Search the archive.

Citing the "serious constraints" of the second year of the pandemic, the federal judiciary this week released new data showing huge drops last year in civil filings across the court systems and most areas of the law.

Meanwhile, the number of federal cases still pending at the close of the last fiscal year made a double-digit jump, while new criminal case filings edged up compared to 2020.

One final element to consider before adding federal judgeships involves the practical needs of the courts themselves. Politics aside, the arguments most assiduously advanced in support of adding seats to the bench focus on difficulties in the timely processing of cases, backed by data indicating that the federal courts have witnessed a significant increase in caseloads. But a closer examination of these data reveals serious reason to doubt the need to add a significant number of judgeships to manage existing caseloads. At the very least, it supports taking a modest approach to the issue rather than rushing to expand the judiciary.

Turning first to the appellate level, advocates of creating additional judgeships have repeatedly asserted that the U.S. courts of appeals are facing a crisis due to the rising number of cases. Yet while the appellate caseload did increase from the 1970s through the 1990s, it leveled off afterward and then began to decline. The number of cases filed in the federal courts of appeals in 2020 was almost 10% below the number filed in 2000.

HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- The criminal case backlog in Harris County is on the decline, but 13 Investigates discovered the number may be tied to the increase in cases being dismissed.

The number of people waiting for the justice system to play out in Harris County is top of mind for Commissioner Adrian Garcia.

This law-centric orientation is strikingly different from that of most Americans, despite popular claims about their litigiousness. Most individuals never even identify the civil legal problems they experience as "legal." Only a tiny minority will ever seek legal advice in response to a problem, and most are more likely to do nothing than to file a lawsuit. Decades of empirical scholarship have confirmed that despite the prevalence of civil legal problems in everyday life, there is remarkably little recourse to formal law. [FOOTNOTE] DAVID M. ENGEL, THE MYTH OF THE LITIGIOUS SOCIETY: WHY WE DON'T SUE 3 (2016) (noting that "specious claims of a litigation explosion have been made so often that they have rooted themselves in the national psyche").

The attack on Ukraine focuses the mind on a most critical question for humanity: In our fast-changing world, what is democracy's future?

Certainly, a strong argument can be made that democratic governance is more important than ever as humanity faces at least two unprecedented challenges: the existential threats of the global climate crisis and a global pandemic. Attacks on civil and human rights continue as well—challenges that can only be met with democratic governance.

