44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2022 10:00AM
- May/31/22 12:17:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today, on this Bloc Québécois opposition day, to speak to our motion on federal funding for university research and the associated conditions.
With this motion, which I will not read again, our objective is clear: we must ensure that grants are awarded without discrimination, based on skills and qualifications, essentially on merit, and not on identity-based criteria, in the interests of genuine equality of opportunity.
This motion is particularly important to me, because universities have long been some of the institutions where I have been fortunate enough to spend some of my career. In Quebec, I studied political science at the Université de Montréal, and sociology at the Université du Québec à Montréal. I was fortunate to have been a lecturer at Laval University and at the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi. I was also able to see what was happening across the ocean because I had the amazing fortune to complete my doctorate in the socio-economics of development at the École des hautes études en sciences sociales in Paris. Those were probably the best years of my life.
I have very fond memories of my university days, although they were unfortunately not without a few dark periods. During their careers, young students, researchers and teachers quickly learn about the hegemony of research chairs, which unfortunately too often comes at the expense of teaching, a role that is now mostly carried out by precarious staff.
This hegemony of the chairs also lets Ottawa take control of research and impose its ideological terms and themes. This is especially true in the social sciences, where radical ideologies are often lifted directly from American campuses. Academic researchers who arrive in the middle of this have no choice but to conform, or else be pushed to the academic sidelines.
The Canada research chairs program was created by Jean Chrétien's government 20 years ago, in a context where Ottawa was sucking the lifeblood out of Quebec's public finances and then using its surpluses, obtained on the backs of Quebeckers, to invade areas of provincial jurisdiction, with education being one such jurisdiction.
At the time, Ottawa swore that they would not be intruding on education since research was not specifically under any jurisdiction. However, it is now clear that the creation of research chairs was a direct intrusion. The program is basically acting as a hiring program for professors. Ottawa is dictating to the universities the terms and conditions for hiring faculty. This situation is unacceptable and the program must be overhauled.
Ottawa is using its spending power to occupy the field of research funding. It is taking advantage of the fact that money is key and thus changing the way our universities operate. That is what is happening with the excessive demands imposed by the Canada research chairs program, particularly its requirements for equity, diversity and inclusion, which we find unreasonable.
By imposing its requirements under these research funding programs, Ottawa is not respecting the autonomy of universities. There is no reason for Ottawa to dictate conditions of employment for faculty. If Ottawa wants to take over spending power in the field of education, it should offer funding unconditionally, but that will never happen. As my colleague from Mirabel said earlier, Ottawa imposes conditions but does not offer funding, as always.
It is unacceptable for Ottawa to impose targets on Quebec universities under threat of sanctions. These universities are educational institutions where independence of thought should be at the forefront. Why can they not be given free rein to set up their own diversity and inclusion programs, without being dictated to by Ottawa under the threat of losing some of their funding?
The requirements imposed by Ottawa are unacceptable and illegitimate obstacles. It was no doubt to remedy this problem that the Pauline Marois government, with Pierre Duchesne as minister of higher education, sought to liberate Quebec's education system from Canadian ideological control by creating Quebec research chairs. That would have been a good idea.
I am being critical of the research chairs, but I want to make it clear that we strongly support permanent, increased funding for scientific research. There is no denying that Canada is unfortunately not a leader in this area. I could even say that it is a real dinosaur, and I think the best example of that is the fact that one former minister of state for science and technology was openly creationist. This was in the 2000s, not 1950. That gives an idea of how scientific research was treated by that government, and the underfunding of scientific research has been a glaring issue.
The Naylor report clearly showed that funding cuts in research and development over the past 20 years have had devastating consequences. We saw that at the beginning of the health crisis, which we are barely out of. We had no pharmaceutical industry. We had no drugs, no medical equipment, no vaccines. Worse yet, we had no adequately funded structure to begin working on developing everything I just listed. We had no capacity for rapid development.
As for the scientific research institutions that used to be the pride of Quebec, such as the Centre Armand-Frappier, they were all simply abandoned by Ottawa. I think we can see that there are consequences to living in what the Prime Minister proudly called the first “post-national” country. We have more examples. Canada would do well to put its energy into evolving out of the Jurassic age instead of trying to dictate the nature of scientific research and who is authorized to conduct it.
