Science and Research Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2025

[Christopher Dummitt]

I think in practice it does. I want to emphasize I don't think the policies are intended to do that. In practice, as I was saying in my testimony, it embeds a certain version of EDI in the criteria so that scholars know that if they believe in a colour-blind approach to dealing with discrimination, then just like an orchestra, you would put people behind a barrier, they would play their instrument and people would acknowledge them for the skill they have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up for Mr. Ho. Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Rana.

MP Rana, you will have five minutes for your round of questioning.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm also thankful to all the witnesses spending their beautiful time with us, especially to discuss federal funding criteria and research excellence in Canada.

Dr. Cukier, you mentioned in your earlier comments the beautiful engineering program of your university. I also graduated from your university in engineering. How do you see the future of EDI in the next five to 10 years, especially in business and technology?

[Wendy Cukier]

As I said, from my point of view, having served as the vice-president of research and innovation, a lot of what has been discussed about the political bias I have no experience with or have not seen broadly within the university. What I would say that I have seen is that the traditional measures of excellence like citations, publications and research funding tend to be discipline-specific. I can give you a good example. When I came in as the vice-president of research and innovation, the first thing I was presented with was a report on the best researchers at TMU. I looked at the best researchers at TMU and saw that they were all men and that they were all in engineering. Why? It was because the measure of excellence was the amount of research funding. As you would know, faculty in engineering departments need a lot of funding to do their research whereas someone in a business school, a philosopher or history professor doesn't necessarily.

If you use research funding as the metric of excellence, you are going to exclude a lot of people. We shifted it to say, “Okay, in engineering, here are the metrics. In the arts and social sciences, here are the metrics.” In business, we're concerned about publications and top-tier journals, but we're also interested in impact. How do we drive change? My personal bias, even though I've sat on a lot of the traditional academic committees, is towards impact as part of the way that we assess excellence. We know that Canada has a productivity gap. We know that Canada has an innovation gap. I believe that research and evidence-based solutions can help solve some of those big problems, but we can't just be thinking about how many publications are coming out of a research grant. We have to be thinking about how it is actually shaping policy, practice, and people's attitudes and behaviour. That's where my bias comes in as a more applied researcher.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Are there any particular innovations or technological interventions that you see as promising for improving inclusion?

[Wendy Cukier]

It's interesting because one of the areas that I've done a lot of work on over the years is technology adoption. Right now, a lot of my research is on AI and the gap between Canada's excellence in AI research and Canada's lagging in AI adoption, especially some of the ethical and other considerations.

I think that there are huge opportunities to improve the efficiency of a lot of things that we do at post-secondary institutions with technology. At the same time, we have to be mindful that not everything that is important can be measured with numbers. Again, if we're looking at impact, I think that some of the tools that are available for understanding what happens to the research after it's published are really promising. We're seeing some new areas of focus that include, for example, looking at knowledge mobilization more seriously, looking at impact on certain communities and looking at commercialization results. I'm really interested in that broader range.

The only other thing I'll mention is that I was on an OECD committee looking at rural innovation. One of the things that we found was that the traditional measures of innovation—patents, IP and stuff like that—had no relevance in rural communities even though in agriculture we see some of the most innovative practices in the adoption of AI sensors and things like that. I think what's really important is the notion of excellence, and this, perhaps, is partly what Professor Gingras was saying. One uniform measure of excellence doesn't make any sense to me. We really have to respect fundamental research and what it's trying to accomplish. We also have to respect applied research, some of the work that's done in community colleges and everything in between.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas.

Please go ahead. You will have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Professor Gingras, requests for official documents to obtain grants for research projects now require diversity, equity and inclusion plans.

Doesn't this approach turn scientific assessment into an exercise in political compliance rather than judgment based on a proposal's scientific value?

[Yves Gingras]

There's no question that it turns it into an ideological imposition. In English, it's called a mandated speech. This goes against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and freedom of conscience. The proof is that, in the United States, on the subject of diversity statements, a researcher went to court, and the universities stopped demanding them. If I submit a research project on the history of science, no one can ask me if I'm for the poor and against the rich; that's irrational. It's a question of whether my project is of good quality, and there should be a prohibition on requiring that kind of reporting. Someone has to go to a superior court one day to tell the government that declarations on diversity are absurd.

Having sat on selection committees, I can tell you that, in some Canada Research Chair applications, the declaration on diversity is longer than the research project itself. As an evaluator, I threw it in the garbage. I was thinking, “I'm subsidizing research, not somebody who wants to change the world.” It's the government's responsibility to make sure that poor people… We're talking about diversity, but we're not talking about social classes. However, it's people in lower social classes who don't go to university. It's not because of the colour of their skin, but because of their relative wealth.