Robert F. Kennedy’s speech, which includes his reference to the oft-quoted “interesting times” curse, applies throughout history in many contexts and, indeed, with both negative and positive connotation. While he focused on the struggles for freedom and social justice, the requisite ascendancy of the individual over the state, and the institution and integration of those ideals for the greater good, he also promoted the goals of greater global unity, cooperation and communication, which were, and could be, achieved by advances in technology. And, as noted in the excerpt, he championed “the creative energy of men.” Intellectual Property in “Interesting Times” It is beyond question that starting with the last decade of the twentieth century and throughout the first two decades of the twenty-first century, when it comes to matters relating to intellectual property, we have been living in “interesting times.” Some may interpret these interesting times as defined by the curse and others may view it by the ordinary meaning of “interesting.” In either case, those of us that toil in the fields of patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and privacy rights have experienced an unprecedented sea change in the way those rights are procured, protected and enforced. Likewise, and perhaps more importantly, even those of us that do not practice in these areas of law, as well as the general public, have been, and continue to be, impacted by the consequences of these changes (both positive and negative). The Changes In Intellectual Property Law Examples of some of the changes in intellectual property law are: the sweeping 2011 legislative changes to the patent laws under the America Invents Act (AIA), which impact is only beginning to be fully appreciated; the various proposals for patent law reform, on the heels of the AIA, beginning with the 113th and 114th Congress; the copyright laws Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and numerous 114th Congressional proposed copyright law changes; the recently enacted federal trade secret law (Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA))2; the impact of the internet, domain names and globalization on Trademark law; the intellectual property law harmonization requirements included in various global/regional trade agreements; and the proliferation of devices (both invasive and non-invasive) that defy any rational basis for believing we can still adhere to the republic’s libertarian understanding of the right to privacy. Without engaging in “chicken and egg” analysis, it is sufficient to observe that technological advancement, societal needs, globalization, existential threats, economic realities, and political imperatives (or what James Madison referred to in the Federalist Papers No. 10 as factious governance), have combined to create the “interesting times” for the United States [IP] intellectual property laws. What was said by Bobby Kennedy in 1966 remains true today. We live in dangerous and uncertain times. Many of the existential threats remain the same (nuclear war and proliferation, [genocides] genocidal maniacs and natural disease) and some are new ([hu]manmade disease, greater awareness of environmental changes and possibly human interrelationship factors, and the unintended consequences of genetic manipulation and robotic technologies). The danger and uncertainty that pervades changes in intellectual property laws, though not an existential threat of the same manner and kind, correlates with the threat and remains “more open to the creative energy of man than any other time in history.” Apropos the creative energy of man, there is a non-coincidental congruence and convergence of activity across and among the three branches of government, occurring almost simultaneously with the congruence and convergence of the rapid developments of technological innovation across various scientific disciplines and the information age, reflected in the transformation of the [IP] intellectual property laws in the United States. Patents The passage of the AIA was a culmination of efforts spanning several years of Congressional efforts; and the product of a push by the companies at the forefront of the twenty-first century new technology business titans. The legislation brought about monumental changes in the patent law in the way that patents are procured (first inventor to file instead of first to invent) and how they are enforced (quasi-judicial challenges to patent validity through inter-party reviews at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB)). The 113th and 114th Congress grappled with newly proposed patent law reforms that, if enacted, may present additional tectonic shifts in the patent law. Major provisions of the proposals include: fee-shifting measures (requiring loser pays legal fees - counter to the American rule); strict detailed pleadings requirements, promulgated without the traditional Rules Enabling Act procedure, that exceed those of the Twombly/Iqbal standard applied to all other civil matters in federal courts, and the different standards applicable to patent claim interpretation in PTAB proceedings and district court litigation concerning patent validity. The Executive and administrative branch has also been active in the patent law arena. President Obama was a strong supporter of the AIA3 and in his 2014 State Of The Union Address, essentially stated that, with respect to the proposed patent law reforms aimed at patent troll issues, we must innovate rather than litigate.4 Additionally, the USPTO has embarked upon an energetic overhaul of its operations in terms of patent quality and PTO performance in granting patents, and the PTAB has expanded to almost 250 Administrative Law Judges in concert with the AIA post-grant proceedings’ strict timetable requirements. The Supreme Court, not to be outdone by the Articles I and II branches of the U.S. government, has raised the profile of patent cases to historical heights. From 1996 to the 2014-15 term there has been a steady increase in the number of patent cases decided by the SCOTUS5. The 2014-15 term occupied almost ten percent of the Court’s docket. Prior to the last two decades, the Supreme Court would rarely include more than one or two patent cases in a docket that was much larger than those we have become accustomed to from the Roberts’ Court6. While the SCOTUS activity in patent cases is viewed by some as a counter-balance to the perceived Federal Circuit’s pro-patent and bright line decisions, it can just as assuredly be viewed as decisions rendered by a Court of final resort which does not function in a vacuum devoid of the social, economic and political winds of the times. In recognition of the effect new technologies have on the patent law, the politicization of intellectual property law matters, especially patent law (through factious governing principles of the political branches of the government), and the maturation of the Federal Circuit patent law jurisprudence, the SCOTUS has rendered opinions in cases that impact, and perhaps are/were intended to mitigate the concerns regarding, some of the vexing issues confronting the patent community today (e.g., non-practicing entities or in the politicized parlance “patent trolls,” the intersection of patent and antitrust laws in Hatch-Waxman so called “pay-for-delay” settlements between Branded and Generic pharma companies, and the fundamental tenets that comprise the very heart of what is patent eligible subject matter). Copyrights The advent and ubiquity of the internet, social media and digital technologies (MP3s, Napster, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter) represents the impetus for changes in the Copyright laws. The DMCA addressed the issues presented by these advances or changes in the differing media and forms of artistic impressions. The proliferation of digital photos, graphic designs and publishing alternatives, as well as adherence to globalization harmonization have given rise to changes in the statutory law and jurisprudence in this area of intellectual property law. Additionally, there is an overlap of patent rights and copyrights for software driven by the ebb and flow of the strength of each respective intellectual property protection. Notably, the Patent and Copyright Clause7, in addition to Author’s writings, has been viewed as discretely applying to two different types of creativity or innovation. When drafted the “sciences” referred not only to fields of modern scienctific inquiry but rather to all knowledge. And the “useful arts” does not refer to artistic endeavors, but rather to the work of artisans or people skilled in a manufacturing craft. Rather than result in ambiguity or confusion, perhaps the Framers were either quite prescient or, just coincidentally, these aspects of the Patent and Copyright Clause have converged. For example, none other than the famous Crooner, Bing Crosby, benefited from both protections. Well-known as a prolific and