a Canadian
base access to the unique knowledge, expertise, and
educational resources available at Canadian post-
secondary institutions and to train students in essential
technical skills required by industry.25
The scale of available government assistance and funding
for R&D in the U.S. is much higher than in Canada
(Fig. 19). Within Canada, Greater Montreal receives
more R&D funding per capita than the Toronto Region.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CANADIAN AND
U.S. GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF PRIVATE
SECTOR R&D
The Canadian and U.S. governments take a
significantly different approach to supporting
private sector R&D. According to 2004 data, in
Canada, government spends about 0.18% of GDP
whereas governments in the U.S. spend about
0.26% of GDP on such support. The countries
differ in level of support provided relative to the
sizes of economies, with the US almost 45%
higher, and in the mix of direct versus indirect
funding. In Canada, about 84% of the support is
in the form of tax credits (indirect), most notably
the Scientific Research & Experimental
Development (SR&ED) program and the balance
(16%) is direct (grants, loans, etc). In the U.S.,
most support (76%) is in the form of direct
grants and similar payments, with the balance
(24%) in the form of tax incentives.
OECD, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, 2006
Millions
Source: NSERC
NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Project
Expenditures in Toronto Region, 1997-2008 (Constant 2006 CAD)
5.1
5.7
6.0
5.8
6.3
6.9
7.8
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
There is no single strategy that will improve this situation
in the Toronto Region. The current range of strategies,
including some new initiatives, have the potential to
make an impact on and further strengthen the region’s
growing ability to attract more research funds to the
region’s institutions as well as more research-intensive
firms. These include an increasing number of government
initiatives aimed at educational institutes and research-
intensive firms, as well as mechanisms to indirectly
assist in funding private sector research such as federal
R&D tax credits.
Spending on R&D in both the private and public
sectors is low
As Fig.19 shows, the Toronto Region ranks poorly
and is fifth out of seven in the natural sciences and
infrastructure, faring better in social science, and last
in health. In addition, in terms of private sector R&D,
despite the increasing the amount of collaborative R&D
it funds, the fact is clear that the Toronto Region is
considerably lower in reported per capita expenditures
on R&D than all of the other comparator regions, except
Montreal (Fig. 20).
280
52
88
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
Dollars
Federal Government R&D Funding
to 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
40
121
1,242
164
24
66
422
67
28
25
390
61
13
35
254
167
63
74
169
142
40
46
Silicon
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto
Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
Fig. 19
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR
R&D AND ADVANCED MANUFACTURING JOBS
Ontario will make $150 million available over
the next five years to attract new or enhanced
biopharmaceutical investments to the province,
through its Biopharmaceutical Investment
Program (BIP). The provincial government will
use these funds to support up to 20% of total
eligible project costs. This public sector
investment will increase the province’s level
of new biopharmaceutical R&D and advanced
manufacturing, expand the footprint of local
businesses, create new high value jobs for
Ontarians, increase “deal flow” within Ontario’s
growing biotech cluster, and build capacity through
collaborations with public research institutions.
The government is also funding the Strategic Oppor-
tunities Program (SOP), a five-year discretionary,
non-entitlement grant program that supports
strategic, industry-led programs and projects in
targeted areas of strength for Ontario including:
• Bio-economy and clean technologies
• Advanced health technologies, and
• Digital media and Information and
Communications technologies (ICT).
(www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/bip/ program.asp,
www.mri.gov.on.ca/english/programs/sop/ program.asp)

26
WHY R&D FUNDING IS IMPORTANT
The presence of R&D facilities moves industry “up the
food chain,” from branch plants that manufacture goods
into central facilities that create goods and wealth.
R&D staff in industry seek and maintain good
relationships with universities. This is encouraged
by employers and strengthens the link between both
groups. Industries’ R&D departments add applicability
to university training and add academic intelligence to
industry, substantially benefitting both parties.26, 27
R&D facilities in the private sector create opportunities
for highly-trained post-secondary graduates. They create
high value-add employment for post-secondary graduates
trained in the Toronto Region, thereby encouraging them
to stay in the region. They also ensure that the Toronto
Region can attract highly-educated immigrants and
employ them at an appropriate level. In addition, they
strengthen innovation within the region by stimulating
networks and interactions between and among the
academic community and its counterpart in industry.
As Mike Lazaridis, founder, President and co-CEO of
Waterloo-based Research in Motion said in his 2004
presentation to the fourth annual Re$earch Money
Conference in Ottawa, “if you really want to understand
commercialization, all you have to do is attend convocation
at your local university ... Armed with cutting edge
technology from around the world, the latest tools, the
latest techniques and processes learned from their work
under the very best researchers, they graduate with much
fanfare and go on to build the industry, institutions and
society of our country.”28
R&D jobs tend to be highly paid, and are taken by
professionals, raising the overall economic base and
socioeconomic level of a region.
Post-secondary graduates tend to be comfortable around
innovation and the adoption of new ideas and technologies,
increasing the overall “innovativeness” of the area.
Government funding for R&D in universities upgrades
the supply of innovation by encouraging competition for
peer-reviewed R&D funding and interest from venture
capitalists.29
Support of R&D within the private sector supports the
management talent necessary to commercialize R&D
ideas. As highlighted by Roger L. Martin, “technical
strengths in science and technology are probably the
most important contributors to the quantity and quality of
the supply of innovation. Management skills are critical to
organizing R&D efforts, for setting priorities, developing
strategies, and acquiring resources. Good management
skills also provide the pressure to ensure high quality
resource allocation decisions among competing priorities
for 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
1.34
0.83
0.33 0.16 0.09 0.04
Silicon
Valley
M
assachusetts
Toronto Region
M
ontreal
Research
Triangle
Illinois
M
ichigan
Fig. 20
THE BOTTOM LINE
• The Toronto Region needs R&D investment from the federal and provincial governments to strengthen the
R&D infrastructure and build a base upon which to train graduate students and attract R&D-intense
industries as partners
• The Toronto Region needs to attract more R&D-intensive companies
• The Toronto Region needs to look at barriers to R&D in the region and in general

