Science and Research Committee on Sept. 27th, 2023

[Philip Landon]

I have occasionally met MPs and other parliamentarians, yes.

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

Very well, we're glad to know that. However, I take it you haven't met the minister yet.

[Philip Landon]

No.

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

That's fine. Let me reassure you, we've been waiting six months for him too. Please be patient, we hope you'll be able to meet him. If you see him, give him our greetings and tell him that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research unanimously passed a motion six months ago asking him to come and give evidence to explain why the government has not made any additional investment in research. If you could pass this message on to him, it would be greatly appreciated.

Let's get back to the subject at hand today.

Mr. Gaffield, it's a pleasure to have you back with us. We're always grateful for your statements and presence. Overall, what are your members' concerns, priorities and demands regarding the national security of research and the topic before us today?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you very much for your question, which goes to the heart of the issue we're discussing today.

The current reality is that every country must have a national capability. We've learned that this is essential. Not so long ago, we used to talk about globalization and a world with networks and transfers, but now we see that, in fact, geopolitical borders count for a lot. There's a lot of competition between countries and, unfortunately, there will be winners and losers. It's more and more obvious.

Today, there's no doubt that the best way to move a country forward is through science and research. You can see it everywhere, especially in the world's major countries, which are investing heavily in this area. That's why I'm so afraid for Canada. You have to understand that it's a bit like a garden: to go further, you have to cultivate it all the time. And why is that? Because there's competition between countries, and to carve out a solid, stable place in the world, Canada has to attract and retain talent, and rely on the talent of its people. That takes investment, and I think that's the key. If we don't have the ability to defend ourselves in a context where other countries are threatening us, we will be more fragile, obviously.

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

Thank you.

Indeed, as you mentioned, we need to cultivate the garden. I think you'll agree that flowers aren't growing very well in the garden at the moment. We are the only G7 country to have reduced its investment in R&D over the last 20 years. We spend 1.8% of our gross domestic product on R&D, compared with 3.4% in the United States. I think the message is pretty clear.

If I understand what you're saying, the fact that the federal government doesn't invest enough in R&D compromises research national security, because researchers are tempted to do business with people from abroad, who don't always have our interests at heart. I'd like to hear your views on this.

Mr. Landon, I'll invite you to add your comments afterwards.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

In my opinion, the key element is a certain cooling of enthusiasm. If we decide not to touch certain areas of research that are based on international partnerships, it's going to backfire on Canada. There are very important areas of research where we need to be more involved, not less. If we don't rely on partnerships with other countries, especially those that are increasingly threatening us, we need to dive deeper into these areas of research, not pull back.

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

Mr. Landon, I'll give you the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

That's great. Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Cannings for six minutes.

Congratulations again on getting your bill through the House this afternoon.

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

Thank you very much. It made my day.

I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. It continues to be an interesting study.

I'm going to start with Mr. Landon. You had a series of points in your presentation. You talked about the cost of cutting ties with researchers abroad and the stagnation of research funds here, and then you mentioned what a couple of other countries are doing. Australia has developed its list regarding restrictions.

Our big competitor, if you will, is the United States. You mentioned CHIPS, which has this combination of restrictions and very significant investments.

I'm wondering if you can comment on whether that's where we can go in Canada. In Canada, we have difficulty outspending the United States or China, but we could at least provide enough funding for research, I think, to keep our researchers here at home and make it domestic research, without having to carry on these partnerships and agreements with foreign entities—especially with China, for the reasons we all know.

Can you comment on that? What should be the best tactic for Canada?

[Philip Landon]

I think absolutely we need to increase the funding that is available to Canadian researchers. I don't believe we need to reduce the international collaborations researchers undertake in Canada. Research is an international enterprise, and I think it's very important we maintain the advantage Canada's had in international research over the preceding years. I think it's a very important advantage to Canada. That being said, our universities and our researchers are aware of security threats and are taking steps accordingly, as I and Mr. Gaffield have outlined in our remarks. There's no way we can outspend the United States, but we could make sure our percentage is moved up to OECD levels, because it's falling behind them right now.

