Thank you for your question.
When we are talking about pay equity, I think we are thinking about the various ways in which compensation happens in these fields. When we think about those programs, whether it's through the Canada research chairs program or through some of the granting councils, to my knowledge, there are not many studies that look at the gender inequities in the types of awards that are being made.
What we do know from research is that there are, in fact, discrepancies and inequities in what people will ask for in their research requests. Particularly, those who are systemically marginalized do not ask for the biggest sums of money. They don't go after the biggest grants. If they tell you it's a $300,000 to $500,000 request, many will ask for what they think is the minimum necessary to do it, and they will proceed to do that work, whereas those who situate themselves in places of privilege will often ask for more. They will go to the maximum amount.
In light of the previous question, given the way that many institutions operate—they start to talk about the value and about merit pay and give rewards to people that are often based on the number of dollars that come in—there are ways of making us more aware of the ways that inequities are reflected, not just in terms how many awards are given out but, particularly across fields, the ways that they are valued.
Moving many of the practices out of the Canada research chairs program and thinking more about how that goes across all of the tri-council funding as well would be really significant steps, because the the ways that inequities are experienced in the workplace at post-secondary institutions are not just about pay equity and the take-home salaries that are paid by the institutions; they're actually about the ways in which the work conditions get framed. That is an important way to also begin to think about some of those issues in terms of what's under federal control.