Ottawa should ban federal research funders from giving funding based on diversity quotas, a parliamentary committee says.
“[Diversity, equity and inclusion] policies are weakening the quality of Canadian research, Canada’s research reputation, and its overall research ecosystem,” the standing committee on science and research wrote in its report, released Monday.
At meetings last year, various academics roundly critiqued diversity mandates in research funding, saying such mandates led to more qualified researchers being overlooked. Funding agencies defended these mandates, saying they ensure academic research reflects the perspectives of all Canadians.
However, other recommendations in the committee’s report support DEI initiatives. The committee also recommended federal granting agencies introduce “compulsory training” on diversity, equity and inclusion.
Several members of the 12-person committee objected to the report not taking a clear position on diversity initiatives.
“It is unusual for parliamentary committee reports to contain contradictions like this in the published recommendations,” the Conservative Party wrote in its dissenting opinion.
In a separate dissenting opinion, the Bloc Quebecois said the DEI recommendations should be removed, noting they “directly contradict” the report’s statements that diversity mandates were harmful to research.
Research impacts
There are three main federal agencies that fund research in Canada: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Altogether, these agencies received $4.2 billion in federal funds during the 2025-2026 fiscal year.
Since 2024, the committee has studied how these agencies’ funding criteria impact research. The study paused when Parliament was prorogued in 2025 and resumed last September.
Nearly 50 witnesses spoke to the committee during the study. They discussed various topics, including how research dollars are divided among institutions, how academic credentials are recognized and the availability of funding for research in French.
But concerns about diversity policies’ impact on academic research was a central theme. Most of last fall’s testimony focused on these policies, and they were the focus of seven of the committee’s 20 final recommendations.
Each of the three funding agencies has policies about promoting diversity, equity and inclusion in research. There are also funding programs specifically for researchers from groups that are historically underrepresented in academia.
Additionally, researchers who apply for funding from these agencies are asked to provide information about characteristics such as gender, sexual orientation, disability and whether they are Indigenous or belong to a visible minority. Applicants can say they prefer not to answer.
At committee meetings last fall, some academics warned this focus on diversity had led to a lack of diversity in the viewpoints expressed in research.
“The promotion of diversity in gender and ethnicity at the same time that the diversity of opinion is constricted by censorship, cancellation or intellectual monocultures undermines public trust in science,” Steven Pinker, a Harvard University psychology professor, told the committee last September.
The committee’s report echoed those concerns. It recommends federal research agencies remove all DEI references in their funding distribution processes. It also says the agencies should “take steps to protect academic freedom and to promote viewpoint diversity in their funding programs.”
It further called the focus on equity, diversity and inclusion “a discriminatory policy that is embraced and politicized by the far-left political agenda.”
‘Hidden biases’
But the report also supported diversity initiatives. One recommendation calls for granting agencies’ diversity policies to be audited with “quantifiable measures” of their impacts.
The report further recommends the granting agencies require that DEI principles be incorporated into research projects. The agencies should also create funding incentives for projects with diverse management teams and that “feature collaborations with historically excluded communities.”
Seven of 12 MPs on the committee were Liberals, and the party still issued a dissenting opinion.
“Continuing [DEI] measures in federally funded research is essential to addressing hidden biases, closing critical knowledge gaps, and ensuring that research better reflects and serves Canada’s diverse population,” the Liberal Party’s dissenting opinion says.
The Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois’ dissenting opinions, by contrast, critiqued the emphasis on diversity, while adding that the committee’s report downplayed other concerns.
The Conservatives said the committee’s report should have discussed antisemitism in post-secondary institutions.
Their dissent also critiqued diversity policies in general. “To repair past injustices today with DEI is to create new injustices tomorrow.”
Diversity policies should be repealed and replaced with academic environments “where the best candidates are selected, hired, and rewarded based on their individual merit, not their individual identity,” the Conservatives wrote.
The Bloc Quebecois, for their part, called for a “nuanced approach” to diversity initiatives.
“It is essential to distinguish equity objectives … from the tools used to achieve them, which should be subject to ongoing evaluation based on evidence,” the party’s dissent reads.
Researchers’ socioeconomic background should also be included in diversity considerations, the opinion said, and more support is needed for French researchers.
