44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2022 10:00AM
- May/31/22 11:01:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
We all agree that we need to increase representation within our institutions for visible minorities, women and people with disabilities, but we have to do it the right way.
Does my colleague not believe it is better to engage in positive discrimination based on a criterion that, for equal or comparable qualifications, favours certain minority candidates rather than disqualifying certain candidates outright?
I feel it is important that we address this fundamental issue. The problem we have today, with all due respect to the House, is that certain candidates are being disqualified outright. In my view, you cannot right a wrong by creating another wrong.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
126 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 12:42:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I congratulate him again on his excellent French, which just keeps getting better.
My colleague seems to wonder what the problem is in our motion today. There is always this argument that we could have chosen another topic. We hear this every time that we bring an issue forward. I will identify the problems and ask my colleague to respond.
The first problem that we are raising today is that the federal government imposes funding conditions in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction. As this House is aware, this is something that the Bloc Québécois condemns all the time. It is in our DNA. I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks.
The second problem that we are raising is exclusion. We are all for diversity and positive discrimination. What we condemn is the fact that certain applicants are excluded out of hand. Is this not a problem?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 12:58:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and making an effort to speak French.
I get the impression that we are engaging in a dialogue of the deaf. People think that we support discrimination, when the exact opposite is true. We absolutely support better representation of women, cultural communities and so on in institutions.
The main problem, and the reason for our motion, is that some candidates are being excluded from the very beginning of the hiring process. Why not trust the institutions? It is risky to not let people apply. It is all well and good to want the pendulum to swing back, but we must not go too far either. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 1:40:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her fine speech. Once again, I feel like I am taking part in a dialogue of the deaf, because I agree with everything she said. She pointed out that we need to tackle all forms of discrimination, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.
Prohibiting someone from submitting their application crosses a dangerous line. How does the member feel about the fact that certain groups of people are being prohibited submitting applications?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 5:12:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this opposition day today. I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Shefford. I believe that this is the first time in two and a half years that I have said this at the beginning of my speech.
The debate that we are having today is an important one. I will start by saying that I have enjoyed the last few speeches. I have been listening to the debate for most of the day, and I only missed a few bits here and there. Many have said that they were disappointed with the topic and with the Bloc Québécois, but these are the words of people who have few arguments. I myself was disappointed to hear people say that they were disappointed.
Let us talk frankly about this fundamental topic.
I will start by sending a message to all women, to all visible minorities, to all first nations people, to all people with disabilities, and to any other group that may be under-represented. I would tell them that they are qualified and that they can do whatever they want in life and apply anywhere.
The Bloc Québécois's message today does not run counter to that. The message of the Bloc Québécois is that these groups are overwhelmingly under-represented in a large proportion of our institutions and that we must ensure that they have a proper place. Therefore, we are in favour of affirmative action. It is important for me to specify that because I do not want to later be accused of wanting to protect the power of 50-year-old white men. That is not what we are doing, and we are very much in favour of affirmative action.
The problem arises when we start to prohibit individuals from applying for a specific job. Regardless of differing opinions, I think that is very serious and a line that should not be crossed. That is the issue we are discussing today.
When you start saying that certain people cannot apply if they do not have specific physical or cultural characteristics, regardless of skills, that is a major problem. I am not saying that minorities are not competent; that is not my intention at all. What I am saying is that you cannot prohibit people from applying, and that is fundamental.
When problems arise in this world, we see a kind of pendulum effect. We can go back in time to observe this phenomenon. I would like to share an example that has a lot in common with the subject at hand: child-rearing philosophies. The 1980s and 1990s were an era of child-kings and parents who did not dare place any restrictions on their children.
Nowadays, we understand that was not necessarily a good thing. Previously, parents were too harsh, and then the pendulum swung the other way and they wanted to be their child's best friend. Eventually people realized that going too far in the other direction was bad, so things settled somewhere in the middle. Lots and lots of books were written about the importance of saying no, setting limits and so on. I wanted to share that to explain the idea of the pendulum.
We now find ourselves in the same situation with respect to the representation of minorities and other groups in jobs, including research chairs. These groups are currently under-represented, and we need to address that. I think we should bring the pendulum back to the centre without going too far in the opposite direction by excluding other people. I hope people will understand what I am saying and that their questions will not be accusatory.
How do we increase the representation of groups? Some of my colleagues referred to the equal access program in Quebec. I also experienced this when I was a teacher for a school board. I think that the Commission scolaire de l'industrie in Joliette was one of the first places where such a program was established in Quebec. In the 1990s, following a complaint from an individual, it was determined that women were clearly under‑represented in management positions.
