SoVote

May/31/22 11:33:41 a.m.
Watch

The heckling that I just experienced was a personal attack to my personal integrity, and I take personal offence. I ask the hon. member to withdraw those remarks, because they are untrue, unfounded and based on malicious gossip. He should be ashamed.

42 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/31/22 11:33:55 a.m.
Watch

In particular, partisan issues are not the business of the House and should not be dealt with by the House. I would like the hon. member to please address the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

37 words

Mr. Ryan Williams

May/31/22 11:34:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment but, at the end of the day, I do not understand. We are talking about equality of opportunity and especially about breaking down barriers. Would the hon. member rather have been appointed to the position she holds in the Parliament instead of earning it, as she rightfully has done? At the end of the day, when we talk to women and to people across Canada, should they have to be appointed in order to break down barriers? Can they not break them down of their own accord? Equality of opportunity means that we break the barriers down so that those individuals can do just that. That is all we are talking about.

122 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/31/22 11:34:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my amazing colleague, the member for Nunavut. I am eager to hear what she has to say. I would like to point out that we are currently, here in Ottawa, on Algonquin territory. Personally, as a member for Montreal, I represent a territory that was never ceded by the Kanyen'kehà:ka, a place for the nations to gather and exchange. I think that it is important to point this out, especially given the nature of today’s debate. I am not particularly surprised to hear the Conservatives speak of unbridled individualism and individual responsibility. I am a little surprised, however, to hear my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois following the same line. That is a symptom of a conservative shift in the Bloc that has been happening for years but is coming to the fore once again. We can see it in today’s motion. However, intellectually speaking, the motion raises some interesting questions. These are questions concerning equity, sociology, social determinants, systemic racism, the representation of diversity in our institutions and the fact that our public and private institutions should be a reflection of our society, a society that is as open, diverse and inclusive as possible. We need to work on that. I think we need to think about that. These are important subjects and issues. Did this warrant an opposition day and a full day of debate? That is a good question. That being said, the choice was the Bloc Québécois’s. I would like to put things in context. After devoting an entire day of parliamentary work to the prayer in the House of Commons, the Bloc now introduces a motion whose main issue is that some white males will not have access to positions in federal research centres. That is the biggest problem for them. That is the Bloc’s priority. That is what we are talking about today. It is frustrating that these white males are facing restricted access to positions where they have been the overwhelming majority for decades. We are experiencing a housing shortage; some people cannot pay their rent; others have not received an employment insurance cheque for three or four months; still others want to regularize their status but are in the dark because the wait times for immigration are interminable; people are unable to get a passport; we are in the middle of a climate crisis and a climate emergency; we are being told to expect a hot summer with forest fires, floods and violent storms. However, let us talk about the poor white males who may not have access to certain positions, when they have occupied 65%, 70% or 80% of these positions for years. A minimum of effort is being put in to facilitate access to these positions for women, indigenous peoples, visible minorities and persons living with disabilities. Apparently, that is unfair and discriminatory. It is called affirmative action, with a view to effecting a social change that will not happen on its own for historical, sociological and societal harmony reasons. I could give several examples, since we still have to deal with sexism, we still have to deal with systemic racism, and we still have to deal with discrimination and prejudice against immigrants and first nations. That does not count, because we live in a meritocracy. Each individual is responsible for their own success or failure, and that is it. It is that simple. Now there is an intellectual shortcut if I have ever seen one. I will use the percentage of women in this Parliament, in the House of Commons, as an example. In 2011, when I arrived here, 24% of members were women. That figure was 26% in 2015, 29% in 2019, and 30% last year. On average, the percentage of women in parliament in a democratic G7 country increases by 1.5% to 2% a year. At this rate, our Parliament will have achieved equity in 40 years. My daughter Marianne will be retired when Parliament achieves gender equity. Without serious incentives and sometimes even coercive measures, it will never happen. We could also look at unemployment rates. In January 2021, unemployment among Black people in Quebec stood at 13%, which is 70% higher than the Quebec average. The Black community has more university graduates but an employment rate that is 5% lower than the average rate, and they earn $4 an hour less than white people. In February 2021, one month later, the unemployment rate in Canada increased by 0.6%. That same month, the unemployment rate increased by 4.5% for Latin Americans, 5.5% for the Black community and 7.6% for Southeast Asians. They have higher unemployment rates, earn less and have greater difficulty finding a place to live, even though they are better trained and educated than the average Canadian. If this is not proof of systemic racism and barriers that must be broken, I do not know what is. At Laval University it was an awful scandal that women make up 38% of professors, or below 40%. This figure is 6% for members of visible minorities. Fully 13% of Quebeckers are members of a visible minority. That represents one million people. That is halfway to the target. Persons with disabilities represent 1% of professors at Laval University. As far as research chairs in general are concerned, the numbers are practically the same if we look at the average of federal research chairs. Women represent 34%, even less than at Laval University, and members of visible minorities 6%. The number of persons with disabilities or members of first nations is so low that it cannot be counted. The numbers are not available. Then I am told that we should not have measures to increase these shameful percentages by giving a chance to someone who does not have the same opportunities in life when it comes to filling a researcher or professor position. Affirmative action measures work, as we have seen in many countries, such as the United States, where such measures were absolutely necessary. I know that “affirmative action” is sometimes translated in French as “discrimination positive”, or “positive discrimination”. Some people find that amusing and say that you cannot fix discrimination by adding discrimination. That is a bad joke that comes from a narrow, short-sighted perspective. Éric Duhaime, the new leader of the Conservative Party of Quebec, was the first to say this in 2019. That is the very perspective that the Bloc Québécois is embracing here. Bravo. As a way forward, this is just appalling. We could be talking about any number of things that could be done to help people, but instead you move a motion that will actually hurt people.

