|
|
Like this article? PLEASE +1 it! |
|
The CATA Press Release RE Their 116 Campaign: A Just Cause Lost in a Sea of Self-Serving Rhetoric
|
| Guest post by: Jon Hansen |
Article Overview: Canada's venture capital industry is in trouble. That industry is seriously underfunded, while Canada's emerging technology and life sciences companies are so capital-starved they risk being uncompetitive in the North American market. At the same time, much needed and sought after US capital that could richly fund that industry and those companies is being blocked by Canada's cross-border tax laws.
![]() |
Free Download - Is supplier incumbency a major problem with government contracting? By Jon Hansen |
The CATA Press Release RE Their 116 Campaign: A Just Cause Lost in a Sea of Self-Serving Rhetoric
Canada's
venture capital industry is in trouble. That industry is seriously
underfunded, while Canada's emerging technology and life sciences
companies are so capital-starved they risk being uncompetitive in the
North American market. At the same time, much needed and sought after
US capital that could richly fund that industry and those companies is
being blocked by Canada's cross-border tax laws.
In
just how much trouble is Canada's venture world? Given the size of
Canada's GDP and population relative to those of the US, Canadian
venture capital firms and Canadian venture backed companies should be
receiving approximately 10% of the total funds invested in those
entities in the U.S. In fact, in 2008 Canada's venture capital firms
received only approximately 4% of all funds invested in US venture
capital firms, and Canada's venture-backed companies received only
approximately 4.5% of all funds invested in US venture-backed
companies. These are devastating shortfalls.
from
the April 16th, 2009 article by Stephen A. Hurwitz titled "Reforming
Section 116: Key to Opening Canadian Borders to Foreign Venture Capital"
In
terms of the above referenced article, it is clear that government
policy can inadvertently undermine the economic interests of the
country it is meant to serve. A sentiment that was echoed in a recent
Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance "CATA" press release which
lamented the fact that "We are imperiling our Innovation future and
risk squandering investments in R&D and intellectual capital, all
because of a failure to put a simple amendment in place, an amendment
consistent with the practices of our trading partners."
Unfortunately
the problem with the CATA press release is that while the cause it is
advocating may be just, such statements rarely extend beyond the
limiting confines of perceived self-interest and therefore fail to gain
the much needed global perspective that creates the points of context
which are necessary to achieve meaningful traction beyond its own
membership. In short, the CATA press release represents a form of
myopia that divides and weakens stakeholder interests versus engaging
and challenging key policy-makers to take the desired action.
At
the end of September I wrote a series of articles related to the Buy
American policy's impact on the Canadian economy leading up to the
September 30th PI Window on Business special in which I had the
opportunity to interview Canada's Trade MinisterStockwell Day,
In
a number of the articles, I referenced the Clark and Fourastie
"three-sector hypothesis of industry" (which is now four with the
advent of high tech and R&D industries) as it relates to the
development of a wealthy nation's economy. In one article, I even
provided statistics which showed that the economies of the UK and India
are potentially positioning these countries as future global economic
titans.
Initially
developed by Colin Clark and Jean Fourastie, this general pattern of
economic development identifies four sectors through which a wealthy
nation must progress to maintain its economic position starting with
the extraction of raw materials (Primary), manufacturing (Secondary),
services (Tertiary) and later knowledge-based (Quaternary). Effectively
managing a nation's progression through each sector is critical to what
Fourastie referenced in his 1949 publication "The Great Hope of the
Twentieth Century" as "the increase in quality of life, social
security, blossoming of education and culture, higher level of
qualifications, humanization of work, and avoidance of unemployment."
While
similarities with the tertiary sector are often made as they are either
service-based or oriented, knowledge-based (re high tech) industries
are incredibly important.
Let's
look at the United Kingdom for example. The Tertiary and Quaternary
sectors represents the largest part of their economy, employing 76% of
their entire workforce.
With
India, the indigenous software engineering talent has made that country
the off shoring destination of American high-tech firms, each of which
have committed to investing $1 billion into its economy. The result of
this boom is that India has seen double-digit wage growth for much of
the 2000s. (Note: some may argue that a key part of this growth is due
to the fact that wages were previously low and that for all intents and
purposes had nowhere to go but up. This of course is an interesting
discussion for another day.)
While
there are of course other factors and obstacles in terms of the
materialization of a "titan" reality, such as the UKs bloated and
largely ineffective health care system – which is also the largest
government funded health care system in the world, it nonetheless bodes
well for that nation's future economy. In short, both the UK and India
are pointed in the right direction.
The
questions to which this leads are many including how did the UK and
India progress to the Tertiary and Quaternary sectors, while the
economies of Canada and the United States have to a certain degree
remained dependent on the Primary and Secondary sectors?