In short, it is indeed an ideological imposition based on ignorance of what scientific research is. It should be evaluated based on the quality of the project and in double blindness, that is to say without knowing who produced the project. When I evaluate scientific publications in Nature, it's double blind. I don't know if the article is written by a man or a woman. I assess it and then I tell them, for example, that it's a very good article and that they should publish it.

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

Professor Gingras, isn't there a risk that Canadian research will be based on self-censorship and compliance rather than on the pursuit of scientific truth?

[Yves Gingras]

In my humble opinion, this isn't a hypothesis but is already the case.

As I said, I've been on a lot of committees to evaluate Canada Research Chair applications, where people would write anything about equity, diversity and inclusion. As a professor, for 40 years, I've been fair to the students who come to my class. No one can say that university isn't inclusive. Of course, we are also exclusive at the university, since some people are refused. Is that a lack of inclusion?

I repeat: My studies on the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion show that no one defines them because they correspond to what is called effectiveness through ambiguity. If I don't define the word “diversity”, everyone has their own understanding. Earlier, we said “methodological diversity”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Please wind up.

[Yves Gingras]

Methodological diversity is therefore not sexual diversity or racial diversity; it is total intellectual confusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

With that, this panel comes to an end. I really want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. If you have any information that you were not able to provide today because of the lack of time, you can always send written submissions. Those will be circulated to all the members. We will incorporate them while drafting the report.

Again, thank you to all the witnesses for contributing today on this important topic.

With that, the meeting is suspended for a few minutes to allow the second panel to take its place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call the meeting back to order.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses on this new panel.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation. You have the choice of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

We are joined by three witnesses for this panel. I would like to welcome them.

We are joined by Dr. Geoff Horsman, associate professor of chemistry and biochemistry at Wilfrid Laurier University; Patanjali Kambhampati, professor at McGill University; and Julien Larregue, associate professor at Université Laval.

Each of the witnesses will have five minutes for their opening remarks.

We will start with Dr. Horsman.

Please, go ahead.

[Geoff Horsman, Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual]

Thank you.

This year, my long-held NSERC discovery grant was not renewed—not for any scientific reason, but for a political one. Specifically, I was unable to profess sufficiently enthusiastic support for the official state ideology of equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, which one now must do to receive tri-council funding. Essentially, scientists must say how they will recruit diverse people and identify and address systemic barriers to inclusion.

I attempted to meet these requirements by arguing that, because EDI requires racial discrimination and speech restrictions—policies opposed by most Canadians—EDI is itself a barrier to inclusion. To overcome this barrier, I proposed ensuring that EDI critics feel included and that we prioritize a culture of free speech and viewpoint diversity, without which science simply cannot flourish.

The NSERC evaluation committee obviously did not buy my interpretation of EDI. Unhelpfully, my rejection was accompanied by only the vague scolding that I did not, “describe an approach to recruit a diverse HQP and provide an inclusive training environment.” While friendly enough, NSERC program officers couldn't tell me what this meant. Luckily, a senior administrator at my university, who speaks tri-council, could decipher this message. He relayed to me that, while I don't have to sincerely support EDI, I most certainly must give the impression that I do. “Just say what needs to be said and get your money.”

To attract a diverse array of candidates, for example, I was told it's not enough to assume that those interested in my work will seek me out with a simple email. Instead, I must boldly proclaim my commitment to finding diversity at intersectional sanctuaries, like the campus rainbow centre. This is puzzling advice, not least because, of those struggling to find people on the Internet, it seems unlikely that foremost among them are members of the gay community.

Now, senior administrators are very attuned to the linguistic practices surrounding the acquisition of public funds, so this advice rings broadly true. The tri-council aims to tell us what to think and what to say. For skeptics, let me quote from the EDI best practices guide. It says that systemic barriers may be unseen to those who do not experience them, but nonetheless “[a]ll individuals must recognize that systemic barriers exist”.

It would be charitable to describe this as pseudo-science. Reputable scientists require experimental results to be universally observable and replicable by people of other languages and cultures centuries into the future. Claiming that knowledge is invisible to some people—based on skin colour for example—is anti-science. In other words, the government requires scientists to affirm the existence of phenomena that are not empirically verifiable. To invoke Paul McCartney, it's beginning to feel like we're Back in the U.S.S.R.

