Briefing material for SSHRC’s appearance at the Standing Committee on Science and Research

October 1, 2025

Purpose
Background
1. What is SSHRC?
- 1.1. SSHRC mission and mandate
- 1.2. SSHRC’s operating budget
2. Why invest in SSH? What is its relevance and impact?
3. How does SSHRC’s merit-review process work?
4. What does SSHRC do to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion?
5. How does SSHRC explain the EDI provisions in the Canada Research Chairs programs?
6. Do EDI provisions conflict with research excellence?
7. On US-Canada relations in science, research and technology
8. Annex A: SRSR Committee Membership
9. Annex B: Summary of witness opening remarks within this study
10. Annex C: Sample committee questions to witnesses within this study
- 10.1. Potential questions from MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas
11. Annex D: Example of SSHRC-funded research on current issues
12. Annex E: Application and success rates for SSHRC-administered programs, by language

Purpose

On October 1, 2025, the SSHRC President, accompanied by VP Sylvie Lamoureux and Associate VP Valérie Laflamme, will appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR), to deliver opening remarks and answer questions in support of the committee’s study on “Impact of the Criteria for Awarding Federal Funding on Research Excellence in Canada”.

Appearing before the committee during the same panel will be CIHR president Paul Hébert; NSERC VP Research Grants and Scholarships Directorate, Anne-Marie Thompson; and NSERC VP Strategic, Corporate and Public Affairs, Marcel Turcot. Witnesses are scheduled to appear between 4:30 and 5:30 pm, after which the committee will hold an In Camera session.

Background

The membership of the committee has changed since the last SSHRC appearance. MP Helena Jaczek (PCL) and MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (BQ) are the only two members remaining from the previous session. There is no longer a member of the NDP on the committee (see Annex A for the committee membership).

The committee had undertaken this study during the previous parliamentary session and had held 5 meetings on the topic between November 28 and December 12, 2024. SSHRC’s president, as well as those of the other granting agencies, had been invited to appear on December 10, 2024, but their panel was cancelled because of technical difficulties. The study was subsequently interrupted when the election was called. On June 28, 2025, the committee reconvened (with a mostly new membership), and voted to resume the study, taking into consideration the evidence collected during the previous session and devoting at least 4 other meetings to the accumulating further evidence.

The main themes that were discussed during the meetings were the pertinence of EDI policies and their impact on research excellence, the definition of excellence, the questioning of traditional metrics to assess excellence and the shifts in research assessment (including DORA), the importance of diversity in the research ecosystem (vulnerable populations, viewpoint diversity, indigenous representation, types of institutions, official languages), the importance of rigour in the peer review process, and the current research funding and policy context in the US.

(see Annex B for the full list of witnesses and sample member questions).

The SRSR Committee has undertaken, or agreed to undertake, studies on the following topics:

#	Study Topic	Study Status
	Current Parliamentary session
XX.	Antimicrobial Resistance	Not started
XX.	Impact of the Criteria for Awarding Federal Funding on Research Excellence in Canada (resuming from last session)	Ongoing
	44th Parliament, 1st Session (November 22, 2021 - January 6, 2025)
XX.	Big Science in Canada (site visits to large research infrastructure projects)	Not completed (election)
XX.	Impact of the Criteria for Awarding Federal Funding on Research Excellence in Canada	Ongoing during current session
XX.	The Mission, Mandate, Role, Structure and Financing of the New Capstone Research Funding Organization Announced in Budget 2024	Not completed (election)
XX.	Innovation, Science, and Research in Recycling Plastics	Committee report pending
13.	Science and Research in Canada’s Arctic in Relation to Climate Change	Completed
12.	The Distribution of Federal Government Funding Among Canada’s Post-Secondary Institutions	Completed
11.	Integration of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge and Science in Government Policy Development	Completed
10.	Use of Federal Government Research and Development Grants, Funds, and Contributions by Canadian Universities and Research Institutions in Partnerships with Entities Connected to the People’s Republic of China	Completed
9.	Long-Term Impacts of Pay Gaps Experienced by Different Genders and Equity-Seeking Groups Among Faculty at Canadian Universities	Completed
8.	Government of Canada’s Graduate Scholarship and Post-Doctoral Fellowship Programs	Completed
7.	Support for the Commercialization of Intellectual Property	Completed
6.	Citizen Scientists	Completed
5.	Research and Scientific Publication in French	Completed
4.	International Moonshot Programs	Completed
3.	Small Modular Nuclear Reactors	Completed
2.	Top Talent, Research and Innovation	Completed
1.	Successes, Challenges and Opportunities for Science in Canada	Completed

1. What is SSHRC?

1.1. SSHRC mission and mandate

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) is the federal research funding agency that promotes and supports research and research training in the humanities and social sciences.
Through its three umbrella programs supporting research, research training and research partnerships, SSHRC supports world-leading initiatives that reflect a commitment to ensuring a better future for Canada and the world.
SSHRC also oversees the delivery of a number of tri-agency programs, including the Canada Research Chairs Program, the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, and the New Frontiers in Research Fund, which supports international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking and high-risk research.
SSHRC has delivered this tri-agency programming – with stable and robust tri-agency governance and appropriate merit review serving all disciplines — since the creation of the Canada Research Chairs Program in 1999. Over the years with the addition of new flagship and mission-driven programs, SSHRC has come to administer over $1B annually, on behalf of the three agencies, to support research across all disciplines.
SSHRC supports research excellence and innovative ideas emanating from a research community of 24,000 full-time university professors in SSH disciplines, over 47,500 graduate students, and thousands of college faculty—representing roughly half of Canada’s postsecondary researchers.

1.2. SSHRC’s operating budget

SSHRC’s core grant and scholarship programs invest over $570M annually to support a social sciences and humanities research community of over 24,000 full-time university professors and over 45,700 graduate students, as well as thousands of college faculty and other eligible researchers.
SSHRC also delivers tri-agency programs that administer over $1B annually, on behalf of the three agencies, to support research across all disciplines.
SSHRC delivers its programs with a very lean operating budget of around 4%.
Partnered research: SSHRC’s grants support collaborative research with over 4,300 partners from the private, public and not-for profit sectors, including a growing number of Indigenous organizations. SSHRC leverages an average of $63M annually in partnership contributions.
Direct support for students: SSHRC directly supports more than 5,000 students in the social sciences and humanities, investing over $177M through scholarships and fellowships.
Indirect support for students: Trainees also benefit indirectly from funding to researchers. A good proportion of a grant to a researcher is used to hire students as research assistants, providing a rich research training experience at all levels.

2. Why invest in SSH? What is its relevance and impact?

2.1. Value of SSH research

Social sciences and humanities research explores all aspects of human thought and behaviour. It builds understanding of people and their past, present and future experiences to strengthen society and improve lives.
This research covers a wide array of disciplines, from business, economics and law to philosophy, history and literature, among many others, and contributes to Canada’s economic, cultural, social, technological and environmental well-being.
When connected with decision-makers in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors, SSH research can fuel innovation and advance policy and practice in all sectors, and contribute to the adaptability and resilience of our communities.
Many examples illustrate this. (See Annex D).

2.2. Importance of training students

Graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are the pipeline of Canada’s future talent pool. Supporting their training in SSH is key to ensuring Canada has the knowledge and skills needed to address societies’ biggest challenges.
In pursuing a wide range of research topics and methodologies, trainees acquire the skills (data analysis, assessment of evidence, project management, ethics, communication) that are needed and valued in all sectors of Canada’s economy.

2.3. Research that seems “irrelevant”

[Members have read out titles of SSHRC-funded research to question the value of public investment in SSH.]
SSH research provides Canada with a long-term competitive advantage of talent and ideas that can be harnessed to create a strong and sovereign Canada.
It is important to look beneath the surface of grant titles to appreciate what students and researchers are exploring and how it may benefit Canadians now and in the future.
And not all research – whether in the SSH disciplines or others -- will resonate immediately, or eventually, with all Canadians. But just like Canadians, the research we support is extremely diverse and reflects the many interests and issues of importance to Canadians in every region, sector or community across the country.
Plus, the training that students get from participating in research projects of all types – training in collecting and evaluating evidence, rigorous analysis and effective communication – develops transferable skills that are in demand across our public, private or not-for-profit sectors.
Major advancements in knowledge and understanding most often emerge from what scientists believe are important questions to explore and any grant and scholarship awarded is deemed meritorious by the expert reviewers.
This is as true in the natural and health sciences (from neural networks to superconductivity, medical imaging, and mRNA vaccines), as it is in the social sciences and humanities where insights built over decades are helping to address the most complex challenges we face today -- preserving democracy, counter-terrorism, affordable housing and homelessness, mental health and addiction, ethical frameworks for artificial intelligence, and communities dealing with wildfires, drought and floods.
By advancing our understanding of people and societies, SSH scholarship cultivates foresight -- helping to identify and prepare for future domestic and global challenges.
The top three disciplinary categories supported by SSHRC funding are: ‘management, business, administrative studies and economics’, ‘education’ and ‘psychology’.

