Science and Research Committee on April 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have 20 seconds.

[Neil Desai]

I would look at the size of the company and the source country of those types of companies, or the beneficial ownership of them. Twenty seconds isn't enough time to get into that. I would be happy to table some content on that.

I really think we need to focus on what we want to achieve here. If it's commercialization from Canada, work backwards from that. Right now, we treat anyone who incorporates a business from Canada.... Their ability to do a research partnership with a Canadian university regardless of—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Desai, I know I'm over time, so could you please submit that in writing in the interest of time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Yes, thank you. It's a great suggestion and those were great questions.

Mr. Collins, you're up next for five minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses for their attendance today.

Mr. Desai, I'll start with you.

From an international perspective, we've heard from witnesses at other committee meetings about different areas of the world where there are policies and investments being made that may differ a bit from the current ones the Government of Canada offers. Fraunhofer comes to the top of the list. That one's been referenced many times.

Could we have your experience on models to look at for policies and investments being made internationally that we might be able to tweak for our own policies and copy.

[Neil Desai]

I'd invite you to look at an organization called In-Q-Tel. Again, I come with a bias of cybersecurity and software, so that's what I know best. In-Q-Tel represents the 21 U.S. intelligence agencies—everything from the CIA to military intelligence to defence intelligence, etc. It has a full gamut of tools not only to address the needs of the intelligence community from a technology perspective, but also to see technologies commercialized from the United States to the benefit of Americans. It even uses this as a draw to get foreign companies to come to the U.S., make investments there and work with researchers on big, technical challenges.

I'd invite you to study its model, because it goes right from pre-IP companies or researchers through to technologies that have dual-use purposes that could solve one of its technical challenges. It also has a huge prosperity commercialization opportunity.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks for that.

I'll shift gears and now focus on the provinces.

I think you said you're located in the province of Ontario, so you likely have some interaction with the Province of Ontario. I found in my early days here that oftentimes we see governments working in silos, unfortunately. The provinces are doing their thing and the federal government is doing its thing. Sometimes there's some overlap, but oftentimes we don't see a lot of coordination and collaboration.

Can I get your thoughts on how the provinces and the federal government should be working together to ensure that the investments we're collectively making are making a difference? In your case, it's in the tech sector.

[Neil Desai]

I think it's about alignment. When you're trying to reach global markets, access big ideas to create net new things the economy hasn't seen before and move the needle on GDP—because I believe that's the goal—that requires alignment. I'm pleased to see it's happening in some sectors on the EV and battery side.

Getting down into the details level on that and into the IP discussions is really important. Also, it's important to be focused not on where the puck was but on where it's going, so that we can get ahead of sectors and so that, frankly, we're not just doing a “me too” with our American or European counterparts but creating net new opportunities. I don't just mean this for technical researchers or for people to sell these products for operations jobs. It's for good, high-quality, middle-class jobs.

That takes bets and it takes risk, and I think that risk could be better shared between the federal government, the provincial government and companies. I think companies are something the government really struggles with, so I would say, to your question about alignment, that you should include companies as part of the team in those discussions.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you for your answer.

Ms. Larose, obviously we see incredible policies that coming out of the province of Quebec. I look at housing, for instance, and at child care policies that go back decades. We see the same in innovation with IP and some of the policies highlighted by other witnesses that are out of the province of Quebec.

Can I ask you what the rest of Canada has to learn and what other provinces might have to learn from the policies that have been established in your province?

[Anne-Marie Larose]

That’s a good question.

I would say that Quebec’s model of research enhancement corporations is interesting. Having people with a critical mass of skills to handle cases in a single entity allows for more appropriate management of intellectual property.

Intellectual property falls under federal jurisdiction. There are certainly things that can be done in that respect to improve access to intellectual property.