HOW WE ARE
PERFORMING
27

28
R&D INDICATORS
The Conference Board of Canada report Innovation
Overview (2008) states “Innovation is the ability to turn
knowledge into new and improved goods and services.”
ATRIG looked at the quantitative measures of the Toronto
Region’s commercialization and knowledge transfer
mechanisms – the publications, invention disclosures,
patent applications, patents granted and licenses. In the
Toronto Region our institutions are important as they are
the main producers of these outputs and these provide
tangible evidence that the region’s R&D is being transferred
from the region’s research institutions to the market.
Knowledge transfer in the Toronto Region is improving
The Toronto Region is performing well with respect to
overall quantity of scientific publications. The number of
publications has increased over time (Fig. 21), however,
this upward trend is one which is being demonstrated
by all comparator regions (Fig. 22). In fact, most of
the comparators are publishing more, per 100,000
population, and only Illinois and Michigan trail the
Toronto Region.
The impact of Toronto Region publications is low
The Toronto Region is publishing more, but the relative
impact, as measured by Average Relative Impact Factor
(a weighted measure of citations in science and social
science journals that demonstrates the importance of a
journal to its field) is lower. Montreal is the only comparator
region that has a lower relative impact (Fig. 23).
NumberofPublications
Source: OST
Number of Scientific Publications by Authors at
Toronto Region Universities, 2000-2006
7,810
7,646
8,041
8,871
9,044
10,182
10,952
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
7,500
8,500
9,500
10,500
11,500
Fig. 21
$205 MILLION IN NEW VENTURE CAPITAL FOR
INNOVATIVE, HIGH-GROWTH COMPANIES
In June 2008, the Ontario government and
leading institutional investors launched the new
$205-million Ontario Venture Capital Fund to
strengthen the province’s venture capital sector
to support growing innovation. TD Capital Private
Equity Investors is the fund manager. Other
leading intuitional partners include: OMERS
Capital Partners, RBC Capital Partners, Manulife
Financial, Business Development Bank of
Canada, TD Bank Financial Group, and the
Government of Ontario.
The Ontario Venture Capital Fund will invest
primarily in Ontario-focused venture capital
and growth funds. These funds will enable the
province’s venture capital sector to better support
innovative, high-growth companies in Ontario by
making it easier for them to find the investment,
expertise and support they need.
Says Rob MacLellan, Chief Investment Officer, TD
Bank, “as patient venture capital investors, we're
confident the Ontario Venture Capital Fund can
not only produce attractive returns but can also
have a significant impact on creating a virtuous
cycle that will drive incremental investment in
world-class Ontario-based technology and
innovation over the long term.”34, 35, 36

29
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
Montreal
Toronto Region
Illinois
Michigan
Fig. 22
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
ARIF
Average Relative Impact Factors (ARIF) of Publications, 2000-2006
Toronto Region
Montreal
Massachusetts
Silicon Valley
Research Triangle
Michigan
Illinois
Source: OST
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Fig. 23

30
Total Licenses, Patents (Applications and Issued), and Invention
Disclosures, 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
168
132
64
77
58
43
13
13
13
7
12
8
9
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). This
indicator shows the average number of times papers
from Toronto Region academics are referenced by other
academics, providing an indication of the relevance of the
work as determined by academic peers.
The Toronto Region’s relative impact – where we
publish and how much we commercialize – is low,
but, is increasing.
In terms of the identification, protection and transfer
of intellectual property, the total licenses, discoveries,
patents and inventions from Toronto Region universities
and research hospitals between 2001 and 2006 has
almost doubled (Fig. 25). No other comparator region
has increased so dramatically. While the Toronto Region
performs relatively poorly on technology commercialization
(as measured in patents granted and licensing revenue)
in comparison to Silicon Valley and Massachusetts, the
region’s performance is, however, comparable to Illinois,
Michigan, the Research Triangle and Montreal.
MARS INNOVATION TO ACCELERATE
COMMERCIALIZATION
MaRS Innovation is one of 11 new federally-supported
Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and
Research (CECRs) announced in February 2008.
MaRS Innovation is a joint venture between the
MaRS Centre, University of Toronto and Toronto’s
research hospitals to offer global industry a one
stop linkage into the Toronto research engine.
The partnership received $14.9 million in federal
CECR funding over five years to accelerate the
commercialization of promising research from
its member institutions. Joint teams from MaRS
Innovation and each institution will work with
researchers to identify discoveries that can be used
as the basis for new companies or used by existing
companies. MaRS Innovation will focus on delivering
the best of Toronto’s innovations in a timely, effective
and industry focused manner. www.marsdd.com

