Evidence of meeting #4 for Science and Research in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was edi.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
—you have not seen examples where the quality of research is poorer by so-called diversity hires, but then you're saying that scholarship is diminished, so I guess I'm curious about how you square that circle.
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Just as I mentioned, if you reduce the applicant pool.... It's a statistical thing. if you have 100 applicants, and, in our case, go down to less than one—we didn't have any applicants—is it likely, probabilistically, to get better applicants from 100 or one? It's a simple.... It's not hard.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I will go back to my original question, then. Is the issue the principle of EDI or is it the application of EDI in the current context?
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I mean, the principle....
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
The principle that we should broaden the pool as much as possible to have the most qualified people apply is problematic.
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
No. I like that, but that's not EDI.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
That was the intention of EDI in its existing framework.
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I don't know if that's true.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
There was a study done by Northwestern University, which looked at 90 studies across a number of countries, that involved 174,000 applicants in academia to jobs and faculty in a number of western countries. When names of racialized people, or criteria that were able to assess diversity were put into the applications, applicants of colour had to apply to 50% more jobs, on the basis of equal credentials, than non-diverse populations. When the names were altered, the field was also equalized in terms of people of colour now seeing that they were being called back at the same rate as people whose names were not racialized. Do you think that's a concern that we should be looking at?
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Sure. I suppose. I haven't seen this study, but I will say that—
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Sure, but I know that studies like this...there's a very famous one with respect to applicants for a lab technician, in which they used different names. I think it was more along the lines of female versus male, and they showed or claimed to show that women were discriminated against.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you. The time is up.
We now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes. Please go ahead.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Professor Horsman, in an article you published on September 11, you point out that 55% of research chair positions are now inaccessible to white men, while the federal target of 22% for racialized researchers has already been exceeded, at 33%.
Why do we continue to use criteria outside of science to recruit research chairs, which are prestigious and important positions in our research system?
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
Certainly, the CRC chairs program you're referring to has.... There are tables that have quotas based on race, sex and a whole bunch of different factors, and there really seem to be no brakes on this process.
I think, in that case that you mentioned, I believe the target, by 2029, is 22% racialized, which means non-white. That stands currently at 32%, I believe. A year or two ago it was maybe 29%. It just keeps going up, and I still see positions that are exclusionary to white men. Maybe you have an out if you claim some sexual difference or some queer identity, but, really, this discriminatory exclusion continues.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you for confirming that.
Professor Kambhampati, your case received a lot of media attention. You were a victim of the equity, diversity and inclusion policies, which were supposed to improve inclusion and diversity. You were denied funding because your research team wasn't diverse enough.
Do you think the members of your team are less excellent because they don't meet diversity criteria well enough?
Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
I am happy to answer this question; thank you for asking it.
To the broad question, I can say with absolute certainty that the practice of DEI ruins science. It doesn't make it a little bit worse; it destroys competence and capability, and you take away positions from the more competent and give them to the less competent or to the incompetent.
In sports, you never give positions based upon DEI, because you'll lose a game. The game we're trying to win here is the advancement of human civilization through science. It happens because of the best people who are absolutely committed.
My best Ph.D. student was a white woman who's Swiss, and she's a mini-me. She's a Swiss woman, but it doesn't matter. She was the best person, and now she's a professor in Germany. I've also seen women being given positions for which no men are allowed, and they're clearly less qualified. They have tenure and so forth, when they're clearly less qualified.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.
Now we will have two minutes for the Conservatives and two minutes for the Liberals. First, we will have Mr. Mahal for two minutes.
Mr. Mahal, please go ahead.
Conservative
Jagsharan Singh Mahal Conservative Edmonton Southeast, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to start with Dr. Kambhampati. Since we are out of time, I have to limit the question. You mentioned earlier in your testimony that the politicization of science is diminishing research and discoveries. That was your gist. My question to you is this: Are we heading toward being a socialistic regime under the mandatory requirements of EDI being pushed by the left's politics? What are the dangers of that trend?
Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
What you've said is absolutely true. Your summary is 100% accurate. There has been institutional capture by leftist ideologues who represent maybe 10% of Canada, and probably 90% disagree. Most people disagree, and not just Conservatives but probably Liberals and centrists. Most scientists disagree, like me or Geoff, but they don't want to say anything. They're afraid to say anything for losing funding.
I'm not sure if I answered your question, but I would say to the point that these programs fundamentally demoralize everyone. Children say, “I can't go into science.” My sons say, “I can't go into science because it's only for women.” They're McGill students.
Conservative
Jagsharan Singh Mahal Conservative Edmonton Southeast, AB
We heard from across the panel that EDI, in principle, was meant to achieve different results. If EDI is not achieving the results it was supposed to achieve, should we not stop it, in your opinion?
Professor, McGill University, As an Individual
Absolutely. As the great economist Milton Friedman once said, you do not judge your policy based upon its intentions; you judge it based on its outcomes. Then you, the politicians, are empowered to make changes. That's how democracy works. That's how project management works. That's how science works. We get input, and we change our minds.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you.
Now we will end our panel with MP McKelvie for two minutes.
MP McKelvie, please go ahead.
Liberal
Jennifer McKelvie Liberal Ajax, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Horsman, if an institution recognizes the rich, diverse makeup of the Canadian population and the contribution of these communities to our history and the Canadian way of life, is that problematic?
Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual
I don't really understand what that means: “to acknowledge a rich....”