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.
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
To that point, and as my last question, you had mentioned in previous testimony that EDI policies often punish small institutions and under-represented regions. Can you expand on that?
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
I'm trying to remember what I said there. I'm sorry if I can't recall exactly.
I think, in a sense, if you're at a university—like I am, Trent University—the CRC program, for example, wants the population of our Canada research chairs to represent the Canadian population. If you look around Peterborough—which is becoming more diverse—it looks quite different from Toronto. The community is different from what it would be somewhere else. I think, maybe, that the kind of people who are willing to move here are slightly different. If it's based on the national level, then it's skewing against the kinds of communities that are just different from wider national trends. Perhaps that's what I was referring to.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses.
From what I've heard so far this morning, I detect that there is agreement that EDI is useful in terms of the design of the study that is being proposed. There are also some comments related to how the team involved should perhaps reflect diversity of the Canadian population.
You have all heard Professor Dummitt make comments related to the political views of researchers, academics in general, and his desire, in some way, to perhaps rebalance that particular point of view with a more conservative point of view when EDI criteria are being looked at.
Dr. Sukhai, how do you respond to that proposal?
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Scientific Officer, IDEA-STEM Consulting Inc.
First of all, how we think and talk about viewpoints can encompass all sorts of things. It can encompass diversity in ways of thought, so we can bring in the conversation around neurodivergent persons, for example. It includes diversity of opinion, perspective and, yes, to Professor Dummitt's point, politics.
I think what we need to think about is cause and effect. Are we in a world where someone who is more likely to vote left goes to post-secondary institutions for an education, through graduate training and into academia, or are we in a world where actually going into post-secondary education shapes some of our perspectives in those spaces, and life experiences shape some of our perspectives in those spaces? I think, if it's the former, then how we actually balance that conversation and perspective among all of the other perspectives that need to be balanced becomes a conversation we need to have. If we're in a world where our life experiences shape our viewpoints, then, as we would say in the sciences, that becomes much more difficult, potentially, to control for. Is that not right?
In any kind of work, I think the way that we control for this sort of thing is by acknowledging that it is a point of diversity, capturing that diversity in our documentation as we think about the work that we do and factoring it in because it is entirely possible, as Professor Dummitt said, that political viewpoint does lead to bias. It leads to a perspective, and that perspective, in order to be addressed, does need to be open and on the table.
I might answer the question by suggesting that what we need is transparency of viewpoint and perspective, and we need to create a world where that transparency is welcome and acceptable. That brings us back to what we need to do to build an inclusive team.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Thank you for using the term “transparency”, because what we've heard at this committee is that, on applications, apparently there is some use of buzzwords to satisfy EDI requirements. There's a convention now that applicants feel that they must address EDI issues.
Dr. Cukier, how do you see through potential buzzwords being used as opposed to a genuine approach to acknowledging EDI?
Professor, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, Ted Rogers School of Management and Academic Director, Diversity Institute, As an Individual
I might frame it slightly differently. I've reviewed enough applications to know that what we see are a lot of performative exercises in writing proposals. As you said, someone thinks, “Oh, this is going to be screened for EDI, so I'd better make up some EDI stuff”, as opposed to genuinely looking at the research questions and asking whether the research has different implications for women, people living in rural communities, racialized people, indigenous people and so on.
We see it as well with GBA+ analysis within the government. Some departments have really embraced it as a way to improve their service to Canadians, and others treat it more as a check box. I think it's an issue that has to be addressed.
I want to add a couple of comments on the issue of diversity within academia, because I'm in a business school, and my university has a lot of professional schools. There's a big engineering school and a big business school. I would argue that it skews very differently, in terms of politics, compared to a smaller university that has a liberal arts focus. It's really important to recognize that there are certain disciplinary traditions that probably also relate to some of the ideological perspectives that shape evidence.
However, I want to come back to my opening comments and how the vast majority of Canadians believe that the focus on equity, diversity and inclusion is appropriate, and a very small percentage feels it isn't.
Liberal
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
I just wanted to make a point of clarification. Our research specifically—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
When you get the question, you can answer it.
We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas.
You have six minutes.
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today as part of this study.
My first questions will be for you, Professor Gingras.