2.4. Funding research abroad

[Members have questioned the value of funding research on non-Canadian topics, or outside of Canada]
SSHRC funds Canadian researchers who are conducting research in Canada as well as all over the world. SSHRC is entrusted to invest public funds in the Canadian research enterprise and this includes research conducted abroad, by Canadians, and by Canadians in collaboration with international researchers.
Such research can, for example, inform us on innovations that are happening elsewhere which can inform how we do things in Canada (say in mining regulation, or education, or regional economic development). Canadian research can provide us with critical insights on global issues which manifest in different ways all over the world, be it responses to climate change, disinformation, or a public health crisis.
That Canadian researchers conduct research internationally is testament to the quality of Canadian researchers and of the Canadian research ecosystem and should be seen as a point of pride, which helps us connecting with partners all over the world. These connections are a good way to maintain alternate channels with strategic partners as part of what is call scientific diplomacy. SSHRC engages with different actors in science and technology, at the domestic and intertnational level, to advance partnerships, share information to inform policy, build relationships, and promote collaboration.

3. How does SSHRC’s merit-review process work?

3.1. Highest standards

We are confident in the strength and capacity of independent merit review to fund the best research. The highest internationally recognized standard of expert merit review has been and will remain at the heart of the granting process at SSHRC.
SSHRC grants and scholarships are awarded through an independent merit review process designed to ensure the highest standards.

3.2. Independent reviews are international best practice

Within SSHRC’s processes for awarding grants, the recommendation for funding is the result of an independent merit-based peer review process, which is the internationally recognized standard for a reputable research ecosystem.

While we cannot comment on the nature of any specific projects based on their titles, we are confident that they were funded because the external committee that reviewed the applications considered them to be sound projects with scientific and scholarly value. The selection of projects to be funded is always based on the published evaluation criteria.
This merit is not usually evident in the title or short description alone – just as a book cover does not speak to the quality of a novel.
The merit review process is internationally recognized as the most transparent, fair, and effective way to allocate public research funds.

3.3. Strong review committees

Each year, volunteer merit review committees made up of Canadian and international experts evaluate thousands of research proposals in both official languages and, based on transparent merit review criteria, make recommendations about which projects to fund. [See below on measures to mitigate bias in merit review].
In addition, over 5,000 other Canadian and international experts provide written assessments of proposals to assist in the merit review process.
Furthermore, in addition to the committee members that serve as the foundation of the merit review process, we have external observers that provide feedback to SSHRC on the integrity of our processes.
In 2024-25, more than 3,800 volunteer external assessors and experts supported the review of funding applications. During that period, SSHRC received over 14,000 funding applications and awarded more than 5,000 new grants and fellowships.
It is thanks, in part, to SSHRC’s internationally recognized merit review system that Canadian researchers are sought-after collaborators within the global research community.

3.4. Transparent review criteria

SSHRC has established three stable overarching assessment criteria — Challenge, Feasibility, Capability — which can be weighted differently to suit the specific objectives of a given funding opportunity. These are transparently shared on our website. In addition, we ask applicants to demonstrate (and reviewers to assess) the impact for Canadians that the proposed research will have.
Reviewers and adjudication committee members are provided a rubric or scoring grid for assessing against these criteria and sub-criteria. Committee members undertake calibration exercises to ensure a shared understanding of the criteria and sub-criteria.
Over the five decades of SSHRC’s existence, we have recognized and highlighted particular components of research excellence and good research practices within our assessment criteria and guidelines. SSHRC, often in collaboration with the other agencies, has sought to underscore elements of research excellence and good research practice through policies, guidelines and assessment processes:
In addition -- and there is a healthy tension here -- SSHRC and the other agencies are concerned with administrative burden, on researchers and their institutions, and are looking at ways to ensure that the requirements for funding are right-sized and fit for purpose.
- The granting agencies also support institutions and researchers in meeting these evolving elements of research excellence through the Research Support Fund, administered by SSHRC.

3.5. Differences across funding opportunities

Some funding opportunities use different mechanisms to award funding
- SSHRC institutional grants (SIG) applies a formula by which the available funding is distributed to eligible institutions to help Canadian postsecondary institutions fund, through their own merit review processes, small-scale research and research-related activities by their faculty and students in the social sciences and humanities. The formula is progressive and has a supplement for small institutions, to help these institutions boost their research capacity and serve their local communities.
- Canada Graduate Research Scholarships – Masters is adjudicated wholly within participating post-secondary institutions, according to criteria set by the program.
- Partnership Grants are reviewed in two stages by a multidisciplinary merit review committee. Applications successful in Stage 1 are awarded a grant of up to $20,000 to help them prepare a Stage 2 application.
- Destination Horizon Grants are small grants to help Canadian researchers collaborate with Europe based researchers to develop proposals to Horizon Europe calls, which are large EU-based funding opportunities. The Destination Horizon grants are meant to respond quickly to a Canadian need, and require matching funds from the Canadian institution – so a randomized selection process is being used.

3.6. Countering bias in peer review

Merit reviewers are guided by manuals and guidelines, such as:
- SSHRC Manual for Merit Review Committee Members
- Guidelines for the Merit Review of Indigenous Research
Merit reviewers are also required to take an online training module as a guide for preventing unconscious bias in merit review. The module promotes understanding of unconscious bias, how it can affect merit review, and ways to mitigate biases of different kinds.
A program officer is present during all deliberations of the review committees, to answer committee members’ questions and provide reminder on policy and guidelines when necessary.
Committees also include external observers, serving to validate the committee’s work and to provide key insights into process improvements.

3.7. Academic freedom

SSHRC is committed to supporting academic freedom. It is one of the reasons we adhere to the principles of independent merit review.
Academic freedom is guiding principle in the Government of Canada’s approach to research security. The tri-agency guidance on research security states that
- ‘Academic freedom is fundamental to the mandate of research institutions to pursue truth, provide education to students, and disseminate knowledge and understanding. Academic freedom, like institutional autonomy, requires an environment of enabled autonomy in which researchers are free from undue external influence or limitations on scholarly inquiry.’

3.8. Continuous improvement

SSHRC annually collects feedback from participants and observers in our merit review process; we conduct an analysis of this feedback annually.
SSHRC invests in continuous improvement, to stay at the forefront of efficient and effective research funding practice. Merit review practices can always improve; and the research community can also do more to communicate the value of the research it undertakes. There is actually a field of research on research, which helps inform the evolution of best practices for the review process. Some research on research experts have appeared as witnesses to this committee.
The findings from the expert panel assessment by the Council of Canadian Academies on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in the Post-Secondary Research System, sponsored by SSHRC and other government departments and agencies and released in 2024, is informing the agencies’ approaches to addressing EDI in their policies and programs – most recently, for instance, in the Dimensions program aimed at supporting postsecondary institutions.
As a signatory to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), SSHRC has joined research leaders around the world in working to strengthen research excellence by ensuring robust, equitable and impactful merit review processes.
- The DORA Principles are embedded in the merit review criteria for SSHRC-administered programs -- for instance, by recognizing and rewarding multiple types of research outputs, beyond the peer-reviewed journal article.
We are piloting newer processes. For example, the New Frontiers in Research Fund has built-in flexibility to use various merit review processes, appropriate to the objectives of individual calls. NFRF is thus serving as a test bed to introduce and test “new to the agencies” elements. Some newer elements that have been introduced at SSHRC and the tri-agency programs we administer include the narrative CV; anonymized merit review to mitigate unconscious biases; and random selection (also commonly known as a lottery) from among projects identified as excellent in cases where funding is limited.
Three other significant initiatives focused on the modernization of our processes, and keeping Canada at the forefront of research funding practice:
- The granting agencies are collaborating on building a harmonized Tri-agency Grants Management System, which received significant funding in B2024, to better support applicants, administrators and reviewers during the grants management lifecycle.
- SSHRC and CIHR have also joined the Research on Research Institute (known as RoRI) which applies scientific rigour to the questions of how we fund, practice, evaluate and communicate research.
- SSHRC is currently undertaking an internal holistic review of how research is assessed in grant applications to ensure there is alignment with current accepted standards of research excellence, with a view to streamlining the process and removing barriers.
  - SSHRC will be reviewing merit review criteria as well as the guidelines and tools provided to our volunteer merit reviewers. In addition, there will be a cross-cutting review of the recommendations provided to SSHRC through community engagement as well as feedback provided by merit reviewers through the annual committee member surveys.

3.9. Merit review for TIPS programs

Canada First Research Excellence Fund (CFREF)

Proposals undergo a multilevel arms-length review process that includes evaluation by expert external reviewers, assessment by review panels, and strategic review by the selection board.
The selection criteria are:
1. Scientific merit and demonstrated capacity to lead on an international scale;
2. Strategic relevance to Canada (including alignment with ST&I priorities);
3. Quality of implementation plans
Equity, diversity and inclusion is embedded as a foundational principle in CFREF’s objectives, expected outcomes, and application and reporting requirements. For the program to achieve its objectives and outcomes based on research excellence, the participation and contributions of students, trainees, personnel and researchers from underrepresented groups is required.

Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC)

Applications undergo a rigorous and competitive single-phase peer review process.
Applications, regardless of award value and/or the career stage of the nominee, will be evaluated against each other using the program’s evaluation criteria.
The selection criteria are:
1. Research/academic merit and leadership skills of the nominee
2. Quality of the institutional support
3. Quality of the research program
4. Potential contribution to the excellence of the Canadian and international research ecosystem
EDI is essential to creating the excellent, innovative, impactful research needed to seize opportunities and respond to global challenges. To be successful, applications must demonstrate and implement the highest EDI standards.

Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP)

The program allocates chairs to Canadian institutions to help them attract and retain a diverse cadre of excellent researchers to Canada:
- generating and translating leading edge research for the benefit of Canadians
- training the next generation of highly qualified personnel (HQP)
- encouraging the strategic use of research investments by institutions
The program is founded on an uncompromising commitment to excellence in research and research training.
Canada Research Chairs are awarded following a rigorous peer review
- All nominations are peer reviewed by a minimum of three experts in the field of research of the proposed program of research.
- Nominations may also be peer reviewed by an interdisciplinary committee (IAC) composed of researchers with expertise in various disciplines within the health sciences, natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and humanities.
All nominations are reviewed against the following criteria:
- quality of the nominee and the proposed research program; and
- quality of the institutional environment, institutional commitment, and fit of the proposed chair with the institution’s strategic research plan.
[See below for more details on EDI in the CRCP].

New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF)

The New Frontiers in Research Fund was created to fund international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking and high-risk research. For all funding opportunities under NFRF, the focus is on the project idea rather than the project team.
- The project team is only considered in terms of whether they have the necessary experience and knowledge to execute the project, rather than their status within their respective field(s).
- This approach encourages the participation of a more varied group of researchers, which opens opportunity for new and different perspectives – creating fertile ground for high risk/high reward ideas.
EDI is one of several criteria considered in the NFRF program; all of which are published transparently on the NFRF webpages.
A 5-year program evaluation for the NFRF program is being finalized now. It took a scientific approach to explore the impacts of these elements of the program’s design and will provide insights that Canada’s granting agencies will find valuable.

3.10. Protecting against scientific fraud

Scientific fraud can take the form of falsifying data or researchers exploiting evaluation metrics such as the numbers of citations and publications.
SSHRC and the other granting agencies take these issues very seriously.
SSHRC, along with the other granting agencies, is committed to fostering and maintaining an environment that supports and promotes the responsible conduct of research.
Towards this, our work is supported by the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR Framework), which describes agency policies and requirements related to applying for and managing agency funds, performing research, and disseminating results. It also explains what constitutes a breach of these responsibilities and outlines the process that institutions and agencies follow in the event of an allegation of a breach of the RCR Framework.
The Panel on Responsible Conduct of Research, an advisory body to the agencies, ensures a coherent and uniform approach to promoting the responsible conduct of research and addressing allegations of breaches of agency policies. It is supported in its work by the Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR).

4. What does SSHRC do to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion?

4.1. EDI provisions are necessary

A diverse, inclusive, and equitable research community leads to better science. Diversity drives Canada’s success, yet many Canadians face systemic barriers to their participation in society and the economy, including in post-secondary research settings.
If we do nothing, we will have a research system that is considerably more homogenous than the Canadian population. We can predict this confidently. We can still see this kind of imbalance in parts of our research system today — something we continue working to address — and it was considerably more apparent in our recent history.
If we want a research system that reflects Canadian society, we must take steps to achieve it.

4.2. EDI requirements in SSHRC-administered programs

Because we know that diverse research teams, views, ideas and approaches strengthen the quality of research and lead to more innovative and impactful outcomes to benefit Canadians SSHRC has integrated these considerations into its merit review processes.
Some SSHRC-administered programs – such as the New Frontiers in Research Program and the SSHRC Partnership Grants — ask applicants to outline concrete measures they will take to integrate diversity considerations into research practice (team recruitment) and research design (methodology).
More broadly, SSHRC is looking to ensure that merit review criteria and assessment practices are evolving in line with international standards. For instance, there is an increasing focus on valuing outputs beyond the scientific journal article; on valuing different career trajectories; on valuing mentoring and community engagement activities; and on impact beyond the academic sector. Valuing these diverse contributions will also have the effect of bringing a broader diversity of researchers into Canada’s research enterprise.

4.3. EDI initiatives

Since 2015, the Government of Canada has introduced several key equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) initiatives, including the successful Dimensions pilot program for postsecondary institutions, and the Tri-Agency EDI Action Plan which outlines measures to increase equitable and inclusive access to granting agency funding.
A few other examples:
- To help Canada’s diverse talent, Budget 2022 committed $40.9 million over five years, and $9.7 million ongoing to the granting agencies to fund scholarships and fellowships for promising Black student researchers.
- In Budget 2021, the government invested $12 million through SSHRC to fund research into the systemic barriers that diverse groups face and to help inform actions to address social disparities related to race, gender, and other forms of diversity in Canada and in the world. As part of the Race, Gender and Diversity funding opportunity, SSHRC awarded a total of $19.2 million in grants to support 46 community-based and community-led research partnerships. CIHR helped fund projects that had a focus on health.
The granting agencies have implemented a harmonized approach to the collection of self-identification data of participants in our funding programs. This data allows the granting agencies to monitor the participation in our programs and to understand where barriers may persist. The data is publicly available through online dashboards and other public reports.

Dimensions Program

Recommend deferring to NSERC for questions relating to Dimensions.

Following the success of the five year pilot, the Dimensions: equity, diversity and inclusion Canada program has launched a new phase of the program.
This federal Tri-agency initiative was co-designed with a cohort of 17 postsecondary institutions to help address systemic barriers and foster a culture where equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is embedded across all aspects of research.

4.4. Initiatives relating to Indigenous research

The agencies have been collaborating on the support to Indigenous-led research through multiple tri-agency initiatives. These include:
- The implementation of the CRCC strategic plan Setting New Directions to Support Indigenous Research and Research Training in Canada
- The creation of the tri-agency Indigenous Leadership Circle in Research in 2023.
- SSHRC’s continued collaboration with the National Center for Truth and Reconciliation to fund research on and for Reconciliation.
- The implementation of the new tri-agency policy on Indigenous citizenship and membership affirmation – a significant development
- The implementation of the new funding for Indigenous-led research announced in B2024.

4.5. Initiatives to support francophone research

SSHRC supports the Canadian francophone research ecosystem through many initiatives, including supporting an effective francophone merit evaluation system; promoting francophone research outcomes; supporting small institutions, especially those that serve minority francophone communities; and supporting a wide range of research projects that are focused on Canada’s official languages, bilingualism and minority language communities.
SSHRC also supports francophone research excellence:
- SSHRC sponsors the Prix Pierre-Dansereau, awarded annually by Acfas. It recognizes the excellence and reach of a researcher’s work and actions that, along with their scientific research, have contributed to improving society’s quality of life.
- SSHRC sponsors a new Acfas award that highlights research focused on minority francophone communities. The Prix Acfas Relève – Francophonie minoritaire canadienne, which will be awarded for the first time in 2026, will highlight a research project that aims to bring attention to the vitality of francophone research and its impact across Canada.
The Government of Canada recently put together an external advisory panel, in line with the official languages action plan, to recommend improvements when it comes to the creation and dissemination of francophone research in Canada. SSHRC has submitted a brief to the panel and is collaborating with them to address members’ questions. We will continue to respond to information requests from the panel, and I am eager to see the outcome of their work.
The current context presents an opportunity to assess what is presently being done, and strengthen the linguistic diversity and participation within the research ecosystem, particularly for minority language communities, while also promoting francophone scientific knowledge.

Decline context

SSHRC is aware of the progressive decline in both the number of French funding applications submitted and French scholarly articles published in Canada. This reflects a global trend that sees English being favoured as the primary language used in science research.
A recent analysis of the success rates of French applications submitted to SSHRC shows that, overall, these applications have comparable success rates to those submitted in English (see Annex E). This suggests that the merit evaluation of applications is fair and French research is not penalized when excellence is being evaluated.
We remain open to the fact that there are still gaps that exist in SSHRC-administered programs. Even though application success rates are similar in both languages, a breakdown of the data shows that French applications submitted by bilingual institutions or from outside Quebec are less successful.
- We would like to recognize the importance of the Service d’aide à la recherche en français (le SARF), which helps support researchers in submitting funding applications in French.

