Pursuant to subsection 7(5) of the Auditor General Act, it is my duty to lay upon the table the spring 2022 reports of the Auditor General of Canada. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), these documents are deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled “Main Estimates 2022-23”.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, entitled “Differential Treatment in Recruitment and Acceptance Rates of Foreign Students in Quebec and the Rest of Canada”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to the motion adopted Thursday, April 28, 2022, regarding disability support benefits.

We have a point of order. The hon. member for Carleton.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Thornhill put forward a Conservative opposition day motion on ending COVID-related restrictions on travel. Consistent with my prior two votes on February 14 and March 24 in favour of ending all vaccine mandates and COVID restrictions, I logged into the app to vote in favour of this motion and in favour of ending COVID travel restrictions. I did attempt to make the vote, but for technical reasons, the app did not register the vote that I made. I believe it had something to do with the uploading process, but somehow that vote did not get registered, and so I ask that the House update the record to show that I voted in favour of the motion from the member for Thornhill to end COVID travel restrictions.

I thank the member for the intervention. There are a number of other options to be able to log in, but unfortunately we did not have that happen. I do have to ask for unanimous consent to allow for a change in the record. All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion to let his vote stand will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

Mr. Speaker, I will just parenthetically say to the hon. member for Carleton that I did not object, but I think he has made his position well known, so perhaps he can rest assured. On the subject of my petition, on behalf of residents of Kitchener Centre, I am presenting a petition sponsored by the hon. member for Kitchener Centre calling for a review and immediate changes to Canada's voting system. The petitioners point out that the current voting system, known as “first past the post”, is almost unique in the world of democracies in presenting results that are perverse, in that the public will is distorted in the distribution of seats that occurs in the House following an election. They point out that in the 2021 election, the percentage of the popular vote versus the number of seats was quite disparate. They call for proportional representation as a system that ensures that any government elected with a majority of the seats actually entertains a majority of public support. They call for the immediate move to a proportional representation system to bring credible representation to Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present today on behalf of 1,391 Canadians, including many of my constituents in New Westminster—Burnaby. The petitioners are drawing the attention of the House to the following: that the shock collars used to train and manage pets can often cause severe pain, suffering and distress, and that many studies have shown that electronic shock collars can actually lead to further behavioural issues, including aggression, endangering both pets and society at large. These petitioners, 1,391 in total, call upon the House of Commons to amend the federal Criminal Code cruelty to animals legislation to specifically include wording that bans the sale and the use of electronic shock collars on domestic pets. These petitioners further ask that legislation include hand-held remote-controlled shock devices and anti-bark shock collars.

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place and share a petition. This particular petition is signed by more than 100 folks from across Canada who call upon the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another “values test”, and to affirm the rights of Canadians to freedom of expression. This is certainly an issue that I hear often about from constituents. I am pleased to be able to present this petition on behalf of more than 100 Canadians in the House here today.

Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 461 to 463, 475 and 477.

With regard to the government's commitment to be transparent about which media organizations receive funding through its programs providing $600 million in funding for the media: (a) which media outlets has the government designated as a qualified Canadian journalism organization, broken down by type of outlet; and (b) since January 1, 2019, how much funding has each outlet in (a) (i) received to date, (ii) been eligible for, but has not yet received, broken down by specific funding program and type of funding (grant, tax credit, etc.)? With regard to measures taken by the government in response to the SNC-Lavalin affair: (a) what specific measures, if any, has the government taken to prevent future political interference or favouritism; and (b) what are the details of each measure related to (a), including, for each, the (i) title of the measure, (ii) date the measure was announced, (iii) date the measure came into force, (iv) summary of the problem being addressed, (v) summary of how the measure addresses the problem? With regard to the government’s response to COVID-19: (a) on what date did the government first become aware that COVID-19 vaccines could not prevent infection and could not prevent transmission; (b) did the government change the definition of the terms (i) vaccine, (ii) herd immunity, (iii) fully vaccinated, in 2021; (c) if the answer to any part of (b) is affirmative, what are the details of each change, including the (i) term whose definition has changed, (ii) date of the change, (iii) scientific basis for the change, if any; (d) why did the government change the long-standing definition of “case” from a “sick person” to “anyone who tested positive on a PCR test”, even individuals who remained perfectly healthy; and (e) what was Health Canada's guidance about cycle thresholds for the PCR test and what specific scientific evidence was this guidance based on? With regard to the Black Entrepreneurship Loan Fund, since its inception: (a) why was the second phase of the program, which included a joint $128-million fund from Canadian financial institutions, dropped from the program’s total loan fund; (b) what efforts did the government make to ensure that financial institutions fulfilled their portion of the initial $291.3 million investment; (c) how many applications submitted (i) received full funding, (ii) received partial funding, (iii) were denied funding; and (d) how many entrepreneurs were expected to receive funding as part of the second phase of the fund? With regard to measures put in place by the government to curb violations by Canadian companies overseas: is there evidence that voluntary approaches have had an impact on mending the damaged reputations of Canadian mining companies operating overseas, and, if so, what data shows the impact of these measures?

