44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2022 10:00AM
- May/31/22 10:40:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.
Women are still under‑represented in academic communities. This discrimination reinforces biases that are deeply rooted but that can be mitigated using active measures.
Instead of strengthening measures that eliminate the systemic barriers that women face, why does the hon. member want to maintain those barriers?
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:58:14 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple. Does the member believe that the most qualified people should be the ones receiving grants, or does he believe that positive discrimination is the best way forward?
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:58:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member mentioned discrimination. Of course, the very intention around my speech and my response to the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion is to eliminate any kind of discrimination. As I have said, our work to innovate and face the greatest problems of our country in the world today is improved by the participation of equity-seeking groups, including women and people from all backgrounds and all nationalities. This is the strength of our ecosystem, and we are building on that strength to address the future.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 11:01:58 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the ultimate goal is to get the best researchers possible in place and achieve the best possible outcomes. The notion of positive discrimination is a very tricky one. We are operating in a Canadian society that admittedly has systemic barriers to the advancement of people who do not look like me. Let me just say it that way. We need to change that, because it is the diversity of people from all backgrounds that will strengthen our research community, and it is incumbent upon us to create those pathways.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 11:56:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question.
Competent researchers from visible minorities do not have access to research chair funding because they do not meet the criteria or do not want to meet them. If that is not discrimination, then I do not know what to call it.
There is already discrimination against people who are under-represented and do not meet certain criteria of the Canada research chairs program. What is my colleague's opinion on this?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 11:57:30 a.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I think it is a statement that absolutely makes it necessary why we need to keep that legislation and those policies, because that discrimination exists. We need to make sure that these policies are used to open opportunities for people who are indigenous, who have disabilities, who are visible minorities. It is the reason why we need to say not to pass this motion, because we still have too much systemic discrimination in Canada.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 12:14:31 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I wonder if there is a common misunderstanding of how the hiring process works. Should the focus not be on improving that process, rather than breaking down the years of work that have been done to keep discrimination at bay?
41 words
- 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 12:42:34 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 12:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will respond to that with a couple of things. Obviously, as I mentioned, the tribunal had suggested the government had to do a better job of trying to drive diversity and inclusion. The hon. member mentioned that some people, such as women in indigenous groups, have a double challenge. At the end of the day, what I take notice of in this Bloc Québécois motion is that it almost reads as though it is a type of discrimination to encourage individuals who are under-represented to have more status in these chairs. I disagree with that principle.
I think it is also extremely important for universities and that culture to play an important role there. I would like to commend Acadia University. They are doing really important work in this domain. They have great research chairs, some of whom are supported by us, some of whom are being driven by themselves.
To answer her question, institutionally it is important, and to her point, these types of principles need to stay.
177 words
All Topics
- 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 12:59:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I will say this about the motion the Bloc Québécois brought forward: I agree with denouncing all forms of discrimination. We all agree on all sides of the House that we must always confront, denounce and condemn all forms of discrimination, whether it is anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or others, and the systemic barriers that exist, for example, against Black Canadians in this country. With that, we must continue to put in place programs that reflect and look at the way Canadian society is and where we are today, ensuring that people have opportunities to succeed and have opportunities to do groundbreaking and innovative research.
117 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 1:13:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am being told that I refuse to address the root causes of injustice, whereas I am suggesting that we take a positive approach, not a negative one. I am suggesting that we take an approach that will rally people around this diversity. I am suggesting that there be a set of incentives, including financial ones, to help ensure this extraordinary diversity is better represented.
Discrimination and intimidation is out there now, with stickers on doors, calls, attempts to exclude people from faculties, research projects being impeded. I do not think this contributes to anything positive.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 1:14:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today following my distinguished colleague, friend, member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader, in that order.
I also want to acknowledge the exceptional work that my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has done on the research chairs file, work that is behind the opposition day we are presenting today.
The motion reads as follows:
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.
Regarding point (a), as we often say in Quebec, no one is against apple pie. The proposal is easy to accept. As for point (b), it is hard to be against that either.
I think that what the motion proposes makes perfect sense.
I would like to make one thing clear right from the start, because I can already see the pernicious insinuations and attacks coming. We are not against equity, diversity and inclusion. In short, we are not against the principle. Rather, we are in favour of finding solutions and potentially implementing policies that will lead to the intended objective, which is equity, diversity and inclusion. Solutions do exist. Some are well thought out; others, less so. There is always a bit of work to do to improve things. That is why we are here, and that is the spirit of our motion today.
First, how did we get to this point?
The first instinct may be to blame a current movement that is fighting hard to restore some degree of social justice, but we must dig a bit deeper and do more research.
In 2003, a group of eight academics from across Canada filed some human rights complaints. These complaints alleged that the Canada research chairs program discriminated against individuals who are members of the protected groups set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An agreement was proposed in 2006, which required that the program implement specific measures to increase representation of members of the four designated groups, namely, women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and visible minorities. The agreement clearly did not work because it was made a federal court order in 2017.
