Science and Research Committee on Sept. 24th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number five of the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Pursuant to the motion of the House of June 18, the committee is meeting to study the impact of the criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Pursuant to the Standing Orders, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Before we continue, I would ask all in-person participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. You will also notice a QR code on the card that links to the short awareness video.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and the members.

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, and 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: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for today for the first panel. We are joined in person here by Imogen Coe, professor, department of chemistry and biology, Toronto Metropolitan University. We are also joined by Mark Green, professor, Queen's University, and by Dave Snow, associate professor, University of Guelph, by video conference. We also have the Partnership for Women's Health Research Canada represented by Tamil Kendall, director, by video conference.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for appearing before the committee. All of you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will go into our rounds of questioning.

Professor Coe, we will start with you. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Imogen Coe, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biology, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me here today.

As you know, my name is Dr. Imogen Coe and I'm a professor of chemistry and biology at Toronto Metropolitan University and an affiliate scientist at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. I spent much of my career working in Canada's research ecosystem as a researcher, a reviewer, an educator, mentor and academic leader with a particular scientific research focus on cellular mechanisms of drug uptake, along with an applied academic expertise in how to create inclusive and effective research cultures in science, engineering and medicine. I've published extensively in both domains in the peer-reviewed literature.

With respect to the topic under review, we must ask, what do we mean by “research excellence” in 2025?

For too long, excellence has been defined in narrow and limited ways, missing markers of impact and relevance. Excellence today is understood more broadly, and the highest quality research emerges from systems and teams that are intentionally inclusive, ethically grounded and reflective of a wide range of perspectives, knowledge and experience. Research that draws on only a narrow set of voices or approaches is more likely to have blind spots, replicate bias and produce less impactful results. The evidence base for these comments is extensive and to ignore this body of scholarship is to compromise Canadian research. Expertise matters and we should look to evidence and data to help inform our policies.

We have painful reminders of what happens when research fails to account for difference. A well-known recent Canadian case is that of physician Dr. Kapoor who died from the toxic build-up of a cancer drug routinely prescribed for his type of cancer. He carried a genetic variant related to poor drug metabolism that had not been captured in databases because those databases are typically skewed towards white European heritage populations. Thus his variant was missed in research focused on finding clinical markers of risk. A major study in 2018 found that over 78% of genome-wide association studies were of European descent, while non-European descent represented fewer than 5%.

Excluding diversity in research, design and practice disadvantages individuals, compromises safety, wastes resources and lowers the overall quality of the outputs. Every member of this committee has family or friends or constituents, perhaps from very diverse backgrounds and experiences, who are facing or will face challenges such as cancer, dementia, mental health crises, homelessness, disability, food insecurity, underemployment or perhaps even multiples of these. Research is going to be the answer to responding to these challenges, research that addresses the challenges of all Canadians and finds innovative solutions for all Canadians.

This is our call as researchers, in service to Canada and Canadians. Research excellence, therefore, depends on creating systems and teams that are fair, inclusive and responsible. Diverse teams are more innovative, with productivity and impact 7% higher than homogeneous teams, according to research. Research that's conducted inclusively is more rigorous, more innovative and more responsive to society. In other words, more excellent.

Federal funding criteria play a critical role in shaping how we define and reward excellence. If criteria remain too narrow, we risk leaving innovation on the sidelines. If criteria are broadened to ensure maximal rigour, impact, ethics responsibility and inclusiveness, we strengthen both research and society. Other countries are already moving in this direction. The U.K. research excellence framework requires evidence of real-world impact. Global initiatives such as the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the Leiden Manifesto stress that research quality cannot be reduced to numbers alone. Canada should align with these leading practices.

My recommendations to this committee are to support, sustain and increase investment in a Canadian research ecosystem that seeks and supports the best, while updating federal funding criteria so that excellence reflects truly what matters. Reward research that's rigorous, fair, innovative, and socially and environmentally responsive, which is built on systems where no capable talent is left on the sidelines. Support research that creates inclusive, productive and creative cultures that drive innovation and where talent thrives. Be intentional about building better and stronger systems of research.

Canada's prosperity, health and security in the decades ahead will depend on the knowledge we generate today. By ensuring that research excellence is defined in ways that are broad, modern and inclusive, this committee can help Canadian research be both globally competitive and truly excellent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Professor Mark Green from Queen's University.

Professor Green, you have five minutes.

[Mark Green, Professor, Queen's University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for inviting me.

