Well, resources and time are always limited.
My point would be that I'm not sure you can always be agnostic. It's pretty clear that the PRC, North Korea, Iran and Russia pose risks that others do not. Hence, I'd argue that focusing on the most immediate problems is rational.
Our collaboration with China is for a bunch of reasons, mainly the fact that the Chinese have advanced so quickly and so far. China will probably occupy the lion's share. I'm not aware of any research collaboration with North Korea, for example. There's virtually none with Iran and very little with Russia in the current circumstances. I think you have to pick your targets.
The challenge is that one must, in my view, respect the academic autonomy of universities. Where there's a legitimate security concern—and there are legitimate security concerns—is where the Government of Canada legitimately focuses. When it has the funding control, it should certainly exercise it where it believes it's not in the net interest.
I would emphasize that there are research topics—be it climate change, environmental concerns or health research—where there is clear benefit to Canada from our researchers' working with Chinese researchers. If you cut that off completely, then one of the things you're going to find is that some of our best researchers will simply decamp to the U.S. or Europe, where there are no such barriers or where at least the barriers may be somewhat more liberal. Working with our allies to find common approaches reduces that risk.
There's also the bigger issue of isolating China. China went through very long periods historically, including up to the end of the cultural revolution.... The movement of students back and forth, I think, helps to leaven and open Chinese society. The Chinese students I deal with on a regular basis are far more knowledgeable of the outside world and outside ways of living than was the case before.