1161 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/31/22 11:43:32 a.m.
Watch

I would remind the member that it is not my motion, but rather a Bloc Québécois motion.

21 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/31/22 11:43:40 a.m.
Watch

I apologize, Madam Speaker. We need to do some collective soul-searching. Why is it that women make up only 20% of corporate boards and only 25% of senior management in Canada? According to an Osler report, a university professor looked at 2,000 senior management positions in Canada. Of the 2,000, he found seven indigenous people and six people with disabilities. That is it. Among senior managers, women's salaries are 56% lower than men's. Visible minority women earn 32% less than white women. That is huge. The gaps are enormous. It makes perfect sense to try to do something to fix this and ensure that women, indigenous people, members of visible minorities and people with disabilities take their rightful place within our institutions, including universities.

129 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/31/22 11:44:48 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not have a question for my colleague since I doubt that he will answer it. I simply want to inform him that when he throws out statistics, within faculties, for example, he is referring to professors who might have been hired in 1987, 1988 or 1989, and not just ones who were hired recently. I am a university professor, so I am part of the academic community. It worries me that there are some members in the House who cannot count. I wanted to point that out.

91 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/31/22 11:45:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his pleasant question. I need only give him the Université de Moncton as an example, where the majority of students have been women for years now. We learned recently that in the Université de Moncton's faculty of science, women make up barely 15% of the faculty.

60 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/31/22 11:45:39 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. What I think of here is that there has to be a will to see the changes we want to see for society to evolve. In many ways, we see very progressive-minded people taking policy initiatives that will in fact achieve, hopefully sooner as opposed to later, a wider participation in our chairs so that they do incorporate minorities, whether they be women, people with disabilities or ethnic minorities. It is important for society as a whole that these chairs reflect the Canadian population, ultimately. I wonder if the member can provide his thoughts on how important it is to have the will to see that take place.

118 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/31/22 11:46:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, indeed, I do think that progressive movements have always worked to achieve equity and equality. Sometimes that requires restrictive measures. That is okay, because what I am hearing from the Conservative Party and the Bloc right now makes me think of Margaret Thatcher when she said: There is no society; there are only individuals. However, that is not how it works. I feel that, as parliamentarians and elected officials, we have to take responsibility and foster meaningful action that moves society forward for all Canadians, making it possible to achieve better representation of our diversity.

99 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/31/22 11:47:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on a theme we heard from a previous speaker about this apparent distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. I cannot think of how we can define progress if we do not look at outcomes. I think that often equality of opportunity is used as an excuse for not doing anything. I wonder if my colleague can think of any institutions in Canadian society that have achieved diversity that is reflective of the population without proactive equity measures.

87 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/31/22 11:47:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if we say that we do not need to focus on equity outcomes, if we think that access is basically equitable, we are forgetting that access is ultimately not so equitable if the outcomes are not there. Otherwise, there would be no reason for it. Therefore, we need to take proactive and affirmative steps to be able to have those role models. As my colleague said earlier, it is important to have indigenous and visible minority women as role models who have succeeded in certain positions or situations. In the long run, this will help us look beyond theoretical rights to achieve true equity backed by real outcomes.

111 words

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

May/31/22 11:48:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will try to refocus the debate and not make any generalizations or take intellectual shortcuts, out of respect for the debate today. My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie tried to reduce the debate to skin colour. All that the Bloc Québécois is saying is that the criterion that should take precedence when recruiting researchers in the Canada research chairs program is excellence. However, the criterion that currently takes precedence is based on identity. I would like to quote a few visible minority researchers, such as Dr. Kambhampati from McGill University. He told me that he does not care about skin colour when he wants to hire someone who is interested in working on a project and is good in that field. What does my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie think about that?

144 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/31/22 11:49:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is rather unfortunate, but, if only 6% of the researchers who are capable of excellence are members of a visible minority, then I wonder how it is that all the excellent researchers are white men.