How has this nonsense so completely permeated Canada's research ecosystem? Well, after a few cancellations, people fall in line. Fear leads to self-censorship, and open, vigorous debate fizzles out.

I've tried to discuss EDI on campus a few times, with the following results. First, I was told, by two different administrators on two separate occasions, that EDI is not debatable. Second, I was kindly advised to stop talking about EDI because I have a family. I should think about my kids, I was told. It made me wonder, do I work for a public university or Tony Soprano? To summarize, tri-council EDI requirements are compelled political speech, and we find ourselves here because many have allowed themselves to be silenced.

I will leave you with two broad recommendations that I believe are critical for restoring the integrity of science. The first is corrective; the second is preventative. As a corrective measure, depoliticize science funding. This includes, among other things, removing EDI requirements. As a preventative measure, entrench a culture of free speech, which is the best defence against bad ideas.

All recent manias, from gender medicine to EDI, could have been avoided had they been openly debated from the start. I propose an office of devil's advocacy to fund evidence-based arguments against emerging scientific fads. This builds in viewpoint diversity and ensures that counterpoints are officially aired. Everyone benefits as ideas are defended, sharpened and refined.

I'm happy to expand on any of these points during questions. I'm grateful for the opportunity to be heard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thanks you. You're right on time.

We will now proceed to Professor Patanjali Kambhampati from McGill University.

Please go ahead. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Patanjali Kambhampati, Professor, McGill University, As an Individual]

Ms. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me. My name is Patanjali Kambhampati. I'm a professor of chemistry at McGill University working in the field of ultrafast laser science.

Why is that important? It's important because the field in which I work is characterized by excellence. Three Nobels have been awarded. Hopefully, there will be more—hopefully, for people like me or my colleagues—but that's not important. What matters is the pursuit of excellence. That's my main focus.

The views I share here are only my own and do not represent the university.

I was born in India to poor parents. My father, through determination, earned an engineering degree and gave me the chance to pursue science abroad. I emigrated first to the United States and then to Canada, which is now my scientific home. This background makes me sensitive to ideas of privilege and resources. They matter in life, but science cannot be reduced to social engineering. Its integrity rests on ability, discovery and results wherever they may arise.

Science is not redistribution. The purpose of science is not to spread jobs evenly or to promote identity-based rewards. Its purpose is to drive human progress. Every great advance came from enabling those with insight and skill to make discoveries, from thermodynamics powering the Industrial Revolution to quantum mechanics—both of which are my fields—giving rise to semiconductors, lasers and quantum computing. When these discoveries happened, all of humanity benefited. If we argue that science serves equality, it is not by lowering standards but by raising the human condition through knowledge and innovation.

Science is a beacon for merit, fairness and equality, or MFE. Not every child will become a scientist, just like not every child will become an athlete in the NBA. Giving out research positions and professorships, promotions and funding based upon external characteristics does not help the enterprise of science. As a path forward, I propose that science should be administered based upon principles of MFE. With regard to merit, science must reward those who produce discoveries and knowledge. With regard to fairness, evaluations must be free from ideological filters, instead focusing on rigour and originality. Finally, with regard to equality, everyone should have a chance to compete, but success must depend upon results, not demographics. If we stay true to MFE, then even those born far from privilege can rise, as did I.

There are observed facts. Even 15 years ago, faculty positions were sometimes restricted to women candidates or to those who even self-identified as women. On more than a dozen hiring committees in chemistry and physics, I saw that the vast majority of applicants, often 90%, were men, with a large share being Asian men. That reality in the applicant pool was not reflected in the policies guiding hiring, promotion and awards in the course of my 20 years.

In the past, women who happened to be scientists, such as Marie Curie, and women in my field, Ursula Keller in Switzerland and Margaret Murnane in the U.S., succeeded because their work demanded recognition. Today, however, some faculty slots are created explicitly for optics rather than for excellence, undermining trust for both men and women. Young people see this clearly, even if they cannot articulate it openly.

The politicization of science is not unprecedented. My colleague Anna Krylov at USC, a distinguished scientist, has written eloquently about the perils of politicizing science, drawing upon her experience growing up in the Soviet Union. Her warning was simple: When ideology dictates who can enter science, discovery itself is diminished. Canada should take that warning seriously.

Then there's the cost of misplaced criteria. The true cost of misplaced criteria is not merely extra paperwork. It is the slowing, halting or even reversal of scientific progress. The consequences for Canada's economy, security and quality of life would be catastrophic. History gives us a clear warning. Once again, in the Soviet Union, ideology overruled biology under Trofim Lysenko. Genetics was declared politically unacceptable. An entire generation of discoveries was lost, farmers starved and Soviet science never regained its standing.