popular recording artist he also benefited from his investments in the, then innovative, recording technologies. Similarly, the Beatles, Beach Boys, as well as many other rock and roll artists, experimental efforts in music performance, recording and production, helped to transform the music industry in both copyrightable artistic expression and patentable inventions. Similarly, film, literary and digital arts reap benefits at the crossroads of both copyright and patent protections. Trademarks Trademark laws have been impacted by numerous changes in the business landscape. They include the internet, Domain names, international rights in a global economy, different venues and avenues for branding, marketing and merchandising, global knock-offs from nations that have a less than stellar respect for intellectual property rights, and international trade agreements. More recently, politicization (or perhaps political correctness) has creeped into the trademark law arena pitting branding rights and protections against first amendment rights. Trade Secrets As with Copyright and Trademark law, trade secrets law includes some of the same issues related to trade agreements. TRIPS required members to have trade secret protection in place. Initially, the United States compliance with this requirement has relied upon the trade secret law of the individual states. That compliance may be supplanted by the recently enacted DTSA. Similarly, the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement contains intellectual property rights provisions that will trigger required changes to United States statutory Intellectual Property Laws. The proposed trade secret legislation also gives rise to several concerns. For instance, there is an absence of a specific definition for trade secret, as well as potential issues of federalism, conflict with state law precedent (despite no preemption), remedies, and the impact on employer/employee relations. There is also a real concern that the strengthening of trade secret protection in conjunction with the perceived weakening of patent protection (e.g., high rate of invalidating patents in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB and strict limitations on what is patent eligible subject matter) may very-well have the unintended consequence of contravening the purpose behind the Patent and Copyright Clause: “to promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts.” Moreover, the incentive to innovate may very well be usurped by the advantage of withholding patent law disclosure of highly beneficial scientific advancements that directly affect the human condition, alter life expectancies and the evolution of the human species (rather than by mere “natural selection”), and what is the very essence of a human being (for better or worse). Thus, crippling innovation and the progress of the sciences and useful arts. Privacy Rights It is increasingly more difficult to function “off the grid.” The invasive and non-invasive attributes of the internet, the reliance upon the multitude of devices, social media, and information age technologies, and access to big data, all contribute to the decrease in and dilution of the right to privacy. Wittingly or otherwise, the strong libertarian roots of the republic have been replaced by dependence upon these modes of an information-age life. Commentary on the benefits and deficits of this reality are beyond the subject and purpose of this writing. Suffice to acknowledge that the right to privacy has been significantly reduced. The laws that protect these rights are in a constant struggle to maintain those rights while yielding to the demands of the lifestyle and security concerns. Laws that relate to cybersecurity in the global and domestic space create interplay with privacy rights. Legislation, trade agreements and jurisprudence all impact this area of intellectual property. Cross-border theft of trade secrets, competitor espionage, and loss of control over personal data are all implicated in the intellectual property law arena. America’s Need For Strong Intellectual Property Protection The need for strong protection of intellectual property rights is greater now than it was at the dawn of our republic. Our Forefathers and the Framers of the U.S. Constitution recognized the need to secure those rights in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. James Madison provides insight for its significance in the Federalist Papers No. 43 (the only reference to the clause). It is contained in the first Article section dedicated to the enumerated powers of Congress. The clause recognizes the need for: uniformity of the protection of IP rights, securing those rights for the individual rather than the state; and, incentivizing innovation and creative aspirations. Underlying this particular enumerated power of Congress is the same struggle that the Framers grappled with throughout the document for the new republic: how to promote a unified republic while protecting individual liberty. The fear of tyranny and protection of the “natural law” individual liberty is a driving theme for the Constitution and throughout the Federalist Papers. For example, in Federalist No. 10, James Madison articulated the important recognition of the “faction” impact on a democracy and a republic. In Federalist No. 51, Madison emphasized the importance of the separation of powers among the three branches of the republic. And in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton, provided his most significant essay, which described the judiciary as the weakest branch of government and sought the protection of its independence providing the underpinnings for judicial review as recognized thereafter in Marbury v. Madison. All of these related themes are relevant to the Patent and Copyright Clause and at the center of the intellectual property protections then and now. The Federalist Papers No. 10 recognition that a faction may influence the law has been playing itself out in the halls of congress in the period of time leading up to the AIA and in connection with the current patent law reform debate. The large tech companies of the past, new tech, new patent-based financial business model entities, and pharma factions have been the drivers, proponents and opponents of certain of these efforts. To be sure, some change is inevitable, and both beneficial and necessary in an environment of rapidly changing technology where the law needs to evolve or conform to new realities. However, changes not premised upon the founding principles of the Constitution and the Patent and Copyright Clause (i.e., uniformity, secured rights for the individual, incentivizing innovation and protecting individual liberty) run afoul of the intended purpose of the constitutional guarantee. Although the Sovereign does not benefit directly from the fruits of the innovator, enacting laws that empower the King, and enables the King to remain so, has the same effect as deprivation and diminishment of the individual’s rights and effectively confiscates them from him/her. Specifically, with respect to intellectual property rights, effecting change to the laws that do not adhere to these underlying principles, in favor of the faction that lobbies the most and the best in the quid pro quo of political gain to the governing body threatens to undermine the individual’s intellectual property rights and hinder the greatest economic driver and source of prosperity in the country. It is also important to recognize that the social, political and economic impact of strong protections for intellectual property cannot be overstated. In the social context, the incentive for disclosure and innovation is critical. Solutions for sustainability and climate change (whether natural, man-made or mutually/marginally intertwined) rely upon this premise. Likewise, as we are on the precipice of the ultimate convergence in technologies from the hi-tech digital world and life sciences space, capturing the ability to cure many diseases and fatal illnesses and providing the true promise of extended longevity in good health and well-being, that is meaningful, productive, and purposeful; this incentive must be preserved. In similar fashion, advancements in technologies related to the global economy and communications will enhance the possibilities for solutions to political and cultural conflicts that arise around the globe. Likewise, the United States economy has always benefited when it is at the forefront of innovation and achieves prosperity from its leadership role in technological advancements. Conclusion As was the case in 1966, how we move forward today, to solve the many problems facing our country and the broader global community in these “interesting times,” both within and without the laws affecting intellectual property rights, depends upon the “creative energy of man” which must prevail. An achievable goal, dependent on the strong, stable and sound protection of intellectual property rights.

