Science and Research

This House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research meeting studied the impact of federal funding allocation criteria on research excellence in Canada. The witnesses were David Freeman, Associate Professor at Simon Fraser University; Yuan Yi Zhu, Assistant Professor at Leiden University; Malinda Smith, Associate Vice-President, Research (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) at the University of Calgary; Martin Normand, President and CEO of the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne; and Ken Doyle, Executive Director of Tech-Access Canada.

David Freeman, speaking from his experience on SSHRC adjudication committees, argued that the distribution of SSHRC Talent Program funding across disciplines is misaligned with student numbers and market demand, citing that business and economics receive fewer scholarships than smaller departments like sociology and history. He recommended that SSHRC allocate graduate scholarships based on student numbers, set aside funds for research using Canadian data, and rethink funding for what he termed "activist research," suggesting that SSHRC criteria should not value normative or activist work and that viewpoint diversity should be a primary EDI priority. He disagreed with the premise that EDI policies have improved research outcomes, stating they have failed to increase political diversity in academia.

Yuan Yi Zhu argued that federal research funding is now allocated based on race, sex, and ideological conformity rather than excellence, and that this undermines public support and academic freedom. He stated that EDI requirements encourage researchers to be dishonest in their grant applications and that Canada has gained a reputation as "overly woke," which negatively impacts its ability to attract top international talent. He recommended removing all EDI criteria from the regulations of the three research councils, as they do not contribute to academic excellence and instead undermine it.

Malinda Smith presented evidence that EDI in research funding strengthens universities by mitigating biases and dismantling barriers, arguing that diverse groups outperform homogeneous ones in problem-solving and innovation. She stated that traditional measures of merit may privilege conformity over originality and that EDI is a strategic imperative for Canada's global competitiveness, not a dilution of standards. She disagreed with the characterization of EDI as a political trend, calling it an evidence-based approach that makes academic freedom meaningful for a broader range of scholars.

Martin Normand highlighted that researchers in French-language minority communities face linguistic and institutional biases in the grant evaluation process, which undermines scientific production in French. He recommended that the granting councils adopt a plan to implement their obligations under the Official Languages Act, including positive measures to recognize research excellence in French, and undertake a strategic review to reduce linguistic and institutional biases. He also supported expanding college eligibility for granting council funding and called for the annual publication of success rates detailed by language, region, and institution size.

Ken Doyle argued that Canada is excellent at producing research but struggles to translate it into market impact, citing a $9-billion IP trade deficit. He stated that the current funding system is skewed toward basic discovery research, with a 10-to-one imbalance compared to applied and commercial R&D, and that college applied research centres face long wait times and inadequate support. He recommended a dedicated program within Industry Canada, outside the granting councils, that recognizes applied excellence and supports collaborative industrial R&D at the speed of business, with faster decisions and basic outcome tracking.

The committee debated and passed a motion from Maxime Blanchette-Joncas requesting that the three funding councils—SSHRC, NSERC, and CIHR—appear before the committee for one hour of testimony during the study. The motion was supported by members across parties, who noted that the councils had been invited but had not prioritized appearing.