Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion. I did speak publicly when this motion was tabled by the member opposite from the Bloc Québécois. I did say that I found it problematic and that researchers may not want their ideas released publicly, especially for unfunded proposals, because there's a potential for others to steal those ideas and because there is privacy involved in that. So, I did comment on that already.
I would also like to point out that, in addition to the letters to committee that we have received, there was an open letter to protect tri-council data that was brought forward. In that letter, it says, “This motion is incredibly damaging, unscientific in its approach, unethical, and puts minoritized researchers and graduate students at risk.” It has been signed by 5,000 people.
I would also like to show some of the comments that have come into my office from researchers who are from McGill, the University of Toronto, Ontario Tech, York, Western, the University of Calgary, the University of Alberta, the University of Saskatchewan and more. I have anonymized their names, which is the proper way to deal with these things. They say that the confidentiality of the peer review process is sacrosanct and that this will irreparably undermine trust in the processes that govern peer review. They say that this motion provides no such justification and thus represents an unreasonable and disproportionate invasion of privacy, that it undermines the ethical and confidentiality commitments on which scientific review depends, and that it undermines scientific peer review in Canada and diminishes our reputation in the eyes of the international scientific community.
A letter we have received from SSHRC, one of the tri-councils, says, “As previously communicated, some of the information requested is difficult to access and compile in a usable manner.”
I appreciate that our colleague is bringing forward a motion that can provide data, but it should be in a way that makes sense fiscally and responsibly, that protects the privacy of researchers, that protects intellectual property, and that gives us a way to move forward with the report that we would like to table and have back to committee so that we can assess research excellence criteria in Canada, which is what the study is intended to do.