The CCR is the largest umbrella organization representing Canada\u2019s researchers across all disciplines <\/strong>with more than 500,000 researchers and 50,000 students represented among its constituent societies and organizations. Established in 1976 and celebrating its 50th<\/sup> anniversary in 2026, the CCR comprises over 20 member organizations, predominantly representing researchers based in universities, while also including members working in government laboratories and private sector research centres.<\/p>\n The CCR is dedicated to fostering a flourishing research community in Canada, promoting research funding across all disciplines, and supporting post-secondary education.<\/p>\n All Consortium activities are carried out by volunteers from its member organizations. For more information, visit https:\/\/ccr-ccr.ca\/<\/a> or email info@ccr-ccr.ca<\/a><\/p>\n Canada\u2019s research community has a history of welcoming international colleagues with open arms. The CCR\u2019s members are ready to work with those attracted by the Impact+ program and, in the words of King Charles, \u201cbuild Canada into the world\u2019s leading hub for science and innovation.\u201d Though welcoming, we are also concerned about the reality into which new colleagues are arriving. Our recommendations address long-standing issues and mitigate unintended consequences of the Impact+ program.<\/p>\n The government wisely indicated in Budget 2025 an intention to examine questions regarding \u201cCanada\u2019s research ecosystem require[ing] further support to retain talent.\u201d It is time to act\u2014to increase support for Canada\u2019s research community and retain research talent. Action needs to address more than one tranche of our talent pool:<\/p>\n The CCR is concerned about on-going low and declining funding success rates at the tri-councils.<\/p>\n At the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), Insight Grant success rates temporarily rose above 50% in 2021-22 due to fewer applications during Covid. For the 2024-25 competition, SSHRC reported funding success rates of 34.1%.<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n At the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), Discovery Grant (DG) success rates declined from over 80% in 2002 to 67% in 2019 and have since hovered around 58%. The most recent funding success rates reported by NSERC are at 62%<\/a><\/strong>.1<\/a><\/p>\n At the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR), success rates for Project Grants have steadily fallen since 2000, with an exception from funding infusions during Covid. In 2000, CIHR received 1,260 applications and funded 421, for a 33% success rate. By 2018, they funded 740 of 5,117 applications (14%). For the autumn 2025 competition, CIHR is reporting an alarming funding success rate of 13.6%<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n Low and declining success rates indicate a research funding ecosystem moving towards or approaching system failure. CIHR\u2019s low success rates particularly indicate systemic inefficiency: top researchers spending hundreds of hours annually in an almost futile exercise of applying for funding.<\/p>\n Approved but unfunded research proposals are ready-to-launch research plans and each represents a lost opportunity. Among unfunded proposals, every single year, most would\u2014if only they could proceed\u2014advance their fields and produce net positive downstream impacts. Every proposal is ripe with potential to expand knowledge, generate economic and IP benefits, improve the lives of Canadians and the world, and more.<\/p>\n Peer reviewers appreciate this. Anecdotally they report the hardest aspect of their role has become going home at the end of the day fully appreciating all of the potential excellent research that will not<\/em> get funded and their part in making impossible choices. The weight of this knowledge is a kind of moral injury carried by peer reviewers.<\/p>\n Increasing funding success rates is critical. Funding more awards must not be achieved by shrinking grant sizes. Instead, spreading funding across more researchers (\u201cpeanut butter\u201d approach) has been shown to yield better national outcomes<\/a> than concentrating large grants among a small number<\/a> of established researchers. By contrast, the Impact+ chairs program concentrates large grants among later-career researchers likely to cluster at well-resourced urban universities.<\/p>\n Tri-council data indicates senior investigators consistently have higher success rates than early career researchers (ECRs). It is strategic to increase ECR success rates: ECRs are more likely to drive innovative research, transform disciplines, and \u2013 critically \u2013 remain in Canada<\/a>. As Impact+ researchers enter the same applicant pool, mitigation is needed against increased competition, to prevent further declines in success rates overall and disproportionate impacts on ECRs.<\/p>\n Increasing the number and size of grants also has downstream benefits for graduate students and postdocs whose stipends are paid from grants.<\/p>\n Budget 2024\u2019s $1.795 billion investment in tri-council funding was widely celebrated. Planned ongoing increases were announced to be implemented as follows:<\/p>\n <\/p>\nRecommendations:<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\n
Attracting, training, and retaining research talent<\/h3>\n
\n
Accelerating growth & strengthening fundamentals<\/h3>\n