Science and Research Committee on Oct. 25th, 2023

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Dr. Adem, from NSERC's perspective, have you involved any provincial government agencies in your consultations regarding these guidelines? Were they originally part of the working group?

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

There's the university working group. I think ISED is the one that organizes them. We are in touch with the provincial agencies, such as the FRQ in Quebec. They contacted us wanting to know what was being developed. We are also in touch with Alberta Innovates and others. We have agreements with these provinces to fund these industry collaborations. I think it's very important to share best practices across the whole ecosystem.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

As I understand it, these guidelines were established in 2021. As you have just alluded to, you obviously want to look at best practices. Is there a date by which these guidelines—the application risk assessments—are going to be reviewed based on the experience that you have gathered in the last two years, or are you looking toward a specific date to review these risk assessments in the future?

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

Let me invite my colleague.

[Manal Bahubeshi, Vice-President, Research Partnerships, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council]

Thank you for that question.

There has been review, including of the risk assessment form. There have been changes made to that, taking into account feedback we received from the community, in order to help simplify the process and make it clear what elements of information are needed.

There is an ongoing calibration effort happening. I expect it will continue to happen.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

That review would then be communicated, obviously, with the federal government for potential change.

[Manal Bahubeshi]

The new risk assessment form, for example, was made public a few months ago. It was communicated, made publicly available and shared with the research community, as well.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

Dr. Hewitt, the whole issue of social sciences and humanities research, I imagine, is a little more complicated than the sort we've heard about with respect to military operations, or to anything that could be connected to a security issue.

Could you elaborate a little from the social sciences and humanities research point of view? What might you be looking for that could potentially be a risk to Canadian security?

[Dr. Ted Hewitt]

I would probably start by saying that we would follow the guidelines that we were given and that we agreed to. We would implement that.

A lot of things, as you would guess, within the social sciences and humanities would not come close to some of the screening being suggested, in terms of organizations that would cause concern, particularly in the private sector. However, all our projects and applications—as with all the agencies—originate with Canadian researchers. They are always the primary applicants. They go through rigorous peer-review committees and external reviews. That's number one. If there are flags, they may be identified in the peer-review process. Whether or not we could do anything about it at that point is interesting, because there may not be any mechanism to act.

I would say that, at the other end of the scale, researchers conduct research to publish. Once the work is finished, they're writing articles and publishing them in journals that are also peer-reviewed. If there was something to cause some concern among peer reviewers, it would be exposed in the peer-review process. That would ultimately, potentially, result in the rejection of an article.

It's an interesting question. I think this is going to come up more and more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lloyd Longfield]

It's a good series of questions.

Mr. Blanchette‑Joncas, go ahead for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I acknowledge the witnesses who have joined us today.

I'll begin by asking Mr. Adem some questions.

Mr. Adem, thank you for being here today.

I think it's important to put things in perspective. In July 2021, the federal government asked NSERC to implement a risk assessment form. Then, in March 2023, it expanded this form to include a thorough review of the integrated biomedical research fund and biosciences research infrastructure fund competition.

What explains the expansion of the risk assessment form?

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

Of course, biomedical sciences and biotechnology are very sensitive technology areas. The government has funded new strategic programs. The Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat, represented here by our colleague, administers these programs. It is important to have safeguards in this area. This is a priority for Canada.

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

Can you confirm that the risk assessment form is considered in the same way in the three granting agencies?

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

Discussions are under way to improve the program. That was announced in February of this year, and we're waiting for the details. There is a lot of interest in dual-use technologies and universities known as the seven sons of national defence or certain military institutions potentially involved.

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

If I understand what you are saying, the risk assessment form is currently not being used consistently by the three granting agencies. Is that correct?

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

At the moment, we have an alliance with the companies and with the Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat for biotechnology and biomedical sciences programs.

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

So the assessment is done in the same way at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

Yes, that is the case for these tri-agency programs.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Adem, in your presentation, you said that there was cooperation and that you were headed in the right direction. The federal government said in February 2023 that it was going to publish a list of universities deemed to be high risk.

Do you know when that list will be published? As of today, October 25, 2023, we are still waiting. You may be the best person to tell us when that list will be ready.

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

We look forward to that list.

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

We want to help you. What is missing to make that list? You talked about consultation and the Five Eyes. Other countries have lists. Some of our international allies also want to counter the Chinese threat.

I'm trying to understand today how the government could say it was going to do something without knowing when it was going to do it.

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

I hope it will do it soon.

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

Okay. Let's remain patient and vigilant.

Mr. Adem, I would like you to tell me about Chinese interference. Our committee is trying to find recommendations to solve the problem and will produce a report on that.

Have you noted a tendency in your granting agency over the past 20 years to refuse to fund Chinese institutions or Chinese researchers directly or indirectly, or to establish partnerships because it was considered risky for the national security of research?

[Dr. Alejandro Adem]

We do the risk assessment on a project-by-project basis, regardless of the country. We listen to what the security agencies are saying. We are completely neutral and want to do what is best for Canada, based on what the government and the security agencies tell us.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

We're trying to clarify things a little bit. Allow me to quote people who have spoken publicly, including representatives of the U15 group, an association of the 15 leading universities in Canada. There is some vagueness. Even researcher David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said that he did not know why his association had been rejected. He tried to obtain information, but he was told that there was not necessarily an explanation for that response. Let me give you some concrete examples. Of the 48 proposals submitted to NSERC by the U15 group, 34 were rejected without further responses.

I know that new measures, tool kits and assessment forms are being put in place, but what can you tell us about those refusals and, above all, the lack of explanations?

In recent years, researchers have been told to create partnerships and build alliances everywhere because science is universal. Today, however, they do not have clear instructions on how to go about it.