The committee met to study the impact of the criteria for awarding federal funding on research excellence in Canada. Appearing were Ted Hewitt, President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC); Anne-Marie Thompson, Vice-President of the Research Grants and Scholarships Directorate at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC); Paul Hébert, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR); and Valérie Laflamme, Associate Vice-President of the Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat at SSHRC.
Ted Hewitt stated that SSHRC invests about $570 million annually in research and training, awarded through independent merit review based on international standards of excellence. He emphasized that research excellence is not static and that guidelines on equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) are used to promote excellence by including diverse perspectives, but no one is funded solely based on identity. He disagreed with claims that EDI criteria limit viewpoint diversity or drive researchers away, arguing Canada remains highly attractive and that funding rates are low due to high demand.
Anne-Marie Thompson noted that NSERC invests over $1.4 billion annually in natural sciences and engineering research, with funding awarded through competitive merit reviews that consider originality, impact, and training quality. She highlighted NSERC’s commitment to modernizing evaluation, including signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and implementing the tri-agency EDI action plan, which recognizes that research contributions can take many forms beyond publications. She acknowledged that while NSERC provides guidance to review committees on DORA, she could not immediately provide data on its implementation.
Paul Hébert described CIHR’s vision of research excellence as "collaboration for impact," emphasizing partnerships and problem-focused networks to tackle major societal issues. He stressed that equity is foundational, as it improves health outcomes for vulnerable populations, and that CIHR supports both discovery and mission-driven research through rigorous peer review. He noted that Canada risks falling behind globally and must improve commercialization of discoveries, citing examples like mRNA vaccines and Ozempic where benefits were realized elsewhere.
Valérie Laflamme added that EDI measures in tri-agency programs are designed to reduce systemic barriers and biases, not to control ideology, and that they ensure everyone can participate in the research ecosystem. She provided data from the New Frontiers in Research Fund, where 67% of grantees reported that diversity in research teams led to unexpected innovation.
During questioning, Hewitt and Hébert defended EDI criteria against criticism that they lower standards, with Hébert arguing that equity is critical in health research and that the main challenge is low success rates due to insufficient funding. Thompson declined to give personal opinions on EDI but confirmed NSERC implements government policies. Hewitt defended the value of diverse research topics, such as a study on German children’s books, stating that peer review determines excellence and that researchers could explain their projects’ benefits.
A motion was tabled by Maxime Blanchette-Joncas requesting that the three funding councils provide disaggregated data on all applications from 2020 to 2025, including demographic data, institutions, language, scores, and outcomes, within 15 days. Some members raised concerns about privacy and the burden of providing five years of data, while others supported the motion if data were anonymized. The witnesses indicated they would need to review the motion’s specifics to determine feasibility, with Hébert suggesting that clarifying the questions might be more manageable than providing raw databases. The committee did not vote on the motion during the meeting.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.