Even
though there are no easy answers, at the very least the four-sector
hypothesis of industry provides us with the basis for asking the right
questions as it creates the necessary points of reference or context to
which I had previously referred. Specifically, these are the global
reference points upon which associations such as CATA should start to
focus, as it moves the discussion from the realms of perceived
self-interest to one that encompasses the interests of the majority of
Canadians, which is the economy as a whole.
Another
track that may be worthwhile pursuing deals with a January 29th, 2009
CBC News story that I covered in my September 13th, 2009 post "Is Canada really rich in natural resources?: Calculating the effects of foreign ownership." Below is both an excerpt from the original CBC story, as well as my commentary:
In
Toronto, CBC business reporter Jeannie Lee said there is a great deal
at stake for Canada — and especially for southern Ontario, where
Canada's steel industry is concentrated and where the global slump has
already gutted the auto industry.
Canadian
steel plants produced almost 16 million tonnes of steel in 2007,
employing about 32,000 people and, by one estimate, supporting 140,000
indirect jobs, she said.
from "Buy American" rule in U.S. stimulus bill could cost Canada jobs, CBC News (January 29th, 2009)
Expanding on the closing theme from last week's post"Buy American: Establishing Artificial Boundaries or Removing Unwanted Barriers?," in
which I introduced Colin Clark and Jean Fourastie's "three-sector
hypothesis of industry," the January 29th CBC News article is
interesting for a number of reasons.
While
there is no doubt that the steel industry is of course part of our
indigenous Primary Sector which cultivates our nation's abundance of
natural resources, I must admit that I had not contemplated the impact
that foreign ownership of these companies had on the overall issue of
free trade and the Buy American Policy.
Perhaps
this is an overly simplistic view, but if we do not own the companies
who employ our workforce in this Primary Sector, is it not similar to
renting versus owning your home?
For
example, if I am renting I would of course take care of the daily
living maintenance required as part of the general upkeep of the home.
However, and for obvious reasons, I would not be inclined to invest a
great deal in making home improvements such as adding a deck or
installing new plumbing.
The
point I am making is simply this, who owns what were once our
companies, what are their interests and, at what point will those
interests conflict with those of our national interests?
I
am asking these questions for a number of reasons including the fact
that I would like to know the answers. I am also interested in
understanding if we have somehow mistakenly equated having indigenous
resources as being the same thing as controlling them. If memory
serves me correctly it wasn't that long ago that we took legal action
against a US conglomerate who arbitrarily decided to pull up their
Canadian stakes.
I
have referenced the above article relative to today's post, as it
appears that the Government supports foreign ownership of Canadian
firms while seemingly making it more difficult for foreign investors to
put money into Canadian-based high tech companies, (investments which
would facilitate our economy's progress through to the desired Tertiary
and Quaternary sectors)? This observation is particularly significant
as there is a trend in which the Canadian jobs that were going to be
saved through a foreign acquisition, are ultimately lost when the
foreign parent decides that it is no longer economically viable to
maintain a Canadian presence.
Conversely, and according to my November 20th interview with Brad Feld titled"Diminishing Prospects: How U.S. Policy is Undermining Entrepreneurial Vision," the
entrepreneurial whiz and recognized investment thought leader believes
that "the US should grant permanent residency to anyone who graduates
from a qualified four year university with a computer science degree."
The basis for his position is that "These are young, talented
entrepreneurs that have come out of a three month program with
amazingly interesting start-ups," that if successful will create "US
based high tech jobs." While Feld contends that the US needs to
establish a Founders Visa program to fill in the gap between the H-1B
and EB-5 visas as a means of stemming the brain drain flowing out of
the U.S., what is relevant to this discussion is his reference to the
fact that high tech firms will create jobs. To draw the parallel with
the Canadian "116 clearance certification" situation, is the fact that
while high tech firms will create jobs, government policy supporting
foreign ownership equals job loss. Job creation versus job loss is a
simple concept that everyone can and will understand.
Once
again, the CATA press release provides little evidence or contextual
references to support its statements which makes it more of a
rhetorical dissertation than a factual assessment based on merit and
research. In this regard, it is a siloed approach that does little to
advance a cause that is worthy of advancement.
Related Forum Posts
Share this article with your friends. Fund someone's dream.
Leave a comment below or share on the left and you'll help support entrepreneurs in Africa through our partnership with Kiva. Over $50,000 raised and counting - Please keep sharing! Learn more.
Get advice & tips from famous business
owners, new articles by entrepreneur
experts, my latest website updates, &
special sneak peaks at what's to come!
Email us your ideas on how to make our
website more valuable! Thank you Sharon
from Toronto Salsa Lessons / Classes for
your suggestions to make the newsletter
look like the website and profile younger
entrepreneurs like Jennifer Lopez.



