In an article by Briony Smith for IT World Canada, John Reid, president of the CATA Alliance, is quoted with regards to a recent court ruling requiring additional data to confirm patentability.
Mr. Reid said, "This does affect all of the advanced technology sector, when it comes to patent protection—it affects any product that requires patent protection, which is everything". (See also: CATA press release)
I have not read the case yet, but from the article alone I must disagree with Mr. Reid.
Patents are a temporary monopoly granted to an innovator to disallow competition as an incentive. This area of policy must always be balanced with a need to protect competition, which in most cases is a much stronger driver of innovation than exclusive rights.
For patentability of a selection, improvement, or second-generation patent, it is quite reasonable for both the patent office and the courts to require data to indicate how the "new" invention is different than the prior art or prior patents. The fact that other countries may not need this is not sufficient reason for Canada to not improve on its patent regime.
In general I disagree that everything requires patent protection, something that seemed to be suggested by Mr. Reid. There are areas such as information/mental process (software, business methods, etc) where studies suggest that patents chill rather than provide incentive for innovation. CATA should be trying to support the interests of the entire high-tech sector, not just the anti-competitive interests of the incumbents.