4.6. Data: Application rate and award rate, and reference populations, 2023

Population Group	SSHRC^{Footnote *}		Reference Populations
Population Group	% of applications	% of awards	% of Canadian Population (2021 Census)	% of University Professor, Instructors, or Teacher (Statistics Canada 2019 - All Disciplines)
Women	51.7	54.0	50.8	48.0
Indigenous	1.9	2.3	5.0	2.0
Racialized Individuals^{Footnote **}	25.6	22.8	26.5	19.4
Black Individuals	4.6	3.9	4.3	2.9
Persons with a Disability	7.3	7.1	27.0^{Footnote ***}	6.7
Footnote * Funding Opportunities included in statistics: IDG, IG, PDG, PEG, PG for competition year 2023. Return to footnote * referrer Footnote “Racialized Individuals” refers to data collected under “Visible Minority” in the self-id questionnaire Return to footnote referrer Footnote * Canadian Survey on Disability 2022. Return to footnote * referrer

5. How does SSHRC explain the EDI provisions in the Canada Research Chairs programs?

[SSHRC previously submitted, as a written response to a member’s question, some of this information on EDI measures within the CRCP — May 2024.]

5.1. About the Research Chairs programs

The Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP) is a flagship tri-agency institutional program. It stands at the centre of a national strategy to make Canada one of the world’s top countries in research and development. It invests approximately $311 million per year to establish 2,285 research professorships within Canada’s universities. Institutions use their chair allocations to attract and retain a diverse cadre of world-class researchers, to reinforce academic research and training excellence in Canadian postsecondary institutions.
The Government of Canada and the Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP) are committed to excellence in research and research training for the benefit of Canadians. Achieving a more equitable, diverse and inclusive Canadian research enterprise is essential to creating the excellent, innovative and impactful research necessary to seize opportunities and respond to global challenges.
Research excellence exists at every institution. To foster the best and brightest talent, the recruitment pool for the Canada Research Chairs Program is national and sometimes, international.

5.2. EDI measures are needed in the CRCP

Despite its successes, the CRCP has had a documented history of underrepresentation of women, individuals from gender-equity-seeking groups, racialized individuals, Indigenous Peoples and persons with disabilities during the program’s first 16 years (years 2000 to 2016). This underrepresentation is due to persistent systemic barriers that exist in academia which prevent the full participation of individuals from these groups in Canada’s research ecosystem despite their excellence and qualifications.
The strong progress made in the CRCP in addressing this underrepresentation in recent years demonstrates the full breadth of research talent and excellence that was available in the research ecosystem that was previously not being tapped into and valued. Given the complexity of our global challenges, and the corresponding need for a strong, vibrant and innovative research system, Canada cannot afford to continue to overlook this excellence and research talent.
The equity targets for the CRCP are required as part of the 2019 Addendum to the 2006 Canadian Human Rights Settlement Agreement which is a federal court order. They contribute to ensure that the chairholders, as a group, are representative of the Canadian population (equity targets are population based).
After December 2029, as required by the 2019 Addendum, the equity targets in the CRCP will be updated using the most recent census data that is available at that time. Equity targets are required in the program to stay compliant with the federal court order, but also to ensure that the systemic barriers in academia do not negatively impact the program’s representation after December 2029 as it they did in the first 16 years of the program.

5.3. Consequences for institutions not reaching equity targets

Institutions that do not meet their equity targets at the staggered deadlines leading up to December 2029 are limited to submitting nominations to the CRCP other than for individuals who help them meet their targets in alignment with the program’s consequences framework.
Consequences are lifted once their targets are met.
In cases where institutions do not meet their equity targets at the December 2029 deadline, they will lose one of their chair allocations for every equity gap they have. As an example, if they have a gap of two women, they will lose two of their chair allocations.

5.4. Strategic hiring by institutions in relation to the CRCP

In recent years, a variety of measures (including equity targets) were implemented to assure a greater diversity within the program.
While institutions that participate in the CRCP must meet the program’s equity targets, they are not required by the program to use strategic hiring to meet their equity objectives.
Strategic hiring is used as a best practice by many organizations, in various sectors, to combat bias and ensure both excellence and diversity in their organization. It is used by organizations to both recruit individuals with the experience and expertise needed to fulfill its mandate and address underrepresentation in its workforce.
Strategic hiring is often needed to address the persistence of bias and inequality in hiring and is not reverse discrimination. As stated in the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s guide, “Substantive equality recognizes that mitigating the effects of historical disadvantage based on discrimination requires treating some people differently. This can include taking steps like implementing special programs or special measures to ensure historically disadvantaged groups have equal opportunities.”

5.5. CRCP program statistics

Among current Tier 1 and Tier 2 CRCs (March 2025), the percentage of Chairs that self-identify as men is at 44.9%, compared to 50.5% for women, and 1.0% for gender equity seeking groups. 3.6% of chairholders prefer not to answer.
In December 2022, 87.7% (n=50/57) of institutions met their equity targets.

Full participation statistics are published on the CRCP website.

	Current representation, % March 2025	December 2029 equity targets, %
Women and gender equity-seeking groups	51.5% 50.5% women 1.0% gender equity-seeking groups	50.9%
Racialized individuals	31.7%	22.0%
Persons with disabilities	8.6%	7.5%
Indigenous Peoples	4.8%	4.9%

5.6. The Université Laval example

In 2019, Université Laval failed to meet their equity targets and the following consequences were imposed:
- They were not permitted to submit new nominations to the CRC program unless the individual self-identified as belonging to one of the four designated groups (in line with the 2019 Addendum)
- The institution could however ask for the renewal of existing CRCs, even if those individuals were not part of the 4 designated groups.
In response to a series of questions raised about the Université Laval CRC job posting, including an interview which aired on TVA news, followed by an article in TVA on April 6, 2022 Hommes blancs exclus d’appels de candidatures: des libéraux trouvent que “ça va trop loin”, the then Prime Minister of Canada said, “I believe it is important that Canada’s research and science community is reflective of Canada’s, and Québec’s, diverse image”.

6. Do EDI provisions conflict with research excellence?

6.1. Diversity enhances research excellence: Evidence from NFRF

I have not seen any indication that EDI measures in granting agency assessment processes are eroding Canada’s excellence in research. In fact, I’m seeing a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Take the New Frontiers in Research Fund, a tri-agency program administered by SSHRC that was created to fund interdisciplinary, high-risk and international research.
- The NFRF program was designed from scratch in 2018, with research assessment components meant to ensure that it can fund new exploratory and transformational research that could lead to radical impact within scientific fields and in sectors of the economy.
- The design included new assessment practices such as double-anonymous review, and a stronger focus on the value of the research idea as opposed to the track-record of the researchers.
- And yes, this program included, from the start, requirements for applicants to describe how their research practice (how they recruit their teams) and their research design (their methodologies) would take diversity into account.
- The agencies just concluded the five-year evaluation of the program, which used rigorous and data-driven methodologies to see if this program is on track to meet its objectives. And it is, on many fronts.
- One example:
  - 67% of grantees indicated that their research projects yielded unexpected results. Grantees described results or discoveries that were not part of their initial research plan or expectations, which often led to new research directions or applications.
  - Some grantees mentioned that their unexpected results prompted collaborations with other researchers from different disciplines or sectors and led to enhanced research outcomes.
- Another indicator of excellence is the readiness of other granting agencies around the world to fund joint calls with the New Frontiers in Research Fund.
  - In 2023 the fund delivered a joint call with research funders from Brazil, Germany, Norway, South Africa, Switzerland, and the UK – all ready to come on board to fund international teams selected through the NFRF process.
  - That call was looking at climate change adaptation and mitigation solutions. The next international joint call will be on emerging technologies, and again granting agencies from around the world are lining up to participate.

6.2. Diversity enhances the excellence of groups of people

Importantly, our role is to ensure the excellence of the broader research system. This is very different from simply ensuring that the system is full of the highest number of individuals who score highest based on some excellence metric — which all have their shortcomings.
Consider this simple illustration, which shows just one way that diversity contributes to excellence:
- Two managers are hiring new teams. One manager is focused entirely on hiring top-performing individuals, based on some limited performance metric.
- The other manager is doing almost the same thing, but they are also paying attention to the breadth of skills and experiences across all the different members of the team. They are hiring people who might score lower against that limited metric, if they see opportunities to complement the strengths and weaknesses of others.
- Of the two, who would we expect to produce the best-performing team overall? It’ll be the second manager.
- In this simple example, we can see that the best way to achieve excellence at a group level is to insist on diversity and not focus too narrowly on excellence at the level of the individual.

6.3. SSHRC is responsible for the research system, not for individual careers

This might be a bit challenging for some researchers to hear, but the granting agencies do not exist to be a career-development system for individual academics, though our funding often has that effect.
The granting agencies exist to ensure that Canada has a robust research system, that can provide talent and ideas to address Canada’s pressing challenges of the day, and provide a long-term competitive advantage for the unforeseen challenges and opportunities of the future – for a strong and sovereign Canada.
This is one reason why we care deeply about diversity: we are responsible for ensuring the excellence of the overall research system.
When we say things like “diversity is our strength,” this is not just a feel-good values-based slogan. It is also a concrete, practical principle about how large systems of people work.

