SoVote

May/31/22 3:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C‑18. The question is on the amendment. May I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of amendment to House]

58 words

The Speaker

May/31/22 4:02:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

I declare the amendment defeated. The next question is on the main motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. deputy House leader.

54 words

All Topics

Mrs. Sherry Romanado

May/31/22 4:03:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Speaker

May/31/22 4:15:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-18

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 56 minutes.

40 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

May/31/22 4:16:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off earlier. To begin, I want to repeat what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said earlier today. According to my colleague, if the Bloc members' priority is to defend white men who want a job at a university, then we need to own that. This makes me think of something I often accuse the Conservatives of, and that is taking a populist approach. If there can be right-wing populism, then there can also be left-wing populism. I will try to connect that to today's debate. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie made that comment because he was referring to something that I think is ideologically central to today's debate and that affects what we call identity politics. In identity politics, there is a very simple concept known as Anglo-conformity. Anglo-conformity means that western societies were built with one specific person in mind, namely the white Anglo-Saxon male. It is often said that white Anglo-Saxon males would fit into every institution in western societies and have no concern about having their identity recognized. I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that this is indeed the case. Often, it is necessary to make a special effort to ensure that our institutions are representative of our diversity. Although I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, we have to see whether the thinking on EDI fits in with this concept of creating a society whose institutions are more representative. I thought of something interesting. Every member should read Max Weber's lectures on science and politics as vocations. The author makes a distinction between the role of the scientist and the role of the politician. To that end, Max Weber describes two types of ethics: the ethics of responsibility, and the ethics of conviction. I will briefly explain this. The idea that Max Weber wants to present is that a good idea that is tainted by ideology can often have disastrous results. I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that we must make our institutions more representative. That is certainly correct. I believe that, in the employment sector and in the public service sector, we definitely need to put in place measures to ensure that our institutions are more representative of ethnocultural diversity. If this works in those two sectors, does it mean that this also works in the area of university research? That is where we need to come back to the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction. The ethics of responsibility encourage us to look at the negative impacts that the ideas we are trying to implement might have. Scholars often use ethics of responsibility. In politics, it is much more common to examine the ethics of conviction, which correspond with ideological purity. There must be representation because the concept of Anglo-conformity makes western societies less representative, so let us apply this to everything. But is it possible to apply this principle to everything? I do not think so. I do not think that we should look at the research sector the same way that we look at the employment sector and the place that ethnocultural minorities hold in the public service. The research sector is very different. I would even go so far as to say that there is a correlation with the political representation system. Would it be acceptable to decide to create elected office positions for which only certain categories of individuals could run? I think members will agree that that would be an abuse of the ideology we see today in identity politics. I would like to come back to the possible repercussions of adding conditions that have nothing to do with education to the criteria for awarding research chairs. The first one is the implication that the peer review committees that study these applications for research chairs are already insensitive to differences. I do not believe it. How is a research chair awarded? It is the peers—

688 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/31/22 4:22:00 p.m.
Watch

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I did try to signal him to let him know that his time was up. He will be able to continue during the question and comment period. The hon. member for Montcalm.

40 words

Montcalm

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/31/22 4:22:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to build on what he was saying, because I am tremendously interested in the notion that the ethics of conviction are somewhat inappropriate in the field of research.

35 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/31/22 4:22:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is being very kind. This raises a question for me. For example, today's “diversity ideology” raises the following question: Are there fields of study that may now be off limits? Can a person who is non-indigenous specialize in studying indigenous communities? The definition of EDI suggests that this is not a possibility. One thing scares me. What I wanted to say earlier is that “diversity ideology” represents a danger not unlike the one we observed in the academic world of the 1970s, when Marxism was so dominant in political science departments that all the people who had a different view were pushed aside and basically could not access funding for their research. By potentially hindering academic freedom, we run the risk of hindering knowledge, which is even more dangerous.

139 words

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

May/31/22 4:24:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear someone say Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie correctly, without making puns or jokes. I am very comfortable with diversity ideology and believe that our institutions should reflect the diversity and representativeness of different groups. Does my colleague not see that there is a fundamental problem when only 6% of researchers or professors are members of visible minorities, even though visible minorities account for twice that percentage of the Quebec population? This means that change is not happening, or that it is happening much too slowly, and that more proactive measures are needed.

99 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/31/22 4:24:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that would mean that the committees awarding research chairs have members who are insensitive to diversity. That is what you are saying.

25 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/31/22 4:25:17 p.m.
Watch

No, the problem—

4 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice

May/31/22 4:25:17 p.m.
Watch

Only a small percentage of the population has access.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/31/22 4:25:17 p.m.
Watch

Order. I remind members that they are not to debate each other. I would ask the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie to wait his turn before asking another question. The member for Jonquière.