You can try to fix as many cracks as you want in a house, but what ultimately needs to be fixed is the bad foundation. I think that we need to do the long-term work to address the issue of lack of representation of designated groups in research programs. We too often forget that things take time these days and that shortcuts are inadequate and are a bad way to achieve certain specific objectives.
In today's case, this involves facilitating and promoting access to post-secondary education for under-represented groups and getting more young people from different backgrounds interested in the programs that lead to research.
Without a doubt, this will take time. However, it will lead to much more lasting results that will visibly improve over time and a method that will call for occasional improvements. In the long run, we will be able to benefit more from diversity in our research chairs. We will not suffer the disadvantages of so-called positive discrimination, which, as I said earlier, are in fact mere shortcuts that will only compound the problems in the very short term.
The proof that the cart is being put before the horse in terms of achieving the objectives of equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, is the fact that more and more job postings for university-level teaching positions no longer even require a Ph.D. This argument alone should be enough to show that we are not on the right path and that we have chosen the wrong one, and to make us understand that the solution lies elsewhere and that we need to dig a little deeper to find better, more effective and certainly more lasting solutions.
Another problem that I see is the way that it hinders university autonomy. Universities are places for the development of knowledge and learning. That is where we learn how to think critically. We need to allow people to exchange ideas, to challenge each other and to have open discussions, while not leaving any room for censorship. We have seen many abuses in this area recently, but that is not really the focus of today's discussion.
Rather, my concern is with the criteria imposed by the federal government in an area of jurisdiction that belongs not just to Quebec and the provinces, but also very directly to institutions of higher learning. Let us be clear: the Canada research chairs program is a way for the federal government to impose its views on the entire academic community.
On April 2, Professor Yves Gingras wrote in Le Devoir about universities suffering from provincial underfunding that cannot afford to turn up their noses at tens of thousands of dollars available from research chairs to pay for these new professors.
Not all university presidents are acting in bad faith. They are faced with a certain reality, and most of the time they have no choice but to stay silent, turn a blind eye, and take the money by accepting guidelines and criteria. Sometimes they agree with them. Often, I am sure of it, they do not quite agree. This is how they slip into a trap that quickly becomes a costly, vicious cycle.
The other problem with this measure is the recruitment pool. I will now take my colleagues back to Quebec, which is home to the Université du Québec network that is well established in various regions: we have a Université du Québec in Rimouski, in Chicoutimi and in Trois-Rivières, and I am proud to say that we have a beautiful campus in Drummondville, thanks in part to my leader and colleague.
Imagine the challenge and the major issue the recruitment pool would represent for institutions located outside large urban areas like Toronto should EDI criteria be imposed. I draw my colleagues' attention to a recent column by Jean-François Lisée in Le Devoir, published on April 7 and easily found on the Internet, in which he draws a parallel. Imagine being able to require that the ratio of francophone professors and researchers in Canada match the representation of francophones across Canada, 23%, or else universities would not receive federal funding. Imagine the headache that recruiting the required percentage of francophone professors would cause for universities out west and even elsewhere.
That is basically the issue here. Virtue is all well and good, but there is also reality, and we have to take that into account. We cannot start standardizing everything. We cannot set up criteria across the board and introduce hiring processes to achieve instantaneous equity overnight. There are processes that take time.
In closing, my colleagues need to understand that we fully support the principle of equity, diversity and inclusion. However, we believe that it must be applied thoughtfully, not simply in response to pressure from activists who demand immediate results, regardless of collateral damage or effectiveness.
For example, fostering inclusion can be done by giving preference to candidates from groups that are under-represented, but equally qualified. This has been done in the past in a variety of settings, such as academia, to achieve gender equity.
There is still a long way to go, but the work has begun. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is a solution that works. We need to focus on solutions that work, not utopian goals.
1333 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 1:30:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fredericton.
I rise in the House today to talk about the undeniable fact that the people of Quebec and Canada are increasingly diverse. As a society, we are being called upon to ensure diversity in all sectors.
In 2016, 22.3% of Canadians reported being members of a visible minority and 4.9% reported being members of the first nations, Inuit or Métis. In addition, 70% of these people indicated that they had been born outside of the country.
There are more than 250 ethnicities represented in Canada. Statistics Canada estimates that by 2036, visible minorities will represent between 31% and 36% of the population.
In spite of these statistics, indigenous peoples, Blacks, racialized communities and minorities are subject to racism and discrimination on a daily basis, at work, when applying for jobs or a promotion, or when renting or buying a house.
The notion of systemic racism and discrimination refers to an organizational culture, policies, directives, practices or procedures that exclude, displace or marginalize racialized communities and indigenous peoples. This creates unfair barriers to real options and opportunities, which means that non-racialized groups end up being prioritized over others.
In recent years, our government has worked hard to address systemic racism and discrimination, in particular through Canada's anti-racism strategy. We have also focused on including diversity and indigenous peoples across all government policies.