Increased grant delays are only particularly harmful in certain industries." High technology industries, characterized by numerous overlapping rights, such as the computer and biotechnology industries, are especially sensitive to uncertainty in the scope of intellectual property rights that emanates from prolonged pendency." Boundary rights must be defined early in these industries to optimize certainty. In addition, short product life-cycles define many high tech industries."' Thus, timely patent grants are necessary to reap the maximum commercial rewards from the patent right."' The desirability of securing early patent rights in these industries is demonstrated by the fact that applicants in these fields are three times more likely to pursue more immediate continuation practice through requests for continuing examination, rather than delaying prosecution through traditional continuation applications." The evidence demonstrates that applicants in high technology fields benefit from shorter grant lags.

The size of an entity is also extremely important when considering how the backlog will impact its innovation potential. Patent protection is only one of many factors that influence innovation.308 For large firms in high technology fields, the ability to enforce patent rights is not the most important means of protecting R&D investments.309 Small firms, however, rely more heavily on this exclusionary right.310 They are likely to realize less value from uncertain patent protection.311 Therefore, many small inventors and companies argue that they are disproportionately hurt by the backlog. Would-be small firm applicants may forgo R&D efforts if the expected protection of the patent is illusory. 312 Innovators who perceive a decreased value in patent protection may also seek out other means of protecting their intellectual property, such as trade secrets, which deprives society of the important notice function of patents.313

The history of judicial leadership on matters of critical social importance on which the political branches have stumbled is long and layered in social and liberal democracies worldwide. From the US Supreme Court’s decisions to desegregate schools and advance individual freedoms and privacy rights, to India’s Supreme Court’s string of decisions advancing protections for privacy, gender, and sexuality-related rights,3 to the expansive suite of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on topics ranging from domestic slavery to environmental justice,4 to the ongoing role of courts in recognizing a right to a healthy environment5 and emerging rights for nature,6 the judiciary plays an essential role in advancing the rule of law on climate change.