31
2008AnnualTorontoRegionInnovationGaugeTHE BOTTOM LINE
• The Toronto Region has a strong foundation – a large and highly-educated population, diverse industries and
high employment rates – upon which it can build to improve its performance
• The Toronto Region has the programs and initiatives in place to strengthen its capacity and drivers for
commercialization
• The Toronto Region’s performance with respect to R&D outputs is relatively weak; the region needs to
continue focusing on this area
WHY ARE THE OUTPUTS OF R&D
IMPORTANT?
Transferring research to the market in the form of
publication or intellectual property allows universities
to realize their potential as economic drivers. Research
papers developed in universities that result in patents
and licenses translate academic discoveries into
innovative approaches and tangible products which
eventually make their way to the market.
One study completed in 2006 for the University of Toronto’s
Centre for International Studies Program on Globalization
and Regional Innovation Systems put together a number
of conclusions from various researchers about the
importance of this knowledge transfer:
• University research is important to local firms not just
for the transfer of knowledge generated through the
university’s own research activities, but also as a conduit
enabling firms to access knowledge from the “global
pipelines” of international academic research networks.
• Universities serve as attractors of talent from
elsewhere that contributes to the “thickness” of the
local labour market.
• Universities often function as “good community
players” rather than “ivory towers” insulated from their
community. They facilitate local linkages and networks,
and serve as “anchors of creativity” that sustain the
virtuous cycle of talent attraction and retention.31
Another study, completed for the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, points out that universities play an
important role in helping attract new human, knowledge
and financial resources from elsewhere. In addition, “they
can help to adapt knowledge originating elsewhere to
local conditions. They can help to integrate previously
separate areas of technological activity. They can help to
unlock and redirect knowledge that is already present in
the region but not being put to productive use.”32
R&D indicators encourage collaboration and networking
by publicizing work currently underway. As the MIT study
also points out, in addition to education, universities also
play an important indirect role in serving as a “public
space for ongoing local conversations about the future
direction of technologies and markets. The importance
of the public space role of the university and its
contribution to local innovation performance is
often underestimated.”33
A large number of patents, publications and licenses
indicates not only research excellence, but also innovation
capacity, the ability to transfer research to the market.
The number of patents, publications and licenses
communicate the status of the Toronto Region’s R&D
compared to that of the rest of the world.
The number of disclosures, patents and licenses
communicate the relevance of the Toronto Region’s
research activities to the market.
THE ONTARIO CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE (OCE)
CENTRE FOR THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF
RESEARCH (CCR)
The Centre for the Commercialization of
Research (CCR), led by The Ontario Centres
of Excellence, will help ensure that new
technologies developed by Canada’s outstanding
research universities reach the global
marketplace. Its initial focus will be on
commercializing new technology discoveries
related to the environment, natural resources and
energy, health and related life sciences, and
digital media. CCR will also develop technical and
managerial talent nationally, to more effectively
commercialize technology.38
www.oce-ontario.org

32
CONCLUSION

33
educated population and diverse industries, among other
pillars of strength. Even though the Toronto Region is
publishing more, and issuing more patents and licenses,
it is important to build on these strengths through more
private and public sector investment in R&D. These
initiatives will ensure that the Toronto Region starts
producing and reaches its potential for innovation.
TORONTO REGION STRENGTHS
The 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 outside
manufacturing, which have high levels of employment
• Good postsecondary education levels in society and
strong growth in level of educational attainment
• A growing number of licenses, patents and inventions
from its universities and hospitals.
IMPROVEMENTS “IN THE WORKS”
The Toronto Region is taking measures to improve
some of its weaker areas – graduate education and
commercialization:
• Large increases in the enrolment numbers of
students to graduate programs at the master’s and
doctorate level
• Federal initiatives and provincial programs to
encourage the discovery process and increase output
of innovations from our institutions
• Provincial programs to encourage companies to hire
staff in high-value jobs.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
• More R&D investment in the Toronto Region from the
public and private sectors
• Better public recognition for the R&D strengths and
other related “attributes” in the region, as well as a
better understanding of the strengths we have.
COMING UP IN FUTURE
TRRA REPORTS
Future TRRA reports will focus in on specific areas of
research that indicate how the Toronto Region is doing in
innovation in addition to comparing the Toronto Region to
others. TRRA will be sharing:
• The results of our study on the Toronto Region’s labour
force
• Our research and initial findings on networks within the
advanced manufacturing labour market
• A look on the products of innovation in the Toronto
Region – influences on and increases in our
performance with respect to patents, research papers
and licenses
• An in-depth look at key areas of immigration in the
Toronto Region as well as effectively immigrants are
being integrated and engaged
• A look at how the Toronto region compares with respect
to copyright materials, an aspect of innovation not
considered in ATRIG this year.

34
Mr. Michael Benedict
Principal, MCB Strategies Inc.
Mr. Charles Davis
Edward S. Rogers Sr. Research Chair in Media
Management and Entrepreneurship
Ryerson University
Dr. Paul Genest
President & CEO
Council of Ontario Universities
Mr. John Hoicka
Senior Research and Policy Advisor
Colleges Ontario
Ms. Elizabeth McIsaac
Executive Director
TRIEC
Mr. James Milway
Executive Director
Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity
Martin Prosperity Institute
Ms. Avvey Peters
Executive Director, Communications
& Government Relations
Communitech
Mr. Shahrokh Shahabi-Azad
Senior Economist, Innovation and Corporate Policy
Branch, Ministry of Research and Innovation
Ms. José Sigouin
Research and Information Analysis
University of Toronto
Ms. Natasha Tang Kai
Senior Advisor, Performance Measurement and Results
Ministry of Research and Innovation
Mr. John Tennant
CEO
Canada’s Technology Triangle Inc.
Dr. David Wolfe
Co-Director, Program on Globalization and Regional
Innovation Systems
PRIMARY AUTHOR
Dr. Karen Sievewright
Director, Research
TRRA
RESEARCH ASSISTANTS
Bettina Cheung
Odila Duru
Alex Hunt
Richard Liang
Michael Wolfe
Andrew Wong
ATRIG ADVISORY COUNCIL

35
APPENDICES &
ENDNOTES

36
APPENDIX 1 – SELECTION OF COMPARATOR REGIONS
Six regions were chosen against which to compare the Toronto Region’s performance. These regions are – or have been
– successful in areas similar to the Toronto Region, and many represent the best in their respective areas of success.
The following criteria were considered when choosing the comparators:
Population: While the spread in population of our comparators is quite large (1.6 to 12.9 million), the Toronto Region
comes fairly close to the average at 7 million. Regions with too small or too large a population were excluded.
Proximity: Geographically close regions with similar natural attributes were selected as these have similar economic
and infrastructural influences.
Industrial make-up: The selected regions have a similar range of industries and employment levels within
these industries.
Strong manufacturing base: While the Toronto Region historically has had a very strong manufacturing base, the
sector has experienced recent declines. Due to the significance of this industry, certain other regions strong in
manufacturing were selected to compare to the Toronto Region.
Research intensity: Research and innovation are key contributors to the new knowledge-based economy. The Toronto
Region, therefore, is compared to other research-intensive areas.
Model regions: Regions which present models that the Toronto Region could aspire to become were selected. The
comparator regions are all considered to be successful in one aspect or another. For example, Silicon Valley performs very
well in certain indicators and, even though it is not realistic that the Toronto Region performs on par or better than this
area, it is still useful to see where the Toronto Region ranks in relation to successful regions.

