I think with your question you actually touched the heart of one of Canada's real challenges. It's not a challenge that's faced by just Canada, but others seem to have come to grips with it a little better.
IP should be an enabler, not a barrier, first of all. One of the challenges that inventors have in general is a tendency to overvalue the importance of the technological component relative to everything else that has to go in. That leads to an awful lot of conflict in negotiating, especially where you have in many cases in the academic environment almost an individual negotiation, even though sometimes you go through these transfer offices.
One of the advantages of trying to move NRC more squarely into the mission-oriented and applied and outcome-based environment is you get more pragmatic about those decisions. IP is of zero value if it's not used. That's one of the things we have to remember, because a lot of people do forget that. That's why I'm trying to emphasize not a formula approach but rather a pragmatic approach: what are we trying to achieve, and what's the best way to achieve it? Let's do it accordingly.