You've shown that excellence is largely a rhetorical notion. However, the New Frontiers in Research Fund, the Canada Research Chairs Program and the Canada First Research Excellence Fund all have this basic criterion.
Isn't that the tautology, in that those who receive the most funding are said to be excellent because they received funding?
Scientific Director, Observatory of Science and Technology, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
Essentially, yes. As I said, excellence is a tautology. So, if there must be funding criteria, it's vital to remember the demographic factors that affect researcher training. You have a lot to say about Canada Research Chairs. I myself held a research chair in the history and sociology of science for 14 years. Naturally, I was excellent, but I would remind you that senior research chairs are intended for exceptional world-renowned researchers who have worked for 15 or 20 years. That is a specific demographic group.
This is an empirical issue, not an ideological one, so I will speak in sociological terms. The probability that, in 2010, a senior research chair— Once again, this is not an assistant professor position. In certain fields, such as sociology, psychology, and anthropology, gender parity was achieved in the 1990s for assistant professors. However, it does take a 20-year career to be awarded a senior research chair.
That is why I find your argument confusing and misleading. Are we talking about an assistant professor position? If so, we're not talking about the same demographic group as tenured professors, people like me who have held a senior research chair, not a chair for emerging researchers.
In short, it's a vicious circle, and the criteria are whatever the selection committee decides they should be. For example, the committee can decide to award a research chair to an internationally published researcher like me. That person is then deemed to be excellent, but those who did not get it may also be excellent. The committee was simply different. Some sociological studies show that the probability of receiving a grant is random and depends on the committee. Change the committee, and the outcome will be different. We have 40 years of evidence for that in sociology.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Professor Gingras, I'd like to unpack the confusion a bit more.
When Ottawa talks about inclusive excellence, isn't that an oxymoron that weakens scientific rigour by confusing scientific values with ideological conformity?
Scientific Director, Observatory of Science and Technology, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
That's what I said at the beginning of my presentation. The purpose of grant programs is to subsidize the best researchers. Why the best? Because there isn't enough money for everyone.
The assumption is that all the professors who have been hired by universities are pretty good. Each one was selected from among 30 applications. If we were to give money to all university researchers, we would no longer be talking about excellence. We have to admit that rhetoric exists. We have limited resources, so we have committees, but we have to admit that it's arbitrary.
In Switzerland and Germany, study grants are allocated via lottery. When you apply for a grant, you put in a name. For example, Yves Gingras is number four. A number is drawn, and if number five wins, that's it, that's all. It's fair because, from a probability perspective, if a third of the applicants are women and recipients are randomly selected, a third of the recipients will be women, not half. The word “parity” is often confused with the word “equity”.
The only mathematical way to achieve equity is a random or double-blind process. For example, if NSERC grant applications are double-blinded, the committee will read the proposal without knowing whether it's submitted by a woman, an indigenous person or a Black person. The committee can determine if it's excellent and rank it. Then the committee can look at whether the applicant is a woman or a man. That way, the committee would not prejudge. However, if they have the name in advance, they will prejudge. Studies in sociology of the sciences have been telling us this for 40 years.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Professor Gingras, Canada signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, or DORA, to reduce the use of bibliometric indicators. However, committees continue to evaluate proposals based on the number of publications, citations and institutional prestige.
Doesn't this inconsistency discredit our funding agencies?
Scientific Director, Observatory of Science and Technology, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
That is a rather complex argument. People in favour of DORA will say that we have to choose world-renowned people of excellence through the Canada First Research Excellence Fund. How do they measure that? They won't say. However, the people on the committee will say that if someone has published in Nature, that's prestigious. Not wanting to apply criteria is therefore a form of institutional hypocrisy.
I asked people to conduct an empirical test for two or three years by randomly choosing applications, but they don't want to do it because they're afraid. They think their expensive committees pick the best applicants, but instead of giving $5 million to a so-called big university through Canada First, they could give a lot more money to a lot more researchers who are much more diverse.
I'm in favour of a broader distribution, because, in terms of probability, giving grants to more different people instead of always to the same people is more likely to result in different discoveries.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
You have demonstrated that bibliometric indicators measure visibility, not scientific value. What other concrete recommendation do you have for assessing the quality of a proposal?