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 464 to 474, 476 and 478 to 488 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is it the pleasure of the House that the aforementioned questions be made orders for returns and that they be tabled immediately? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

With regard to data held by the government related to Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine: (a) on what date and how was the government informed of the clinical trial data of the vaccine that was published on November 4, 2021, in the New England Journal of Medicine; (b) on what date and how was the government informed of the adverse reactions and side effects of the vaccine as mentioned in the documents released in accordance with the order made by Justice Mark Pittman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on January 6, 2022; and (c) is the government aware of any additional data that will be released by Pfizer this year, and if so, what are the details, including the (i) date the government became aware of the data, (ii) date the data will become public, (iii) summary of data findings? With regard to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), broken down by province or territory, region, and constituency, and by year from 2017 until now: (a) how many Canadians received the GIS; and (b) of those Canadians receiving the GIS, how many (i) received the maximum amount, (ii) of their spouses received the allowance benefit for couples, (iii) lost the benefit because they filed their income taxes late? With regard to Fisheries and Oceans Canada's Conservation and Protection Program, broken down by year since 2015: (a) how many charges, citations, or other type of enforcement action were taken through the program, broken down by type of enforcement action (criminal charges, ticket, etc.), and by type of illegal activity (fishing without a license, illegally caught species, multiple charges, etc.); and (b) of the instances in (a) where charges were laid, what is the breakdown by final judicial outcome (charges dropped, conviction, case still ongoing, etc.)? With regard to the government's position on farmers using Bovaer to reduce methane emissions from livestock: (a) why has the government not yet approved Bovaer for agriculture use in Canada; (b) has the government conducted any studies related to the potential level of methane reduction that could be achieved in Canada with the approval and use of Bovaer, and, if so, what are the details, including the findings of any such studies; (c) what is the timeline within which a decision on the approval of Bovaer will be made; (d) does the government have an explanation for why the European Union was able to make a decision on Bovaer years ahead of the Canadian government, and, if so, what is the explanation; (e) has the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food taken any specific measures to expedite the decision on whether or not to approve Bovaer, and, if not, why not; and (f) if the response in (e) is affirmative, what are the specific details of each measure taken, including the (i) date of the measure, (ii) specific measure taken? With regard to the Canada Digital Adoption Program: (a) how many and which vendors applied to administer the (i) "Grow Your Business" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream; (b) what metrics and criteria were used by the department when determining which applicants in (a)(i) and (a)(ii) would become administrators, broken down by stream; (c) what is the dollar value of the contracts provided to Magnet to administer the "Boost Your Business Technology" stream; (d) which vendors were awarded the contracts to administer the "Grow Your Business" stream; (e) what is the dollar value of the contracts provided to each of the vendors in (d); (f) what is the number of students hired, as of April 5, 2022, via the (i) "Grow Your Business" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream; and (g) what is the number of businesses which have applied, as of April 5, 2022, to the (i) "Grow Your Business" stream, (ii) "Boost Your Business Technology" stream? With regard to the government paying social media influencers to promote the government's messaging, broken down by department or agency: (a) who in each department or agency decides which influencers to (i) hire, (ii) pay; (b) what is the manner in which influencers can apply to get paid to promote the government's messaging; (c) how many applications related to (b) have been received since January 1, 2021; (d) of the applicants in (c), how many were awarded a contract or payment from the government; (e) are there any specific criteria that government-paid influencers must meet, and, if so, what are the details; (f) are the influencers prohibited or in any way censored from publicly voicing their disagreement with any government policies or messaging, and, if so, what are the details of the prohibition; (g) what specific policies are in place regarding the use of social media influencers; and (h) on what date did each policy in (g) come into effect? With regard to the funding announced in budget 2021 and in the Fall Economic Statement 2020 to support Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people: (a) how much of the $36.3 million has been spent to enhance and support Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQQIA+ organizations; (b) of the funding in (a), which organizations received funding and how much was received; (c) how much of the $49.3 million allocated for the implementation of Gladue Principles has been spent; and (d) how much of the $8.1 million to develop justice agreements with Indigenous communities has been spent? With regard to the funding announced in budget 2021 to measure progress and provide