[Witness spoke in Kanyen’ké:ha and provided the following text:]

Shé:kon sewakwé:kon. Rahswahérha táhnon Mark yónkyats. Wakhsennekéhte wakenyáhten. Green tewakhsennà:sere. Kenhté:ke nitiwaké:nonh táhnon Kanyen’kehá:ka niwakonhwentyò:ten’.

[English]

In this traditional Kanyen'ké:ha introduction, I introduced myself as Mark Green. My Mohawk name is Rahswahérha, and I sit with the turtle clan in my community of Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory.

I'm also a professor of civil engineering—structural engineering—and I was formerly provost at Queen's University. I have a long-standing track record of support from federal and international granting associations.

Early in my career, I won a Commonwealth scholarship to complete my Ph.D. at the University of Cambridge. I returned to Canada on an NSERC post-doctoral fellowship and became a Queen's national scholar.

Subsequently, I've received funding from pretty much all range of programs at NSERC and served on many review panels, both for NSERC and CFI. As an engineer with connections to industry and a strong working relationship with the National Research Council, I have a track record of bridging research into application, including building code development, both in Canada and internationally.

For research excellence for most NSERC grants, evaluations are based on three broad categories. The first is the excellence of the researcher, the second is the excellence of the proposed research and the third is the training of highly qualified personnel. In funding decisions, I have found the processes to assess excellence to be rigorous, fair and collegial.

I'd also like to stress that the system is flexible. For example, partnership programs emphasize collaborations with industry and economic development. Additionally, the internationally accepted San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, DORA, as mentioned by my colleague, provides a broader set of criteria to measure excellence. It can capture impact on communities, people and constituents in a way that academic papers and citation numbers simply cannot.

The training of highly qualified personnel is particularly important for Canadian society because these former students go on to successful careers in industry, government and academia. As such, we must ensure that all segments of society have equal and equitable opportunities to access such positions. Furthermore, I firmly believe that to develop true leaders in society, it's essential to expand beyond simply the technical expertise and to connect with the human, socio-economic and environmental implications of one's work in science and engineering.

For the last two years, I've had the pleasure of advising NSERC in the role of scholar in residence for indigenous collaboration, drawing on my research experience as well as my lived experience. All of this is advancing Canada's commitment to reconciliation. For example, we have been adding material on merit criteria as it relates to indigenous research. We can share the details with you. This consists both of NSERC-specific work and tri-agency work.

Indigenous research is context-specific and is generally connected directly to community needs. As such, the results are practical and can have a direct impact on people. Sometimes excellence is not the most technical solution, but one that is best suited to meet the needs on the ground. I'm sure that many of you as MPs can relate to the importance of research being implemented to directly improve the lives of your constituents. The new indigenous innovation and leadership in research grants have created a real breakout moment. In particular, they encourage focused, indigenous-led work to deeply reflect on criteria to achieve excellence. One way to do this is to recognize the importance of indigenous knowledge and community input. We need all types and perspectives of knowledge to achieve true impact.

In closing, I would like to emphasize three points. First is the importance of supporting a diverse community of students and researchers who are reflective of the breadth of Canadian society. Second are ways to intertwine indigenous and western scientific knowledge to achieve expanded excellence and insights. Third is embracing the declaration on research assessment to allow for more impactful research for Canadians.

Niá:wen. Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Associate Professor Dave Snow. He is joining us through video conference.

The floor is yours. You will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Dave Snow, Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

I am here to speak to whether modifications should be made to the criteria used for awarding federal funding for research at the three federal granting agencies: NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC.

I should begin by saying that I am not a disinterested observer. My career has benefited immensely from receiving SSHRC awards as a graduate student and as a political science professor. I believe that federally funded granting agencies are vital to the development of high-quality research and a thriving post-secondary sector in Canada.

With that said, I am here to discuss a major concern with respect to the funding criteria at the three granting agencies: the creeping integration of principles of equity, diversity and inclusion, EDI, into those agencies' remit.

Earlier this year, I conducted a study for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute on EDI at Canada's three granting agencies. My report, which is the first quantitative study of tri-council research grants that I'm aware of, found that EDI has become infused into these granting agencies, particularly SSHRC and CIHR, and that an increasingly large share of SSHRC grants have been awarded to activist EDI projects. Examples of EDI at the agencies include an EDI action plan for all three agencies; mandatory diversity and bias training modules for applicants and peer reviewers; specialized EDI grants framed in activist language, such as the shifting dynamics of privilege and marginalization grant; and CIHR's new definition of research excellence that urges research to be “anti-racist, anti-ableist, and anti-colonial in approach and impact”.