When it comes to the research environment, it is important to recognize the need for ongoing and sustainable action to address growing inequalities.
Our government is taking important and necessary steps to build a more inclusive society, notably by developing a national action plan on combatting hate and by increasing funding for Canada's new anti-racism strategy.
Budget 2022 announced $85 million over four years, starting in 2022‑2023, to support ongoing work to launch a new anti-racism strategy and a national action plan on combatting hate. This funding will support community-based projects that ensure Black and racialized Canadians and religious minorities have access to resources so they can fully participate in the Canadian economy, while raising awareness of issues related to racism and hate in Canada.
Fighting racism and discrimination also means working to ensure that this diversity is better represented among our scientists and researchers. After decades of neglect, our government has reinvested in the scientific community. Budget 2022 provides $38.3 million over four years to add new Canada excellence research chairs.
The Canada research chairs program aims to make Canada one of the world's top countries in research. This requires us to ensure better representation, and we have a long way to go. In 2016, visible minorities were about 13%; today, this figure is just over 22%.
For new researchers, especially those from diverse backgrounds, it is very difficult to find their place in the scientific community, because historically the scientific community is a white Western community based on white knowledge. This refers to a white elite that has grown up in conscious and unconscious privilege.
There is a lot of work to be done to ensure that we include diverse communities and indigenous peoples in the scientific community and to break out of historical white paradigms that do not represent multiple perspectives.
Today we need to work toward a multiplicity of knowledge. Paradigms are diverse, and the multiplicity of knowledge helps give people a greater understanding of the world, an understanding that is more open to different perspectives.
Research criteria and scientific rigour are the same for everyone. I find it dangerous to claim anything else. We need to recognize the challenge that indigenous and diverse peoples face when taking their place in the scientific community. It is a real challenge.
It is critical because, once again, a multiplicity of knowledge brings diverse perspectives. It provides a broader spectrum of knowledge, and fosters a broader and more inclusive understanding of the world. This multiplicity of knowledge is expressed through the diversity of researchers who have experienced the realities of racialized communities and indigenous peoples. Otherwise we end up with a single world view in a monolithic identity, and that is the danger looming over Quebec.
If you are from a diverse background or indigenous, that means you are not white. Wanting to be sure that we include these diverse perspectives is in no way indicative of a lack of scientific rigour.
I would like to point out that if the Montreal police force had not been using hiring selection criteria to ensure that the police looked like their community in the 1990s, we would not see this much diversity on the police force today.
While we have a strong legislative framework that supports diversity and fights discrimination, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have witnessed some troubling events here and abroad in recent years, which tells us that the charters and laws are not enough and that better representation of diversity and indigenous peoples in the scientific community is part of the work that remains to be done.
Eliminating racism and discrimination is part of the government's responsibility—it is everyone's responsibility, in fact—to support a society that brings out the best in its members and treats them with dignity and respect. Treating people with dignity and respect means acknowledging that scientific rigour is not the issue. The issue is equal opportunity to ensure that our research chairs represent Canada's and Quebec's population as a whole.
All Canadians, along with all Quebeckers, have a duty to do their part to fight all forms of hatred, discrimination and systemic discrimination, including at the research chair level.
958 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 1:50:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I get the impression that there was a very superficial or cursory reading of this bill.
Our motion is absolutely not about discrimination. We are all in favour of equity, diversity and inclusion. I would ask my colleague, who focused on women in her speech, which is great since we would all like there to be more women, what she thinks about the fact that, right now, 70% of the medical students at the Université de Montréal are women.
Should there be criteria for reducing the number of female medical students at the Université de Montréal?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 1:51:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my thanks to the member opposite for her advocacy.
Colleagues may know that I am the first female engineer in the House of Commons and began as an engineer when only 13% of engineers were women. There was significant systemic discrimination at that time. I experienced it throughout my career. Of course, as I was in construction, that was also quite a toxic environment. I was sad to hear testimony in 2017, as the chair of the status of women committee while we were studying how to get more women into STEM, that this situation still exists.
I wonder if the member would agree that we have not made progress as we should have. Does she have any suggestions as to how we could accelerate getting to equity?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 1:52:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is so much more that we could be doing. I certainly identify with the example she gave about being a female engineer in a space that was not necessarily fostered to promote women's inclusion.
I think about many of the women who are also here in this space. I am sure they have also faced some of the discrimination that we are talking about today. I will give a couple of examples of questions that have come my way that really reflect the misogyny that is still in our society today: whether I have earned my position in this place, whether I was offered certain things or maybe had relationships along the way, maybe I was not doing my duties at home or I was really neglecting my children, perhaps, by being in this space. These are the things we have to face when we try to enter these spaces that were not designed for us.
What we need to do is to continue to have these conversations. We need to be bold. We need to be out loud. We need to show women that they belong here, they belong in engineering and they belong in construction across this country.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