More specifically, climate litigation7 draws on a long history of environmental litigation. From the earliest days, litigants turned to the courts to ensure the implementation, enforcement, and evolution of environmental law. Courts have served as the guardians and, at times, the architects of the rule of law in the environmental context in jurisdictions as varied as the United States, South Africa, and India.8

Innovate or perish. If companies want to survive, taking this approach is not really a matter of choice. Innovation is crucial if they are to take on the rising market competition that forces companies to stand out from the crowd. Canada needs to invest more in order to stimulate innovation.

As a professor of finance, I have an interest in corporate finance, particularly in capital structure, dividend policy, and governance. I recently undertook a major research project studying business innovation around the world. The results of an initial study on the impact of national culture on innovation have now been published in the Journal of Corporate Finance.

TORONTO—There is this persistent Canadian idea that we are poised to become one of the top five innovation nations in the world. When he was industry minister, Navdeep Bains boasted his policies would accomplish this. His successor, François-Philippe Champagne, talks in similar boastful terms.

Yet, we seem stuck much lower in global innovation rankings despite the accomplishments we do have, and the efforts of Canadian talent and entrepreneurs to do better. It will take much, much more than our politicians and policymakers have ever acknowledged to get even close.

Canada faces unprecedented challenges in innovation, productivity, and competitiveness. The first step in addressing them is to develop a clear understanding of the Canadian economy’s underlying structure and performance in each area. Policymakers must then tailor strategies for specific industries and technologies instead of focusing on principally on macro factors.

Introduction

Washington recognizes that many of its allies and partners have complex relationships with China, including partnerships with Chinese academic and research institutions that foster joint research and academic exchange of researchers, professionals, and students. Moreover, increasingly within recent years, many Canadian and American universities and research institutions have faced new challenges and risks associated with any partnership with connections to China following heightened media attention and security from the public, politicians, faculty, and alumni.

To assess the risks towards Canada’s national security, Ottawa released its to assist institutions in safeguarding research and intellectual property against foreign interference, espionage and theft. Likewise, the White House’s National Science and Technology Council released  in January 2022, with the same objectives to establish rules for ensuring research security and researcher responsibilities, noting that some foreign governments, such as China, are actively trying to illicitly acquire U.S. research and technologies. As Canada and the United States navigate this terrain, there is an opportunity for both countries to align their guidelines to maintain an open environment that fosters international research collaboration while protecting research security and competitiveness.  

Canada’s biotech sector needs anchor companies to establish themselves in Canada, become globally competitive and attract more investment, talent and ideas. These anchor companies will build upon an already strong foundation if they get the right support from the government and the wider sector. How would you describe the economic and social importance of the biotechnology sector for Canada? It is important to look at biotechnology and the sector not just through a Canadian lens but through a global lens. When you think about what is happening in the world, we have a planet with a population that is expected to grow to nine billion or 10 billion over the next decade or two, and that brings with it enormous challenges. We are already dealing with a changed environment and climate. The environment and climate will continue to change and adding more people is just going to accelerate the pace of that. We have to figure out new ways to lessen our impact on the planet and using biotechnology is one of the ways we can do that. That is the type of technology and innovation that allows us to grow differently, manufacture differently and heal our lives. It will not only lessen our impact on the planet but allows us to be more efficient as a species. At the end of the day, the planet is ultimately not threatened, but our species itself will be. Human beings are going to be threatened so unless we do something to address where our trajectory is going, we are going to have some fairly significant problems. This is not only Canada’s opportunity. Other countries recognize the economic and social opportunity of biotech and are supporting their local or domestic sectors. Canada has a fantastic foundation upon which to build. We have a great reputation for science and innovation and if we can take that and accelerate it, we are going to be at the forefront of developing some of the solutions that are needed for the global challenge of population growth.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has incredible potential to transform the economy, improve the way we work, and enhance our way of life. The global race to scale up and adopt AI is on, and Canada is at the forefront of this technology. To make sure we can seize every opportunity in the economy of the future, and set every generation up for success, we need to scale up our innovation ambitions. And do it in a way that brings everyone along. For Millennials and Gen Z, who feel their hard work isn’t paying off like it did for previous generations, we must invest in good-paying opportunities that help them get ahead. That’s why we’re focused on creating more good jobs, including in innovation and technology, which are among the highest paying of all industries.

