SoVote

May/31/22 1:38:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and his kind words about me. I also have a high regard for him. I think this question is dangerous, because it assumes that right now, there is no rigour in the analysis of research programs. I can give the example of my aunt, who is a Ph.D. student. She is part of the research programs. The scientific rigour with which issues are studied is very real. Assuming that things are done differently is a rather inappropriate and dangerous observation by my colleague.

97 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

May/31/22 1:39:14 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, after the 15th-year evaluation of the research program, they responded to the recommendations by implementing the equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan. Does the member agree that continued implementation is required to continue to ensure that there is transparency in the allocation, selection and renewal processes of chair holders?

51 words

All Topics

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

May/31/22 1:39:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I agree with her that there is a need to ensure transparency in the programs and in how funding is allocated. We need to make sure that we do so in order to counter my colleague's previous question, that is to say that we are not questioning the scientific rigour or the competence of indigenous peoples and racialized communities. What we are questioning is equality of opportunity. I agree with my colleague. We need to make sure that all programs are transparent, because we have to demonstrate that they have the merit to be among the research chairs and to be funded by the research chairs.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

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

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

May/31/22 1:41:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I find dangerous is what I have been hearing about what is going on in the scientific community, where the focus is on checking off boxes. Research groups will be created, people will come together and two or three researchers who represent this visible minority will be invited in order to check off boxes. Researchers from visible minority groups are also entitled to access funding through research programs on their own. I understand my colleague's question, but this dangerous tendency can go too far and we have to be careful. I am a little disappointed by today's motion, because it compels us to ask questions that certainly do not reflect the Bloc's intention, which is a shame.