6.4. We cannot afford to leave talent on the sidelines

If we persist with very narrow conceptions and indicators of research excellence (the conceptions that come to us from the last century), we will be leaving talent and ideas on the sidelines, and Canada cannot afford to do that any longer.
SSHRC’s EDI measures are part of an objective to attract and retain a diverse cadre of excellent researchers. Research demonstrates that diversity within the research ecosystem helps drive research excellence, and strengthens its quality, social relevance and impacts. Canada cannot afford to leave any talent on the sidelines.

6.5. Viewpoint diversity: SSHRC does not control for ideological perspectives

[“Viewpoint diversity” refers to the fostering of diverse political and ideological viewpoints in academia.]
Some people want to see greater diversity of political viewpoints across the research system, which is understandable.
- Diverse perspectives, critical thinking and academic freedom are fundamental to the success of the research ecosystem.
- SSHRC’s independent merit review process is designed to support research excellence and innovative thinking, including through our “Challenge” criteria, whereby grant applications are evaluated for their originality, significance and expected contribution to knowledge.
However, some are also trying to draw strong links between the issue of “viewpoint diversity” and the EDI considerations that are embedded in some of our funding opportunities — but this may be causing confusion.
- To clarify: SSHRC does not control for ideological perspectives in recruiting expert volunteers.
- Diversity within the committees is sought by seeking participation of researchers from various types of institutions, disciplines, career stage, official languages spoken, among other variables.
- EDI considerations in our funding opportunities are in no way designed to include or exclude people based on their personal beliefs; that is not their purpose.
- And so, there is no reason to expect that changing these assessment criteria would affect the diversity of political viewpoints in the research system.
Researchers are undoubtedly individuals with their own political positions and SSHRC facilitates the participation of all within the research enterprise.
The independence of the merit review process, free of political interference, is integral in the pursuit of funding research excellence.

6.6. Ideological bias in funding: SSHRC responds to a broad range of Canadian priorities

[Regarding previous questions on whether SSHRC calls for proposals contain radical or “activist” ideological assumptions.]
I believe a previous witness may have cited “Shifting Dynamics of Privilege and Marginalization”, one call in our Imagining Canada’s Future series. This series focuses on 16 global future challenges that were identified through an extensive foresight exercise involving government and academic experts.
- Yes, there are values embedded in the identification of these future challenges and in the framing of these calls – there is no value-free way to frame them.
- I’ll point out that the current call in this same series is focused on “Security and Conflict,” and we are consulting with government stakeholders such as Global Affairs Canada and the RCMP, as well as with industry leaders, for the framing of this call.
Beyond the Imagining Canada’s Future initiative, SSHRC has a track record of developing initiatives with government departments to fund research on issues of importance to Canadians.
- We have a long-standing collaboration with the Department of National Defense for to support graduate students studying in areas of Defense and Security, and with the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation to advance research aligned with the National Housing Strategy.
There are values that are baked into these funding opportunities as well – values that aligned with the diverse priorities of all Canadians.
I’ll also point out that SSHRC has launched a new initiative to fund a significant sustained research network focused on Canada’s productivity challenge, with strong links with policy makers and practitioners, to identify made-in-Canada solutions.
By far, the majority of SSHRC’s funding is awarded through open calls, but we do offer a limited number of targeted calls, usually in partnership with other government departments and agencies and always aligned with government priorities.

7. On US-Canada relations in science, research and technology

Recent developments in the US research and science policy environment, including funding volatility, structural adjustments at federal funding agencies, and evolving requirements, are creating uncertainty across parts of the research ecosystem.
Because our research communities in Canada and the US are tightly linked, shifts in US programs have affected Canadian researchers that are collaborating with US counterparts on research initiatives.
- The Tri-Agencies are closely monitoring shifts in US science funding and remain engaged with Canadian institutions to better understand potential impacts on collaborative and international research projects between US-based and Canadian researchers.
- SSHRC continues to support collaboration with US-based researchers through our core funding programs, which are open to co-applicants at foreign postsecondary institutions.
- We are also aware of evolving developments in the US regarding institutional policies and academic freedom and continue to observe these developments closely. Internationally, Canada’s research ecosystem continues to be valued and recognized for its transparency, stability, and approach to funding.
The Canada Research Coordinating Committee (CRCC) continues to engage with Canadian universities and other stakeholders in the academic community to better understand the capacity of the postsecondary sector to host and retain new research talent, the ability of existing programs to support recruitment efforts, evolving factors shaping institutional needs and ensure that Canadian researchers continue to be supported.
- The CRCC is also planning to host roundtable discussions with students and postdoctoral researchers holding Canadian awards at US institutions to better understand the impact of changes in the US research ecosystem and in the global research environment on Canadians and the broader research community.

8. Annex A: SRSR Committee Membership

For photos of the members of the committee, see the committee’s website: Standing Committee on Science and Research

8.1. Chair

Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre – Don Valley East, ON) - LPC

Background: First elected in October 2015. She holds a master’s degree in educational management and administration from the University of London’s Institute of Education, and an MBA from Quaid-i-Azam University in Pakistan. Prior to being a member of Parliament, she was a community organizer working to support women, their families and youth, and served the public in several positions with the Government of Ontario. She is also member of the Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Interests: Gender equality, community development, racialized Canadians and visible minorities, oppressed minorities

8.2. Vice-Chairs

Tony Baldinelli (Niagara Falls – Niagara-on-the-Lake) - CPC

Background: Elected as Member of Parliament in 2019. He is currently the Shadow Minister for Tourism and has previously held roles such as Shadow Minister for Manufacturing and Export Promotion, Deputy Minister for Transport, and Special Advisor to the Leader on Tourism Recovery.
Interests: Tourism, manufacturing and trade, law enforcement.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette – Témiscouata – Les Basques, QC) - BQ

Background: Obtained a bachelor’s degree in business administration from the University of Quebec in Rimouski. He briefly held a job at the Business Development Bank of Canada, then was hired as deputy director general of the municipality of L’Isle-Verte. Work in the House of Commons has focused on Public Accounts and Tourism.
Interests: Investments in R&D and biomanufacturing, support for French language research and publications

8.3. Other Members

Liberal Party of Canada

Jennifer McKelvie (Ajax, ON) (LPC)

Background: MP McKelvie was first elected in 2025. She previously was deputy mayor for the city of Toronto from 2022 to 2025. She holds a PhD from the University of Toronto in geology, with research specializing in geochemistry, environmental remediation, and biochemistry. She served as a senior scientist at the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, and as a research director at the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
Interests: Environment and environmental policies, public transit and local development, research and science.

Helena Jaczek (Markham - Stoufville, ON)

Background: First elected in 2019. Minister Responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario and Vice-Chair of the Treasury Board of Canada. Before her work at the federal level, she was the Member of Provincial Parliament for the riding of Oak Ridges-Markham from 2007 to 2018. During that time, Helena served as Ontario’s Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, Chair of Cabinet, Ontario’s Minister of Community and Social Services, Vice-Chair of the Health, Education and Social Policy Cabinet Committee and, from 2011 to 2014, Chair of Liberal Caucus. She also served on the Standing Committee on General Government, the Standing Committee on Social Policy, the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, and the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
Interests: Health, public health, people living with disabilities.

Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, BC)

Background: First elected in 2021. He is currently Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation. MP Noormohamed has experience of the public service, having worked for the Privy Council Office as well as for Public Safety Canada. He also worked for the Government of British Columbia, conducting a review of the province’s service delivery model. In 2023 he was appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. He holds a PhD from Oxford and has attended Harvard and Princeton
Interests: Public policy, arts, cancer research, public safety, transportation, business and economic development.

Aslam Rana (Hamilton Centre, ON)

Background: Elected in 2025. MP Rana is a civil engineer, with a master’s degree from Toronto Metropolitan University.
Interests: Affordable housing, infrastructure, public transit, sustainable infrastructure

Conservative Party of Canada

Kelly DeRidder (Kitchener Centre, ON)

Background: First elected in 2025. Prior to being elected, she was a project manager with Rockwell Automation and a professor at Conestoga College. She attended Conestoga College, specializing as a mechanical engineering technologist.
Interests: Innovation, research and development, affordability, community safety, families, employment and growth.

Vincent Neil Ho (Richmond Hill South, ON)

Background: First elected in 2025. Prior to his election, MP Ho worked as a corporate lawyer. He has experience working with and advising entrepreneurs, non-profits, and Canadian and international businesses of all sizes.
Interests: Business, housing, public safety, citizenship.

Jagsharan Singh Mahal (Edmonton Southeast, AB)

Background: First elected to parliament in 2025. MP Mahal is a lawyer by profession, having received his Bachelor of Laws from the University of Toronto. He has been practicing at a law firm in Edmonton since 2014.
Interests: Affordability, fiscal responsibility, public safety, housing, immigration policies.