AI is already unlocking massive growth in industries across the economy. Many Canadians are already feeling the benefits of using AI to work smarter and faster. The rapid advance of generative AI today will unlock immense economic potential for Canada, significantly improving productivity and reducing the time workers have to spend on repetitive tasks. Researchers and companies in Canada are also using AI to create incredible new innovations and job opportunities across all facets of the Canadian economy, from drug discovery to energy efficiency to housing innovation. In the past year, job growth in AI increased by nearly one third in Canada – among the highest growth of any sector. And most AI jobs pay well above the average income.

In the hyper-competitive global economy, business investment in research and development (R&D) is crucial because it drives technological innovation, which is a key factor in any country’s economic prosperity and national security. Yet Canada’s levels of business R&D are far off the pace in technologically advanced, globally traded sectors of the economy.

A recent analysis paints a stark picture, revealing yawning chasms, not just between Canada and the United States but also between Canada and the size-adjusted global averages for business R&D in nine advanced sectors. In 2021, U.S. firms spent almost 103 times more than their Canadian counterparts on R&D in these sectors, despite U.S. GDP being just 11.7 times larger than Canada’s. Worse, Canada was below the global average by a factor of almost five. Such disparities should serve as a clarion call for Canada to reevaluate the R&D incentives it provides firms.

Innovation has long been a hot topic in political circles and board rooms alike, and for good reason. Building innovative businesses has helped us overcome some of the biggest challenges we’ve seen in the 21st century, from economic crises to the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovation has allowed us to adapt to new ways of living and working, and created opportunities for positive change in our social, political and business landscapes. While it can seem like a buzzword sometimes, innovation is fundamentally an ongoing process of developing new and better techniques, products and business practices. In a globalized economy, innovation is the only real way to remain competitive and drive economic growth and prosperity. As we emerge from an unprecedented global emergency, we find both a need and an opportunity to bolster Canada’s innovation landscape. Specific policies start with understanding the challenges that businesses encounter every day. Through Deloitte’s Technology Fast 50 program, and from members of the Council of Canadian Innovators (CCI), we hear directly from the leaders of Canada’s fastest growing scale-ups about their key challenges. These include attracting and retaining top talent, commercializing products and services, and expanding internationally. Now that parliament has resumed after the 2021 federal election, there are opportunities for government to continue making meaningful progress in addressing these challenges. Canada’s economy needs talent for innovation. Over the last three years, 40 per cent of Fast 50 CEOs have struggled with the availability of talent, a situation that the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated. Remote work has increased poaching by international companies, hollowing out the ability of Canadian firms to retain top talent. Public policy interventions are needed to urgently address this gap, including clearing the pandemic-induced visa backlog and building a streamlined digital immigration system that will be resilient in future crises. Equally important is Canadian workforce development, which could be supported by developing a Canadian-based pipeline of technical and managerial talent. Skill-building programs, as well as offsets for hiring costs of new employees for strategic roles where Canadian scale-ups experience key gaps, could both play a role. The shortage of skilled talent links with another concern from Fast 50 CEOs: product development and commercialization. Innovative companies working in the knowledge economy rely on human ingenuity both to develop innovative ideas and successfully bring them to market. Fast 50 participants consistently rank the development of new products and services among the top three pathways for growing their companies, but it is also among their top three challenges. According to the Information Communications Technology Council, the Canadian economy will have a demand for an additional 250,000 jobs by 2025. If companies can’t find those skilled workers, it limits their ability to develop products and services. Additionally, there is an opportunity to look at improvements to help companies generate and protect their intellectual property (IP). IP ownership is linked to higher scale-up growth. But when the CCI surveyed our members in January 2021, we found that 45 per cent of our companies own zero patents. This isn’t because chief executive officers don’t understand the value of IP nor is it because they’re not generating innovative ideas and techniques that could be protected. But focusing on driving growth, recruiting talent, product development, fundraising and other concerns sometimes leaves IP as an afterthought.

