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.

So how do we get these innovations and the money associated with them, to stay in Canada? Why are they being sold off?