Liberals' infrastructure boost overlooks need to support Canadian innovators: Don Pittis

Pure market theory says the best thing governments can do to help business succeed is to get the heck out of the way.

Itdidn't work under the Tories, andFinance Minister Bill Morneau has alreadybroken that rule. And in yesterday's fiscalupdate, he promisedto pour billions more intoinfrastructure spending.

• Bill Morneau goes long as Liberals recommit to big spending
• Fiscal update boosts Liberal infrastructure plans but offers no path back to balance
• Highlights of Bill Morneau's fall economic statement

"Decades from now, when my kids tell the story of when their dad was the finance minister, I want them to look back and see our government's first year in officeas the year Canada began on the path towards a new modern economy," Moreauannounced in the House of Commons.

But a chorus of voices from the leading edge of Canadian business says all that spending will be wasted until the governmentdevelops an industrial strategy for the21stcentury.

That's a faint hope, however, unless the government starts worrying less about infrastructure and more about the only sector in the world where good jobs are being created. That'sinnovation, says DanBreznitz, Munk chair of innovation studies at the University of Toronto.

"The most important thing to understand is that we never had an innovation policy in this country," says Breznitz.

Over the past 40 years, and maybe even before that, critics say,the federal government has been too willing to let the market rule, ignoring lessons fromcountries such as Taiwan, Israel and Finland, which have learned to nurturetheir innovators.

In his mini-budget speech,Morneaupointed to Canada's new popularityindicated by the recent cover issue of The Economist magazine. Breznitzsays that is part of a Canadian competitive advantage that we should be using to our benefit.

"Nobody trustsU.S. regulation after the financial crisis," he says. "People trust Canada."

Closed to disruptive ideas

But when it comes to being open to innovation, Canada has a list of problems, including being dangerously closed to new anddisruptiveideas.

"Just think for a moment what would have happened if Uber started in Canada," says Breznitz. "Do you think it would survive for more than two months?"

Canada'sindustrial strategy, such as it is, has been to keep as open as possible toEuropeanand U.S.investors. Just as we saw during the recent commodityboom, a laissez-faire policy resulted in foreign and domesticmoney pouring into the resource sector, extracting oil, natural gas, oil and minerals for export.

As the loonieclimbed in value, many traditionalindustries were wiped out, as exportersfound themselvespriced out of their overseas markets.

But in the world of innovation, the vein of gold up in the hills is intellectual property. The modern equivalent of those traditional industries is groups of people using thatintellectual propertyto sell things people in other countries want tobuy.

If you extractand export all the intellectual property, theindustry-building stage needed to replace our lost steel and ketchup factories never has a chance to develop.

And according to Myra Tawfik,EPICentre professor of intellectual property commercialization and strategy at the University of Windsor, part of the problem is that Canadian startups just aren't prepared to defend their intellectual property from theinternational bullies. And the Canadian government isn't giving them muchhelp.

"Once we start to become of a certain size, we either are bought," says Tawfik, "or worse yet, we get sued in an extremely crippling global legal system."

Canadian companies are effectively killed off before theycan prosper and grow.

Intellectual property lawyer Jim Hinton notices the same thing with many startups in Ontario's Kitchener-Waterloo area. Global intellectual property law is a dog-eat-dog world, and too often the young people with bright ideas who start new companies find themselves facing laws stacked in favour of global giants.

"It's easy to get and to enforce patents if you're a big player," says Hinton. "If you're a small innovator, and we don't have any big companies in Canada ... it's hard to enforce these patents."

Standing up to bullies

Hinton proposes a state-supported private agency to helpstartup companies to file patents at anearly stage andsupportthem in later stages with what he calls a "sovereign patent fund" to stand up to the internationalbullies.

But there is another area where federal government involvement is crucial to produce and protect Canadian innovators, according to Richard Gold, McGillprofessor and founding member of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy.

He says the idea that intellectual property is guided by Adam Smith's invisible hand is simply absurd. Instead, he describes a world where international bodies hammer out intellectual property rules, and where leaders, surrounded by intellectual propertyadvisers, fight for policy and standardsthat favour their own corporate champions.

Often, he says, Canada hasn't even bothered to get a seat at the table.

"We spend lots of money. We have smart people, but we play a 19th-and 20th-century game, not a 21st-century game," says one Canadian tech company executive. "That's why we lose."

Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis

More analysis by Don Pittis