accountability on the government supports for Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people: (a) what mechanisms have been implemented; (b) how much of the $20.3 million has been allocated; and (c) of the funding in (b), how much have Indigenous partners received, broken down by organization, institution, or governing body? With regard to the development of a comprehensive violence prevention strategy announced in the Fall Economic Statement 2020: (a) how much of the $724.1 million announced has been spent; and (b) broken down by province and territory, how many shelters (i) have been newly opened, (ii) are currently in construction, (iii) are planned, but the construction has not begun? With regard to federal government funding for fiscal years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22, allocated within the constituency of Winnipeg Centre: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount? With regard to government funding for fiscal years 2019-20 to 2021-22 allocated within the constituency of South Okanagan—West Kootenay: what is the total funding amount, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) department or agency, (iii) initiative, (iv) amount? With regard to the government's commitment in budget 2021 on interchange fees for small and medium-sized businesses: (a) what stakeholders did government representatives meet with since April 19, 2021, with the objective of (i) lowering the average overall cost of interchange fees, (ii) ensuring that small businesses benefit from pricing that is similar to large businesses, (iii) protecting existing reward points of customers; and (b) on what dates were the meetings referenced in (a) held? With regard to Canadian mining companies operating abroad and accused of violations, as well as the government and Canadian embassies: (a) do Canadian embassies have a mandate to ensure that Canadian companies are respecting and advocating for human rights, and, if so, what are the full details and implications of these actions; (b) do embassy staff keep a record of all requests regarding (i) services and support provided to companies, (ii) support from human rights advocates; (c) do allegations and accusations of human rights violations have an impact on embassies’ consideration of requests for support or services from Canadian companies, and, if so, what is this impact; (d) have there been cases where embassies have refused to provide support to companies because of allegations of potential violations, and, if so, what are these cases; (e) what institutional mechanisms can Canadian embassy staff turn to when they become aware of human rights or environmental violations committed by Canadian companies abroad, especially companies that have benefited from embassy services or support in the past; and (f) has the government been made aware of human rights and environmental violations by Canadian companies abroad in the case of Goldcorp, as reported in the Hill Times article of March 30, 2022, and, if so, what actions have been taken to address these violations, with regard to (i) Canadian companies abroad, (ii) the affected groups? With regard to Service Canada centres located in flood plains or flood zones: (a) how many Service Canada centres are located in a flood plain or flood zone; (b) what is the location of all such centres, including the street address; (c) for each location in (b), is there a contingency plan to be used during a flood, and, if so, what is the plan; and (d) for each location in (b), has an alternate location outside of the flood plain been designated to be used as a temporary Service Canada centre during a flood, and, if so, what is the location? With regard to expenditures and other transactions made by the government using the Treasury Board object code 3213 (Losses of money) or any similar code related to the loss of money: (a) what are the details of all such transactions since fiscal year 2018-19, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount, including whether the amount represents the amount of government expenditure or the amount of payment being received by the government, (iii) summary of what took place, (iv) description of the items or services involved; and (b) what was the total value of transactions related to (a), broken down by fiscal year since 2018-19? With regard to expenditures and other transactions made by the government using the Treasury Board object code 3214 (Deficits and write-offs not elsewhere specified), or any similar code: (a) what are the details of all such transactions since fiscal year 2018-19, broken down by department, agency, or other government entity, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) amount being written off, (iii) reason for the write-off, (iv) description of the items or services being written off; and (b) what was the total value of transactions related to (a), broken down by fiscal year since 2018-19? With regard to meetings between senior government officials (those at the assistant deputy minister level or higher) and the former Unifor President, Jerry Dias, or events attended by both a cabinet minister and Mr. Dias, since January 1, 2016, broken down by each official: (a) on how many days did each official meet with or attend an event where Mr. Dias was present, including private meetings and informal events that are not listed on the lobbying registry or any official government itinerary; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by year; and (c) what are the details of all such meetings or events, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of meeting or event (in-person meeting, virtual meeting, government announcement, etc.), (iii) agenda items, if known, (iv) known list of attendees, (v) summary of what took place, (vi) government officials