Thank you, Madam Chair.
It's good to see all of my colleagues again. I look forward to working with all of you on this committee as we proceed. Thank you to the witnesses for being here as well.
It's an important study; this past July, the industry minister announced that $1.3 billion had been awarded in federal research funding. This study, which we're picking up, builds upon the work of the committee from the previous Parliament and wants to examine and receive input and feedback on the various criteria used in awarding these federal funds.
Ms. Ljubicic, you talked about the use of quantitative criteria and how that may be harmful. We've heard previous testimony from colleges that say they're precluded from some of this research funding, for example. We've also heard about the issue of DEI and its use in criteria, and how that may impact science as well.
Mr. Pinker, I'd like to thank you for your comments. You talked about how DEI works against the interests of science.
I was looking back at some of the previous testimony. Going back to November 2024, we had Dr. Jeremy Kerr, a professor at the department of biology at the University of Ottawa. When he was asked by one of the committee members, “How important are diversity and inclusion in research when producing reliable and accurate data?”, he replied, “I want to be really clear here. As I said, our objective is not to implement an affirmative action program; our objective is to achieve excellence, on behalf of Canadians....”
That's not to say that a diversity of views or diverse backgrounds are not important. Can you pick up on what you said in some of your comments and that notion of how DEI works against the interests of science?