Robert Cox in his 1989 article “Middlepowermanship, Japan and the Future World Order” poses a valid question “what is the essence of the middle power’s functional relationship to the world order?” (Cox, 1989:825). Before delving into the theory behind middle powers it is important to understand why they are so important in the world. Middle powers have acted as a stabiliser and neutraliser, especially during the Cold War, middle power countries acted within the interests of their bloc to neutralise the tension, “or urging restraint on the alliance leader, or resisting renewed 21 tendencies towards isolationism on the part of the bloc leader”(Cooper et al. 1993:20). “The middle-power role is to affirm the principle of adherence to acceptable rules of conduct by all powers, great and small” (Cox, 1989:834). Middle powers are able to affirm this world order through various international institutions based on a post- Westphalian political structure and a decentralization of global hegemony (Cox, 1989:835). In the era after the Second World War when the Great Powers had been decimated a new grouping of powers began to emerge. A country like Canada who was very involved in the war through industry, finance, technology and manpower came out on the other side with a new place in the global order. No longer was Canada a former colony or a nation pretending to be its own country; rather, as a nation Canada had an important impact. Perhaps most importantly, the Canadian economy was stronger than ever at the end of the war. Since Canada was not a ‘great power’ like the United States or Britain but was no longer a small power a new place in the world order needed to be sought out. This is where the evolution of middle powers began. After the Cold War ended there were new opportunities for middle powers. They were not needed to try and keep a stable world order; there were new initiatives they were able to participate in. Since the Soviet Union and the United States were no longer caught in a constant power struggle and there was no longer the same divide between east and west and as a result, “middle powers had greater freedom of action thrust upon them in terms of their diplomacy” (Cooper et al.1993: 21). Middle powers have the ability to come together through multi-lateral bodies such as NATO and the UN to uphold “the norms and rules of the international system and perform certain tasks to maintain and strengthen that system” (Cooper et al. 1993: 21). Throughout the 1980s with the United States’ declining resources middle powers were poised to take on a more active role in the international arena (Cooper et al.1993: 21).

The Quebec election results on Tuesday almost certainly put paid to the prospect of a secession referendum for the immediate future. With only a third of the vote and 54 seats, with opinion polls showing only 28 percent in favour of another referendum, Pauline Marois has lost the ability immediately to muster nationalist Quebecois for a third attempt at sovereignty. But the issue is not dead. This minority government will not last long, and if Mme Marois governs well, she has a good chance of securing her majority in the next election, likely next year. Her rancorous election speeches—which doubtless read better in the original German, as the late, great Texas columnist Mollie Ivins once said of another politician—will need to be stored away only until the next campaign. Still, the prospect of a referendum has implications for Canadian defence and foreign policy. The possibility of a Parti Quebecois referendum victory has even more. The PQ’s platform makes the right noises on defence and foreign policy, pledging to remain in NATO and NORAD and to enthusiastically support UN peacekeeping. But during the election campaign, Mme Marois attacked the Harper government’s supposed “warrior” mentality, its support for the F-35 fighter, its defence spending that metaphorically takes bread from the mouths of Quebec’s children. The reality is that no one in Quebec or outside it believes that an independent Quebec would want anything but the most barebones of constabulary duties for its military. That translates into either Canada or the United States assuming de facto responsibility for the defence of Quebec, responsibilities in which Quebec would have almost no say. Certainly both Canada and the US are unlikely to be willing to make Quebec a third member of NORAD. There might also be opposition to allowing Quebec to join NATO. None of this may matter very much if there is no military threat to North America or Europe, but these conditions cannot be guaranteed to last forever. Possibly bereft of alliances, certainly with its defences under others’ stewardship, how Quebecois could consider this independence is most unclear. The impact of secession on the Canadian polity would also be severe. Some other provinces might decide that Canada no longer meets their long term needs and seek statehood in the US or independence. Whole industries—the aviation business in Quebec built with federal subsidies, for example—would be lost to Canada. Ottawa’s power and status would be greatly diminished in every international organization (while Quebec’s, of course, would be minimal in every case), and keeping the United States friendly to Canadian survival and trade would become even more critical than it now is. Moreover, the implications of a separate Quebec for the Canadian Forces are also severe. First, every francophone in the military would face a difficult personal choice—to go with his or her heart or head. The only possibility of a serious career lies with the CF, but Canada’s post-secession military would likely be English-speaking. It would certainly be diminished in size and talent if many or most of the francophones who make up 28 percent of the present CF left for the new republic’s quasi-military. Moreover, much of the CF’s equipment and infrastructure in Quebec would accrue to the new nation, including bases at Bagotville, Montreal, and Valcartier, and the Naval Reserve headquarters in Quebec City. The CF-18s at Bagotville—unless they were flown out before the referendum (as was done just before the vote in 1995) would fall into Quebec hands, as would the equipment and most of the personnel of the Ve Brigade—some one-third of the Army’s combat strength--at Valcartier. And although we can scarcely bear even to think of this, the possibility exists that secession will spark violence that could escalate quickly into something approaching civil war. Quebec’s remaining anglophones, its unassimilated allophones, and its First Nations are not likely to acquiesce silently to becoming Quebec citizens and to losing their ties to Canada. Some will surely press to separate parts of western Quebec, Montreal and the north, efforts that the new republic would be obliged to resist. Seeing their compatriots confronted on the evening news, Canadians would certainly demand they be protected. A single misstep, a single rash act, could create a bloodbath

