Foreign influence registry could have ‘chilling effect,’ universities warn – National

Canada’s leading research universities caution that a proposed foreign influence transparency registry could inadvertently have a “chilling effect” on international partnerships, potentially causing Canada to miss out on cutting-edge opportunities.

The U15 Canada universities, along with other concerned voices, are urging MPs to make changes to the planned registry, which is a key component of legislation currently moving through a House of Commons committee.

The committee members are scheduled to begin reviewing the comprehensive anti-foreign interference bill, including potential amendments, after just one week of hearings.

The proposed legislation includes new criminal provisions against deceptive acts, allows for sharing sensitive information with non-government entities, and establishes a foreign influence transparency registry.

The bill acknowledges that states and foreign entities may engage in interference to further political goals, potentially employing individuals without disclosing their ties.

The transparency registry would mandate certain individuals to register with the federal government to prevent such activities.

Failure to register arrangements or activities with a foreign principal could result in financial penalties or criminal sanctions.

0:28
Feds take foreign interference ‘very seriously’ amid national security report pressures: Freeland

In a written submission to the committee, U15 Canada expresses concerns about the reporting requirements of the registry, given the extensive international research cooperation networks.

“It is simply impossible for large research-intensive universities to track individual research collaborations across their institutions and report this on the registry within the required 14 days,” the submission states.

U15 Canada also calls for more clarity on how an arrangement will be defined and whether it would encompass research partnerships, funding agreements, or other international research activities with publicly funded universities, research institutions, or foreign research funding agencies.

“The risk of a chilling effect on international research partnerships as an unintended consequence of the registry’s reporting requirements could significantly harm relationships with international peers and mean that Canada misses out on the opportunity to collaborate on cutting-edge research and access world-leading expertise from peer nations,” the submission adds.

The group also seeks clarification on whether the publication or communication of research findings, including through academic journals, teaching, conferences, or other public forums, would be considered a communication activity under the law.

Such a requirement could “significantly infringe” on academic freedom and “limit the pursuit of open science and free exchange of ideas,” according to U15 Canada.

Universities Canada, representing 96 universities nationwide, states in its submission that the transparency registry could encompass information related to political or governmental processes communicated through various means, including social media.

“This can include research publications seeking to engage on issues such as foreign policy, governance processes, economics, climate, and technologies subject to increased political debate,” Universities Canada mentions.

1:49
Federal Liberals sidestep questions about watchdog’s foreign meddling findings

Research publications already have transparency requirements in place, such as disclosing university affiliations and financial conflicts of interest, the organization points out.

“The requirement for additional registration risks impeding Canadian research by creating redundant administrative processes and may not consider other research security policies that universities have implemented recently,” it adds.

In a policy brief submitted to the committee, the Centre for International Governance Innovation highlights that the Canadian influence registry will be “country agnostic,” not specifically targeting known state adversaries like China.

Despite Australia’s challenges with this approach and the U.K.’s alternative two-tier model, Canada is proceeding with its current plan, notes security expert Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at CIGI.

The U.K. model includes an enhanced tier that allows the secretary of state to mandate registration of a broader range of activities for specific countries or entities when necessary.

2:11
CSIS watchdog flags ‘gaps’ in flow of information

Professor Benjamin Fung, a Canada research chair at McGill University, voices support for a two-tier model similar to the U.K.’s in his brief to the Commons committee, citing that it would enable the government to impose more accurate restrictions on select entities.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association raises concerns about the section of the bill establishing the influence registry, noting that it contains vague and broad language that raises democratic accountability issues.

The association is worried about the potential use of the registry for government monitoring of international engagement by various actors, including state-owned or funded foreign broadcasters, academic institutions, and charities.

“These considerations potentially involve freedom of the press and privacy issues, as well as questions about the role of international organizations in Canada’s ecosystem,” the association’s brief states.

&copy 2024 The Canadian Press