Science and Research Committee on Sept. 17th, 2025

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, through you to Dr. Smith, it was interesting to me to reflect on the Canada first research excellence fund that was set up by Stephen Harper in 2014, which had tied to it some very interesting criteria, particularly in respect to ensuring that diverse voices and researchers were included.

Can you share with us the importance of that type of fund and why those criteria are actually important in ensuring that we do get the best quality, top-flight research in Canada?

[Malinda Smith]

I'll answer that question.

I appreciate also the recognition that these research chairs—CFREFs, CERCs and Canada 150s—have been non-partisan. Every government has wanted to attract top talent to Canada.

I'd go back to your point: Universities are rational actors. We want the best, and I think it's really important to acknowledge that we got the best, so let's not be down on ourselves. The criteria around equity, diversity and inclusion are quite compatible with excellence. As I said, they create the enabling conditions to attract top talent.

We also know that we lost some talent because we haven't been able to deal with something as simple as family, for example. You're not going to get people from Oxford and Harvard, as some of the early chairs were trying to do, if you can't recognize that you have two academic families: It's not just the one you're trying to recruit, but the spouse as well.

My sense is that these chairs, the granting agencies and the TIPS, which manages them, have done a superb job. When we say “equity”, we're talking about fairness, and the important point to make is that there are always more people qualified for these chairs than there are chairs available. Let there be no doubt, even internal to universities, that when you're recruiting externally or internationally, there are more people qualified, so we shouldn't have any illusions about it.

Part of what I'm hearing in the institutional diversity argument in Quebec or in colleges is that we actually don't need to be competing with each other. We need to be talking about differentiated funding to ensure all of our institutions are flourishing. CFREF includes EDI, and we've had no problems recruiting top talent.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

For avoidance of doubt, when you were looking at research chairs, CFREF chairs or others, can you confirm that nobody is choosing people because of their ethnicity or their diversity criteria who are less qualified or less capable of doing the research?

[Malinda Smith]

Why would you do that?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Well, exactly: I think that's exactly the point.

[Malinda Smith]

There are a couple of things.

One of the things people are referring to is that there are efforts within EDI to say, “Let's ensure we mitigate biases against indigenous peoples, women and racialized people.” Where did that come from? It came from the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, headed by Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella. She looked at Statistics Canada data, which said that they had the qualifications but somehow there were barriers and biases that were impeding their access into the labour economy or into the academy.

If you removed those barriers and biases, it didn't mean that you were going to get a research chair or you were going to get into the academy. What it meant was that you had equitable opportunity. You had access.

My view is that Canada, internationally, is one of the most educated places. It has a lot of top talent. I also think we have a lot of untapped talent, underutilized talent, like engineers or doctors driving taxicabs, for example. The way to deal with that from an equity standpoint is to deal with credentials and credential recognition.

That's why EDI matters. It matters because we are trying to make sure there is access for all of Canada's talent, regardless of identity criteria. There's nobody being hired because of their skin colour. There's nobody being hired because of their gender. That is outside the law, for example—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm glad you clarified that, because there's been a lot of culture war type of language that I think has unfairly diminished in people's eyes the work being done by people who do not deserve that type of criticism.

With the remaining time I have left, which I think is about 10 seconds, Mr. Doyle, commercialization of research is really important. What more can we be doing to ensure we are commercializing research coming out of our institutes and our universities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry. Your time is up, Mr. Noormohamed.

If you don't get another opportunity, the witness can always send in a written response to the question that has been raised by MP Noormohamed.

My job is to keep track of the clock. We will proceed to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Allow me to move a motion related to the study at hand:

That the committee request the three funding councils—namely, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)—to appear before the committee, during the study on the impact of federal funding allocation criteria on the excellence of research in Canada, to provide testimony on this matter. That the committee allocate one hour for their testimony.

I've already discussed this with my colleagues. The people concerned have already been invited, but they unfortunately don't seem to prioritize their appearance before the committee. I find it unthinkable that people—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting.

I just want to clarify something with all the committee members, because this is the first time this is happening. I would like to have the will of the committee on how we should be proceeding.

I have seen in committees that if a motion is brought in, we stop the clock and you have the time, if it is in order, to explain it, and I have seen in many committees that if you continue for two and a half minutes, you lose your time. How would the members like to proceed in this committee? Do you have any suggestions or anything?

Do you want to say something, MP Noormohamed?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Madam Chair, I don't speak to the motion, which I think is a very important discussion for us to have, but I would submit that if someone's going to submit a motion during the course of their time, then that should run their clock.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Baldinelli, you wanted to say something.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Madam Chair, I've been a member of previous committees where the time would stop, so I've had the other experience as well. In that case, my colleague would get his time again following the introduction of the motion.

It's a very short motion as well. I think we can speak to it, vote on it and move back into the committee hearing quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Are there any others?

Go ahead, Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, with all due respect, I'd like you to explain why you interrupted my turn to survey my colleagues. I'd like you to explain why you didn't wait for me to finish my argument.

I've been a parliamentarian for five and a half years, and this is the first time I've experienced a situation like this. I admit that, at the moment, I'm deeply uncomfortable with the way you're chairing the committee. It isn't right to interrupt a parliamentarian while they're debating a motion that they've just proposed in order to seek out other colleagues' opinions before giving them the floor back to continue their argument.

I'd like you to honestly explain to me why you did that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you for raising that point. I've stopped the clock, because this is the first time this has happened at committee. I just wanted to see how we should be functioning. My job is to go with the will of the committee members.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, if I understand your answer correctly, stopping the clock enables you to interrupt a parliamentarian while they're moving a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You read the motion completely, and then you were going into an explanation. I wanted to clarify before you went into an explanation, but I did not interrupt you during the tabling of the motion. You read the complete motion.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I encourage you to review your intervention. You clearly said that you were interrupting me to explain to our colleagues how you wanted this committee to operate when it came to moving motions. With all due respect, I would have liked for you to apologize, but I understand that that won't happen today. I hope that, in the future, we'll be civil and avoid interrupting parliamentarians to ask for colleagues' opinions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

You can go ahead. We can discuss this during committee business for future purposes.

Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you very much.

In my opening remarks, I explained that I think this motion is important because the people who administer the research funding criteria in Canada are the granting agencies. Right now, we've already invited people from the granting agencies to come and testify. Unfortunately, they aren't available to come and testify or haven't made it a priority. I obviously think it's important that these people, who are part of the scientific research ecosystem, be able to come and testify before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have a motion, so the floor is open for debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think my colleague's motion is very interesting and very important. If the people from these organizations have already been asked to appear before the committee, we could use this motion to ensure that they will testify. That's something we can support. However, I wonder if this is the best way to achieve my colleague's goal.

I absolutely agree with what my colleague is trying to accomplish here and I have no problem with the motion, but I wonder if it's the best way for us to get to the outcome he wants, which is for these three organizations to show up and present testimony for an hour. If we have to have a motion, so be it, but perhaps we can ensure that they show up, which I think is what my colleague would like.

I have no problem with the motion. I'm just curious about how we achieve the goal.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I believe we have invited all three through the clerk. We've heard from one. One has agreed, but I would rather have all three. That's why I support the notion of a motion. I don't want just one of the councils appearing, and not all three.

From this standpoint, I'm pleased to support my Bloc colleague's motion. It sends a message to the three agencies that it's important that all of them attend the committee. I'm prepared to vote, if my colleagues are as well, and we can get this resolved and settled and get back to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Baldinelli.

So that everyone knows, a witness from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council is already scheduled for Wednesday, September 24. They are appearing in the second panel, from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.