that were in attendance? With regard to meetings between cabinet ministers or their staff and the former Unifor President, Jerry Dias, or events attended by both a cabinet minister and Mr. Dias, since January 1, 2016, broken down by minister: (a) on how many days did each minister meet with or attend an event where Mr. Dias was present, including private meetings and informal events that are not listed on the lobbying registry or any official government itinerary; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by year; and (c) what are the details of all such meetings or events, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of meeting or event (in-person meeting, virtual meeting, government announcement, etc.), (iii) agenda items, if known, (iv) known list of attendees, (v) summary of what took place, (vi) ministers and exempt staff members that were in attendance? With regard to meetings between the Prime Minister and the former Unifor President, Jerry Dias, or events attended by both the Prime Minister and Mr. Dias, since January 1, 2016: (a) on how many days did the Prime Minister meet with or attend an event where Mr. Dias was present, including private meetings and informal events that are not listed on the Prime Minister's official itinerary; (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by year; and (c) what are the details of all such meetings or events, including, for each, the (i) date, (ii) type of meeting or event (in-person meeting, virtual meeting, government announcement, etc.), (iii) agenda items, if known, (iv) known list of attendees, (v) summary of what took place? With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), real estate transactions and a report in the Toronto Star on May 30, 2019, about tax evasion in the real estate markets in Ontario and British Columbia: (a) how many Canadians (individuals, companies or corporations) have been identified as having evaded taxes through real estate transactions; (b) how many non-Canadians (individuals, companies or corporations) have been identified as having evaded taxes through real estate transactions; (c) of the Canadians identified in (a), how many of them are being, or have been, reviewed by the CRA; (d) of the non-Canadians identified in (b), how many of them are being, or have been, reviewed by the CRA; (e) how many (i) audits, (ii) reassessments or related compliance actions, have been undertaken against the Canadians identified in (a) by the CRA; (f) of the audits in (e)(i), how many (i) have been closed, (ii) are still ongoing; (g) how many (i) audits, (ii) reassessments or related compliance actions, have been undertaken against the non-Canadians identified in (b) by the CRA; (h) of the audits in (g)(i), how many (i) have been closed, (ii) are still ongoing; (i) how many identified (i) Canadians, (ii) non-Canadians, have availed themselves of the Voluntary Disclosure Program with the CRA; (j) how many identified (i) Canadians, (ii) non-Canadians, have settled with the CRA; (k) how much money has the CRA assessed as a result of investigating these cases, broken down by the amount in (i) unpaid taxes, (ii) interest, (iii) fines, (iv) penalties; (l) how much of the money has been collected; (m) how many of these cases (i) are under appeal, (ii) remain open, (iii) have been closed, i.e. the full amount of taxes, interest, fines and penalties have been collected; (n) how many tax evasion charges have been laid; and (o) how many convictions have been recorded? With regard to federal transfers through the Low Carbon Economy Fund from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022: (a) how much funding has been allocated, broken down by (i) grants and contributions, (ii) province and territory; (b) how much has actually been transferred since April 1, 2021, broken down by (i) grants and contributions, (ii) province and territory; and (c) for each transfer payment identified in (b), what is the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? With regard to the $8 billion Net Zero Accelerator initiative of the Strategic Innovation Fund: (a) how many potential applicants have submitted a statement of interest to date, broken down by (i) small and medium-sized businesses, (ii) large businesses, (iii) province and territory, (iv) potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; (b) how much has been spent to date, broken down by (i) business name, (ii) province and territory; and (c) of the funding in (b), what is the cost per tonne of greenhouse gas emission reductions for each applicant funded? With regard to the press release dated April 4, 2022, “Government of Canada announces affordable high-speed Internet to help connect low-income families and seniors”: (a) which participating Internet service providers (ISP) will be providing services under Connecting Families 2.0 to rural areas as defined by Statistics Canada; (b) how many eligible households whom received a letter from the government will not be able to participate in Connecting Families 2.0 due to not having a participating ISP service in their geographic area; (c) how many and which census divisions with rural areas will have (i) no participating ISP servicing the area, (ii) less than 50 per cent of the census division serviced by a participating ISP, (iii) less than 25 per cent of the census division serviced by a participating ISP; (d) in the federal electoral district of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, which census subdivisions or municipalities will have no participating ISPs; (e) how will the government increase participating ISPs servicing rural areas; and (f) how will the government ensure that this program provides equal access to the social and economic advantages of affordable internet to both rural and urban low income Canadians?