123 words

All Topics

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

May/31/22 1:42:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me. I want to begin by acknowledging that the land we are gathered on today is unceded Algonquin territory and I represent the unceded Wolastoqiyik territory in Fredericton, New Brunswick. I think it is important that we predicate our conversations today on that piece. I could have started by saying how deeply disappointed, even saddened, I was by the motion that the Bloc members have decided to focus on today for their precious time in opposition as an opposition day motion. However, I changed my tune in listening to the conversations that we are having today. I am going to thank them for this opportunity to discuss inequality in Canada, particularly in academia, because it is a pervasive issue that needs concrete steps to address. We will be able to take this opportunity to discuss that today, so I want to thank them for it. I thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I hope that the members will listen to the other perspectives and pay particular attention to the speeches of their colleagues who are directly affected by the issue: women, indigenous peoples, Black people and diverse individuals. I want to take a moment to say to everyone who is listening to this debate at home, the Black or indigenous researchers, the women and people living with a disability, that not only are they qualified, but their life experiences and identity are an asset to their work and to improving the quality of the research in Canadian institutions. I am a white woman born in Canada. I have been so fortunate in my life that I was able to chase my dreams, reach my goals and have a good life for my children. The first point I would like to make on this motion is that there is no acknowledgement of the high privilege experienced by white males in particular in this country. Perhaps it is important for context to explain how we came to be debating this today. The issue that the Bloc is raising is that positions are being reserved for women, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. I have heard hon. colleagues mention things. I will read the motion itself. It reads: That: (a) the House denounce all forms of discrimination; Absolument. The motion goes on to state: (b) in the opinion of the House, (i) research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general, Absolument. It continues: (ii) access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates’ skills and qualifications Vraiment. It adds: (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. There is a lot to unpack with such characterizations and assumptions that are baked into this motion. I have heard members warn of a dystopian alternate reality if such targeted hiring measures are allowed to continue. These arguments dangerously hinge on replacement theory rhetoric. We are all too familiar with that fact in Canada. Actually, while I was knocking on doors in my riding this weekend, I was faced with these kinds of opinions. They are very real. They do not need us to stroke them or encourage them in this place in particular. This idea that by not supporting indigenous women, for example, when applying for research chair positions is going to somehow threaten the existence of white males in our society and their positions of privilege is outlandish, to say the least. It is a fact that when diverse perspectives and voices are at the table the outcomes are better, but diverse voices historically have been excluded from participating in research. Today, people continue to face systemic barriers within the research field, including pervasive systemic racism. Systemic barriers within academia and the research ecosystem are well documented in Canada, and it is our responsibility, as a government, to play a role in addressing these barriers to ensure that equity, diversity and inclusion are integrated into all parts of the research ecosystem, even the hiring practice. The lack of diversity leads to oversight, bias and mistakes. I heard the leader of the Bloc in particular talking about the dangers of excluding. I would argue the danger resides in the status quo. Years of not implementing direct action to ensure diversity among our institutions leads to gaps in our collective knowledge. I can give so many examples. The fact that women are excluded from the medical field has led to ignoring the impact of certain medications on their bodies, not having accurate protocols, ignoring their needs and not understanding conditions specific to them. I am thinking of the lack of knowledge on and treatment of endometriosis, for example. There are so many across this country who suffer immensely because, for decades, no interest was put into researching this topic whatsoever. The vast majority of researchers did not have a uterus; thus they were not impacted by that condition. It was not seen as a priority to study or provide that care. The lack of indigenous voices in the sciences field, for example, led to deep gaps in our collective knowledge in fighting the climate crisis and wildfires. Indigenous fire stewardship blends intergenerational knowledge, beliefs and values with advanced methods of controlling several aspects of fire. It is a more holistic approach. Small, prescribed or cultural fires can recycle nutrients into the soil, and support the growth of plant species used for food and medicine. Fire stewardship can also protect communities. In central British Columbia, fire is commonly applied in the spring and the fall to reduce the risk of lightning fires that may cause harm in communities in the summer months. This is a very concrete example. Indigenous knowledge regarding health, the environment, sociology, history and language was not only ignored, but since the foundation of this country institutions have tried to suppress and indeed eliminate it. That is a fact. On other types of systemic barriers, within the research field there continue to be wage gaps between men and women and between white and indigenous or racialized staff. Across Canadian universities, Black people and indigenous people continue to face racism from their colleagues. This is both overt and internalized. They face barriers in advancing their careers because of unconscious or implicit bias on hiring committees, such as a bias on the perspective of resumés from white versus non-white candidates and a bias against people who have accents, for example. This is the reality in this country. Women also face barriers, including stereotypes, a lack of role models and mentors, and institutional practices and policies that prevent their further and full participation. We know representation matters, and that is what these initiatives are about. They are about increasing that representation and removing those barriers in a concrete way. There was conversation about the independence of universities. Universities should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves. If they see this as an issue and recognize these barriers, certainly we can empower them to make those decisions to ensure that equity-seeking groups are represented on the research chair boards. I would like to end with a comparison conversation. I come from a province where there is a continuous debate on the importance of bilingualism and whether we need to take concrete efforts to protect the French language. I find those conversations insulting, and I have found many of the comments in the House today regarding this motion also insulting, from the perspective of a woman. Those are my comments for today. Again, I hope members across the way listened to some of the lived experiences of those who have made their way to the House despite some of these barriers that exist. I look forward to their questions and comments.

1335 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

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

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

May/31/22 1:51:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is a great example of a success story. That institution should be applauded, and perhaps we should explore what measures they took to ensure that women had adequate representation, specifically in the medical field. These are the conversations that we should be having, but I am sure it is by no accident that the environment was created and that the culture was created to foster women in those positions, in those halls and institutions. My thanks to the member for bringing that fact to our attention.

89 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

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

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

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

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

May/31/22 1:53:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to express my gratitude to the member for Fredericton. I went from feeling quite frustrated and discouraged at the beginning of this debate to now feeling much more optimistic as we shift into solutions and addressing real barriers in accessing equity. We know that the rate of women holding research chairs in Canada still falls short of the parity goal. I wonder if the member could share a little bit about how, in the seven years that the Liberals have had power, there have been lots of great words spoken but we are not seeing that translating into action. Women are still being discriminated against. Can the member please share her thoughts on how we best move forward to ensure that everyone feels welcome within our systems, including that which we are debating today?

