Evidence of meeting #60 for Science and Research in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was entities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
Thank you.
Thank you for the questions.
We have Mr. Turnbull for five minutes, please.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today on this important topic. It's great to hear your testimony.
I'll follow up on a few other lines of questioning I thought were fruitful.
Just to clarify, as an estimate, what percentage of funding of all Canadian research does the tri-council actually provide? In the whole market of research across universities and colleges—because I know you fund applied research at colleges as well—what percentage do you provide?
Maybe the three of you could give an estimate.
5:45 p.m.
President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
I can take a crack at it by memory. The three councils are just over $3 billion in a system that's probably close to $30 billion. If you include industry.... It may be more. I apologize. I haven't looked at the latest data, which would see funding from government, in government labs, through industry for their own research, and from industry to institutions. It's a portion—
5:45 p.m.
President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
I'm guessing, but I would call it an intelligent guess.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
That's what I'm asking for. If you want to follow up with some details, that would be fine. We'd appreciate it.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
If you're 10% of the market, the other 90% of the market, in terms of research that's going on, is either privately funded.... It's not within federal jurisdiction, because it's not under the tri-council.
October 25th, 2023 / 5:45 p.m.
President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Some of it would be—in government science, in labs, and in facilities like the National Research Council and so forth. It would—
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I'm sorry to cut you off. I don't mean to be rude, but I want to get down to where I'm going here.
Whose jurisdiction is that other 90%?
5:45 p.m.
President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Of the 90%, a good portion would be industry funding for their own research and also research that is done in institutions. Provinces fund research as well. That would account for a portion. Universities also fund their own research with their own resources.
It's quite varied, actually, if you break it down. Statistics Canada has the latest numbers on those, but we're happy to source those and send them to the committee.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you. I would appreciate that, Mr. Hewitt.
It's interesting that if we think about research security and taking a holistic approach, your share or portion of the research is actually quite small in comparison to the whole universe of research that's being funded in Canada. I'll just leave it at that. That's my statement or basically what I'm taking from your testimony.
I want to get back to another comment here. I think my colleague Ms. Jaczek asked some really good questions, mostly to NSERC.
Mr. Baron, you mentioned that about 4% of applications that came in essentially had security risks that were unmitigable, or at least were in question. Those had to go to the national security agencies. You said that 50% of that 4% were rejected, roughly 30 applications.
I'm sorry. I think that was Mr. Adem. I was getting confused there.
I'll ask the rest of you. How many have you had to refer to the national security agencies for review, and how many of those have been rejected?
Mr. Baron, maybe I could ask you.
5:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Research - Programs, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Thank you for the question.
At CIHR, this process is not in place yet. Probably based on the nature of the research done by CIHR, NSERC took the lead position here. Based on the discussions we've had with our tri-council partners, which were initiated by ISED together with the national security agencies, we are preparing steps that will be perfectly synchronized with the agencies.
We can't predict the outcomes, but based on the nature of the research, we can have some guesses. In the end, we will have to see what comes in and follow the new guidelines.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Just to follow up on that, you profiled mental health, obesity and neurodegenerative diseases. Those all seem like research partnerships that—for me, at least—don't present huge concerns from a national security perspective. I kind of think they might be fruitful areas. Maybe I'm wrong, but those are good examples.
Are there examples of ones where you would have concerns?
5:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Research - Programs, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
There are some areas in biomedical technology, such as the use of genomics technology and the use of computer technology in medicine, that could lead to concerns. These are actually discussions we've had between the councils and with our colleagues at ISED, but also with our university partners. It has resulted in the guidelines that are about to come out, as Dr. Adem indicated.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Would those be considered sensitive research areas, then, in future guidelines? Is that the intention?
5:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Research - Programs, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
There are areas in health research that will be on this list, all of which will be announced at a later date.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lloyd Longfield
You are out of time.
Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, the floor is yours for two and a half minutes.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll go back to you, Mr. Adem.
We were told that NSERC grant applications have undergone a lengthy additional national security review, that only 4% of the 1,000 applications had been analyzed, and that most of them had been rejected.
How do you explain that?
5:50 p.m.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
I believe that the researchers made plans to mitigate security problems and that was enough. As for the 4%, for some of the applications, we could not determine whether it was enough to ensure the security of the research. We then turned those files over to our colleagues in the security agencies.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Okay, but I'm trying to understand. You will agree with me that 4% is not a lot. How is it that only 4% of about 1,000 applications were analyzed, when they were already deemed to require further review?
5:50 p.m.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
We think our preliminary review is sufficiently thorough.
I will ask my colleague to give you a more detailed answer.
5:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Research Partnerships, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
Thank you for the question. I will answer in English, if I may.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Could you send us an answer in writing? As time is running out, I'll move on to my next question. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask for the cooperation of the three granting agencies that are here today to help us with this important study.
Could the three granting agencies provide the committee with the funding applications that have been rejected because of partnerships deemed risky with entities or individuals from China over the past 20 years?
Could they also provide the committee with the funding applications that were accepted despite partnerships with entities or individuals from China, as well as the risk analysis process that was used to conclude that there was no risk to Canada over the past 20 years?