Now, troublingly, I found that granting agencies use equity, diversity and inclusion in different ways at different times to mean different things. Sometimes it is what I call mild EDI, which merely encourages diverse perspectives in research and which I broadly support. Other times, the term “EDI” is simply used as a synonym for affirmative action. However, I found that granting agencies' EDI language increasingly reflects what I call activist EDI, whereby the terms “equity”, “diversity” and “inclusion” are used to advance the particular political agenda of social justice activism—in the words of Professor Eric Kaufmann, who I believe is speaking later today—“to overthrow systems of structural racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia”. Now, this vague and shifting definition of EDI is a feature, not a bug. It enables researchers and granting agencies to hide behind mild EDI language while using taxpayer dollars to advance activist EDI research agendas.

There are two reasons why the growth of activist EDI at the granting agencies is especially problematic.

First, activism undermines the search for truth. Actual SSHRC grant application instructions have asked applicants questions such as “How can cisgender and straight masculinity be reinvented for a gender-equitable world?” This is in direct opposition to what granting agencies should do, which is fund research based on intellectual curiosity to be undertaken by researchers who do not yet know the answers to the questions they're asking. Instead, activist EDI-driven criteria shift research funding away from objective knowledge creation towards intellectually incurious research that first and foremost seeks to advance a political agenda rather than discover new knowledge.

Second, the growth of activist EDI undermines the legitimacy of the granting agencies themselves and of the post-secondary sector more broadly. If these agencies are seen as rewarding political projects, then Canadians—and their members of Parliament, for that matter—will start to ask whether the roughly $4 billion spent annually by these agencies could be better spent elsewhere.

My report makes several recommendations for reform, some of which require legislation but most of which can be done within the relevant ministry or even within the agencies themselves. In particular, I recommend that the agencies' enabling legislation be amended to enshrine a commitment to political and ideological neutrality. To ensure such neutrality, I also recommend that all references to EDI be removed from agency guidelines and criteria. This includes the elimination of many of SSHRC's EDI-focused grants.

The net effect of the granting agencies' trend towards EDI has been to weaken their perceived political independence and reinforce the impression that they, too, have become politicized, yet that harm is not irreparable. The granting agencies remain committed in principle to research excellence and objective knowledge creation. By removing EDI from their remit, we can ensure that fostering research excellence rather than political activism remains their top priority.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to Ms. Kendall, representing Partnership for Women's Health Research Canada.

Ms. Kendall, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks.

Please go ahead.

[Tamil Kendall, Director, Partnership for Women's Health Research Canada]

Madam Chair and honourable standing committee members, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

As noted, I'm the director of Partnership for Women's Health Research Canada, which unites the Women's Health Research Institute in B.C., the Women & Children's Health Research Institute in Alberta, Women's College Hospital in Ontario, and IWK Health.

On behalf of the partnership, I would like to make three points about how diversity and inclusion in research and science contribute to research excellence.

First, ensuring diversity and inclusion in research populations is critical for research relevance. For example, in health, some pain medications work better if you have one X chromosome, male, rather than two X chromosomes, female. We now know that individual cells have a sex, thus treatments need to be tailored accordingly, such as treatments for pain. Over a four-year period in the United States, eight out of 10 drugs that were withdrawn from the market were because of negative side effects in women. That was because not enough females were included in the trials that led to approval.

One of these drugs, Prepulsid, was withdrawn because it caused irregular heartbeats, arrhythmias, more frequently in women. This drug caused the death of Vanessa Young, a 15-year-old Canadian. It resulted in Vanessa's Law, which aims to improve post-market drug surveillance and increase transparency about who was included in clinical trials.

If we're to move beyond and prevent health harms because of sex differences before they occur, as in the tragic case of Vanessa, sex differences must be studied. In Canada, research excellence requires an increase from the current 7% of health research dollars allocated to women's health research and greater accountability for sex and gender analysis and reporting.

Canada is a global policy leader in promoting sex and gender health research, but we need to increase accountability by researchers for the commitments they make at the research proposal stage. Recommendations that we make align with greater calls for grant monitoring made by other expert witnesses.

In our written brief, we make concrete recommendations, including establishing a public repository of all published findings for funded projects; sex, gender, and ethnicity of study participants should be reported in all studies and publications; and funding applications should include a section where applicants are required to report on sex and gender results from previous government funded research.

