Canada’s leading research universities are warning that a proposed Foreign Influence Transparency Registry could have an unintended “chilling effect” on international partnerships and cause Canada to miss out on cutting-edge opportunities.
The U15 Canadian universities are among a number of concerned voices urging MPs to change plans for the registration system that is at the heart of a bill being considered in a House of Commons committee.
Committee members are scheduled to begin a clause-by-clause review of the comprehensive foreign interference prevention bill, including amendments, today after just one week of hearings.
The bill would introduce new criminal provisions for deceptive and secrecy practices, allow for the sharing of classified information with non-government companies and others, and establish a Foreign Influence Transparency Registry.
The bill recognises that nations and other foreign entities may intervene to further political aims and may employ people to act on their behalf without disclosing that affiliation.
A transparency registry would require certain individuals to register with the federal government in an effort to prevent such activity.
Failure to register agreements or activities with foreign subjects (powers, states, organisations, economic entities) may result in fines and/or criminal penalties.
In a written report to the committee, the Association of Canadian Research Universities (U15) expressed concerns about the registry-based reporting requirement, given the country’s extensive international networks of research collaboration.
“It is simply not possible for large research-intensive universities to track each of their institutions’ individual research collaborations and report these to the register within the stipulated 14 days,” the submission said.
Concerns about academic freedom
U15 Canada also seeks greater clarity on how an agreement is defined and whether it includes research partnerships, funding agreements or other international research activities conducted with publicly funded universities, research institutes or foreign research funding agencies.
“The risk of a chilling effect on international research partnerships as an unintended consequence of registry reporting requirements could cause significant damage to relationships with international peers and mean Canada misses out on opportunities to collaborate on cutting-edge research and access world-leading expertise from its peers.”
The group also wants to know whether publishing or communicating research findings through peer-reviewed journals, teaching, conferences and other public forums would be considered communication activities for legal purposes.
clock l Former CSIS analyst Phil Girsky discusses shocking foreign interference report l
Get the latest news and analysis on CBCNews.ca, the CBC News app and CBC News Network
U15 Canada says such requirements could “severely infringe on academic freedom” and “limit the pursuit of open science and the free exchange of ideas.”
The Association of Canadian Universities, which represents 96 colleges and universities across Canada, said in a submission to the committee that a transparency register could collect information related to political and government processes “communicated or disseminated by any means, including social media.”
“This may include research publications that attempt to address issues of heightened political debate, such as foreign policy, governing processes, the economy, climate and technology,” the Canadian Association of Universities said.
Concerns about press freedom and privacy
The group said research publications already have built-in transparency requirements, such as disclosure of university affiliations and financial conflicts of interest.
“Further registration requirements risk impeding Canadian research through duplicative administrative procedures and may not take into account other research security policies that universities have implemented in recent years.”
In a policy brief submitted to the committee, the Centre for International Governance Innovation said Canada’s influence register is “country-neutral” and does not target known adversaries such as China.
clock l Foreign interference is ‘alive and well’ in Canada, says former CSIS deputy director l
Michel Tessier, a former deputy director of operations at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, speaks out about allegations that some members of parliament may have “knowingly” assisted foreign state actors. Tessier says intelligence is not held to the same standard as evidence, and it’s a “different type of information.”
Canada is adopting this approach despite problems Australia has experienced with it and despite the UK proposing an alternative, more modern model, according to the brief written by CIGI senior fellow and security expert Wesley Wark.
Wark points out that the UK version is a two-tiered system, with an enhanced tier giving the Secretary of State the power to require particular countries, parts of countries or foreign government-controlled entities to register a wider range of activities where appropriate.
In a report to the House of Commons committee, Benjamin Fang, a professor and Canada Research Chair at McGill University, expressed support for a two-tier model like the one in place in the U.K. Such an approach would allow the Canadian government to “impose more precise restrictions on specific groups,” Fang said.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association said the bill’s provisions creating the influence registry “contain vague and broad language that raises questions of democratic accountability.”
The association is concerned that the register could be used as a tool by governments to monitor the international engagement of a range of actors, including state-owned or state-funded foreign broadcasters, academic institutions and charities.
“These considerations could include issues of press freedom and privacy, as well as questions about the status of international organizations in the Canadian ecosystem,” the association’s report said.
