Leading research universities in Canada warn that the proposed foreign influence transparency registry could have an "unintended chilling effect" on international partnerships, meaning that Canada misses out on developing opportunities.

Canada's U15 universities are among many concerned voices urging MPs to adopt changes to the planned registry, which is a set of legislation being passed through a House of Commons committee.

Committee members are set to begin reviewing the conditionality of the foreign interference bill today—including any amendments—just one week after the hearings.

The legislation will present new criminal provisions against deceptive or covert acts, allow for the exchange of sensitive information with companies and others beyond the government, and establish a registry for foreign transparency.

The bill acknowledges that foreign states and other entities may be engaged in interference to further political goals, and they can employ people to act on their behalf without disclosing these relationships.

The transparency registry will require some individuals to register with the federal government to help protect against this activity.

Failure to register an arrangement or activity with a foreign director—authority, state, or entity—could lead to financial penalties or even criminal sanctions.

In a written brief to the committee, the U15 group of Canadian research universities expresses its concerns about the reporting requirements under the registry, considering the extensive international networks of research collaboration.

The submission states: "It is simply impossible for large, research-intensive universities to track individual research collaborations across their institutions and report on that to the registry" within the required 14 days, the submission adds.

Press freedom and privacy concerns

The organization points out that research publications already have built-in transparency requirements, such as disclosing university affiliation and financial conflicts of interest.

"The requirements for further reporting create risks that stifle Canadian research by establishing redundant administrative processes 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 notes that the Canadian impact registry will be "country agnostic", meaning it will not target known state adversaries like China.

Canada takes this path despite the problems this approach has caused Australia, and despite a more modern alternative model offered by the UK, says the brief authored by security expert Wesley Wark, a senior fellow at CIGI.

Wark points out that the UK's version is a two-tier system. The enhanced tier grants the foreign secretary the ability to request registration of a broader range of activities for specified countries, parts of countries, or entities controlled by foreign governments when necessary.

Benjamin Fong, a professor and chair of research in Canada at McGill University, expresses support for a two-tier model like that implemented in the UK in his Commons committee brief. Such an approach would allow the Canadian government to "impose more targeted restrictions on selected entities," Fong says.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association states that the section of the bill creating the impact registry "includes vague and broad language that raises issues of democratic accountability."

The association is concerned about the potential use of the registry as a tool for the government to monitor the international engagement of various actors, including foreign broadcasters owned or funded by academic institutions and charities.

The association's brief states: "These considerations are likely to involve issues of press freedom and privacy, as well as questions about the space allocated to international organizations within Canada's ecosystem."