Evidence of meeting #64 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
9:55 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Geist, you rightly mentioned that they pride themselves as the knowledge transfer...not the technology transfer. In your opening remarks, I thought you emphasized mostly the coded knowledge or the codified knowledge, but not the tacit knowledge.
The knowledge transfer that takes place in the Israeli military is, I think, the best example of knowledge transfer where they don't hold back the patents, and they allow the military personnel to take that knowledge to the industry, allowing both the codified knowledge and the tacit knowledge to go together so it can be successful.
On what Mr. Bindra mentioned, what happens in the U.S. universities where the researchers are paid for eight months a year, for the remaining four months maybe they go to industry. There the knowledge transfer can be both codified knowledge and the tacit knowledge that goes along with the researchers to the industry.
That is a model I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Science has noted and can explore further here.
Christine, welcome back. I have a question.
Is there a lack of knowledge within industry of the kinds of patents and inventions that are available in the post-secondary education institutions, such that the industry is not aware of those things that can be commercialized?
10 a.m.
Vice-President, Government Relations and Canadian Partnerships, Colleges and Institutes Canada
I think that in general the colleges are probably still in a bit of a start-up mode in relation to having their capacity in applied research well known and well understood. We've been in the applied research business formally for about 10 years now. It's still, as I mentioned earlier, a very small portion of the federal investment in academic R and D or post-secondary R and D. It's an area of huge potential for the students and for the local economies, but the ability to really promote that to small business and medium-sized business, to the larger business world, is still extremely limited.
Mr. Sheehan spoke earlier about challenges. I'd like to think about them as opportunities. I think we've passed the proof-of-concept stage in terms of what colleges are capable of doing. Starting to think about how we scale up, what you're hearing about from us today would be an area of tremendous opportunity.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I have a question for you, Mr. Bindra and Mr. Geist. What are the one or two major hurdles currently that prevent the complete transfer of knowledge from universities to industry?
10 a.m.
Manager, Ernst & Young, As an Individual
For one thing, as you've seen, even here this discussion is around IP. The mindset has to be changed. When the researchers think about IP, just as having another publication, they just want to have another patent. Industry looks at patents as helping them secure what they've developed, helping them secure their products, right? It helps them have a competitive advantage in the market. I think they're different.
10 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'll pick up on that and argue that in some ways that's a feature, not a bug.
10 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
One of the issues we have is the reality that the incentives and the culture in universities and colleges are different from the culture you have on the business side. That isn't something where we need to say that we're going to clear that out and find a way to ensure that we create an entrepreneurial, business-focused research community with academic institutions, any more than we ought to say that we want businesses to be focused on primary research and the academic benefits of what they're doing.
I think both are playing their role. Part of our problem is that, in a sense, we are trying to take these two and ask why they can't be more alike. They're not necessarily alike. The goal, then, is how you ensure that the real benefits are taking place within universities and within colleges. That's why I'm focused on taking that knowledge transfer so that it goes out to the businesses.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I have very limited time. I have a last question for you. You talked about how universities should be open in what they publish so the benefit is available to everybody. Does “everybody” includes the Chinese companies?
10 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
Why should we invest in our universities when the knowledge goes freely to companies in China?
10 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
What we're seeing is that this is happening on a global basis, and that the knowledge that comes out of the core publications is not where the commercialization takes place. In a sense, that's part of the problem here. We're mistaking research for asking, “How come you haven't commercialized?”
The ingenuity, the entrepreneurial spirit, and the innovation that come from Canadian businesses can build upon that research, and we can build upon not just our own but that of others. The secret sauce isn't found in the articles; what the articles do allow is to have businesses, researchers, and others build upon that, ensuring that they have best-of-breed, cutting-edge work.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Chandra Arya Liberal Nepean, ON
I'm saying that the businesses and researchers based in China can build upon that. Is that what you're saying?
10 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'm saying that we compete in a global marketplace. If we think we can compete globally by locking down our knowledge, we aren't going to win anything.
10 a.m.
Liberal
10 a.m.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses who are here today.
There's one thing that's come up in this, and I want to drill down a bit on it. It seems that Canada.... I know that in the automotive sector in terms of automotive development, we've always treated NAFTA as this principled rule of our relationship. It was the free market society of the United States that we competed against, and the fact of the matter is that their greenfield strategy for the securing of auto plants was basically cash at hand and building roads, infrastructure, housing and so forth, to win over those jobs at our expense. We would be the boy scouts, so to speak, and say, “Oh no, NAFTA is...”. Since that time, we haven't had a greenfield plant in the auto sector in I think about 15 years, and it goes back even further for other developments.
The reason I use that example is one of the things you've mentioned, Mr. Geist, which I do want to talk about and leave the last couple of minutes for. That is patent issues, and then some of the protection not being.... You mentioned the drug industry, where there was a commitment for 10%. That was the whole deal that was cut. The fact of the matter is that there can be non-tariff barriers for preventing Canadian innovation with regard to some of the patent trolling and the limitations. How does that affect Canadian ideas getting forward?
10:05 a.m.
Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, Professor of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I think this highlights the examples we had earlier about Canadian businesses that either face litigation in the United States or face the prospect of patent thickets or other mechanisms that restrict the ability to innovate or, even more, bring to market. It represents a significant problem.
We need to develop a culture within many of our businesses to ensure that they come to the battlefield prepared. Sometimes that means they have some of their own patent portfolios. Sometimes it means they are sufficiently aware of different ways of protecting their IP. Sometimes it's through trade secrets. And sometimes it's recognizing that you have to do more than battle on the IP field. Much success is attributable to being first to market, being the most innovative, and being aggressive and entrepreneurial with your business model and not waiting for the full panoply of IP rights to coalesce.
Sometimes it's those who are most aggressive...I assume you have seen this in the Internet space. We get a lot of businesses whose philosophy is growth, rapid growth. Rather than worry about what their patent portfolio looks like, they concentrate on developing global market share as quickly as possible.
10:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Dan Ruimy
Thank you very much.
It was a very interesting hour, and we're looking forward to getting more into this study of ours.
We are going to suspend for a quick two minutes, and then we'll come back in camera for committee business.
Thank you very much.
[Proceedings continue in camera]