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

The restrictions you see put into CHIPS or the list Australia is producing I assume would be a good place to start for Canada when its building lists. I understand those lists are being put together now. Those other lists from other countries, I assume they'd be just as appropriate here as they would be for our friends in Australia and the United States.

[Philip Landon]

I believe that the university working group and the folks at the government who are putting those lists together are looking at international comparators and making their lists—which are not public yet—with those in mind. My assumption would be, yes, that's the case.

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

I'd like to turn to Dr. Gaffield with comments on this same thing. You said investments elsewhere put pressure on Canadian universities. Could you comment further on that and what Canada needs to be doing right now to stem that tide?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

For me, a really top priority is what we call the highly qualified talent. We know that much of the best research, and in fact, how our companies innovate and so on, really depends on the emerging generation. It depends on those who are now completing their graduate degrees, post-docs and so on. What we need to be able to do internationally is to make sure studying here, undertaking research here and pursuing careers here across all sectors is financially viable. One of the issues—and you've heard a lot about this—is that it's a huge domestic risk for us if we do not take this very seriously.

You've heard me say before right now we're 26th in the OECD rankings of 37 countries in terms of the proportion of our population with graduate degrees, which I don't think is the profile of a country that's really going to thrive in the 21st century. We need to really take very seriously this question of the highly qualified talent we need across sectors in terms of innovating our society, our culture and so on and really building the kind of high-value economy society, which is really the only kind that's going to succeed in the 21st century.

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

If you were talking to a researcher in a university in Canada who is struggling to find enough funding for their research or struggling to find a student who has research funding attached to them, because the researcher may not, and China's an obvious solution to that for some researchers, then it could help that if we funded our students properly, if we funded our researchers.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

My sense is that it's really at the heart of this whole issue.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

Thank you.

On our second round, we'll start off with Ben Lobb for five minutes, please.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

That's great. Thanks very much.

I appreciate the discussion we've been having today and over the last number of meetings.

The first question I would have is whether we have gotten to the bottom of all of this. Do you feel we've gotten to the bottom of all of this amongst our universities? Have they had a chance in the last few months to take a look at all the issues and decide?

Go ahead, Mr. Gaffield.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

I feel very strongly that five years ago, in 2018, we began taking this really seriously. Believe me, it was not obvious internationally how one moves from open science to “open as possible, secure as necessary”. That has been the journey we have been on for the last five years.

My sense, at least, is that we've made huge progress, such that I think all of us today can feel very confident that our research on our campuses is being undertaken in secure ways that do not threaten us.

However, as I've been saying, this is an evergreen, ongoing and constant issue. As we've heard from various witnesses, with the tactics used by other countries to affect us and so on, with the kinds of strategies that are going to evolve, we have to be constantly attentive and alert and update this on an evergreen basis.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I respect that answer, but I look at it from my point of view.

You tell me that and I believe you, but then how would we verify this? What are we using to say...? If we say that this was the problem and here are the articles in The Globe and Mail and from around the world, and then we and all the universities come here—you're part of the representation—how do we say here's the proof that we've actually done this? Is there any?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

That's such a great question.

In fact, earlier in this discussion I appreciated the emphasis on enforcement. From my point of view, if you have policies but there's no enforcement, it's not going to work. We have to really take seriously the monitoring, the verification and so on. We are wrapping up research security within the responsible conduct of research because, within that framework, there is ongoing auditing. There's ongoing verification on a continual basis. I think that's what's going to be needed in this.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Out of the universities you represent, for example, is there a number? Have universities said to you that there has been probably 20 cases in the last couple of years where they've probably crossed the line? Has anybody from the universities that you represent come up to you and told you that, or is there no number and we just have to assume that everybody has done it?

Is there a number?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

My sense is that we've been managing this really successfully. We hear about potential threats and about attempts to influence and so on, and we take them very seriously.

I think we can be proud. As I said, in Canada we can be proud that so far our measures and so on are working.