37
COMPARATOR REGIONS
Illinois: Illinois has a strong economy and is geographically close to the Toronto Region. These similarities warrant
its inclusion in the 2008 report. The state is located just south of Lake Michigan, and has a population of 12.9 million
people.46
In 2006, the gross state product in Illinois was $589 billion US dollars. Much of the state’s economic success
occurs in Chicago, a major financial and high technology city.47
Chicago has high employment in information technology industries,48
with manufacturing also playing an important, but
declining, role in the city’s economy. The city is an important financial centre, and home to three major financial exchanges.
Many large organizations and businesses are headquartered in Chicago, including a number of Fortune 500 companies.
Illinois is a R&D centre and nine universities are located in the state. The University of Chicago and Northwestern
University perform extremely well in various school rankings.49
($)AverageWage
Health Care &
Social Assistance
Retail TradeConstruction
Other Services
Wholesale Trade
Information &
Cultural Industries
Finance & Insurance
Utilities
Educational
Services
Manufacturing
Transportation &
Warehousing
Arts, Entertainment
& Recreation
Real Estate &
Rental Leasing
Waste Management &
Remediation Service
Accommodation &
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 American
Concentration, Illinois, 2006

38
Massachusetts: Massachusetts is a successful state, with a gross state product of $338 billion US dollars. At 6.4 million
people, it is very similar in size to the Toronto Region.50
Massachusetts has transitioned from a manufacturing
economy,51
to one that is a centre of higher education, biotechnology and finance.
Massachusetts is in the northeastern United States. Boston is the major urban centre in the state and is a major
component of the Massachusetts economy. The state is a R&D-intensive area, supported by many universities and colleges.
The Greater Boston area has over 40 colleges and universities, a number of which are highly-respected and ranked.
Massachusetts is an ideal comparator for the Toronto Region, as its proximity and population allow for similar
conditions. The state is also an important model, having successfully transformed its economy to take advantage of
new technologies and research.
($)AverageWage
Health Care &
Social Assistance
Retail Trade
Construction
Other Services
Wholesale Trade
Information &
Cultural Industries
Finance & Insurance
Utilities
Manufacturing
Transportation
& Warehousing
Arts, Entertainment
& Recreation
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
Concentration, Massachusetts, 2006

39
Michigan: Similar to Illinois, Michigan is good comparator region. It is close to the Toronto Region and is known for its
strong manufacturing base. The state is just east of Lake Michigan, which composes the bulk of its enormous shoreline.52
Michigan’s population is 10.1 million, and its largest city is Detroit, with a population of just over 900 000 people.53, 54
While best known for its automotive industry, the state has diversified lately, partly in response to the decline
manufacturing has experienced. The economy now includes information technology and life sciences industries,55
and has increased R&D expenditures in these areas.56, 57
Michigan is home to the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor
(a $1 billion biotech initiative),58
and has a number of large research institutions.
($)AverageWage
Health Care &
Social Assistance
Retail Trade
Construction
Other Services
Wholesale Trade
Information &
Cultural Industries
Finance & Insurance Utilities
Manufacturing
Transportation
& Warehousing Arts, Entertainment
& Recreation
Real Estate &
Rental Leasing
Waste Management &
Remediation Service
Accommodation
& Food Services0
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
Management of
Companies & Enterprises
Concentration, Michigan, 2006

40
Montreal: Montreal is the second largest census metropolitan area (CMA) in Canada,39
with a population of just over
3.5 million people. The CMA includes the island of Montreal and a number of densely-populated suburbs.
In 2007, Montreal’s GDP was $123 billion40
and the region has industrial strengths in aerospace, electronics,
pharmaceuticals, software engineering, finance and higher education.41
Many research facilities and agencies are located in the Montreal CMA, including the Canadian Space Agency and the
National Research Council.42, 43
There are 11 universities and 12 public colleges located in the region, making the region
the second-highest ratio of students per capita in North America 44, 45
Montreal conducts and receives significant
research and research dollars as is shown in exhibits 19 and 22.
Montreal was selected as the only Canadian comparator in the 2008 Innovation Gauge because of its strong research
focus, proximity to the Toronto Region, and its successful economy.
($)AverageWage
Concentration, Montreal, 2006
Health Care &
Social Assistance Retail Trade
Construction
Other Services
Wholesale Trade
Information &
Cultural Industries
Finance & Insurance
Utilities
Manufacturing
Transportation &
Warehousing
Arts, Entertainment
& Recreation
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
Silicon Valley: Silicon Valley is located in the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area. The region has a population
of 2.6 million people, and is commonly recognized as one of the most successful regions in North America.59
Silicon Valley is a leader in high technology with thousands of related companies operating within its boundaries. The
region also has a high number of Fortune 1000 companies.60
Silicon Valley attracts a large number of engineers and
venture capital.
There are five universities within Silicon Valley, with Carnegie Melon and Stanford being amongst them. Because of
this, and the nature of the businesses and research in Silicon Valley, the population is highly-educated and the region
attracts a large amount of public research funding.61
Often the pinnacle in North American innovation, research, and
development, Silicon Valley represents a compelling story for the possibilities provided through innovation.
($)AverageWage
Health Care &
Social Assistance
Retail Trade
Construction
Other
Services
Wholesale Trade Information &
Cultural Industries
Finance & Insurance
Manufacturing
Transportation &
Warehousing
Arts, Entertainment
& Recreation
Real Estate &
Rental Leasing
Management of
Companies & Enterprises
Waste Management &
Remediation Service
Accommodation
& Food Services
0
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
Concentration, Silicon Valley, 2006