38 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/31/22 11:50:01 a.m.
Watch

[Member spoke in Inuktitut] [English] Uqaqtittiji, I wanted to start my statement in Inuktitut to portray the impacts of what could happen if this motion were to pass. It would allow for a lot of exclusion. In addition, it would diminish the years of hard work that the Canada research chairs program has done to increase equity, diversity and inclusion. I turned to speak the rest of my statement in English because I know just how important it is to work collaboratively and to work toward a common understanding. Having been educated in a colonial system, I have learned that Canada is proud of its history. By this point in our society, we espouse inclusiveness, diversity and equity. Allowing this motion to pass will see results as catastrophic as the Franklin expedition. I am sure that I do not need to remind my colleagues in the House and those listening to this debate that Sir John Franklin perished in the Arctic. When Franklin left England, I am quite sure that he was selected for his skills and his qualifications. After all, his research and advances to achieve navigation could benefit travels across the north. For years, academics and researchers searched for the demise of this expedition. For years, academics and researchers ignored Inuit knowledge passed on from the 1800s, as much of our knowledge is still in many aspects ignored, impacting our Inuit lives. It took 165 years, and only with the knowledge and guidance of Inuit was Franklin's ship found. In this history, Canadians can thank Louie Kamookak, an Inuk from Gjoa Haven in my riding. It was his talk on the Inuit knowledge that led to the wreck finally being found 165 years later. I seriously question the Bloc members who have decided to use their opposition day on this matter. Why are they so adamant to protect white male privilege? Why are they looking to remove the equity, diversity and inclusion objectives that address the under-representation of women, visible minorities, people with disabilities and people from indigenous communities in federally funded research chairs? Why have they not focused on important matters requiring our attention? We are experiencing a climate crisis and a housing crisis, and there are indigenous people who are being deprived of their rights. Inuit and first nations are questioning the Bloc's position on the French-language laws and the lack of commitments toward promoting and revitalizing indigenous languages. Indigenous people in Quebec are often excluded, as Bloc members continually debate their nationhood in Canada, a place they settled on, a place they took from indigenous peoples. This motion reeks of “all lives matter”, a slogan associated with the criticism of equity, diversity and inclusion of the Black Lives Matter movement. We must not try to hide that Canada is still a place of discrimination and that legislation and policies protecting equity, diversity and inclusion are still very necessary. We hear the need for them every day in this House. We hear every day about the atrocities experienced by indigenous women who continue to be targets of violence, leading to the need for the National Inquiry on MMIWG to have been created. We hear weekly how much the federal government says it funds initiatives to make improvements on indigenous peoples' lives, and yet, because of the systemic racism, we still hear about violent deaths of indigenous women. As recently as last week, another indigenous woman was murdered. We must do better to increase these existing figures: 40.9% of women hold research chairs; 22.8% of visible minorities hold research chairs; 5.8% of people living with a disability hold research chairs; and 3.4% of indigenous people hold research chairs. All of these figures are just too low. The only way to continue to advance Canada as a society is to continue to use the criteria to keep equity, diversity and inclusion.

653 words

All Topics

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

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

Ms. Lori Idlout

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

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

May/31/22 11:58:15 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, qujannamiik to my hon. colleague. I have the same thoughts that the member shared about this motion. With such limited opposition days, it is quite interesting to me that this one was selected as the issue to be debated today. It is a bold move to make such a statement about whom we want in these positions. Can we all agree that these are highly educated, highly experienced individuals who made this decision to ensure that equity and diversity are included in this process? Are we kind of jumping ahead of ourselves here, not letting the potentially beneficial outcomes for these institutions to be seen before we criticize it, before we look again at these concepts of a dystopia? I think that was mentioned in a different version, as if there is going to be a reversal of The Handmaid's Tale should we allow these kinds of actions to take place. I am wondering if the member could comment on that. Why are we sounding the alarm before we even know how beneficial this could be?

179 words

Ms. Lori Idlout

May/31/22 11:59:19 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I enjoy working with the member on the standing committee. It is a difficult question, but it is an important one, with all that is going on in Canada, with all that is going on in research. I know that in the Arctic, for sure, a lot of the academics are starting to open up to the idea of the importance of using indigenous traditional knowledge so that academia and indigenous traditional knowledge are used in parallel and are not separate from each other. In Canada's time, we are moving toward a greater future where there is inclusivity and where it is necessary to make sure that we are keeping these opportunities open and making sure that it is the relationships that we focus on when it comes to people who have the ability to make decisions about what research will happen. These chairs have important positions, and the themes and guides that they provide to the rest of academia will be truly important, so making sure those groups of chairs are diverse is very important in Canada.

180 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/31/22 12:00:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier today, a member from the Conservative Party spoke a little about the importance of what he referred to as “individualism” and the importance of ensuring that those who are accessing positions in educational institutions “have earned” the right to be there. I am wondering if the member could please share her thoughts as to why that narrative is extremely problematic in having equitable access within our systems.

74 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 78