Evidence of meeting #5 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 excellence.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
I'll repeat my question: Wouldn't that turn a scientific issue into an ideological criterion imposed on individuals?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I apologize for my unilingualism. The question I got from the translation was about whether this transforms the criteria, but I didn't get from the question what specifically it is that transforms this.
I apologize. Maybe I'll get you to repeat the question one more time.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
Wouldn't that turn a scientific issue into an ideological criterion imposed on individuals?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
Yes. I apologize. I definitely got it this time.
I think it absolutely does transform what ought to be the domain of objective knowledge creation into an ideological issue. I should say that I oppose all ideologically based grant funding, whether that's in a progressive or a conservative direction.
I would say that some of the other witnesses today others might portray as being on the other side of the issue here, but I would note that a lot of things I heard from the witnesses today I think are valuable forms of diversity and inclusion and having a greater research population in terms of medical and health research in order to learn more knowledge. That's outside my field of expertise, but that's something that granting agencies absolutely should be encouraging. What they shouldn't be encouraging are particularly politicized projects that already know the answer to the questions before they've begun the research.
I was surprised at the types of questions on actual SSHRC grant applications. Take this one, for example: “Contested cultural and historical narratives can reinforce communal tensions and lead to alienation, denialism and marginalization.” That is from a SSHRC grant instructions application. It is telling researchers that there are things that should not be contested, which is very much against the domain of science. Science is all about conversation—
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Snow, but I have other questions for you.
In your work at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, you distinguish the research topic from the funding criteria. You insist on the fact that we must let research on equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, take its full place, but we must avoid imposing EDI criteria in project evaluations. Why do you think this distinction is essential?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I think it's a very important distinction. What I found in my study is that these three types of EDI—what I call mild EDI; moderate EDI, which is more or less affirmative action; and then the more activist EDI—are used interchangeably. SSHRC and NSERC don't cite it. We're talking about the first type of EDI here, and now we're talking about the second one. We can speak in the broad language of research inclusion and more inclusive research environments. Quite frankly, I think that's going on anyway within Canadian academia. We've moved away from the days when populations are systematically excluded, and reviewers.... If you've met any academics who are explicitly sexist or racist, those days are far behind us.
I think that the forms of inclusive research environments that we want to foster are being fostered without these EDI criteria, regardless. These EDI criteria are encouraging researchers to engage in politicized research. They're also taking a particular portion of scarce federal research dollars and saying it's only for this type of activist research, and not for the research that builds knowledge.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
I understand.
You showed that, in the thematic programs related to equity, diversity and inclusion, nearly 63% of funded projects had advocacy titles. Wouldn't that show that the federal criteria already encourage an ideological orientation at the expense of truly open research?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. I think for these specific grants—these knowledge synthesis grants, which are smaller but still millions of dollars of federal money—and for the race, gender and diversity initiative in particular from SSHRC, they ask questions on the application instructions such as, “Which mechanisms perpetuate White privilege, and how can such privilege best be challenged?”
Now, I also think white privilege is a bad thing, but it's not whether there is evidence of white privilege or not. It assumes that white privilege exists, that there are mechanisms that perpetuate it and that the goal of federally funded research ought to be challenging those mechanisms.
Again, a statement from SSHRC says, “Progressive societies promote values of diversity, equity and inclusion as enriching societies culturally, informing innovation and research”. Again, here's the assumption that we want a society that defines itself as progressive, and that's the direction of research dollars.
One needs only to skim the websites of those specific grants to see just how ideologically.... Most Canadians would be shocked at how explicitly ideological the language is on those EDI-specific grants. It's not necessarily the criteria on every granting agency website.
Bloc
Maxime Blanchette-Joncas Bloc Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC
You've written that activist-driven equity, diversity and inclusion diverts funds to activist projects rather than scientific ones. Do you think this is already hurting productivity and innovation in Canada?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
Yes, absolutely. It's a logical implication of my work that if I'm finding between 10% to 15% of the most prestigious SSHRC grants, the insight grants and insight development grants, having explicitly activist EDI language in their title alone.... The abstracts weren't available.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.
We will now start our second round of questioning. We will go to MP Holman for five minutes.
Please go ahead.
September 24th, 2025 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of a world where people are judged by “the content of their character”, not “the color of their skin”. That principle has always guided me, and many of the people of London—Fanshawe feel that current EDI policies are taking us further from it.
They want opportunities based on merit and ability. Yet, academics warn that funding rules are closing doors and rewarding conformity instead of excellence. I hope this study helps us find a better path and restores fairness, protects freedom and ensures taxpayer dollars support the best ideas.
Dr. Snow, you mention in your piece from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute that “the current federal government”, which you hold responsible for the DEI push, is not “interested in rolling back” DEI.
What would you say are the most dire consequences of granting agencies and post-secondary institutions continuing down this DEI path?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
I should note that this report came out in February 2025, so when speaking about the current government, it was still a Liberal government, but it was under a different prime minister. I'm unaware of any shift or maintenance of the current government's priorities in terms of this language, so we'll have to wait and see.