42
Research Triangle: Located in North Carolina, the Research Triangle is made up of three cities – Raleigh, Durham and
Chapel Hill – and has a population of 1.6 million people.62
The region consists of numerous high technology businesses
and has a highly-educated population.63
The region is home to Research Triangle Park, one of the largest research parks in the United States.64
A growing
number of high technology firms have contributed to the region’s growth over the past years.65
IBM, Nortel Networks,
and Cisco Systems all have large offices in the Research Triangle.
There are over 10 colleges and universities within the Research Triangle.66
This dense research infrastructure makes
the Research Triangle similar to the Toronto Region in many ways, and sets many goals that the Toronto Region should
try and emulate in some capacity.
Note: In three cases, entire states were used over municipalities for the U.S. comparators (e.g., Massachusetts instead
of Boston) as they were thought to be a more suitable comparison to the Toronto Region because they include both
urban and rural areas and due to limitations in the data available at the municipal level.
($)AverageWage
Health Care &
Social Assistance
Retail Trade
Construction
Other
Services
Wholesale Trade
Finance & Insurance
Manufacturing
Transportation
& Warehousing
Real Estate &
Rental Leasing
Management of Companies
& Enterprises
Waste Management &
Remediation Service
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
Concentration, Research Triangle, 2006

43
APPENDIX 2 – METHODOLOGY/DATA SOURCES
DEFINITION OF REGIONS
Toronto Region (TR): Unless otherwise stated, the Toronto Region data is calculated by using five Census Metropolitan
Areas (CMA): Guelph, Hamilton, Kitchener, Oshawa and Toronto.
Montreal (MTL): Unless otherwise stated, Montreal is defined as the Statistics Canada CMA.
Research Triangle (RT): Unless otherwise stated, the RT is defined as the micropolitan area of Raleigh-Carey-Dunn.
Silicon Valley (SV): Unless otherwise stated, SV is defined as the counties Santa Clara and San Mateo.
Illinois (IL): IL refers to the state of Illinois.
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. The
formula 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
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 the
California Department of Finance. Both the Toronto Region data and the Montreal data are from the Conference Board
of Canada. For the Toronto Region and Montreal, the net domestic migration was calculated by adding the net
interprovincial migration with the net intercity migration. The net migration was calculated by adding the net
international migration, the net interprovincial migration, and the net intercity migration.
Sources
Toronto Region:
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 migration
was calculated by adding the net interprovincial migration with the net intercity migration. The net migration was
calculated by adding the net international migration, the net interprovincial migration, and the net intercity migration.
Source
Toronto Region:
Fig. 5 – Number of Immigrants as a Percentage of the National Number, 2001-2006
The number of immigrants in was summed for each of ATRIG Comparitor regions between 2001-2006. This number
was then calculated as a percent of the total national number of immigrants.

45
Sources
Toronto Region & Montreal:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&PID=93716&GID=8
37928&METH=1&APATH=3&PTYPE=88971&THEME=72&AID=&FREE=0&FOCU.S.=&VID=0&GC=99&GK=NA&RL=0&d1=
5&d2=6&d3=0&d4=0
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table04.xls
Research Triangle & Silicon Valley:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/yearbook/2006/table05.xls
Fig. 6 – Immigrants to the Toronto Region, Highest Level of Education, Period of Immigration, 1991-2006
The TR data is from Statistics Canada. For the TR, the number of immigrants at different education levels was summed
from 1991-2006 at 5 year intervals. They were separated by highest level of reported education, high school,
apprenticeship, college, and university, as seen in the charts, and then graphed to show the trend over 3 time periods.
For the year 2006, this chart includes only the immigration numbers from January 2006 to May 16, 2006.
Source
Toronto Region:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2006&PID=93716&GID=8
37928&METH=1&APATH=3&PTYPE=88971&THEME=72&AID=&FREE=0&FOCU.S.=&VID=0&GC=99&GK=NA&RL=0&d1=
5&d2=6&d3=0&d4=0
Fig. 7 – Industry Sectors by Size, Average Wage and Relative North American Concentration, Toronto Region, 2006
The data was taken from the U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada. To make the NAICS codes comparable across
Canada and the United States, NAICS 99 (industry unclassified) was removed for the U.S. comparators, as this data does
not exist for the Canadian comparators. Also, the U.S. NAICS code 42 was changed to 41 to match the Canadian NAICS,
both of which are for ‘wholesale trade.’
As Statistics Canada does not provide data on the average wage for particular NAICS codes, this was estimated using
the following method. The average wage for Montreal and the TR was calculated by summing the number of employees
in each North American Occupation Classification (NOC) sub code from each CMA into each major NOC code. Secondly,
the average wages of each NOC sub code was used to calculate the average wages for the major NOC codes for each
CMA. The average wage for each major NOC code for each NAICS code was then calculated using a weighted average
based on the number of employees. Finally, the average wage for each NOC code for each NAICS code was weighted by
the number of employees in the corresponding NOC code and then summed.
Sources
Toronto Region and Montreal:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=97-
559-XCB2006023&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=0&IPS=97-559-XCB2006023
&METH=0&ORDER=&PID=92116&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=&StartRow=&SUB=&Temporal=2006&Theme=7
4&VID=&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=
Canada:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/highlights/labour/Table602.cfm?Lang=E&T=602&GH=4&SC=1&SO=9
9&O=A
United States:
http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000U.S.&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-_lang=en

46
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 across
Canada and the United States, NAICS 99 (industry unclassified) was removed for the U.S. comparators, as this data
does not exist for the Canadian comparators. Also, the U.S. NAICS code 42 was changed to 41 to match the Canadian
NAICS, both of which are for ‘wholesale trade.’
As Statistics Canada does not provide data on the average wage for particular NAICS codes, this was estimated using
the following method. The average wage for Montreal and the TR was calculated by summing the number of employees
in each North American Occupation Classification (NOC) sub code from each CMA into each major NOC code. Secondly,
the average wages of each NOC sub code was used to calculate the average wages for the major NOC codes for each
CMA. The average wage for each major NOC code for each NAICS code was then calculated using a weighted average
based on the number of employees. Finally, the average wage for each NOC code for each NAICS code was weighted by
the number of employees in the corresponding NOC code and then summed.
Sources
Toronto Region and Montreal:
Canada:
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/censU.S.06/data/highlights/labour/Table602.cfm?Lang=E&T=602&GH=4&SC=1&SO=9
9&O=A
United States:
http://factfinder.censU.S..gov/servlet/GQRTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000U.S.&-ds_name=CB0600A1&-_lang=en
Research Triangle:

