Remove EDI from research funding decisions, parliamentary committee says

Canada’s research granting agencies should remove all references to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) from the process of awarding federal research funding, the parliamentary committee tasked with studying the question recommends.

In its report, Impact of the Criteria for Awarding Federal Funding on Research Excellence in Canada, presented to the House of Commons on Monday, Sept. 21, the Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR) describes EDI policies as “discriminatory” and says they are “delivering bad value for Canadian taxpayers by weakening research excellence in Canada and undermining public trust and confidence in federally funded research.”

The report also recommends that the three main granting agencies — the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) — limit EDI considerations to the review of research project content, when appropriate, and “take steps to protect academic freedom and to promote viewpoint diversity” in funding programs.

However, the report also contains recommendations that support EDI awareness training and inclusive research teams.

The three agencies, collectively known as the tri-agencies, have gradually introduced EDI measures into Canada’s research system to address systemic barriers to access for underrepresented groups. In 2018, they began collecting demographic data from applicants to track participation of equity-seeking groups and have since incorporated EDI considerations into some funding programs and application requirements.

Among its 20 recommendations, the committee calls on the federal government to ban demographic quotas and proportionality targets in programs administered by the granting agencies. It also recommends an audit of existing EDI policies to provide “quantified measures” of their effectiveness. 

The committee says it heard “overwhelming testimony” criticizing EDI policies at the tri-agencies and Canadian universities in funding programs, grant applications and hiring.

“EDI policies are weakening the quality of Canadian research, Canada’s research reputation, and its overall research ecosystem by politicizing science, fostering cancel culture, empowering activist research, adding administrative burden to researchers, imposing mandatory diversity statements, pushing top research talent away, and limiting viewpoint diversity,” the committee writes.

The report also states that EDI has been “embraced and politicized by the far-left political agenda” and has become “deeply entrenched” in federal institutions and academia, “despite being unpopular with the Canadian population at large.”

The committee, chaired by Liberal Member of Parliament Salma Zahid, held a total of 10 meetings and heard from 49 witnesses, received 35 written briefs, four written responses to committee questions, eight reference documents and two information documents. It comprised six additional Liberals, four Conservatives, and one Bloc Québécois MP.

Requiring EDI in research design 

Other witnesses defended EDI measures, arguing that incorporating EDI into research project design reduces bias and ensures that research benefits all Canadians. They argued that greater representation of historically underrepresented groups— including women, people of colour, and First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples — can improve research productivity, quality and relevance.

Three of the committees’ recommendations appear to support those positions. The committee recommends the granting agencies introduce compulsory training on EDI principles and the ethical and societal impacts of research for funding applicants. It also calls for EDI principles to be incorporated into the design of projects submitted for funding, despite their exclusion from awarding criteria.

A third recommendation calls for incentives for inclusive research teams and dedicated funding for projects that demonstrate equitable hiring practices, have diverse management teams and collaborate with historically excluded communities.

Dissenting opinions

The Liberal Party of Canada issued a dissenting opinion arguing that research failing to account for diverse populations creates gaps in knowledge that can harm Canadians’ health and well-being.

Citing testimony from the Partnership for Women’s Health Research Canada, they emphasize that “scientific progress is made on the questions scientists ask.” Their opinion points to evidence that women researchers are more likely to study pregnancy and Black scientists are more likely to study racialized health disparities, as examples.

The Conservative Party of Canada also issued a dissenting opinion, highlighting contradictions between recommendations supporting EDI measures and those seeking to remove or limit them.

READ MORE: Un rapport parlementaire recommande de renforcer la place du français en recherche (in French)

“These contradictions exist because the committee adopted the report as it was drafted, mutually agreeing to disagree on these contradicting recommendations,” the Conservative statement reads. “By doing so, the committee was able to advance the report while supporting and preserving the diversity of viewpoints expressed by witnesses throughout the study.”

The Conservatives write they support repealing EDI policies in all federal and academic institutions and favour “equal opportunity for all, where the best candidates are selected, hired, and rewarded based on their individual merit, not their individual identity.”

Other recommendations

The committee’s remaining recommendations include changes intended to address disadvantages faced by small and medium-sized postsecondary institutions in federal research funding. It calls on the granting agencies to stop using previous grant amounts as a funding criterion and review the Research Support Fund to better help smaller institutions and colleges cover the indirect costs of research.

The committee also recommends increasing the share of federal funding directed toward applied research at colleges, institutes, CEGEPs, college centres for technology transfer and innovative social practices, technology access centres and polytechnics. It proposes introducing criteria emphasizing research impact in some targeted funding programs while maintaining support for basic research.

Other recommendations focus on French-language research. The committee calls on the granting agencies to ensure applications submitted in French are treated equitably, support scientific research and publication in French and consider establishing funding targets for French-language applications.

The report also recommends that the granting agencies continue implementing the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which encourages research assessment to move away from journal-based metrics and recognize a broader range of research contributions.

The agencies should also experiment with alternative approaches to awarding some funding, the committee says, including de-identifying applications or randomly awarding a portion of available funds.

Finally, the committee recommends making disaggregated granting-agency data — including data on unsuccessful applications — available for scientific research, subject to appropriate ethical standards and data-security requirements.