9. Annex B: Summary of witness opening remarks within this study

Witnesses during the current session:

Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne
- Martin Normand, President and Chief Executive Officer
IDEA-STEM Consulting Inc.
- Dr. Mahadeo Sukhai, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Scientific Officer
Partnership for Women’s Health Research Canada
- Tamil Kendall, Director
Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
- Robert Thomas, President
Tech-Access Canada
- Ken Doyle, Executive Director
As individuals
- Dr. Kelly Cobey, Scientist, University of Ottawa Heart Institute
- Dr. Wendy Cukier, Professor, Entrepreneurship and Strategy, Ted Rogers School of Management and Academic Director, Diversity Institute
- Christopher Dummitt, Professor, Canadian Studies, Trent University
- Yves Gingras, Scientific Director, Observatory of Science and Technology, Université du Québec à Montréal
- Mark Green, Professor, Queen’s University
- David Freeman, Associate Professor, Simon Fraser University
- Dr. Nadia Hasan, Assistant Professor, School of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies, York University
- Dr. Geoff Horsman, Associate Professor, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University
- Imogen R. Coe, Professor, Department of Chemistry and Biology, Toronto Metropolitan University
- Patanjali Kambhampati, Professor, McGill University
- Eric Kaufmann, Professor, University of Buckingham
- Dr. Grace Karram, Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Coordinator, Higher Education Graduate Program, University of Toronto
- Vincent Larivière, Professor, Université de Montréal
- Julien Larregue, Associate Professor, Université Laval
- Gita Ljubicic, Professor, McMaster University
- Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology, Harvard University
- Gad Saad, Visiting Scholar, Declaration of Independence Center for the Study of American Freedom, University of Mississippi
- Shariff, Professor, The University of British Columbia
- Dr. Malinda Smith, Associate Vice-President, Research (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion), University of Calgary
- Dave Snow, Associate Professor, University of Guelph
- Dr. Yuan Yi Zhu, Assistant Professor of International Relations and International Law, Leiden University

Witnesses during the previous session:

Canadian Alliance of Student Associations
- Wasiimah Joomun, Executive Director
Canadian Black Scientists Network
- Maydianne Andrade, Past-President & Co-founder
Colleges and Institutes Canada
- Pari Johnston, President and Chief Executive Officer
École de technologie supérieure
- Christian Casanova, Vice President of Research and Partnerships
- Ghyslain Gagnon, Dean of Research
Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
- Karine Morin, President and Chief Executive Officer
Polytechnics Canada
- Sarah Watts-Rynard, Chief Executive Officer
Research Canada: An Alliance for Health Discovery
- Alison Evans, President and Chief Executive Officer
Retraction Watch
- Ivan Oransky, Co-Founder
U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities
- Dylan Hanley, Executive Vice-President
Universities Canada
- Gabriel Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer
As individuals
- Christopher Dummitt, Professor of Canadian Studies, Trent University
- Geoff Horsman, Associate Professor of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Wilfrid Laurier University (appearing December 5th)
- Eric Kaufmann, Professor, University of Buckingham
- Jeremy Kerr, Professor of Biology, University of Ottawa, and Chair of NSERC’s Committee on Discovery Research
- Daniel O’Donnell, Professor of English, University of Lethbridge
- Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law, Queen’s University
- Yuan Yi Zhu, Assistant Professor of International Relations and International Law, Leiden University

Opening remarks from witnesses during the current session:

Kelly Cobey: Dr. Cobey, a researcher from the UOttawa Heart institute is currently co-chair of the San Francisco Declaration On Research Assessment (DORA), which seeks to expand granting criteria beyond quantitative metrics. Historically, granting decisions focused on metrics like number of articles, journal impact factor. This focus on quantitative metrics creates the drive to “Publish or Perish”. Canada is trying to evolve the consideration, adding in qualitative factors that track the impact of research.

Wendy Cukier: Canada is changing, and any research on Canada needs to change to reflect that. Excellence in research requires diversity to be included in design and is vital to the peer review process.

Ken Doyle: Technology Access Centres (TACs) support small businesses to access the innovation economy, providing access to expertise and equipment that they would not otherwise have access to. Canada needs to improve its ability to monetize its research expertise. Proposed a program, based at ISED, to fund collaborative research and development projects at the speed of business.

Christopher Dummitt: Viewpoint diversity is a significant issue in academia in Canada – 88% of professors identified as being on the left politically. This lack of diversity in viewpoint reduced the effectiveness of peer review and it promotes self-censorship.

David Freeman: SSHRC peer review processes are well run and clearly identify the best science. However, the funding distribution between disciplines should be changed to better align with the priorities of Canadians. SSHRC should fund programs to improve data collection. SSHRC should also structure programs to avoid supporting activist research.

Yves Gingras: It is important not to confuse various objectives – the goal of research funding should be to support researchers, not to transform society. There needs to be more research into the results of research funding decisions.

Geoff Horsman: My NSERC Discovery grant was cancelled because I was insufficiently deferential to EDI. Tri-Council EDI requirements represent compelled political speech for researchers. The granting councils should de-politicize science funding by removing EDI requirements and by entrenching a culture of free speech.

Imogen Coe: Systems and teams that are intentionally inclusive produce better research. Research granting systems need to expand criteria to include impact of research. International partners, including the UK, are leading the way on this.

Mark Green: Indigenous research is context specific, and often directly connected to community needs. Sometimes excellence is not the most technically advanced solution, but research that meets the needs of the community.

Nadia Hasan: Canada must continue to fund research that addresses racism and discrimination. This research has real world impacts, including in health and political violence against minority communities. Federal funding must be structured to better support academic/community partnerships. This requires reducing barriers for community partners.

Patanjali Kambhampati: What matters in science is the pursuit of excellence. Not every child will become a scientist. Everyone should have a chance to compete, but success must be determined by merit, not personal characteristics.

Grace Karram: Dr. Karram noted several paradoxes of Canada’s research system: Canada’s overall spending on research is slipping compared to OECD countries, even as spending on post-secondary research has increased 30% in recent years. Canada has very productive researchers, but comparatively low patent creation – likely due to the small size of R&D spending by businesses. Canada also struggles with chronic underemployment of PhDs. Overall, she recommended increasing funding on infrastructure at institutions, particularly at colleges, funding both theoretical and applied research, and building connections between universities, colleges and the private sector.

Eric Kaufmann: EDI in the granting councils reflects a left-wing worldview I term as “cultural socialism”. EDI is political, not neutral. Most Canadians do not support EDI policies. EDI reduces research excellence. It also creates the circumstances to delegitimize research funding.

Tamil Kendall: Diversity in health research saves lives. Programs to increase representation in science can increase the diversity of academia without reducing the research excellence, for example in the Canada Research Chair program.

Vincent Larivière: Dr. Larivière noted that it is very common to see projects receive conflicting assessments in grant applications and publishing. Excellence has many different facets, which is part of what drives the usage of quantitative criteria – making it easier to assess applications. He argued that evaluation based on past performance is necessarily conservative and will limit creativity in projects.

Julien Larregue: There is no objective definition of scientific evidence. In statistical analysis, two factors most influence whether tri-council applicants were successful: previously receiving grants and the prestige of their home university. The evaluation of projects depends on the evaluation of the applicants themselves, rather than their intrinsic merit.

Gita Ljubicic: Dr. Ljubicic noted that she focuses primarily on research with Inuit, First Nations and Metis committees in the North. In her field, the most important metric for success is the ability to work with these communities in a culturally appropriate way, not past academic performance. She highlighted the need to assess impact, not just academic publishing track records.

Martin Normand: The French-language research community faces complex challenges, including structural inequalities, and a sharp decline in French-language publishing. Canada needs to rethink how it supports French language research to ensure its continued vitality.

Steven Pinker: Dr. Pinker noted that there is growing evidence that deciding funding based on Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) principles leads to inferior science. The lack of viewpoint diversity, and the debate between different perspectives that it fosters, is a significant problem in universities. Grants should fund the highest quality science, regardless of the sex or race of applicants. The focus on EDI and the creation of an intellectual monoculture in universities has politicized them as institutions and decreased public trust.

Gad Saad: The use of EDI criteria in determining research funding is an affront to human dignity and research excellence, for example in the Canada Research Chair program’s EDI requirements.

Azim Shariff: Dr. Shariff noted several benefits to EDI measures, including that a faculty that better represents the Canadian population builds trust and is more attuned to the questions Canadians care about. However, he argued that the specific application of EDI requirements in the Canada Research Chair (CRC) program creates unintended consequences – like beating targets on hiring women and racialized minorities while continually missing targets on hiring indigenous or disabled researchers. The focus on EDI in this program closes doors, rather than opens them – this is an exclusionary approach.

Malinda Smith: The claim that DEI policies decrease the quality of research is objectively false. Traditional merit criteria are useful, but they disproportionately reward those who have existing access to resources. New approaches to expanding criteria improve research and expand access to academic systems.

Dave Snow: Granting agencies EDI language often reflect what he terms as “activist EDI”, reflecting the goals of social-justice activists, rather than promoting equity or undertaking a type of affirmative action. This activism undermines the search for truth and the work of the granting agencies themselves. Recommends that all EDI language be eliminated from granting agency programs.

Mahadeo Sukhai: Research excellence isn’t only about novelty of approach, it is also about how well they are implemented and how well bias is avoided. Equity is essential to science to avoid bias and deliver better research outcomes.