47
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 each
comparator 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 America
from 2001 to 2007. The number for each year was added, then divided by 7 to derive the average annual number over
the period.
Sources
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/section_node/0,1042,sid%253D56072,00.html
Deloitte – Technology Fast 500 – 2001
Fig. 11 – Median Household Income, Constant 2006 USD, 2000 and 2006
The data was taken from Statistics Canada, the U.S. Census. Bureau, and the U.S. Department of Labour. The three
year median income was found for the TR and all of the Comparators. These numbers were then converted into
constant 2005 dollars, which were then converted into 2006 dollars using the GDP/CPI Index. Finally, the TR and
Montreal data was converted to U.S. dollars using the Organisation for Economic Development’s (OECD) purchasing
power parity (PPP) numbers.
Sources
Toronto Region:
2000 Median Income: Statistics Canada - CANSIM 2020411
2006 Median Income: OECD - Purchasing Power Parities Data
http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,3343,en_2649_34347_36202863_1_1_1_1,00.html#ppp

48
Montreal:
2000 Median Income: Statistics Canada - CANSIM 3800056
2006 Median Income: OECD - Purchasing Power Parities Data
http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,3343,en_2649_34347_36202863_1_1_1_1,00.html#ppp
Massachusetts, Illinois and Michigan
2000 Median Income and 2006 Median Income: US Census Bureau - Current Population Survey
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h08b.html
Silicon Valley:
2000 Median Income: Census 2000- The number was taken off an interactive map for theSanta Clara and San Mateo
Counties. Because the information was not available before Census 2000, this number was weighted by population and
taken as the median household income for that 3 year average.
Link: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=zoom&-errMsg=&-
_useSS=N&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=10&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024&-tm_config=|b=50|l
=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.9557697048764706E7|dh=1.4455689123E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMap
Extent|if=gif|cx=-
1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368
|g=01000US|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=040|mn=9243|mx=82929|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Dollars|pr=0|
th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=01000US&-
_pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identi
fy#?416,218
2006 Median Household Income: US Census Bureau - American Community Survey
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=en
Research Triangle:
2000 Median Income: Census 2000- The number was taken off an interactive map for the Raleigh-Dunn-Chapel Hill
Metropolitan area Because the information was not available before Census 2000, this number was taken as the
median household income for that 3 year average.
Link: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_bm=y&-_MapEvent=zoom&-errMsg=&-
_useSS=N&-_dBy=040&-redoLog=false&-_zoomLevel=10&-tm_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024&-tm_config=|b=50|l
=en|t=403|zf=0.0|ms=thm_def|dw=1.9557697048764706E7|dh=1.4455689123E7|dt=gov.census.aff.domain.map.LSRMap
Extent|if=gif|cx=-
1159354.4733499996|cy=7122022.5|zl=10|pz=10|bo=|bl=|ft=350:349:335:389:388:332:331|fl=403:381:204:380:369:379:368
|g=01000US|ds=DEC_2000_SF3_U|sb=50|tud=false|db=040|mn=9243|mx=82929|cc=1|cm=1|cn=5|cb=|um=Dollars|pr=0|
th=DEC_2000_SF3_U_M00024|sf=N|sg=&-PANEL_ID=tm_result&-_pageY=&-_lang=en&-geo_id=01000US&-
_pageX=&-_mapY=&-_mapX=&-_latitude=&-_pan=&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&-_longitude=&-_changeMap=Identi
fy#?416,218
2006 Median Household Income: US Census Bureau
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/STTable?_bm=y&-context=st&-qr_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_S1901&-
ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-CONTEXT=st&-tree_id=306&-keyword=Durham&-redoLog=false&-_caller=geoselect
&-geo_id=31000US20380&-format=&-_lang=en

49
Fig. 12 – Subscribers to Communications and Services, Percentage of Population, 2001 and 2006
The data is from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Statistics Canada. The population numbers from
Fig. 1 were used to calculate percentages.
Sources
U.S. Comparator Regions:
2006 FCC Report
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-28A1.pdf
2004,5 FCC Report
2002,3 FCC Report
2001 FCC Report;
Canada – Toronto Region & Montreal:
win/cnsmcgi.pgm?regtkt=&C2Sub=&ARRAYID=2030020&C2DB=&VEC=&LANG=E&SrchVer=&ChunkSize=&SDDSLOC=
&ROOTDIR=CII/&RESULTTEMPLATE=CII/CII_PICK&ARRAY_PICK=1&SDDSID=&SDDSDESC=
(subscription required)
Fig. 13 – Percent of Population 25-34 Years with a Post-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006
The TR data is from Statistics Canada’s Education Attainment data and the U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey. The percentages were calculated using the population numbers from Fig. 1.
Sources
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enEleva
tors
B15001. SEX BY AGE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER - Universe:
POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER
B15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER - Universe: POPULATION 25
YEARS AND OVER
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&C
ATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=9
3609&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&Theme=75&VID=0&VNAMEE=&V
NAMEF=
Fig. 14 – Percent of Population Aged 25-34 with a Post-Graduate or Professional Degree, 2001 and 2006
The data is from Statistics Canada and the U.S. Census. Bureau. The percentages were calculated using the population
numbers from Fig. 1. Professional degrees include medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and optometry.
Sources
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_2&_lang=enEleva
tors

