Science and Research Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

If I understood correctly, as today is November 20^th, you can provide the Committee with that list today.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

As I said earlier, it will be soon.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

If I understand correctly, Minister, on November 20^th you are saying: there will soon be a list.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Precisely.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

That’s not a publication date, those are words.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It’s a date along with a comment.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Very well, but when will people get to see this list?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

They’ll be able to see it soon. I want that as much as you do.

First, I want to salute your exceptional work. I want to get the list as swiftly as you do, but you’ll understand that, as a minister, in complex cases of national security, we have to consider two things. We want to act quickly, and we want to do things well. Those are the two goals we strive to achieve.

I could ask the agencies to do this as quickly as possible. The list will be available very soon, so we’ll be able to publish it. The reason it took some time is that our security agencies had to work with their counterparts in other countries to come up with the best possible list. In fact, the Canadian list will be used by other countries. As you can see, the work we’re doing here is fundamental. To my knowledge, no other country has such a list.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

All right. Thank you for the clarification.

We will certainly be awaiting the list.

I still want to emphasize that the guidelines are not clear and that this is detrimental to the effectiveness of national security and coordination efforts in this area. In Quebec, for example, no subcommittee or working group on this issue has been created at the Bureau de coopération interuniversitaire, which brings together all the universities. Everyone is waiting.

Meanwhile, other Canadian provinces have taken action. In May 2021, Alberta’s Minister of Advanced Education ordered its universities to suspend all partnerships with institutions linked to the Chinese government. Meanwhile, in Ontario, universities issued a joint statement last February announcing various measures to protect university research.

Minister, we expect leadership and clear directives from you, because right now, everyone is navigating in a fog, is unsure what to do and wonders if they’re doing things for naught.

I hope you understand the urgency of the situation.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

This is my top priority. What’s more, I’ll tell you that Ottawa is providing leadership. The proof, as you said, is that each of the ministers refers to what Ottawa is doing. Leadership began with the publication of the National Security Guidelines for Research Partnerships in July 2021. That was the moment when we began working in concert with the scientific community.

However, I agree with you. I’m the first to want us to provide tools, to provide funding—we’ve done that—and to work with our provincial partners. I’m glad the provinces are involved, because the federal government’s jurisdiction over research is largely limited to funding. However, the provinces have an essential role to play. Universities and researchers also have a role to play. So, the ecosystem has to be in place.

That said, your message is loud and clear. We need to continue to play a leadership role, and that’s what we want to do.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Richard Cannings for six minutes, please.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I'm going to follow up on what Monsieur Blanchette-Joncas was pressing on.

You spoke at the start about the number of funding applications that had been rejected because of concerns, but I think a more serious concern from Canadians would be.... You know, the fact is that most research in Canada is not funded by the tri-councils, or there is a tremendous amount that is not. It's this research that is of most concern, I think, because there is a concern that this research, in many cases, is funded by outside sources, in some cases, by other countries.

We hear stories of researchers who are caught sending trade secrets or industry secrets to China. There was one from Hydro-Québec a year ago.

What is the federal government doing to prevent those things from happening when there is so much pressure on researchers here, on students coming in from other countries, to be funded from outside? They kind of get entrapped by this and forced to send these results back, send things that really belong here.

I'll just leave it there, but I want to follow up with a question about why we're in that position. Why do we not fund our own research as much? However, first of all, what is the federal government doing to go after those situations where people are getting external funding?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First of all, you raise a very interesting point, as always, Mr. Cannings.

The federal government and I have a role of leadership, and I think that's the primary role: to set the tone. That's why the guidelines have been the first moment in Canada where we have a framework and a research security centre. We have an enhanced security posture, and we're going to come up with a list. However, you're right. Not all the research in Canada is funded through federal grants where we have a direct way of influencing. What we've been doing is demanding and working with Universities Canada, the U15 and the Government of Canada-universities working group to say that we're all in this together. This is a nationwide effort. This is about national security. I may not have all the tools under the constitution to force them, but I think, as your colleague said before, people expect us to put in the framework. I think that's what we've done, and the list is going to be of great help.

You're quite right. We want the research to be as open as possible but as secure as necessary. To your point, I was very pleased—and I mentioned this to your colleagues before—when I saw universities that have voluntarily said that, for example, with Huawei, they would cease any partnership they had with them, and I insisted....

There are many ways to fund research in Canada. I think the Government of Canada is doing its fair share on that. The provinces are there as well. However, we need to make sure that we protect our research. I would say—and I'll finish there—that it's not only the research. I want to draw the attention of the committee to the data. We need to protect our datasets, as well, and the IP that comes out of those. That's why the ICA.... I just want to say that I'm pleased that the House voted on that because the ICA is going to give us more tools—we worked with Mr. Perkins on that—in the law to protect our IP when it comes to national security.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I just want to jump in and say that we are at the bottom of various lists of countries in terms of how much money the federal government puts into research. There have been a lot of suggestions out there, from the Bouchard report, that we should dramatically increase that funding. This would ameliorate the situation. This would stop researchers and students from going elsewhere for funding or even going elsewhere, period.

Someone got in touch with me yesterday about their son, who ended up going to Vienna for university because he had a scholarship that was worth twice as much as what NSERC would give him. He ended up going to Barcelona for a post-doc because they offered him twice as much as Canada would.

This is the funding draw that both researchers and students are finding. It would go a long way, I think, to stopping this flow of people going elsewhere—the research going elsewhere—who should be staying here in Canada.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I hear you loud and clear. If all of the students, researchers and professors who are watching today.... Listen, I understand. I hear you loud and clear. We have always led when it comes to research and science in this country. I agree with you that funding is a key component of that. We always rank very...at the top of the list, but obviously we've seen, over the years, a sliding back.

We made the largest investment in science of, I would say, any government when we came into office. However, obviously, people would say, “Well, if you want to keep the high ranking, you need to keep investing in science and research.” I can tell you that we're very cognizant of that. We're trying to look at every possible way of how we can support our students, our scientists and our researchers because the work of this committee has highlighted that. The Bouchard report....

I want to personally thank Professor Bouchard for his work. It's key in making sure that we really understand the state of science and what we can do to support our young scientists and research in Canada, both fundamental and applied research.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I'll come back to you when I have my next round. However, I would come back to you and say that we don't rank very high when it comes to that federal government funding, and it's causing real, serious problems.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

We can do better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

We'll leave that for the next round, which will be starting now with five minutes for Mr. Tochor.

I understand you're sharing your time with Mr. Perkins.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

That's correct.

Earlier on in this study, Minister, we heard from experts from the Royal Military College that, starting in 2017, roughly, the PRC's activities started to pose an existential threat.

Do you agree with them, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I have not seen the report, so I'll let them speak for themselves.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Do you view the PRC's activities as an existential threat to Canada, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would let the report stand for itself.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

It's troubling, Minister, that you do not view the PRC's activities as an existential threat to our country.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That I think the report I have not seen should stand for itself?

Sir, I'm a lawyer. I would rather read the report before I comment on the report.