moved: That: (a) the House denounce all forms of discrimination; (b) in the opinion of the House, (i) research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general, (ii) access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates’ skills and qualifications; and (c) the House call on the government to review the program's criteria to ensure that grants are awarded based on science and not based on identity criteria or unrelated to the purpose of the research. He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from La Prairie. I rise today to open up a debate that is as important as it is necessary for the future of science and research in Quebec and Canada. Historically speaking, research funding has always been awarded on the basis of excellence. The scientific process takes place at the frontier of human knowledge, and advancing beyond that frontier requires someone with a combination of skills and qualities that are beyond the ordinary. It therefore seems reasonable, essential even, to direct our limited financial resources towards the individuals with the greatest expertise, towards the most promising projects. That is how we maximize the benefits for society as a whole. In recent years, however, under the federal government's direction, this basic tenet has been undermined by a new set of equity, diversity and inclusion criteria, which advocate a funding approach based on factors related to identity and representation. While these criteria are rooted in a desire to correct certain historical inequalities that we do not deny exist, the way in which they have been implemented is perplexing. The most obvious evidence of this trend is the Canada research chairs program, where strict representation targets were unilaterally imposed on universities. Moreover, the members of the House of Commons were never asked for their input either, since the policy is based on a decision that was made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and ratified by the Federal Court of Canada. The impact of the policy is starting to be felt. A number of sometimes absurd and aberrant situations have arisen in recent months, where postings for open positions automatically excluded certain candidates regardless of their qualifications. Some positions reserved for representatives of certain groups also remained vacant because no one applied. In light of this, it is high time that the House reviewed this matter. That is why the Bloc Québécois is moving a motion today for the House to “denounce all forms of discrimination”, recognize that “research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general”, and acknowledge that, in order to maximize benefits, “access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates' skills and qualifications” above all else. To that end, the government must review the criteria for the Canada research chairs program. In addition to posing a threat to the excellence of Quebec and Canadian research, the equity, diversity and inclusion criteria applied by the Canada research chairs program encroach on Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over education in three separate ways, since it is a program for hiring professors, it impinges on the autonomy of universities, and it restricts academic freedom. I will now give my colleagues a brief lesson on constitutional history. The Constitution Act, 1867, placed education under the sole jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Research is an area of concurrent jurisdiction and can therefore be dealt with by both levels of government. In 2000, the federal government invoked its powers relating to research funding to launch the Canada research chairs program. We were told at the time that there was no encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions and that the goal was merely to fund research. However, if we look closely at the program two decades later, we can see that a research chair is a direct pathway to a professorship. In fact, the criteria for awarding research chairs determine who will teach in universities in Quebec and the other provinces. In addition, the equity, diversity and inclusion requirements under the Canada research chairs program also blatantly violate the universities' autonomy. As specified in the program policies, “if an institution is not meeting its equity targets, following a deadline stipulated by the program, nominations will be restricted to individuals who self-identify as one or more of the four designated groups until such time as the targets are met”. The four designated groups are women, racialized minorities, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities. We have started seeing the impact of this policy on Quebec universities. Laval University recently posted a job offer stating that only candidates with the required skills and who have self-identified as members of at least one of the four under-represented groups will be selected. The university is basically being forced to shred certain applications regardless of those candidates' qualifications or the