Science and Research Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[Julien Larregue]

I don't think the right dichotomy for analyzing the matter is the opposition between francophone and anglophone universities, because we see that anglophone universities that aren't part of this group of prestigious universities are just as disadvantaged as francophone universities. In fact, major universities such as the Université de Montréal perform very well in terms of the number of grants they receive, if we want to consider the number of grants obtained as a performance indicator.

However, there are certainly significant disparities between large urban centres, where those universities are located, and rural centres. That has an impact both on professors' ability to get grants and on the entire university ecosystem, because fewer grants means fewer contracts for assistants, students, postdocs and so on.

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

What I mean is that we know that 80% of the funding is concentrated in the 15 largest universities, grouped together in the U15 network. However, 13 of those 15 universities are anglophone.

Mathematically, is it correct to say that the negative effects are greater for francophone universities, which are less represented in that group of universities?

[Julien Larregue]

No, that's not the case, because it's important to clearly distinguish between the language of work at universities and people's native languages. Some people can work in their discipline in English or French. However, people in most disciplines work in English, particularly in the natural sciences and physics. It doesn't matter whether people are francophone, Portuguese or Hispanic. The language of work is English.

Analyzing the SSHRC data reveals that francophone universities, in the institutional sense, aren't at a disadvantage compared with anglophone universities. In fact, the U15 association isn't necessarily the most relevant group when it comes to addressing this issue. For example, the Université du Québec à Montréal is in a good position at SSHRC because it has a great tradition in the humanities and social sciences, even though it's a public francophone university that could be considered a far cry from a university like McGill.

While the most prestigious universities are definitely anglophone, that doesn't mean that the dichotomy between francophone and anglophone universities makes it possible to understand the disparities that occur or that reoccur.

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

You recommend that organizations publish not only the list of funded projects, but also the list of those that have been rejected, what you call the grey number. The agencies in a number of European countries publish all the data, including data on rejected projects.

Why is this transparency essential to understanding the structural inequalities in the funding system?

[Julien Larregue]

That's an extremely important question, which I expand on in the brief I submitted to you.

From a strictly statistical and scientific point of view, it's impossible to know what factors influence funding probabilities without knowing who applied. For example, to answer your questions, I wouldn't be able to tell you whether the people at the University of Toronto are more likely to receive grants than the people at UQAM. I couldn't answer you because if I don't know who applied, I can't tell you how the final list of grants came to be. If it's impossible to compare the number of people from a university who originally applied for a grant with the number of people from the same university who were eventually selected, I won't be able to tell you whether they're benefitting from a prestige effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up. Maybe you'll have an opportunity in the second round.

We will start our second round with MP DeRidder.

You have five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you for being here today.

Dr. Horsman, you come from Laurier, right in my community. I'm the MP for Kitchener Centre. Welcome. One of my questions will be directed to you.

I'm going to start with a direct quote from a conversation between you and a colleague:

“You should stop talking about EDI,” my colleague suggested to me over lunch. You've got a family, he said. Think about your kids, he implored. I'll admit that my heart rate increased, because it sounded a lot like, “Nice family you got there, would be a shame if you were no longer able to provide for them.”

I have to tell you that my heart is racing right now at the mere thought of having to choose free speech over providing for my family. That, coupled with DEI incentives, fosters an administrative culture that prioritizes securing politically aligned funding over protecting academic and open inquiry. You believe that science thrives when scientists are guided by evidence and motivated by curiosity.

Is the Canadian scientific community thriving right now with the personal and political pressure to conform to these ideologies instead of fostering true democratic free speech in academia?

[Geoff Horsman]

No, I don't think science is thriving in Canada. It's not just EDI initiatives; it's politicization more broadly that is hindering it.

As I said, if you're not free to speak, that has an impact. That emanates out into the culture of science so that people tend to be hesitant. It makes you diminished. It makes you less experimental. You don't take risks; you just sit back and become small and do some derivative work so you don't make waves and hopefully you can keep your head down and get through. That's increasingly the culture of science in Canada.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I agree. Thank you.

