Science and Research Committee on Oct. 1st, 2025

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I have lots of questions, and I wonder if we could get some clarity on the construction of this motion.

The motion says that the committee should get the “demographic data of applicants and collaborators, including applicants’ responses to the equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) questionnaire”. Unless it's anonymized, I don't know that we can get the names of applicants and their specific responses. Can we get some clarification as to whether or not we're looking for every single named applicant, for example, Vincent Neil Ho, Taleeb Noormohamed, Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, along with how they're categorized? Is that what we're looking for here? I don't know that we have the right to get that under privacy legislation.

I would love some clarification on that point from my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, MP Noormohamed.

MP Blanchette-Joncas, do you want to clarify that?

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to say that this isn't a witch hunt or an attempt to learn who applied. The data can be anonymous. I'd point out that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council already provided this data to researchers. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council decided this information was confidential. Managing public funds is too sensitive to know what happens with the results.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will proceed to MP Ho.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

The names are already public, the applicants and the recipients of funding. That's already public in the current database. That's already out there. When you see the grants, you see who received them. You see the names of the individuals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

All questions should be through the chair.

MP McKelvie.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

My question is about point number five. You say, “the identity of the evaluation committee, comments, opinions, scores assigned to applications for each criterion”. It's for the ones that are awarded and not awarded. Some researchers who might have had a proposal rejected may not want that information out there. They may not want other people to get those ideas and use those ideas somewhere else. There is privacy involved in that.

Also, we need to recognize that when you sign up to be a peer reviewer, you are a volunteer. I think we have to be somewhat respectful of the enormous contribution the scientific and research community makes. If we actually put a dollar value on that time...we're not paying those researchers to do this.

I'm wondering whether your intent is that the names of the evaluators would be on there, and the names of the proposals that aren't funded and those ideas would also be released. I would find that very problematic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

MP Blanchette-Joncas, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I didn't invent it yesterday morning when I got up. This data is already in the three funding councils' databases. A researcher appeared before this committee. We can say his name; it was Julien Larregue. He even submitted a brief to committee members indicating he hadn't obtained the data he wanted to analyze to see whether there were inequalities in the allocation of funding based on certain criteria. That's the subject of today's study, but we're unable to proceed because we don't have a complete picture. We have data only from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

I understand what my colleague is saying, meaning the people sitting on these review committees are volunteers. However, here, we're simply trying to paint a picture of the analysis to see if there are any systemic inequalities in the allocation of research funding in Canada. To perform that analysis, we need data. I repeat: We have a picture of one of the three granting councils, but we need all three to really know if our study will allow us to make recommendations based on an overview of all three.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

MP Jaczek, please go ahead.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Madam Chair, is it possible for us to inquire of the tri-agencies present whether they, in fact, do have this type of data and how onerous it might be even to provide it in theory? It's five years' worth of data, because it's 2020 to 2025 and within 15 days. I want to know about the possibility of it even being achievable.

Could we hear from the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Would anyone like to comment?

Yes, Mr. Hewitt.

[Ted Hewitt]

I'd have to see the motion in detail and scrutinize what we would have available. We do have considerable information, and we do have observers' reports from actual peer-review meetings and so forth that we present to our own counsel and that are available. There are probably some things we could secure in other ways, so I'd have to see the motion in terms of the full wording to see exactly what elements could be secured or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Dr. Hébert.

[Paul Hébert]

I would agree with Dr. Hewitt. I might suggest that one of the things you might think through, rather than the data you want, are the questions because we can do an analysis on certain questions. That's kind of what Ted was saying. You know, depending on what you're asking, we can provide the data, so clarity on the questions rather than on the data would be easier for us to manage, I would think. However, if you want the database, we'd need to see the exact nature. A lot of it is confidential. We have a lot more than just numbers. We have a ton of qualitative information that may be useful, depending on the questions you're asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Next we have MP Baldinelli.

[Tony Baldinelli, Conservative, Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm not sure.... I look to my colleague from the Bloc for some guidance here on whether or not we could continue on the discussion on this motion when we go in camera and have a resolution there. We could finish off our round of questioning and then go into the in camera portion. We could discuss this motion, probably, as the first item of business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We have just three minutes left for this panel, and we have some people on the speaking list. We have a speaking order.

Please go ahead, MP Noormohamed

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I actually don't see any reason why it would not be interesting for us to dig into some of these questions, some of this data. I would be very curious to see all of this. I think it provides us with an interesting set of perspectives.

I want to try to do two things. One is to make sure that whatever comes out of this isn't.... You know, we've had a lot of questions today where witnesses tried to answer the question, to give an example, and they were cut off. Let me be very clear.

You're laughing, but that's exactly what you did.

Look, there are a few things.

One is that I think everything in here, if it's anonymized, is really important for us to have. If it's five years' worth of data, I think it would be very insightful. I think our Conservative friends might be surprised by what they actually get out from the other side. The same goes for our Bloc friends.

I think it would be very interesting to get this information. How do we do this in a way that makes sure that the academic integrity of the people who are doing the work is not compromised, that the peer reviewers are not compromised and that we're not casting a Trump-like chill on academics who actually are trying to do good research? If we can find a way to do that, I would be very supportive of making sure that we proceed with what my Bloc colleague has suggested. I do think there is a lot of value in this.

I also think it's important for us, as members of this committee, to try to not, on either side of this conversation, weaponize whatever comes out the other side. I mean, if this is really for the purpose of getting on the ground and doing some good work and making sure that we are doing right by the research dollars that are going in, I think that's a fantastic approach. If the intention is good, I don't see any issues. I just want to make sure that we work through the two questions I raised, and I wonder if my colleague from the Bloc has any views on that.

On principle, if I understand what he's trying to accomplish, I think that's reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I welcome the comments made by my colleagues, and would like to reassure the people following our work that we don't need the names of the researchers. We simply need access to the browsing data. Then we'll do the analysis. If there are any problems, the members of this committee will be able to look at them and make recommendations to the government to resolve them. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Seeing no further debate, we will proceed to the vote on this motion.

Clerk, if you could take the votes—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm sorry. Give me one second.

We still don't have clarity on that point from my colleague—

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We already have—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Do we have confirmation that we're talking about everyone being anonymized, including the peer reviewers? Is that what we've agreed to? It's silent on this, and I just want to make sure we're voting on what we agreed to.