As an academic and someone who has spent his entire adult life in the university, perhaps I'm biased in saying that I worry it contributes to the undermining of our post-secondary institutions. I think that when people see this type of language, when people hear the amount of money.... When bright people I know who aren't involved in the post-secondary sector hear that these granting agencies distribute $4 billion and more per year, they're shocked. That doesn't mean that that's not a good use of taxpayer dollars, but these sorts of activist projects are the ones that make the headlines more than—even within the social sciences—knowledge-creating, objective, falsifiable research.
It speaks to a potential and growing disillusion with the post-secondary sector amongst the Canadian public. That's what I worry about the most. These agencies do very important work, but these particular grants are, unfortunately, undermining it.
Conservative
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you for that, Dr. Snow. I share your concerns, and I know many Canadians also do.
In that same piece, you provide several recommendations for reversing the effects of DEI. Can you tell more about the reforms you believe would restore genuine openness, protect diversity of opinion, and ensure merit and freedom of thought before ideological conformity?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
The first one is small. It would be a line in three different pieces of legislation, which would just commit the federal granting agencies to political and ideological neutrality. If it's in their legislative mandates, that would make it difficult—of course, not impossible—for the agencies to go on with these explicitly politicized grants.
In addition, I recommend eliminating, obviously, these explicitly EDI-focused grants. I think most people who hear about them are in agreement. Perhaps a little more controversially, I recommend removing all references to equity, diversity and inclusion from the granting agencies' websites and supporting materials because of the slippage, because calls for inclusion in a research team can move to calls for political activism so quickly.
With regard to some of the things the other witnesses spoke about today—about wanting grants that, for example, study diverse populations—we can put that in granting criteria without having the language of EDI and EDI action plans transposed over all three granting agencies. We can be more targeted, more specific, about what we're looking for, and the language of EDI doesn't allow us to do that. It's so fuzzy. It enables researchers to move in any direction—and, most troublingly, in an activist direction—with their research.
Conservative
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
In previous testimony, we have heard stories from academics who have seen DEI policies inhibit the careers of budding academics who do not fit the DEI mould. We have also heard stories of these policies' being used to bolster the careers of established academics at the expense of young academics.
What message do you think it sends to young Canadian researchers if they learn that conformity to an ideology matters more than the strength of their ideas, Dr. Snow?
Associate Professor, University of Guelph, As an Individual
The most important and unfortunate message it sends is that you are going to get more research money and more prestige if you perform this type of research.
I'm often dismayed to see excellent young graduate students, who could be at the frontiers of science and the social sciences, studying arcane EDI-focused language with no potential impact—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting. The time is up.
We will now proceed to MP Rana for five minutes.
Please go ahead.
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you to all the witnesses for spending their valuable time with us.
I'm very glad to see you, Professor Coe, as I'm a former student of TMU.
Professor Green, I'm also glad to see you as you're a civil engineer. I'm also a civil engineer. I know that a lot of work is being done in research, especially in civil engineering and transportation engineering. You also mentioned structural engineering, environmental engineering and geotechnical engineering.
What benefits did you witness from any of NSERC's initiatives?
Professor, Queen's University, As an Individual
Certainly, there are great impacts for industry, Canadian knowledge and scientific excellence. There's quite a bit of discussion by social scientists about the importance of scientific research. Internationally respected research in science and engineering is flourishing in Canada. My colleagues at the University of Waterloo are doing some of the top research in those areas. They are also well supported by NSERC funds in engineering and in other physical sciences.
With regard to making certain that we are supporting a wide range of highly qualified personnel, what we use for our graduate students, etc., we want to make certain that personnel reflect those who have been traditionally under-represented. There is a real challenge with having a very low proportion of women in engineering. We are trying to get 30% of women engineers by 2030. We're not going to achieve that, but that's kind of a low target. There are massive things in society that are affected by not having gender parity and other things in that workforce. That critical workforce is building almost everything that we use in our society, including tech devices.
It is really important that we have these broad viewpoints with everybody in society contributing. It is important to have those elements, particularly in areas where there are women, racialized minorities and indigenous people who can see that this could be an opportunity for them. There have been marked changes by people taking some actions to change those directions and to encourage more people in those areas. In that range of things that NSERC is doing, I think it's working quite well.
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
Do you think that federal government funding the criteria will bring more women and indigenous people into civil engineering, specifically, and other similar fields? We don't see too many women in civil engineering fields.
Professor, Queen's University, As an Individual
You're right. There are lower proportions of women in civil engineering, although, partly, in say, the environmental aspects of civil engineering, etc., these are areas...In our universities, we are seeing more women professors. At Waterloo, Mary Wells is the dean of engineering. Charmaine Dean is the vice-president of research. I was just at McMaster last week to welcome my colleague, Susan Tighe, who is the new president of McMaster. She received a special congratulations and invitation from Premier Doug Ford. In that message she was congratulated for everything that she's doing for Ontario in advancing science, infrastructure and civil engineering in Canada. It is incredible to see these examples, which are part of broader initiatives.
Liberal
Aslam Rana Liberal Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
Professor Coe, what are some of the major initiatives you implemented and found very successful?
Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biology, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual
Building on what Dr. Green has said, NSERC has really raised the awareness of the fact that there is talent being left on the sidelines. That's a deficit and a cost to Canada. We want to really ensure that we are mobilizing talent, and that we're creating those inclusive cultures, deliberately and intentionally, so that we can leverage that creativity and talent.