50
B15001. SEX BY AGE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER - Universe:
POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER
B15002. SEX BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR THE POPULATION 25 YEARS AND OVER - Universe: POPULATION 25
YEARS AND OVER
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&C
ATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=9
3609&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=0&Temporal=2006&Theme=75&VID=0&VNAMEE=&V
NAMEF=
Fig. 15 – Percent of Population 25-34 Years with a Post-Secondary Degree or Diploma, 2001 and 2006
All of the data was obtained from Common University Data Ontario (CUDO).
Source
Toronto Region:
http://www.cou.on.ca/_bin/relatedSites/cudo.cfm
Fig. 16 – Business, Science and Technology, and Other Education Degrees Awarded in the Toronto Region, 2006-2007
Academic Year
All of the data was obtained from Common University Data Ontario (CUDO).
Source
Toronto Region:
http://www.cou.on.ca/_bin/relatedSites/cudo.cfm
Fig. 17 – Engineering Degrees Awarded per 100,000 Population, 2002 and 2007
The data for the U.S. comparator regions was obtained from the Engineering Workforce Commission of the American
Association of Engineering Societies, Inc. (AAES) in their publication ‘Engineering & Technology Degrees’. The data for
the TR is from CUDO, and the data for Montreal was obtained by contacting each University individually and obtaining
data. Totals were divided by the population numbers from Fig. 1.
Source
“Engineering & Technology Degrees” (publication purchased from the AAES)
Toronto Region:
CUDO (Common University Data Ontario) http://www.cou.on.ca/_bin/relatedSites/cudo.cfm
Fig. 18 – NSERC Collaborative Research and Development Project Funding in the Toronto Region, 1997-2008
(Constant 2006 CAD)
The data was obtained from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) published grant reports
and the NSERC searchable database. It was then summed for each year.
Sources
Toronto Region 2007:
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_oct-dec-07_e.pdf
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_july-sept2007_e.pdf
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_reports_apr-july2007_e.pdf
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_jan-mar2007_e.pdf

51
Toronto Region prior to 2007:
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/stats/2004-2005/en/tables/FF04-05E.xls
Fig. 19 – Federal Government R&D Funding to Research Institutions, per capita, 2000-2007, Constant 2006 USD
The data for the TR and Montreal was obtained from NSERC, the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR), the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). The data
for the US comparators was obtained from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health
(NIH). The values were converted to standard 2006 dollars. The data for the TR and Montreal was then converted to
2006 USD using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
Sources
Toronto Region & Montreal:
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_oct-dec-07_e.pdf
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_july-sept2007_e.pdf
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_reports_apr-july2007_e.pdf
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/disclosure_grants/grants_report_jan-mar2007_e.pdf
http://www.nserc.gc.ca/about/stats/2004-2005/en/tables/FF04-05E.xls
http://webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/funding/Search?p_language=E&p_version=CIHR
http://www.outil.ost.uqam.ca/CRSH/RechProj.aspx?vLangue=Anglais or
http://www.sshrc.ca/web/about/stats/tables_e.asp
http://www.innovation.ca/projects/CFIawards100608.xls
http://report.nih.gov/award/trends/State_Congressional/StateOverview.cfm
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/tab.do?dispatch=4
Fig. 20 – Private R&D expenditure per $1000 USD sales per 100,000 people, 2007
The data was purchased from Standard & Poor’s Compustat. Then total R&D expenditure for each comparator and the
Toronto Region was divided into the total sales. This number was then multiplied by 1000 to give the R&D expenditure
per $1000 in sales figure. Finally, this number was divided by the total population for each region, and then multiplied
by 100 000 which gives the private R&D expenditure per $1000 sales per 100 000 people.
Source
www.compustat.com (private purchased data from compustat)
Fig. 21 – Number of Scientific Publications by Authors at Toronto Region Universities, 2000-2006
The data was purchased from the Observatoire des Sciences et des Techniques (OST).
Source
OST - Patents and Publications - TR, MTL, SV, RT, MA, MI, IL - 2000-2006 (private purchased data)
Fig. 22 – Number of Scientific Publications per 100,000 Population, 2000-2006
Source

52
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 per
100 000 Population, 2001 and 2006
The data is from the Association of University Technology Mangers (AUTM) Licensing Survey. The universities and
institutions belonging to each region were identified and their data was summed.
Source
2006 Licensing Survey- http://www.autm.net/about/dsp.pubDetail2.cfm?pid=41

53
INTRODUCTION
The Toronto Region benefits from a diverse economy with
expertise and strength in a wide range of economic sectors.
Within this broad range of industries, the Toronto Region is
home to numerous world-ranked clusters of R&D.
The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) worked with TRRA to
determine where the region’s research and development
strengths lie. This effort identified over 30 research-intensive
clusters in which the Toronto Region has developed a critical
mass of research, development and business capacity. The top
R&D clusters are defined using six key attributes: specialized
labour, anchor companies, leading customers, suppliers and
infrastructure, public sector R&D, and supportive public policies.
In this section, we profile two research-intensive clusters – Water
Technologies and Risk, Fraud, IT Security & Cryptography – which
are both topical and pertinent to the regional economy. Public
health issues and growing scientific interest in the environment,
coupled with the Toronto Region’s proximity to the Great Lakes,
have resulted in a high concentration of water-related research
and business activity in the region. The Toronto Region is the
second largest financial services centre in North America and
also is home to several universities with exceptionally strong
computer science, engineering and mathematical expertise and
programs. It is not surprising, therefore, that a vibrant Risk,
Fraud, IT Security and Cryptography cluster has emerged.
APPENDIX 3 – SELECTED SECTOR PROFILES

