I'll give you two specific examples. One is that I think our intellectual property regime needs to be a lot more nimble and faster for the Canadian companies to process. Second, one of the comments we put forward in our budget submission was that if I was a small business and I generated $2 of revenue—$1 from regular business and $1 from selling intellectual property—that revenue should be taxed at a lower rate to create incentives for our companies to promote and commercialize the intellectual property they have, not only locally but globally. That is a policy instrument we could use to promote greater use of our intellectual property.
That's very simple. The U.K. is already going down this path on intellectual property. They're seeing a lot more SMEs using intellectual property for commercial purposes, so all of the development now is not going to esoteric IP protection of all kinds. They're creating IP that is more relevant to the business use.
I'll use the example of mathematics. Certicom's IP was all in encryption. Your BlackBerry used to be encrypted by us and NSA's encryption was done by us. Mathematics is not protectable. Mathematics is public property. The IP is done by protecting how you implement process and all of that, so you create a fence around how it is used. If that is done right and I generate revenue from it, I should be incented. I'm creating jobs. I'm giving more work to the local graduates. I'm hiring more locally from local universities. There is a very direct linkage between how we treat IP and business outcomes.