Science and Research Committee on Oct. 1st, 2025

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Some time ago, when I was in the research world, NSERC had undertaken a women in science summit that was looking at how to increase representation of women, especially at the higher ranks of science. One of the changes you made through that was having spots where you can indicate gaps in research, for example, so people could indicate parental leave, so it could benefit both men and women who are taking parental leave.

Can you speak to how impactful that was, in making sure the research pool is more inclusive and why that is important?

[Anne-Marie Thompson]

We have chairs for women in science and engineering. That's now been expanded to chairs for science and inclusion in engineering and science. That recognizes the importance of paying attention to specific groups where there can be under-representation. We know that science and engineering, especially engineering, have very low rates of female participation. Things like these practices you mentioned, such as supporting parental leave or allowing the engagement of researchers who have different circumstances in the research, are extremely effective and important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Now we will proceed to Mr. Blanchette-Joncas.

Please go ahead. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I welcome the witnesses joining us today.

Ms. Thompson, in May 2019, you signed the San Francisco declaration on research assessment, commonly known as DORA, which recommended eliminating the use of journal-based metrics. However, a number of your programs, including the research chairs and NSERC's guidelines on contributions, continue to value productivity in terms of publications, number of citations, and institutional prestige.

How do you explain this contradiction between your international commitments and your own criteria?

[Anne-Marie Thompson]

Thank you for the question.

We do take part in some of the metrics you mentioned. To your point about DORA, this is very much about recognizing different elements of the contribution to research excellence.

In my opening remarks, I named a few. It could be citizen science, the promulgation of technologies, patents or public engagement, that kind of thing.

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

Six years later, in the absence of a real action plan to implement DORA, how can you ensure that your committees truly stop judging researchers on these grounds?

[Anne-Marie Thompson]

We provide the committee guidance on how this should be assessed. We provide examples of what is considered to be appropriate in research proposals for this purpose.

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

Do you have any data to share with us? Have you measured assessment and implementation of DORA in committees?

[Anne-Marie Thompson]

I'd be happy to follow up with that.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Hewitt, does the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council have a DORA action plan?

[Ted Hewitt]

At this time, our discussions on an action plan are ongoing. There is the Canada Research Coordinating Committee, and this issue is very important for the future.

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

So, the answer is no. Thank you.

As for the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, is there an action plan to measure the application of DORA to the assessment of research by review committees?

[Paul Hébert]

I don't have an answer to that question at this time. I will need to send the response in writing.

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

Thank you very much. Six years later, we hope to get some answers.

Mr. Hewitt, your documents require researchers to demonstrate how their projects will foster the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. Doesn't this amount to guiding scientific research based on ideological considerations at the expense of academic freedom?

[Ted Hewitt]

I apologize but I didn't hear the question.

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

Don't you find that applying EDI criteria to research funding amounts to guiding scientific research based on ideological considerations at the expense of academic freedom?

[Ted Hewitt]

I'd say no. We're working with people with very different perspectives. We're not applying any such filters. We're funding the best research out there.

I'll give the floor to Ms. Laflamme who can talk to you about inter-agency programs.

[Valérie Laflamme, Associate Vice-President, Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council]

Thank you.

I'd like to add a comment about equity, diversity and inclusion considerations in programs, particularly those managed by the three granting councils. These measures were put in place to reduce systemic barriers and biases in research and have nothing to do with excellence in research. Indeed, these measures were put in place to ensure excellence in research. It's not to control ideology but rather to ensure that excellence in research can be achieved and that everyone has the opportunity to take part in the research ecosystem, regardless of their identity.

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

All right. Thank you.

Ms. Thompson and Mr. Hébert, a number of organizations are implementing EDI considerations.

However, assessing their accuracy and the results of their implementation require data. To date, only the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, or SSHRC, has provided comparable data on grant applications. Neither the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council nor the Canadian Institutes of Health Research has done so.

The only way to scientifically assess inequalities among institutions would be through data. I'd like you to explain to me why Julien Larregue, a researcher who testified before this committee and who specializes in these areas of research, doesn't have access to data from your agencies, although he does have it from SSHRC.

[Anne-Marie Thompson]

I can say that, in our case, we publish the results of competitions. We're extremely transparent about the equity groups that obtain grants. Furthermore, as I mentioned, we also give clear examples.

For the committee, we provide guidance to them on what they should be considering, but we do publish dashboards with our results, which are very clear.

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

Mr. Hébert, can you explain why we're unable to obtain data on grant applications from CIHR, even though we're talking about public funds? Are you not managing taxpayers' money?

[Paul Hébert]

Absolutely.

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

An agency like SSHRC provides that data to researchers. However CIHR and NSERC are saying they can't due for privacy reasons.

[Paul Hébert]

As Ms. Thompson clearly explained, we're doing the same thing. The results of our competitions are public. We publish statistics after all our competitions, along with the success rate.

Once again, our major problem is the success rate, which varies between 15% and 18%. This is due to the fact that money is tight everywhere and that's not fair to anyone. It's a challenge. There is equity, and the data is public; we can tell out who got money, it's quite clear, and we can also see what's happening over time.

Demand is becoming extremely high. Almost all our young researchers, over 70%, belong to a minority group. Our challenge is to reserve as much money as possible to ensure that our young researchers get funding. We have had some limited success in that regard. That said, among our young researchers, there's been a real increase in diversity, which is a far better reflection of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you. Your time is up.

Now, we will proceed to MP Ho for five minutes.

Please go ahead.