I would add that each university in Quebec and Canada has its own rules regarding intellectual property. There is no harmonization of rules, which presents challenges. The rules are similar, but some universities, for example, have transferred the intellectual property to a private partner without too much of an issue. Other universities will never want to assign intellectual property, as is the case in the United States, by the way, where intellectual property is never assigned. So there are…

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you—

[Anne-Marie Larose]

Intellectual property is never assigned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much. I wish we had more time, but we don't.

Mr. Lemire, you have two minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

The issue of time is certainly not trivial. I wish I could have asked several questions. For example, in terms of funding, what would something like revising the copyright fee to $13.50 per student mean? What about the way other countries view Canada?

I thank my colleague Richard Cannings for asking that question. For my part, I have a question for the Copibec witnesses that will be of interest to our analysts.

What concrete recommendations do you have for this committee to advance the issue of copyright, whether it’s your rights or the rights of partners you work with, such as the National Book Publishers Association?

[Gilles Herman]

Thank you.

It’s important to understand that today we need to change the legislative frameworks to allow the commercialization of copyright in Canada, that is, in our domestic market. Without this, it will be impossible for rights holders to negotiate with educational institutions, which have long been major users of content.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage’s report contained 22 recommendations. We are only asking that recommendation 18 be put forward. It says that if there is another commercial opportunity for the use of a work, universities should be required to pay those royalties. It’s quite simple.

The teams are aware of this recommendation. All that’s needed is the political will to make this legislative change.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

This legislative change, which would result in a legal requirement, has been overdue for a decade. I believe that the lack of response from the government feeds a certain amount of cynicism and diminishes trust in our institutions.

I’d like you to talk about this notion of trust in the institution of the federal government, specifically in the context of its inaction.

[Gilles Herman]

You can appreciate that the level of trust is at an all-time low. We’ve been in a constant struggle for 11 years now to make this change. We’ve seen our revenues melt away. Publishers are starting to downsize or even close their doors. So we’re becoming increasingly impatient.

That said, as you mentioned, we’re not giving up. We will do our utmost, including with our international partners, to change the situation in Canada, because it’s become increasingly intolerable.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would have liked to hear your thoughts on the collective model and how that is one of the great strengths. Unfortunately, my time is up.

Thank you very much for your efforts and perseverance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Mr. Cannings, you have two and a half minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

I'll turn to Mr. Desai. You're in cybersecurity and deal in software.

We had a witness in our last meeting who brought up an issue around when a researcher or a company wants to commercialize IP. A decision has to be made about whether you patent it or try to commercialize it through contracts and licences, because if you patent it, you have to basically show the code.

I'm just wondering if maybe you could talk about that from your experience in your field.

[Neil Desai]

Yes, I think that's definitely a consideration.

Patents are a tool within an IP strategy, but there are others, trade secrets being a large one and utilizing software being another.

Sophisticated growth companies that are exporting globally have an IP strategy, and I think sometimes we use “IP strategy” and “patent” as synonymous when they are not. There are some things that won't pass patents, and for some things, frankly, data strategies coupled with high-quality IP strategies might supersede a single patent.

The goal for companies younger than ours would be to have an IP strategy. Often a patent might be non-accessible from a cost perspective. Understanding what you're working on and where the value resides today or could reside in the future is an imperative to ensuring our public investments. It concerns me when I see leakage, especially outside of Canada, in our vast public investments and they end up outside the country. That's not just from a prosperity perspective. There are some security considerations there.

Thanks for the question.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Just quickly, Madam Larose, could you comment on that too and perhaps this business of open research versus IP?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

You have 30 seconds.

[Anne-Marie Larose]

In fact, open research can also be protected. So we should be careful with definitions. Open research is collaborative research in which you make intellectual property available to partners. So there can also be patents in open research.

That said, it’s not limited to patents. I was just talking about third-party open intellectual property. We’ve seen several successful cases of technology transfer where the intellectual property wasn’t through patents, but through copyrights on code or other kinds of intellectual property.

That’s why patents are not an end in themselves for intellectual property, especially in information technology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all the witnesses who were here this morning. There were great questions and great answers. The analysts have a job in front of them.

We'll now suspend briefly while we set up our next panel.