Second, as noted by others, socio-demographic diversity within research teams is associated with research excellence, when we look at novel research questions and higher research output. This committee has discussed viewpoint diversity. We know that our viewpoints and the research questions we ask are influenced by our personal experiences and background. To illustrate, Black scientists are more likely to study health disparities than white scientists. Female scientists are more likely to study research questions that use female and male sex in all research. Diverse scientists asking and answering relevant questions, and working together in research groups that include people of different genders and ethnicities, contribute to research excellence.

In the science and research environment, there is exhaustively documented inequitable treatment of females and people of colour. Programs to increase equity in science and research can increase fairness and diversity, without undermining merit-based evaluation. In Canada, before the introduction of the equity mandates for the Canada research chairs, the vast majority of nominees were senior male candidates, and other merit-based applications were not included in the competitions.

The government, by changing the requirements of inclusion, increased the diversity of candidates, but did not change the excellence of the candidates, as measured by peer-reviewed publications, science communication, book chapters, patents or policies. The CRC program is still a meritocracy. Increased diversity results in better, more impactful science that, ultimately, improves the lives of Canadians.

Third, to assess research excellence, we should focus on scientific content and impact to patients, families, and communities, rather than number of publications and journal impact factors. When the research improves outcomes, implements health technology or evaluates health system change across a diverse population, the impact is then sustainable and generalizable to all Canadians.

Investing in women's health research and integration of sex and gender across care and innovation can make Canada a magnet for the world's top scientists and entrepreneurs and also lower costs through better evidence-based prevention and treatment for all Canadians, helping them get ahead.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Now we will proceed with our round of questioning. We will begin our first round with MP DeRidder.

Please go ahead. You will have six minutes.

I would request all the members to please be particular about time, because we have four witnesses.

Thank you.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone, for being here today.

Mr. Snow, you come from Guelph. I am in Waterloo region. Thank you for being here.

You spoke quite a bit about political activism with the current ideologies in federal funding agencies of research and academia. You gave us a glimpse of hope that the harm today is not irreparable, but we must take action. If we as a government do not take action now, what will be the repercussions in our scientific community, especially in areas like Waterloo, where we still have science excellence happening today?

[Dave Snow]

I think it's a really important question.

The first thing I should say is that I am a social scientist, a political scientist, and my knowledge of, for example, the hard science environment in places like Waterloo is not particularly high.

I would emphasize something I touched on briefly towards the end, which is that these granting agencies mostly fund a great deal of research. I found far more limited evidence of this activist EDI at NSERC, for example.

We are in an era of increased financial restraint and large budget deficits. As I've shown in my report, the at times justified perception is that these agencies are not funding objective new knowledge or knowledge creation but instead funding ideological projects where activists are continuing to do activism but with more federal government money. I think the appetite from the public and from legislators is going to be to move away from this and say that's an area where we can and should cut. I think that would be a shame, so that's why I'm suggesting reform to avoid those potential cuts down the line.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I agree completely. I think, too, that there's a there's a risk of losing faith in our research excellence and really not having any trust in our science anymore if we continue down these paths. That's what I wanted to bring up with you today.

In the Waterloo region, we have very good scientific achievements happening, but I'm afraid that will be eroded in time if we continue down these ideological paths. Can you explain further where that would have that erosion in science if we continued on this course?

[Dave Snow]

First and foremost, the creeping integration of more EDI activist requirements into large-scale grants is an issue. If we want to fund the best research, we should fund the best research. We shouldn't fund the best research that also makes vague commitments to activist EDI or base research funding for things like hard science and engineering projects on the basis of those statements.

Again, I'm seeing this less in NSERC, more in SSHRC and surprisingly more in CIHR than I expected in terms of its guidelines. We're carving out research dollars for explicitly activist projects in the social sciences and humanities in particular, so we're not only saying that we encourage researchers to build their research proposals in such a way that makes a nod to equity, diversity and inclusion, but it's more likely to be funded if it's equity, diversity and inclusion. We're taking scarce taxpayer dollars and saying that these grants are only for activist projects.

If you look at the language in things like the knowledge synthesis grants at SSHRC and the race, gender and diversity initiative, which has ended, that was quite a large sum of money and a lot of $450,000 grants. That's what I found overwhelmingly within those grants. The percentages I found of activist projects within the SSHRC main insight grants was between 10% and 15% with explicitly activist language in their titles. That's a lot higher than I think should be coming from a federal granting agency, but it's not 100%. With those more explicitly activist grants, it was more like two-thirds in terms of that.

