I use the example of this study where we looked at the number of publications times the number of times they're cited. That is the standard h-index metric that is used for research assessment—and I'm willing to defend that, by the way.
We saw very clearly, in the Nature paper of 2024, that female and Hispanic or Black academics—controlling for the number of years in the profession and for discipline—had substantially lower output than white and Asian or male academics. I think it is reasonable to surmise and—although I am open to other data; I want to see data on this and scientific proof—I believe that, by pursuing EDI, you are reducing research output. I would bet on that.
Is it the biggest factor? No, but it's a factor. It's going to reduce it by a certain amount, and maybe that's a trade people are willing to make. Maybe they think, “Okay, equity and diversity are a more important factor” or “Let's just say we're going to have 20% or 30% equity and diversity, and we're willing to sacrifice a certain amount of research output.” However, I'm not sure that the Canadian taxpayer is willing to fund that and support those values. Those values are, of course, backed because, if 75% of academia is on the left, they're setting these policies. To them, this is natural and not political. I get it, but they are in a bubble.
How many academics vote for the Conservative Party? It's very small. As I mentioned, it's 10%, so—