138 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

May/31/22 1:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's wonderful riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith is one that I am very familiar with. Being a relatively new member to the Liberal caucus, it has really been kind of a fact-finding mission for me to see what great work has been done. I have also heard some of the wonderful speeches in this place and wondered if our actions are matching what we say. What I have found is that they are. I had round tables in my riding over the past couple of weeks. I was fortunate to have ministers and parliamentary secretaries visit. We met with groups that represent women, in particular. We met with groups that represent victims of domestic violence. What they told me was that they have never seen so much support and funding. They really feel like their voices are being heard. To me, that is concrete action on the ground. What we say in the House is critically important, but of course those actions must follow. I am really seeing that across the country, and in particular in my riding of Fredericton.

185 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/31/22 1:55:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the ever‑charming member for Manicouagan. This is the best time of day, right before question period, when no one is listening and we can say stupid things, although I will not do that. I would like to begin with a reflection on the issue of positive discrimination. When research chairs are being selected, should positive discrimination be applied? I would like to come back to what positive discrimination means. Sometimes, in the workplace and in access to education, there are biases that can favour certain people. Yes, men can be favoured for certain jobs, people of different ethnic identities can be favoured for certain jobs, and we have to accept that positive discrimination is a mechanism that allows us to restore some equity. Can that be done in the university framework and context? I do not think so, and I will explain why. First, we need to agree on something. University research means a university is involved. In my opinion, the simplest definition of a university, one that has been around since the Middle Ages, is a place where all knowledge is permitted. That is because people quickly tried to make a distinction between certain ideologies and the development of knowledge outside the confines of certain ideologies and religions. I want to start with that, since I think it is rather crucial. I want to tell the House about some of my first loves. I was an avid reader of Michel Foucault. In a short but very interesting book called The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault says that, during any given time period, there are things that we can know and things that we cannot. He called this an episteme. According to Foucault, an episteme is a form of rationality in a given time period. Knowledge of medicine could not advance in the Middle Ages because the body was considered sacred. Anyone who dissected a body would meet the same fate, but at the hands of religious authorities, so medical knowledge could not advance. Academia was created based on this idea of leaving every possible field open to various kinds of knowledge. I wanted to emphasize that because I have the impression that what is really going on here is simply an attempt to limit the advancement of certain kinds of knowledge by including criteria that ensure access to research chairs based on identity issues. Research chairs are usually awarded based on how applicants' peers view their projects and their work. Now, if another criterion is added that has to do with identity, the pool of applicants who can apply for research chairs will be seriously limited. Research chairs are not awarded based on the notion of resolving any flagrant inequity or the fact that there are fewer people from a particular group, such as the LGBTQ community or people of a certain faith or from a certain cultural community. The goal of awarding research chairs is advancing knowledge. They are not earned based on any particular identity. In chemistry, physics and all of the pure sciences, knowledge is developed by people who have the skills to advance in their particular fields. As we can imagine, there is some degree of competition involved in earning these chairs, which does not really correspond to the idea of requirements around equity, diversity and inclusion.

570 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

May/31/22 2:00:28 p.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the member. When we resume debate, the member will have five minutes to finish his speech and then respond to questions and comments.

26 words

Mr. Shaun Chen (Scarborough North, Lib.)

May/31/22 2:00:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the House unanimously passed a motion recognizing May 18 as Tamil genocide remembrance day in Canada. As we mark 13 years since the end of the Sri Lankan armed conflict, let us learn from the mistakes of the past so future generations never repeat them. As we stand in solidarity with our Tamil community, let us commemorate the many lives lost and never forget them. As the pain and trauma ensues, let us continue to push for justice and accountability here in Canada and around the world. My riding of Scarborough North is home to the headquarters of both the Canadian Tamil Congress and the National Council of Canadian Tamils. I ask members to allow me the opportunity to recognize these organizations for their tireless work at the grassroots to champion Tamil genocide recognition in Canada. On May 18, we remember, and we commit to a world of peace.

