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.