That's a great segue into a question for Professor Kambhampati.

You're an award-winning Canadian scientist, and you've been refused federal government grants on the grounds of a lack of diversity. Your work explores cutting-edge laser science, a field that spans everything from telecom to medicine, and you believe Canada could become a world leader in that field. Your application to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, NSERC, was turned down because the council said, “the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion considerations in the application were deemed insufficient.”

When we're not focused on research itself—cutting-edge research like you're working on in your facility—that Canada could actually become a leader in and we focus instead on DEI, what's the economic impact of that, especially in tech hubs in places like Kitchener, where I'm from?

[Patanjali Kambhampati]

That is a wonderful question.

I'm thrilled you asked that, because there's often a misconception that you fund science like you fund education, and it makes people happy and nice and other good things, and everyone feels nice about themselves like in kindergarten, but no.

Science is the driver of economic progress, first and foremost. That's absolutely true. There is no economic progress without science. Otherwise, we're just digging for gold or coal. That's why we can have quantum computers. That's why we have encryption. That's why we have MRI machines. It's because of science.

If we stop this progress by giving resources to people who are less qualified, it is absolutely necessarily the case that when you use DEI, you are discriminating. You're discriminating and following in the footsteps of intellectual racism from Britain in the 1880s, which was actually very popular in anthropology. Perhaps my colleague would know. You could get tenure in racism. It was a thing. “I just got tenure in racism; woo.” Now we have, “I just got tenure in DEI.” It's the same thing.

It's like in communism, where they politicize science to such an extent that the Ukrainians starved and cannibalized each other because they didn't believe in capitalist genetics.

The opportunity cost is astronomical. Canada was a leader. One of my heroes here is Dwayne Miller at the University of Toronto. He was a leader. He's of retirement age, almost. He'll be angry if I say that. I want to follow in his footsteps. He was my inspiration. Do I care that he's from India or China? He's actually from Manitoba, but, you know, that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Now we will proceed to MP Noormohamed for five minutes.

Please go ahead, MP Noormohamed.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This has been a very interesting conversation in many ways.

As somebody who has gone most of my life trying to make sure that I was selected for things and elected for things on the basis of merit and not on the basis of where my parents were born, the colour of my skin or the language I may speak at home, it's really important that we frame the conversation in a way that actually reminds people that the initial thinking around EDI was that we would ensure we were getting the best of the best. In that, we ensured that they were people who reflected the diversity of the country. It's not that you would hire people or put someone into a role because they checked off a box.

I want to start with Professor Horsman. Do you think your colleagues who may be considered diversity hires produce less good scholarship than you?

[Geoff Horsman]

I don't think so. I don't know that there would be any diversity hires that I would know of at this point. We've hired some, but in my department or my area, I am not aware of any.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I want to make sure I don't put words in your mouth. Would you say that the application of EDI policy has led to less-qualified people hired, producing less good research?

[Geoff Horsman]

That would be a logical conclusion.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I asked you whether that's your view.

[Geoff Horsman]

Yes, if you're excluding, if you reduce the applicant pool, necessarily—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm asking you whether you have seen diversity hires around you or in the world in which you operate who have produced less good scholarship, and, if so, can you give me an example.

[Geoff Horsman]

No. I don't know. I can't give you an example.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

One thing I'm quite concerned about is that we should not be putting ourselves in a situation in which anyone should assume or think that less good research is being done and that science is somehow diminished as a result of people being hired who reflect diverse communities or populations. Would you say that is happening?

[Geoff Horsman]

Yes, if you are hiring not for merit. Is that not right? If you're hiring—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You've just told me, sir, that you have not seen any examples where the quality of the work has been diminished as a result of EDI, so that's what I'm trying to understand.

[Geoff Horsman]

I'm sorry. Can you frame your question more clearly?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

You just said that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

One person at a time, please.