relevance of their research projects. That is only the beginning. The program also states that “[i]nstitutions that do not meet their equity targets by the December 2029 deadline will have their allocation of chairs reduced”. Universities are being held hostage by the federal government, which is threatening to slash their allocated funding and reduce the number of prestigious research chairs they get. One of the cornerstones of university autonomy is the power to select and appoint professors, so the idea that the federal government could change the process cannot and should not be tolerated. The third issue with the current policy is that it is an assault on academic freedom, which guarantees academics the inalienable right to teach or study any subject, school of thought, or theory without fear of reprisal or discrimination. However, the numerous administrative and bureaucratic requirements heaped on researchers in all disciplines include the submission of an EDI action plan that conforms to certain social sciences theories that are not universally accepted in academia or in society in general. This type of requirement impedes the academic freedom of researchers, who are forced to adhere to certain concepts if they want to obtain a research chair. As a result, the very imposition of these criteria by the federal government for research chairs undermines several key principles and is in itself sufficient justification for a review. This being said, a quick analysis of the numerical requirements reveals the full scope of the policy's incongruity. As I said earlier, universities have been ordered to meet representation targets by 2029. These strict, one-size-fits-all targets are applied equally to all Quebec and Canadian universities. They are based on the average representation rates in Canada of the four under-represented groups targeted by the program. For visible minorities, the target is 22% for all universities because that is the Canadian average according to the latest census in 2016. However, what seems to have been forgotten or, worse still, ignored, is the fact that the population is not evenly distributed across the country. In Toronto, members of visible minorities represent 51.5% of the population. In Quebec City, they represent just 6.5% of the population. As it turns out, 6.5% happens to be the exact proportion of Université Laval professors who are members of visible minorities. Where I am from, Rimouski, which is far from the big cities, members of visible minorities make up barely 2% of the population, but for the purposes of the Canada research chair program, they are supposed to hit a target that is 10 times higher than their actual representation. The federal government's one-size-fits-all solution does not take distinct regional characteristics into account and forces universities in the regions to recruit abroad rather than develop homegrown expertise. That makes no sense at all and it flies in the face of Quebec's university model, which is all about developing skills and expertise across Quebec. Again, there needs to be a review of the federal government's policy of applying ideological math that does not work in the real world. There are concrete solutions to this nonsense. Of course, we need to increase funding for research and development. Canada is the only G7 country that has reduced its investment over the last 20 years. We need to increase graduate scholarships at the master's and doctoral levels. These scholarships have not been indexed for almost 20 years, since 2003. In closing, I would like to clarify, specifically for my colleagues in the House, that the debate that we wish to have is not about positive discrimination in general, but about this specific, poorly crafted federal policy that is, moreover, encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction—

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time for questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader.

Madam Speaker, at first blush, when I listened to the member, I had a grave concern for how important it is that we recognize the diversity that exists in Canada. Recognizing it is more than just acknowledgement. We have to have policies in place to ensure that there is a higher sense of fairness and a more level playing field. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the importance of diversity to the province of Quebec. He makes reference, for example, to Quebec City, but one could equally make reference to the city of Montreal. How important, for that member, is diversity of population in the province of Quebec?

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague from Winnipeg North misunderstood my speech. The debate is not about the importance of diversity. We recognize the need for diversity, inclusion and, of course, equity. What we are saying is that the basic criterion that must take precedence when selecting candidates for Canada Research Chairs is excellence. This criterion should not be based on identity, which sometimes has nothing to do with the context of the research.