We set up a program that said that, if candidates had equal or similar skills, then we would favour female candidates. Equal skills can be difficult to establish, so it had to be suitable and equivalent skills. The program worked very well. Of course, this was not something that happened in one or two years; it took a number of years for the program to work. However, if we look at the situation today, women are much better represented in management positions.
We cannot, as a central state, wave a magic wand and say that tomorrow morning everyone will be fairly represented. The current ratios stem from a long and heavy history.
At the same time, we also cannot tell people who were hired a long time ago that they no longer meet the criteria, so they are going to be fired and replaced by someone from a diverse background. I am being sarcastic, but I think my point is clear. That is what bothers me. As I have pointed out in several questions earlier today, and I think it has been raised other times as well, what continues to surprise me is that I have not heard from anyone from the political parties that oppose our Bloc motion who has bothered to answer that question. If anyone is willing to chat with me during question period, I invite them to say whether they are comfortable telling people that they are not in the right category so they do not have access to that, even though we claim to be the country where everything is possible. We have a fundamental problem and this is important.
Perhaps there are government members who also want to call us out. My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques raised an important and interesting question about three government members who expressed doubts about the fact that applicants from certain ethnic groups were being rejected. Coincidentally, we have not heard from those three members today. It is all a bit surreal. If anyone has an answer for me, I would really like to hear it.
The other part of my speech has to do with the one-size-fits-all nature of the measures. The previous speaker used the phrase “coast to coast to coast”. The government considers everyone to be equal and the same everywhere, but it is unrealistic to require this to be done at the same speed everywhere, and it is not representative of the targeted communities. Several times today, people gave the example of Rimouski, where 2% of the people are members of visible minorities. It will be very difficult to have 20% of the staff come from those minorities when they represent only 2% of the population. That is a challenge, but that does not mean that we must not try, that we must not put measures in place or that we must not require this university to make every effort to seek candidates from outside the region and the country to fill these positions. The problem is that the government is telling that university that if it fails, then it will not get any money. That is where we run up against the great and powerful, all-knowing federal government. If the government institutes one-size-fits-all measures across the country, does that mean that since Quebec represents 23% of Canada, then 23% of the research chair holders across Canada need to be francophone? I am being sarcastic again. That is not what we are asking for. People will think that is ridiculous, but we are being asked to do the reverse.
I want to reiterate that we believe diversity is important and that we need these voices in our research institutions, in particular. Measures must be put in place, but problems cannot always be solved with a wave of a magic wand. It can sometimes take time to restore balance, but you cannot correct an injustice by committing a new one.
1388 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 5:23:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from the Green Party for his question and commend him for his excellent French.
I absolutely understand that, and I thought it was clear in my speech. I acknowledge this reality. A 50-year-old white mean who says that he understands cannot truly understand since he has not experienced these difficulties. He should say that he can appreciate these difficulties.
I am saying that we do need to take measures to make the ratios fairer and more equitable, to better reflect society. However, I do not think that discrimination and prohibiting people from applying for a job is the way to go about that. I think it needs to be done in other ways.
We agree on almost everything. I simply do not want to fix one injustice by committing another. It will be more progressive.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 5:25:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague from Victoria for her excellent question, because it will allow me to clarify matters.
I said earlier that we are going too far with this approach. I did not say that the proportion of under-represented people was too high. What I said was that, when introducing new measures, we should avoid discriminating against a new group of people on the pretext that the previous group has long suffered discrimination. I do not know if my answer is clear.
The aim is to correct historical under-representation, but it must be done properly, and universities must be allowed to recruit properly by insisting on higher thresholds. However, no one should ever be prohibited from applying for a job because that person has the wrong skin colour. That would swing the pendulum too far the other way.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 5:27:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, actually, that is what I try to do every day. I will give an unrelated example. It still happens quite frequently that I learn that someone I know belongs to the LGBTQ+ community. I did not know, even if I have known these people for a long time. Why did I not know? Because it was none of my business and because I do not pay attention to these things. It is the same when I meet someone who is Black, Asian or white: I see a human being. Ideally, of course, that is the way it should be.
However, measures meant to restore equity are necessary. I want to make that very clear to my colleague. I am not against measures aimed at increasing the representation of under-represented groups. I think they are needed because there has been an extremely long and harmful history of injustice. I simply do not want to do the opposite and discriminate against another group.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