Of course we are in favour of including people from diverse backgrounds as much as possible. That goes without saying, because diversity is neither good nor bad. It is a reality. It is a reflection of contemporary society. Let us not forget that the Bloc Québécois once included in its ranks Osvaldo Nunez, the first Latin-American MP in the history of this parliamentary institution. The Bloc also had Bernard Cleary, an indigenous person, and Vivian Barbot, who is originally from Haiti. It also got my predecessor, Ève‑Mary Thaï Thi Lac, elected in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot as the first Quebec woman of Vietnamese descent in the House. Today, I am the first member of the Huron-Wendat nation to become a member of the House, and I did it as a member of the Bloc Québécois. We have no lessons to learn on that score. Let us make that clear.
I would hope that, in addition to representing a diverse population, all these people, myself excluded, were chosen to be lawmakers, elected to serve as members of this Parliament, because they were, first and foremost, skilled and qualified. When people have the same qualifications, of course, no problem. We have no problem with affirmative action to right some of the grave injustices of the past that, unfortunately, very much persist to this day, but restrictive criteria other than straight-up qualifications should never be imposed. Recently, Laval University put up a job posting that did not say an equally qualified person from a diverse background would get the job. The posting specifically said “reserved”. If that is not discrimination, what is it?
My riding is home to an internationally renowned university-level institution, the faculty of veterinary medicine at Saint-Hyacinthe. Naturally, as the only French-language veterinary training institution in North America, it attracts talent from around the world. Recently, students and young researchers told me that the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council sent bursary applicants a survey asking them to disclose their sexual orientation.
Can someone explain to me how sexual orientation has any bearing on one's ability to dissect a dead bird or on the quality of laboratory testing for avian flu? Why is that relevant? I am still wondering.
As a final point, I would say that academic freedom is a fundamental struggle that comes down to the most basic independent thought, the need to reflect on things using reason. It has long been said that the purpose of education is to learn to think, not to learn what to think. The research chair system is a way to tell students what to think. It not only tells students what to think, it also tells their instructors what to think.
1433 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 12:29:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say in response to that.
I am amazed by how concerned they get about the topics we choose to debate on our opposition days. It is the same argument every time. Why did we not move a motion on another topic? It makes no difference to the government what topic we want to debate.
I often get the impression that people still think of Quebec as being just the city of Montreal surrounded by fields, an image that is pretty outdated.
I represent an extremely rural riding that elected the very first Vietnamese woman in the history of this House, so enough with the stereotypes of rural folks. We can settle this right now. She was elected for her skills and her ability to be a good MP.
Quebec has taken a number of positive steps, as I said. “Discrimination” is an ugly word. I am in favour of these positive steps, of course, but I also support equal qualifications. It is as simple as that. We can look at all kinds of models—
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 12:30:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, if my colleague would like us to increase scholarships to encourage more first nations people to attend university, I would be his best ally. I support that.
There are currently programs that pay first nations students' tuition for a certain number of years. That already exists.
Some measures could still be improved.
Racism is still far too present with respect to first nations, of which I am a member. As was mentioned earlier, let us be proactive. Universities should consider skills and not discriminate based on identity. That is quite simply our message.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 12:32:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to remind members of a historical fact.
The first Jewish person to be elected to public office in the entire British Empire was elected in Trois‑Rivières, Quebec. He did not have the right to sit in this chamber because of his religion.
We will not take any lessons about diversity from Canada.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was with great interest that I read the bill introduced by our colleague from Winnipeg South Centre, which calls on the government to work with key stakeholders to develop an action plan to move the prairies toward a greener economy.
It may not be easy, but western Canada must move away from fossil fuels. Everyone acknowledges the pressing need for an energy transition away from oil, except perhaps some of our colleagues, who, unfortunately, have occasionally tried to take advantage of the crisis in Ukraine to promote Canadian oil and gas.