Robert Thomas: Research granting decisions must be merit based, supporting research excellence not other policy goals. This is particularly important in hiring decisions where personal characteristics are centred. Scholars should be valued by their personal contributions, not their identities.

Yuan Yi Zhu: Canada’s granting agencies have many programs where research funding is prioritized on the basis of race and sex, for example the Canada Research Chair program. Researchers also know that proposals that include buzzwords and progressive language are more likely to be funded. Research should be about the pursuit of truth and excellence, rather than ideology.

Opening remarks from witnesses who appeared in the previous session:

Chritopher Dummitt: Federal research agencies are ignoring the most significant diversity problem in academia at the moment, which is viewpoint diversity. 76% of professors voted for Liberal or NDP candidates in the most recent election. Political discrimination is not a partisan concern, it is a concern for research as a truth-seeking enterprise, by reducing the effectiveness of peer review, self-censorship, and group polarization.

Erik Kaufman: Opposes the use of EDI considerations in research funding, describing it as ‘cultural socialism’. He has conducted opinion research in Canada and the United States showing support for a “colour-blind” approach to equity issues. He noted that, while there are societal inequalities that can impact research production by women and racialized academics, he argued that it does not make sense to balance this by narrowing the talent pipeline at the end in research funding decisions. He argued that the focus on EDI has significantly contributed to the distrust of higher education, by creating an impression of partisanship.

Jeremy Kerr: Canada’s research granting programs excel in supporting talent. The way the granting council assesses grants continues to develop in line with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which seeks to move beyond only considering number and quality of publications, in line with international partners. Most research grants go towards training future research talent – talent which is as diverse as Canada is. Grant applications require investigators to think about how to manage this diversity. The training is about achieving excellence, not cloning the supervisor.

Daniel O’Donnel: The Bouchard Report noted that smaller, comprehensive universities are falling behind in Canada. In his field of digital humanities, scholarship is moving progressively towards larger institutions. Urged the understanding of excellence in the broadest sense, in terms of capacity, rather than picking winners and losers. The Canadian research ecosystem has been great at fostering research across the country, rather than at a few elite institutions.

Bruce Pardy: Universities in Canada have become experts at receiving government funding. Universities support faculty in so much as they can earn federal research funding. There are cadres of administrators to support researchers in pitching research in ways that are more likely to succeed. Government money comes with political strings – the way to have politically neutral research is to not have government funding.

Yuan Yi Zhu: Federal research funding in Canada is often allocated based on criteria other than excellence, including race, sex and other unrelated criteria. He noted that the Canada Research Chair program includes provisions potentially removing chairs from institutions that do not meet certain metrics related to EDI goals. In the current strained economic times, the high level of commitment to EDI principles is eroding public trust in the value for money of funding research.

Colleges and Institutes Canada: We need to move beyond criteria of excellence defined in a university-centred approach. We need to focus on the impact and relevance of research. Granting agencies must rebalance criteria to assess research impact, moving beyond citation metrics and towards the capacity of research projects to develop new intellectual property and other impact-driven targets. Granting agency merit review committees also need to include non-university experts.

Polytechnics Canada: Polytechnics are held back from succeeding in research in Canada for a number of reasons: granting agency funding for research overhead excludes the College and Community Innovation Program and polytechnics are not provided funding to backfill faculty who are needed for research, for example.

Research Canada: We need to meet the challenge of the increasingly complex research needs by continuing to develop the research funding ecosystem. Canada is falling behind other advanced economies in health research

Retraction Watch: Overall, there were over 10,000 retractions of scientific paper. There is a growing movement to examine results. A significant portion of research papers are published to game systems that prioritize research funding and promotion. More than half of retractions worldwide are connected to Chinese universities. One of the responses is the San Francisco Declaration – looking to expand on the criteria used for research funding decisions.

U15: Canadian universities, particularly the U15 group of universities, are leaders worldwide. Any changes to the research ecosystem should ensure that peer review remains a key value. Canadian universities are facing unprecedented financial challenges. Universities are working to increase the impact of their research through entrepreneurship programs and partnerships with industry. More can be done in this area.

Universities Canada: All universities should be able to contribute to the research enterprise in Canada. Small institutions should have access to research security funding. We must fight against racism and discrimination in universities. We must support research in French.

Geoff Horsman: He stated that academia has become an echo chamber for progressive social justice ideas, and this is reflected in the federal research funding process. He also stated that the lack of diverse viewpoints diminishes research excellence. Nevertheless, he suggested that EDI should be excluded from the grant process to avoid further polarization of the research application process, and that science can only be improved by inculcating high standards and open debate. In his view EDI fails on both counts. He does not agree that white man should be disenfranchised.

École de technologie supérieure: He stated that while this organization supports the current evaluation criteria, he proposed four areas of improvements: 1) support French speaking researchers by setting percentage targets through the application process; 2) continue to use the San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA) guidelines for best practice in research assessment; 3) continue to support interdisciplinary research teams through the grant criteria; and, 4) support environments that promote inclusion and equity through EDI framed according to the specific research projects and limited to the merits of the proposal.

Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences: Ms. Morin emphasized the importance of peer review in determining research excellence, cautioning against one-size-fits-all approaches. She stated that peer review should ensure fair, unbiased assessments of grant applications, avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain confidentiality. For Canada to excel in research, our systems must reflect and support the diversity and capacity of the nation’s research talent.

Canadian Alliance of Student Associations: Ms. Joomun advocated for promoting researchers who have been previously excluded from the research environment. She emphasized that funding criteria should not only focus on the research topic but also consider other important aspects such as talent development, personnel training, providing feedback to unsuccessful grant applicants to strengthen future applications, supporting French research, and incorporating Indigenous knowledge into research.

Canadian Black Scientists Network: Ms. Andrade spoke about research excellence that consistently produces research that is rigorous, repeatable, and transparent with a positive impact on the field or society. Impact often involves disruption and innovation that breaks with conventional thinking. She called for more precise criteria for award funding that supports quality vs. research quantity. Awards and other peer or industry recognition should not be given heavier weight in the review process. She also agreed that support for French research is necessary.

10. Annex C: Sample committee questions to witnesses within this study

What are the criteria that are looked for in applications?
Is there any category about EDI? Can you talk about how Equity, Diversity and Inclusion criteria is weighted in granting agency considerations?
How do we guard against the use of buzzwords in assessing scientific proposals?
What do we ensure that professors aren’t discriminated against for their political views?
How do inherent political views affect the work of academics, and how do we ensure research remains free of political bias?
What was your experience in producing your report into viewpoint discrimination in Canadian academia?
How do you view the issue of viewpoint diversity?
The concern around the EDI buzzwords is what we are hearing from researchers. They are finding that instead of just excellence, they need to compete on this additional metric. How do we ensure that federal funding is based on excellence?
One of the perspectives we have heard is that the granting council EDI initiatives should be abolished. What do you think?
How important is diversity in research?
We have previously studied indigenous traditional knowledge. Do you not think that these alternative forms of knowledge are useful?
In our last meeting, we had witnesses with a specific political view. One of the things that was that indigenous traditional knowledge was seen as less than scientific knowledge. What are your views?
What is the effect when you don’t incorporate thinking about diversity in research design?
You highlighted some shortfalls to the peer review process. What solution would you propose?
Do you have evidence of the impacts of EDI in universities in Canada?
Are there any linkages between EDI and scientific merit?
Has EDI had an impact on the pursuit of excellence? Is it possible to unite excellence and inclusion?
How do we strive for excellence without relying solely on EDI principles, which have led some individuals to self-identify deliberately incorrectly?
Some researchers argue that the introduction of EDI has hampered academic freedom by limiting research topics and researchers themselves. Do you agree?
What you recommend to ensure excellence at small universities?
Would you say that a long-term, clearly stated goal for EDI would be useful?
Do you agree that training in EDI is inefficient and that may lead to prejudice?
Lots of research grants are unrelated to issues in Canada. Should we be looking at a Canada-first approach to research?
Canada created the Canada 150 Research Chairs program. One of the recipients used the research funding to publish 15 research papers based on falsified information. How do we stop cases like this?
How can we support the work of those monitoring research quality? Does this show the limits of the peer review process?
How often are researchers pressured into adding citations to their research during the publication process?
How expensive would it be for a government to promote a body of research to create a false narrative?
There have been experiments in random funding – do you think that could work in Canada?
Can you expand on the value of the San Francisco Declaration?
Is there any evidence that EDI considerations in research improves research?
Are we seeing peer review fatigue? What are the consequences for the research system? Can the DORA principles help this?
How does a particular research application lead to improving Canadian economic prosperity?
Peer review seems to be a challenge given the number of research and researchers. Is this a problem?

10.1. Potential questions from MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Q. Looking at the data that has been shared, there appears to be a disproportionate amount of federal funding given to members of the U15. Does this mean the federal research funding agencies’ evaluation criteria excludes research excellence from smaller universities, not located in large, urban centres?

