15 greatest Canadian inventions
In the course of looking for background on Canadian Inventions, I came upon a list of the top 50 Canadian Inventions (Five-Pin Bowling is number four). This list came out of a show put on by the CBC (who else) in 2007. Following on the heels of the Greatest Canadian this show put it to all Canadians to rank our 50 greatest inventions.
I was trolling through this list and suddenly it struck me. I couldn’t identify a single company that had been created and gained worldwide prominence out of the first 15 inventions. Where was the pharmaceutical giant spawned from the development of insulin, the nutraceutical behemoth formed from Pablum? Instead I found a list of fabulous inventions which, for the most part, were opportunities not seized. Certainly Poutine has been a worldwide phenom but have we capitalized on its creation to bring untold wealth back home?
In the top 15 companies there were only two examples of a Canadian company that continues today to benefit from the commercialization of a Canadian invention (Cobalt-60 by AECL and the Canadarm by MacDonald Dettwiler, for now anyway). I was very pleased to see that Wonderbra made the list but it was marketed by a Canadian firm for only four years before the company was sold to SaraLee.
To be fair, Bombardier with the Skidoo, and RIM hit the list at numbers 17 and 18 but I was once told to keep lists short and I didn’t have time to keep on researching. Here, then, for your edification and enjoyment are Canada’s top 15 inventions and where they ended up.
- Insulin, Treatment for Diabetes [1921, Frederick Banting, Charles Best] - Marketed by Eli Lilly, U.S.-based pharmaceutical giant who made it big specifically as a result of insulin. (Read more on the discovery of insulin and its roots at MaRS.)
- Telephone [1876, Alexander Graham Bell] - Conceived in Canada. Patented and marketed in the U.S. by National Bell Telephone Company.
- Light Bulb [1874, Henry Woodward, Mathew Evans] - Unsuccessful at commercializing it. Sold their invention to Thomas Edison in 1879.
- Five Pin Bowling [1908, Thomas F. Ryan] - Not a commercializable product
- Wonderbra [1964, Louise Poirier] - First successfully commercialized in Canada by Canadian Lady – Canadelle but by 1968 the company had been sold to Sara Lee in the U.S.
- Pacemaker [1950, John Hopps, Wilfred Bigelow, John Callaghan] - Among many contributors to development; successfully commercialized by U.S.-based Cardiac Pacemakers Inc. in 1972.
- Robertson Screw, 1908 [Peter Robertson] - Sold almost entirely in Canada as the inventor refused to license the screws to anyone (including Ford) due to problems with the first licensee in the UK.
- Zipper [1913, Gideon Sundback] - Not really invented in Canada: Sundback was a Swedish-born engineer working in the U.S. at the Hookless Fastener Company.
- Electric Wheelchair [1952, George Klein] - No Canadian manufacturer stepped up to the plate to build them so the designs were sent to the U.S.
- Poutine [1957, Fernand Lachance] - Not a commercializable product; actually not even a tasty one.
- Cobalt-60 “Bomb” Cancer Treatment [1951, Harold Johns] - Commercialized still by AECL.
- Java Programming Language [1994, James Arthur Gosling] - Done in the U.S. by a Canadian for Sun Microsystems.
- Bloody Caesar [1969, Walter Chell] - Not a commercializable product, but this one is tasty. Who wouldn’t want to own this patent?
- Canadarm [1975, Spar Aerospace/NRC] - Actually remained Canadian but may not remain so as MacDonald Detwiller tried to sell itself to a U.S. company this year.
- Standard time [1878, Sir Sandford Fleming] - Not a commercializable product/

Charles Plant is developing the Business Mentorship and Entrepreneurship Program, a component in the Ministry of Research and Innovation’s Market Readiness Program.
I disagree - poutines are AMAZING
Posted by: Laura on May 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I also agree with poutine being very good, as long as you have GOOD poutine and not fake poutine.
So how do we get these innovations and the money associated with them, to stay in Canada? Why are they being sold off?
Posted by: Cathy @ MaRS on May 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Cathy
That’s the million dollar question. Unfortunately the answer isn’t simple. Look back to the list again and a very interesting trend pops out. In the cases where a company was looking to solve a problem (Wonderbra and Spar) the invention came to be commercialized in Canada. Where there wasn’t a company but a researcher trying to solve a problem, the commercialization ended up being done elsewhere for the most part.
That’s the difference between “Demand Pull” inventions versus “Supply Push” inventions. Wonderbra is a great example of a “Demand Pull” invention. In this case a lingerie company with an existing market came to be aware of a need within its market that wasn’t being met. (I’m trying to keep this example technical as it could easily stray.) So, the Wonderbra people created a product to meet a need (and many kudos to them for that).
“Supply Push” inventions occur in two cases. The first case is where people develop products and then go searching for a market (very Canadian habit). The second case is where researchers not interested in commercialization attempt to solve a problem. At least five of the inventions on the list above fall into this camp. In the case of “Supply Push”inventions, the researcher, having developed a product, must then find someone to commercialize it. Based upon sheer volume, it is likely that the commercialization company will be found in the US.
Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison who were both involved in products on the list are good cases in point. Edison, who held over 1000 patents only invented things so that he could commercialize them, very “Demand Pull”. Bell on the other hand had a very Canadian-like aversion to commercialization, figuring it would be his downfall. While he invented the telephone switch he didn’t bother to patent it because he was concerned that it would put people out of work.
As to how we move Canada from a “Supply Push” to a “Demand Pull” culture, that is a very big issue indeed. The answer involves education, competitive productivity, internationalization of companies, regulation, as well as tax and spending policy. It’s too much to answer in a blog.
Back to the list and to the two comments. Poutine. Very “Demand Pull”, much like deep fried MaRS bars only bad for you. As a nation we’re world leaders in oil and gas (Poutine component and bi-product respectively), mining, timber and health care to name a few areas. We should concentrate our limited resources on development of technologies within a narrow band of industries where we can increase our competitive advantage internationally and stop trying to be good at everything.
Posted by: Charles Plant on May 16th, 2008 at 2:16 pm