When we politicize science, we risk repeating those mistakes. We rob not only the scientist, but every young person—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting. Can you please wind it up?

[Patanjali Kambhampati]

—who might be inspired by their examples.

I want to end on a note of inspiration. I'll be brief. Feynman once said, “Fall in love with some activity, and do it!” For me, that was science, and I want the next generation to have the same chance to fall in love with discovery and then carry it further than I could. Canada can make that possible, but only if we remember that science is not a social program; it is humanity's greatest engine of progress. In these times of change, Canada should pursue this mechanism of progress.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Mr. Julien Larregue.

Please, go ahead. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Julien Larregue, Associate Professor, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Thank you, committee members.

My name is Julien Larregue. I'm an associate professor of sociology at Université Laval. I'm speaking on my own behalf, but really, I'm speaking primarily as an expert in the scientific field. I've been conducting research on evaluation on an international scale, not just in Canada, for several years. Since 2023, I have been leading a research project on the distribution of funding at the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC. So today, I will focus on the results of that work. I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear because this will allow me to highlight the impact of my work in my next grant application.

I'll start by echoing my colleague Yves Gingras in saying that if we believe that excellence is something that can be objectively established, then it doesn't exist. There are no criteria that specifically define what constitutes good or bad research. In every discipline, there are always different views competing with each other as to which current theory should be followed. We must therefore start from the premise that there is no single criterion for deciding what is excellent and what is not.

Determining who should receive money and why is a social and political choice. We have to accept that basic fact. However, that doesn't mean the policy should be shortsighted. Many of my academic colleagues have strong opinions on a lot of things. We've heard it all morning, particularly on the subject of EDI, or equity, diversity and inclusion. Policies can also be data-driven. That's what I'm going to try to propose to you today.

How much money is being distributed, how it is being distributed, why and using which system, these are things that could be done in a smarter and more informed way if, before starting, we knew how the system works, how committees evaluate applications, what is required of them and what the consequences are for the people who apply. Thanks to SSHRC's transparency and willingness to move forward intelligently on this issue, my research team and I have had full access since 2023 to all grant applications that have been submitted to this council for about 20 years, whether they were accepted or rejected. Through statistical analyses and interviews with evaluation committee members, who are professors, we were able to understand what factors influence the likelihood of receiving funding.

To give you a general idea, there are two criteria that play a major role. One is the number of grants that have been awarded in the past. The second, which we discovered after testing the hypothesis that it played a major role, was the prestige and size of the universities. A professor at McGill University, the University of Toronto or the University of British Columbia is much more likely to receive grants than, for example, a professor at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières or Wilfrid Laurier University. This is particularly true in certain disciplines. For example, in economics or management, the weight of university hierarchy and prestige is particularly strong, whereas in other disciplines, such as history or anthropology, these factors are less important. That doesn't mean they never are, but they're not as central. I'm not giving you my opinions; these are the results of published work that you can consult and that I referred to in the brief I submitted to you.

This example allows me to emphasize three things.

First, we know very well that the concentration of funds isn't beneficial to research systems; this has been empirically documented. However, as I just told you, this concentration exists. It benefits a small group of universities that claim to be excellent, but, as I also told you, being excellent is a quality you claim after being designated as such.

Obviously, one of the current problems is that the evaluation of grant applications isn't anonymous. When the committees receive the files, their members know who submitted each application and whether the applicants are from a particular university or not. However, it would be very easy to create an evaluation system in which the evaluation of the project is separate from the evaluation of the CV.

First, the project would be evaluated anonymously, without knowing whether the applicant's home university is Toronto or Trois-Rivières. Second, the CV could be evaluated to ensure that the applicant has the skills to carry out the project. This is an initial proposal of experience that could move things forward and solve the problems observed.

Next, it must be clearly understood that the general criteria adopted by funding agencies, such as SSHRC, are not applied uniformly by committees. Much depends on the cultures of the disciplines. As a result, committees do not operate or interpret the rules in the same way because their conception of excellence and quality differ.

What's important to know is that it would be naive to think that changing the rules at SSHRC or the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, or NSERC, would change evaluation committees' practices. It's important to be aware of those practices.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Please wind up.

[Julien Larregue]

As you can appreciate, my last point is that it takes data to understand how the system works. It doesn't take opinions; it takes empirical data. SSHRC shares that data. I ask that the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and NSERC do the same.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Now we will proceed to the first round of questioning, and we will begin with MP Baldinelli for six minutes.

Please, go ahead.