However, the challenge will be enormous, given the forces involved. The sponsor of this bill is well aware of this, having served as natural resources minister from 2015 to 2018. If the challenge is great, it is primarily because of the power and scale of the oil lobbies. Everyone is aware of this. These behemoths hoard talent and put pressure on wages and costs. They hinder the creation and growth of innovative SMEs, which are trying to develop sectors that would diversify the economy of this region.
The energy revolution is inevitable, however. It will happen. That is a fact, no matter what fantasies some people may still have about green oil. A total transformation of the existing framework requires support from all economic stakeholders, in both the political and financial sectors. Unfortunately, the financial sector is not currently making much of an effort or much progress. Many banks talk a good game, promising to move away from fossil fuels and commit to Ottawa's goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. That is the latest objective announced, and the plan is still in development.
However, investments in the oil industry jumped from $122 billion in 2016 to $160 billion in 2019. Investments did drop in 2020 as a result of the pandemic, but the five largest Canadian banks are still among the top 25 largest investors in fossil fuels—
327 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I apologize. I would also like to take a moment to sincerely apologize to the interpreters.
I was saying that the five largest Canadian banks are all still on the list of the world's top 25 investors in fossil fuels. Knowing that today's investments will be used to increase tomorrow's production, I will be polite and simply say that we are not exactly positioning ourselves to meet our environmental objectives.
We hear about carbon capture and storage, but these measures will have little effect on reducing emissions. These strategies will never replace a real shift to renewable energy. The strategy of “let's increase production, then we'll increase capture” is simply doomed to fail.
Remember that one of the objectives of the Paris Agreement, signed by Ottawa, is to use financial flows to promote the development of an economy that has low greenhouse gas emissions and is resilient to climate change. I encourage my government colleagues to finally adopt a policy to implement this objective, in case they have forgotten about it. It is Parliament's responsibility to send a clear signal and to support the green shift, which must be accelerated. Canada is asleep at the wheel, make no mistake about it.
In 2019, an expert panel, jointly created by the departments of Finance and the Environment, stated that this transition would not be possible without real change in financial models, and pointed in particular to the urgency of reorienting investments toward greener sectors. Instead of offering a real strategy to move away from oil, the government talks about supporting this industry into a low-emission future; in short, it wants to continue pumping oil while trying to do as little damage as possible. The time for such nonsense is over.
To meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, we need to immediately stop financing the development of new oil and gas projects. These are not my words, but those of the International Energy Agency, which cannot be accused of being ideologically anti-oil. We must urgently reorient these investments toward the sectors of the future. However, as I said before, to do that, stakeholders from all sectors must seriously do their part.
That is why the Bloc Québécois is pretty open to supporting Bill C‑235, currently before us, since several federal ministers would be required to work in partnership with the provinces and the private sector to bring in an action plan to develop a green and modern economy in the Prairies. This is a step in the right direction. As they are developing the action plan, I invite the ministers to consult the Bloc Québécois' proposals, where they might find the inspiration that they have quite clearly been lacking so far, unfortunately.
Getting back to the bill, it talks about transparency regarding climate risks. We need to leverage savings by making green RRSPs more tax efficient than RRSPs that include investments in fossil fuels, in order to free up a huge amount of capital to finance the green shift. Billions of dollars need to be freed up. Public funds will be a crucial aspect, but they will be insufficient. We absolutely must invite the financial sector to take up this challenge.
In the shift we are proposing, some see only costs, complications and bureaucracy. However, the economic benefits of a green transition are numerous, first of all by allowing the development of cutting-edge technologies and industries. As we know, Quebec is full of forward-thinking creators. The green transition will be lucrative. Investors will therefore have access to more dynamic and promising assets, rather than assets whose performance is condemned to plunge, as well as to a more stable financial sector.
We are certainly facing a huge task, but this is a historic opportunity to lead a strong and radical, but beneficial and incredibly motivating, transformation. Many of my colleagues here certainly claim that they entered politics to change the world. We have heard that many times. Now is the time to be on the side of the visionaries and agents of progress.
I will close by thanking the sponsor of this bill for trying to put a bit of pressure on his government. That takes courage. I assure him of our support in this matter. We will vote in favour of this bill, and we will co-operate with all initiatives and all attempts to facilitate the urgent and inevitable transition to renewable energy.
758 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