Scientific Director, Observatory of Science and Technology, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual
I've sat on European research councils. I've sat on every committee you can imagine, including the Canada Foundation for Innovation. I've assessed a lot of Canada Research Chair proposals. Decisions are made by committees, not the presidents of NSERC or SSHRC. Committees are indeed diverse, if you want to use the word that shows up left and right these days.
Committees do their work. When I get an application, I do what I call spontaneous bibliometrics, which is what everyone does. If you want to be a tenured professor, but you haven't written an article in five years, you're not going to be a tenured professor. The university's purpose is to advance knowledge, not to represent the population. Its goal is to advance knowledge and train researchers for the future. To the extent that that is its mission, I hire people based on their CVs, but I use my judgment. For example, I take into account the fact that someone who was sick for two years hasn't produced the same output.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.
We will now proceed to our second round of questioning, starting with MP Ho.
You have five minutes for your round of questioning. Please, go ahead.
Conservative
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My questions are for Professor Dummitt.
Specifically, I want to talk about public trust. We know that, among Canadians, a lack of public trust in our public institutions has been increasing throughout the years. It's correlated with the implementation of Liberal, top-down policies over the years. It's no wonder that it has become worse.
I read a report the other day that said it's at an all-time high in 2025. The lack of public trust in our institutions is at an all-time high among Canadians. I want you to expand on that, generally or specifically, in the settings of universities and colleges and the granting of federal funding.
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
Thanks.
Like a lot of my colleagues who are appearing as witnesses before you today, I want to live in a world where there's a high public trust in higher education and universities to allow us to do our work. We all know that public trust is eroding in a series of institutions from media to.... There are various claims of expertise. The point of the testimony that I'm offering to you today is that, while I don't want there to be a lack of public trust, I can sympathize and see why there is a lack of public trust, especially in, say, the 41% of the population who voted for the Conservative Party in the last election.
As they listen to experts who show up in The Globe and Mail, on the CBC or wherever and tell them there is a consensus on topic X or topic Y—pick your topic—what they can know is that the expertise is not made up of a diverse array of people who represent their viewpoints. Just like a group of African Canadians might be skeptical of a group of white experts telling them what the truth is on a certain topic, it'd be crazy to think the same would not also be true for these kinds of things. Obviously, we're living in a moment of a crisis of institutions more generally. On this problem, I think there are solutions that we can and should achieve.
Conservative
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
You think that lack of public trust is caused by a lack of viewpoints because, like you said, you have these so-called pundits who are so-called reflective of Canadian viewpoints on a wide variety of the spectrum, but they're not reflected. Canadians feel like their viewpoints aren't represented in the public because of these biased panels that have a certain political skew; that's the term you used.
What's the effect of that? Does that create more polarization amongst Canadians and amongst our academic researchers? Does it also have the effect of radicalizing Canadians?
Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University, As an Individual
I think both things are true. It clearly is a contributing factor toward polarization, and I think others would agree with that. If you don't trust the institutions that are supposed to be objective—and if not neutral, at least diverse—to rigorously go through material to tell you what is true, that's going to lead to polarization. It's going to lead people to look for alternative viewpoints, some of which may be credible and many of which will not be credible. Higher education institutions have a duty to deal with this problem head-on and see it as a major concern.
Another witness mentioned that, say, in business schools or engineering schools, the implication was that this wasn't a problem. Our survey specifically looked at that, and we expected that to be the case, but we found that it was not a significant difference. The political skew at universities might vary slightly depending on the discipline, but, as I said, 88% of a representative sample of professors from across the country identifies on the left.
Conservative
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
That's a lack of viewpoint diversity. It's really troubling, because the point of EDI is that the “D” stands for diversity, and you would expect a diversity of viewpoints coming into things like business and social science. A diversity of viewpoints may enhance the research as you may catch things that you may not be able to catch were it not for the diversity of viewpoints. It seems quite hypocritical and quite ironic, to be fair.
Do you think that these EDI policies are potentially exclusionary because of all the quotas they're setting and create self-censorship and suppression of opposing views? Do you think it has that kind of effect?