I think, first and foremost, we pare down the guidelines, we maintain a commitment to ideological and political neutrality, and we say that we're going to stop carving out scarce taxpayer resources for grants that are about activism. If the government wants to fund activism, it can fund activism. It shouldn't be doing it through its research granting agencies.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for that.

I'm going to cite you here. You said, “In Canada, EDI is currently taking up far too much focus in each of the granting agencies. Rather than prioritizing research excellence, they are too often promoting and even rewarding political activism.”

To you, what is the most critical step to reducing politicalization in academia and ensuring we're funding authentic research?

[Dave Snow]

That is a great question, because it raises the question of whether or not these granting agencies are upstream or downstream of broader tendencies within academia, especially the social sciences and humanities, towards more ideological research and less—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Sorry for interrupting, but the time is up. Maybe you can respond in the next round.

We will proceed to MP McKelvie.

MP McKelvie, you will have six minutes.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Dr. Green, you mentioned interdisciplinary research. Many of the great discoveries that we make happen when different people who might not traditionally work together come together.

A great example of that is understanding our microbiome. Medical scientists have been looking at it from one direction, but you could throw in a soil scientist who's used to analyzing more of that type of substrate. Then you could throw in an anthropologist and a dietician or somebody who looks at culture and how culture changes what we eat. Those three would all traditionally be funded by separate agencies—NSERC, SSHRC and CIHR.

Recognizing this study that's before us is about research excellence, how can we better promote research excellence when it's interdisciplinary?

[Mark Green]

I wholeheartedly agree with you that many of the greatest innovations are achieved when we are considering an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary approach so we can see how the different systems connect with one another and how they influence each other.

I will also mention that is also quite reflective of many indigenous world views, which do not separate into disciplines in the same way. For example, one frame of reference would be the medicine wheel, which can often be a metaphor for health with the different parts, and looking at those four segments, you need each and every one of those—physical, mental and spiritual health—to be in harmony in order to have those connections.

Similarly, I know the Haudenosaunee peoples, in the Ohén:ton Karihwatéhkwen—“the words that come before all else”, or the Thanksgiving Address—also talk about giving thanks for all of the elements of creation and recognize that it's only when each and every element there is contributing its own responsibility that everything works well together.

Let's deviate a little bit from that to talk about some practical applications of it and something that falls into my area of research as an example. I've done a lot of work in structural engineering, and in the last 20 to 25 years, I've done a lot of work in fire engineering. I've recently been interested in wildfires. We understand what a problem that is for Canadians in general and across the world, but it's particularly having an impact on first nations and other indigenous communities. Some 40% of first nations community members are evacuated when they only represent of about 5% of the population.

In looking at that and focusing on ways to do that, I'm working right now with Prince Albert Grand Council. They're interested in these displacements: How can you protect the communities? I'm interested in how to protect the people there but also in how their mental health is affected by being displaced and other things. I've also engaged with medical professionals to look at that. By bringing together this wide range, we can have much better solutions.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

You very eloquently outlined the three ways that, for example, NSERC looks at excellence: excellence of the researcher, proposed research and HQP. Excellence of the researcher, for example, is defined very differently with indigenous knowledge and with indigenous keepers.

How can we be mindful about the way we are assessing research excellence when we're working with different communities? Doing it based on publications, for example, is not the right measure. How can we make sure that we're including research excellence when it may not have a traditional metric?

[Mark Green]

Thanks for bringing that up about cultural leaders and cultural knowledge, in a way, having the expertise. There is some movement to be looking at recognizing the knowledge that exists through oral traditions and through other knowledge that does not exist outside of place knowledge and those systems. It's actually different perspectives and different knowledge. It can also bring with it a lot of changes and understandings.

There are ways to look at the impact in community and how these people are recognized in community. Many of the people who have this knowledge may not have traditional education, but they are respected for their knowledge because they are knowledge-keepers, etc. There are many other ways of looking more broadly at things. The indigenous leadership circle in research, which is a national body, and the reference group for the appropriate review of indigenous research are both bodies that are looking closely at those types of ways.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I have only 15 seconds left, so I will simply congratulate you on your NSERC scholar and residence positions. Thank you for your contributions.

[Mark Green]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We'll now move to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes.

Please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses who are with us for this study.

Professor Snow, two things are often confused: the need for representative samples, for example in health, and the requirement that researchers themselves embody this diversity.

You say that this confusion is at the heart of current policies. What do you think are the risks of mixing those two things together? Wouldn't that turn a scientific issue into an ideological criterion imposed on individuals?

[Dave Snow]

I'm sorry. I heard the first one, about representative samples within health, but I missed the second one.