THE TORONTO REGION IS….
• The site of a strong Fraud, Risk, IT Security &
Cryptography cluster, and which provides important
support to the region’s financial services sector
(This cluster is the second largest financial centre
in North America)
• A growing hub of more than 100 companies that provide
IT security products and services, including industry
leaders such as: Bioscript, Certicom Co., Cisco Systems
Canada, Digital Cement, Diversinet, IBM Canada, L-1
Identity Solutions, Lorex technology Inc., McAfee
Canada, Microsoft Canada, Open Text Corporation,
Pharma Algorithms, Route1 Inc., SAP Canada,
Symantec Canada, Teranet,Thomson Reuters, and
Visual Defence
• The location of a sophisticated customer base that
includes major financial institutions (e.g., Royal Bank of
Canada, Manulife Financial, and Toronto Stock Exchange),
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 of
Waterloo which are ranked among the top 10
universities in North America to publish articles related
to IT security and cryptography
• Producing a growing highly-educated and highly skilled
workforce in this field:
– 11,200 university graduates (all levels) in computer
science, physical science, engineering and
mathematics in 2006, 18% more than in 2005
– 2,225 technology graduates from colleges/institutes
of technology in 2006, 70% more than in 2005
WORLD CLASS INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION
• Toronto Region universities are a hub of research
excellence recognized by the National Science and
Engineering Research Council (NSERC):
– $1.7 million (40% of all NSERC funding in 2006/07)
went to the Toronto Region
54
“The Toronto Region is home to one of the
largest and most productive concentrations
of research and development talent in the
world, and serves as a portal to all of North
America’s major markets and institutions.”
– Dan Fortin, President,
IBM Canada Ltd.
COMPUTER FRAUD, RISK, IT SECURITY & CRYPTOGRAPHY
IN THE TORONTO REGION
Toronto
Region
Rest of
Canada
40%
$1.7M
CDN60%
* 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 from
2000-2007
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
WORLD CLASS INDEPENDENT RESEARCH
AND EDUCATION (CONTINUED)
– 24 of 41 (59%) Canada Research Chairs and NSERC
Researchers in Cryptography
– 30 of 98 (31%) Canada Research Chairs and NSERC
Researchers in IT Security
– 7 of 19 (37%) Canada Research Chairs in
Computer Security
• Toronto Region produces almost half of all IT security
and cryptography publications originating from
Canadian universities, and 30% of all citations
• Over 40 computer science, engineering and
mathematics programs are offered at Toronto Region
universities and colleges/institutes
• Independent research institutes include: Perimeter
Institute for Theoretical Physics and Guelph-Waterloo
Physics Institute
“…So just in terms of scale...and focus on
computer science, Waterloo stands out,
even on a global basis stands out very, very
well…There are many years where Waterloo
is the university we hired the most people
from of any in the world, and Waterloo has
always been in the top five every year…”
– 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 Industry
and Commerce
• GigatoNanoelectronics (G2N) Centre
• Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI)
• 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
THE TORONTO REGION IS…..
• Located on the shores of the Great Lakes – the world’s
largest fresh water source
• Home to over 400 companies providing water-related
products and services, including globally-recognized
companies such as: GE Water & Processes
Technologies (Zenon International); Pipeline Inspection
Company; Pathogen Detection Systems; Enwave Energy
Corporation; Siemens Water; and Veolia Water
• A focal point for water-related research in three key
areas: 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-related
fields, including: drinking water, waste water and water
resource management, and aquatic ecosystems and species.
• 38% of NSERC Industrial Research Chairs are awarded
to Toronto Region researchers
• Home to leading scientists and research programs:
– University of Waterloo: National Science and
Engineering Research Council Industrial Research
Chair in Water Treatment; International Chair in
Water; University Consortium for Field Focused
Groundwater Contamination Research; Centre for
Advancement of Trenchless Technology
– University of Toronto: National Science and
Engineering Research Council Industrial Research
Chair in Drinking Water; Drinking Water Research
Group; groundwater contamination;
– University of Guelph: Canada Research Chair in Water
Security Supply; Guelph Water Management Group;
Groundwater Contamination; Integrated Watershed
Management
– McMaster University: Water Resources and
Hydrologic Modeling Laboratory; United Nations
University International Network on Water,
Environment and Health; Groundwater
Contamination; Great Lakes; Water Resource
management; 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 of
inland 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 Groundwater
Contamination in Fractured Media
• NSERC/University of Guelph Chair in Urban Systems
Environmental 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 Past
Hydro-ecology of the Mackenzie Basin Deltas,
Ryerson University
• Canada Research Chair in Environmental Interfaces
and Biofilms
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
• Canada Research Chair in Aquatic Toxicology
• NSERC Industrial Research Chair in Drinking
Water Research
Toronto
Region
Rest of
Canada
70%
* Includes all grant and scholarship programs
NSERC Funding* for Water Research, Canada, 2007
30%
$11.4M

57
BREADTH AND DEPTH OF WATER-RELATED RESEARCH IN TORONTO REGION UNIVERSITIES
New Treatment Technologies to
deal with challenging pollutants
(e.g. pharmaceuticals, etc)
Buried Infrastructure – storage
and distribution
Maintenance, replacement and
new 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, Water
Management and Fluid Handling
Software –
Pollutant/Contamination
Modeling and Water Resource
Management
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
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 REGIONS
TR Toronto Region
MTL Montreal
RT Research Triangle
SV Silicon Valley
IL State of Illinois
MA State of Massachusetts
MI State of Michigan

59
ENDNOTES
1
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 for
Competitiveness 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.asp
25
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
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 for
Competitiveness 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 Entrepreneurial
University 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 the
local 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 Attract
Investment 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: McGuinty
Government 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.html
38
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, 2006
and 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#1
43
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.aspx
46
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&keytyp
e2=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
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.html
54
U.S. Census, “Cities & towns - Places over 100,000: 2000 to 2007,” www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2007.html
55
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.aspx
58
Ibid.
59
TRRA compilation based on California Department of Finance, “California County Population Estimates and
Components 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.html
63
Research Triangle Region, “Why Research Triangle Region,” www.researchtriangle.org/pages.php?page_id=2
64
“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 Building
101 College Street, Suite HL30
Toronto, ON M5G 1L7
Tel 416 673 6670
Fax 416 673 6671
Email info@trra.ca
Visit us a www.trra.ca
© 2008 Toronto Region Research Alliance

2008 ATRIG

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to 2008 ATRIG (20)

2008 ATRIG