The SSHRC evaluation criteria have been crafted to recognize research excellence at postsecondary institutions of all sizes. While it is true there is a lower success rate at smaller institutions when it comes to SSHRC funding opportunities, we interpret this primarily as a reflection of differences in missions and realities of institutions rather than systemic biases.
Postsecondary institutions come in a variety of sizes and each has a unique mission, ranging from larger, more research intensive institutions that offer advanced graduate-level training, to smaller colleges and universities that are particularly well positioned to contribute to research that is of interest to the Canadian population.
The goal to invest in and develop world-class research centres is not incompatible with other objectives, like being able to ensure Canadian communities, both large and small, are able to support excellent researchers, help mold the next generation of thinkers, and propose novel ideas that will benefit communities locally, nationally and internationally. I think Canada can achieve both of these goals.

Q. Do the federal research funding agencies’ equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) requirements hold back Canadian research excellence, and do these requirements chip away at the confidence the general public has in researchers, postsecondary institutions or science in general?

No, EDI requirements do not harm research excellence. In fact, these requirements help contribute to an essential element of research excellence—by capitalizing on the talent and expertise that can be found in a diverse population like Canada’s.
SSHRC's EDI requirements have the objective to attract and retain a diverse group of excellent researchers in Canada. Research shows that a diverse research ecosystem contributes to better research excellence and enhances its quality, social relevance and overall impact. Canada cannot afford to overlook any potential talent.
Despite passionate objections raised by others, EDI requirements help support a robust scientific research system that all members of the population can access and see themselves reflected in.

11. Annex D: Example of SSHRC-funded research on current issues

Many funded projects at SSHRC are focused on issues that are timely and top of mind for many Canadians, such as the economy, housing and homelessness, artificial intelligence and cyber security, environment and climate change.

11.1. Business & economy - $ 34.5M in funding in 2023

Several major Canadian industry partners are collaborating with University of Windsor professor Dr. Anne Snowdon on research to improve supply chains in Canadian health care. The project enables co-ordination among the many supply chain teams and stakeholders across Canada to strengthen supply chain resilience, enhance Canada’s global competitiveness, respond to supply disruptions, and protect health and safety.
Leah Vosko, of York University, is Canada’s foremost expert on national and global precarious employment. Her research on the sources of, and solutions to, labour market insecurity and precarious employment has been used to develop policies that better address labour market insecurity in Canada and globally.
Lesley Frank at Acadia University is looking at how food insecurity affects the youngest Canadians, what food insecurity looks like in early childhood and the systemic factors affecting the ability of mothers to feed their babies.

11.2. Productivity – $29M in funding from 2019 to 2023

In 2024 SSHRC launched a $6 million funding opportunity supporting partnership between researchers and policymakers to boost Canadian productivity.
Dilip Soman’s research group studies how to embed behavioural insights into organizations to achieve better outcomes, improve the efficiency of processes, and fully engage stakeholders.
Catherine Beaudry and her team are studying the impact of research on innovation and commercialization. They are also looking at the interaction between innovation clusters and networks. The team are shedding light on how to improve corporate performance through university research and help Canada keep pace with other countries on innovation.
Akolisa Ufodike is researching how to tackle Canada’s productivity crisis, working toward policy recommendations to pursue a truly innovative, “labour-agency” productivity strategy that would boost Canada’s human capital and grow its economy.
Jennifer Quaid organized a symposium in June 2024 bringing together stakeholders from academia, business, government and civil society. The gathering charted a new path for Canadian competition law and policy that serves the public interest and promotes a vibrant and prosperous economic future for Canada.
Michelle Alexopoulos and her colleagues organized a conference with the Bank of Canada and the Productivity Partnership in April 2024 to debate the causes of Canada’s productivity crisis and discuss proposed solutions. The meeting brought together leading and emerging Canadian and international experts in productivity, along with researchers and practitioners from organizations such as the Bank of Canada, and representatives from premier Canadian think tanks and policy institutes.
Trevor Tombe is studying how interprovincial trade, migration and federal government financial transfers affect economic volatility in Canada. He aims to develop the most detailed modern quantitative model of Canada’s economy yet, to clearly assess the effects of regional economic shocks.

11.3. Environment and climate change - $ 44.4M in funding in 2023

A new research network is bringing together social sciences and humanities researchers to enhance learning in agriculture, climate change and the environment in support of Canada’s net-zero emissions target. SSHRC, NSERC and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada fund the network.
With $154 million in funding through the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, a SSHRC-administered tri-agency institutional program, Dalhousie University is bringing together researchers at four universities to undertake the most intensive investigation ever into the ocean’s role in climate change and investigate solutions.
Tristan Pearce, Canada Research Chair in Cumulative Impacts of Environmental Change at the University of Northern British Columbia, is working with communities across Canada and around the world to explore ways they can adapt and become more resilient to climate change.

11.4. Housing/homelessness - $ 14.5M in funding in 2023

The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (COH) is a world-leading research and policy partnership between academics, policy makers, service providers and people with lived experience of homelessness. Led by Stephen Gaetz of York University, a recent COH project aims to move the sector from a reliance on emergency services to a strategic and coordinated system of policies, services and practices grounded in preventing homelessness. The project integrates a focus on developing reciprocal partnerships with Indigenous stakeholders to support an Indigenous-led research agenda to end Indigenous homelessness.
The recommendations from research on and with 2SLGBTQ+ homeless youth, organized by Alex Abramovitch from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, have led to new inclusive housing programs. The project also revealed the prevalence of mental health problems among these youth and their lack of access to mental health services.
A community-driven research collaboration in Victoria, BC, between older women experiencing homelessness, academic researchers and community partners has increased understanding of the pathways into homelessness and its impacts on the health and quality of life of older women. Led by Denise Cloutier at the University of Victoria, the research also made actionable recommendations to generate systems-level changes through multi-sectoral collaboration.
What impacts do short-term rentals like Airbnb have on the economy, governance and quality of life in cities around the world? McGill University researchers are investigating

11.5. AI and Cybersecurity - $ 18.0M in funding in 2023

The pan-Canadian Human-Centric Cybersecurity Partnership, led by the Université de Montréal, promotes research to create a safer, more secure, democratic and inclusive digital society.
The Joint Initiative for Digital Citizen Research, funded by Canadian Heritage and SSHRC, works to better understand and counter the impacts of online disinformation in Canada.
A novel three-year research program at the Institute for Work and Health is laying groundwork for future research on how AI affects the labour force, including worker conditions and inequities.
Ignacio Cofone, Canada Research Chair in Artificial Intelligence Law and Data Governance at McGill University, wants to bring more accountability to the use of AI. His research examines why the data that shapes AI decisions should be regulated (rather than the technology itself) and how that can help Canada’s AI industry evolve ethically.

12. Annex E: Application and success rates for SSHRC-administered programs, by language^{Footnote 1}

	Application Rate
	English			French
Year	Talent	Insight	Partnership	Talent	Insight	Partnership
2011	83%	83.7%	92%	17%	16.3%	8%
2012	82.4%	83.8%	81.6%	17.6%	16.2%	18.4%
2013	83.8%	84.5%	83%	16.2%	15.5%	17%
2014	82.9%	84.9%	78.1%	17.1%	15.1%	21.9%
2015	83.8%	85.5%	82.3%	16.2%	14.5%	17.7%
2016	82.8%	84.4%	81.9%	17.2%	15.6%	18.1%
2017	83.1%	84.4%	80.5%	16.9%	15.6%	19.5%
2018	83.9%	86%	80.2%	16.1%	14%	19.8%
2019	83.8%	86.2%	79.3%	16.2%	13.8%	20.7%
2020	85.1%	85.7%	76.6%	14.9%	14.3%	23.4%
2021	85.6%	85.6%	75.2%	14.4%	14.4%	24.8%
2022	85.2%	84.8%	77.3%	14.8%	15.2%	22.7%
2023	83.7%	86.2%	79.2%	16.3%	13.8%	20.8%

	Success Rate
	English			French
Year	Talent	Insight	Partnership	Talent	Insight	Partnership
2011	44.9%	38.7%	50%	46.9%	28.4%	73.3%
2012	37.9%	27.3%	53.5%	38.4%	25.8%	57.1%
2013	40.6%	21.4%	55.8%	41.9%	19.5%	62.4%
2014	42.5%	23.3%	49.9%	44%	21.6%	62.8%
2015	41.7%	24.1%	44%	43.7%	19.4%	56.6%
2016	38.4%	31.7%	48.8%	33.8%	27.5%	55.1%
2017	34.6%	39.7%	43%	34.8%	41.1%	58%
2018	33.9%	47%	46.8%	39.6%	49.3%	47%
2019	35.3%	46.8%	55%	41.1%	40.2%	61.2%
2020	36.1%	43.3%	68.5%	38.6%	38.6%	76.2%
2021	37.1%	54.4%	77.6%	38.3%	54.4%	83.8%
2022	41.6%	53%	67.1%	49.4%	56.9%	80.2%
2023	43.6%	46%	44.5%	47.4%	48.8%	52.6%

Page details

From:

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

Date modified:: 2026-02-12