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.