In a court battle that has apparently been working itself out for 17 years, the Quebec High Court this week affirmed that a law establishing a simple majority as key in triggering secession talks with the Canadian government — known as Bill 99 — is sound: The law was passed in 2000 by then-premier [of Quebec] Lucien Bouchard as a response to the federal government's Clarity Act, which defines how a province can secede from the federation. It [the Clarity Act] famously called for a "clear" majority in a referendum, without specifying what that meant, prompting endless debates about whether 50 per cent plus one would suffice to trigger sovereignty negotiations. In its preamble, Bill 99 describes the Clarity Act as an intrusion into Quebec's democratic institutions. It declared that no government can "impose constraints on the democratic will of the Quebec people." Bill 99 also contains a clause stating that a simple majority is enough to win any referendum held by the Quebec government. The Court sought to quell theories that the Quebec government was attempting to pass a law that allowed for unilateral secession. The simple majority necessary for secession talks, the Court concluded, is Constitutional, although, the vote, by itself, is not sufficient to fully execute a withdrawal from the Canadian confederation. Withdrawal would require negotiations with the federal government. The significance of the case stems from the fact that the federal government's Clarity Act is ambiguous as to how much of a majority was necessary to indicate a pro-secession vote from provincial voters. In other words, the Act appeared to allow the federal government to determine, perhaps after the fact, if a pro-secession majority vote in a province is a large enough majority. The new Court decision affirms that a simple majority is sufficient and limits the federal government's attempts to hedge its bets with language about what constitutes a "clear majority."

MONTREAL — Optimism within the Quebec sovereignty movement has not been this high in years. The Parti Québécois suffered its worst results in half a century in last October’s provincial elections. It helps to explain why the latest Léger survey has pro-independence Quebecers abuzz. The poll, published in Le Devoir, found that 38 percent of Quebec voters would vote in favor of sovereignty if a referendum were held on the issue. Half of respondents (51 percent) still side against sovereignty (and separation from Canada), while another 10 percent were unsure. — Recent history: Polls on Quebec independence have shown steady backing for sovereignty, ranging from the high 20s to the low 30s. Last June, Léger put support at 32 percent, up from 27 percent in December 2020. The modest but significant hike is welcome news to pro-independence Quebecers, but there’s a catch. — Behind the headline: The Léger data also exposed a major challenge for the sovereignty movement: Young voters no longer drive it as they did 30 and 40 years ago. Almost half of the voters between the ages of 18 and 34 are against sovereignty; 31 percent are in favor. It’s probably worth noting the last Quebec referendum was in 1995, before many in this cohort were born. Among voters aged 35 to 54, 34 percent were in favor and 55 percent against. Only among voters over 55 — those who lived through the constitutional battles of the 1980s and 1990s — do we find a statistical tie: Fifty percent against, 45 percent in favor. — The takeaway: Sovereigntists have to work to keep the dream of independence alive. If young voters do not join the cause, support for sovereignty could fizzle as the movement loses torch-carrying baby boomers by attrition.