154 words

Mr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)

May/31/22 2:01:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Oshawa, after two long and difficult years, I would like to welcome everyone to celebrate our 48th annual Fiesta Week. I welcome everyone back. We encourage residents to enjoy and experience Oshawa's rich and diverse cultures. We have many pavilions that will let us appreciate different traditions, from dance to, of course, food. This year, especially, let us recognize the Ukrainian community, which will be welcoming and embracing newcomers who have travelled far from Ukraine to the safety of Oshawa. After two years, we will also welcome back our fun-filled Fiesta Week parade on Sunday, June 19. Let us line our streets and celebrate. Once again, congratulations and a big thank you to the Oshawa Folk Arts Council for organizing this wonderful week-long party. It is their hard work that will continue make Fiesta Week such a successful and enduring celebration.

152 words

Mr. George Chahal (Calgary Skyview, Lib.)

May/31/22 2:02:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to quote Andrew Brown from CBC Calgary, “You can accomplish anything you set your mind to, unless Connor McDavid also wants that thing.” I want to extend my sincerest congratulations to the Edmonton Oilers, and to my fellow Alberta Liberal, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, for the team’s victory against the Calgary Flames in the second round of the NHL playoffs. After the hard-fought battle of Alberta, Oilers fans, including my wife, are thrilled to see their team advance to the western conference finals. Canadians across the country have also been inspired by the story of Ben Stelter, the 6-year-old Oilers superfan who is courageously battling brain cancer while supporting his favourite team. I hope members of the House can join Ben, Edmontonians and Oilers fans from across this great nation in supporting Canada’s remaining team, and the winner of the battle of Alberta, the Edmonton Oilers.

159 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

May/31/22 2:04:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Société nationale des Québécoises et Québécois du Saguenay—Lac-Saint‑Jean hosted its Soirée reconnaissance des patriotes, or patriots recognition gala, this month. Three young people from my region earned the well-deserved honour of being named the next generation of patriots for 2022 for their community involvement. I want to first congratulate Jeanne Bouchard, from Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, who was selected for her student and community involvement. She is a dedicated woman who works with different organizations and helped vulnerable people during the pandemic. I also want to congratulate William Tremblay, who is studying policing at Collège d'Alma and was recognized for his diligence and respect for his peers. He showed leadership in representing his peers and standing up for their interests before various college bodies. Finally, from Cégep de Saint‑Félicien, there is Nathan Lejeune, who is an important ally in student life and scholastic success. He makes a positive contribution to the institution's image and lends a supportive ear to his peers, many of whom are here today on Parliament Hill. These fine patriots, Jeanne, William and Nathan, are inspiring role models who proudly represent their generation and their region. I thank them and say bravo.

231 words

Mr. Marc Serré (Nickel Belt, Lib.)

May/31/22 2:05:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the incredible students at École Jean-Paul II, a school in Val Caron, in the Nickel Belt riding, which is in Greater Sudbury. The grade 7 and 8 students in the Club Val Coeurons organized the sale of Coco Grams during the Easter season. They raised more than $2,000, which they recently donated to the Canadian Red Cross in support of people affected by the conflict in Ukraine. The teamwork and generosity displayed by the students at École Jean-Paul II is inspiring. The funds raised will assist the Red Cross in purchasing food, clothing and health care for those who have been impacted by the conflict in Ukraine. My sincere thanks go out to Natalie Lamontagne, the vice-principal, and to all the staff who have supported this initiative. Good job, Comètes. You are exemplary global citizens. We can all learn from you. Thank you. Meegwetch.

159 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Peterborough South, CPC)

May/31/22 2:06:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today it is my honour to rise on behalf of Republic Day in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is an amazing country, full of diversity and even contradictions. It is a country where the majority of the population is Muslim. However, it has also been a refuge for hundreds of years to thousands of folks of the Jewish religion. It is a country where, when the Soviet Union tore down churches, Muslims paid to rebuild them. It is a country that embraces renewables, but is proud of its oil and gas industry, an industry that built pipelines over mountains, through seas and across multiple jurisdictions, which literally kept the lights on in southern Europe. Azerbaijan is a country that has much to be proud of over the last 104 years, but perhaps even more importantly it has much to contribute over the next 100 years. I wish members a happy Azerbaijan Republic Day.

152 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 78