38 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/31/22 4:25:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the problem is that science cannot be beholden to an ideology, no matter how noble that ideology may be. While I see the worth of the ideology of diversity, which I adhere to myself in many aspects of society, what we are seeing here is an attempt to dictate how university research should be conducted. That is not how this works, and if we allow it to happen, knowledge will become inaccessible, which is not how universities should be seen.

82 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

May/31/22 4:26:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am perplexed by the NDP-Liberal government placing ideology and political correctness above competency and ability. I am wondering if the member could expand a little further on his thoughts on that.

35 words

Mr. Mario Simard

May/31/22 4:26:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am just as perplexed as my colleague. Earlier I spoke about Max Weber's essay “Politics as a Vocation”. Weber makes a marked distinction between the role of politics, which is to set directions for society, and the role of a vocation, which is to further knowledge. What happens with something like EDI is that politics dictates what should be studied, but that is not how it works. This can cause problems and lead to partisanship, which would be of little to no benefit to society as a whole.

94 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

May/31/22 4:27:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the misfortunes of the world sometimes lie in the way we name or fail to name things. We are here to discuss research funding, chairs and the EDI criteria. The use of the acronym EDI sometimes prevents us from understanding what we are talking about. We are talking about equity, diversity and inclusion. These words have been used so indiscriminately that they have practically been stripped of their meaning. Since a word is an amalgam of sound and meaning, it does not make sense when it loses its meaning. Words are used to say anything and everything. Today, I will try to make sense of all this, so that we can better understand. Although equity, diversity and inclusion may be buzzwords, they are important concepts. As the member for Trois-Rivières, I am particularly interested in the subject of this motion. The president of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, with whom I have regular discussions, keeps telling me that he is trying hard to attract the best researchers to all of his chairs, whether it be in social communications, pure sciences or green hydrogen. He keeps telling me how difficult it is to attract excellent candidates. Attracting the best candidates is a difficult thing, period. I cannot imagine that adding any kind of criteria would make his job any easier. Let us at least try to look at this debate from another angle, despite the claim by some that this is a philosophical debate. Let us take the high road and demonstrate two things. First, for the enjoyment of everyone here, I will quote a philosopher who has always moved me, and that is Heraclitus. What he said can be summed up in four words: All things are one. According to the “all things are one” philosophy, there can be no light without darkness, no left without right, no cold without hot. All things are one. Everything is included. According to Heraclitus's philosophy, inclusion is the solution to our problem. We need everyone today. That is inclusion. Let us try to give meaning to this. Today I heard several people try to talk about or avoid talking about discrimination. Discrimination is what separates, what divides, what distinguishes between concepts. However, when discrimination is used to distinguish between concepts, it does not necessarily have a negative value, since we sometimes talk about positive discrimination. I prefer the word “discernment” to “discrimination”. Discernment is an action that involves distinguishing between two schools of thought, taking context into account. Context is very important here. Oddly enough, EDI—equity, diversity and inclusion—excludes candidates, but I will come back to that. In life, it is justifiable to want to correct an inequality but, as many have said, we have to remember that we do not correct one inequality by creating another. Everything is one. Instead, I will talk about striking a balance. In awarding research funds, advancing knowledge should be the only criterion that counts. As we all know, science is not about sex, gender, colour, height, origin or residence. Science is about knowledge, it is about competence. Science is, and must remain, objective. I will, of course, be the first to say that a diversity of voices can only enrich a discussion, especially in the humanities. Having studied philosophy, I can say that, even in my career as an ethicist, the diversity of voices that one always seeks is hard to come by. When you want to take a 360-degree look at any given subject, it becomes difficult when people's views are identical. People who look alike therefore think alike. In the quest for truth or knowledge, one must apply what is called the ethics of discussion. Curiously, this step comes after what my colleague just mentioned, that is, after the ethics of beliefs and responsibilities. The ethics of discussion is the validation of our own ideas by a larger, more diverse group, a group that has another point of view. There is richness in diversity. To get a research grant, first and foremost you have to master a vernacular. That is difficult. You must be well versed in the language, conform to the dictates of the research supervisor, get published in English and so on. The research environment is difficult for everyone. By the way, the requirement that the researcher publish in English is also a form of silent discrimination against francophones that dares not speak its name. History clearly shows that there is an imbalance, a degree of discrimination against visible minorities, but, as I said, two wrongs do not make a right. Unfortunately, throughout history, minority groups, including francophones in Canada, have experienced negative discrimination. We need to acknowledge that, but, again, two wrongs do not make a right. If there is discrimination, we need to tackle the reasons for it, not punish candidates who could be eligible for research funding. Although diverse points of view can enrich the scientific conversation, diversity is not a prerequisite for doing good science. The Canada research chairs program does not see it that way. According to its criteria, one cannot be a competent scientist unless one meets the diversity criteria. That statement is so outrageous that it would be laughable were it not so serious. If we examine the many criteria set out by the program, we can draw only one conclusion: The criteria are numerous, spurious and even Kafkaesque. The Canada research chairs program is based on an unrealistic vision. It is like trying to build an airplane that is supposed to fly under water. Second, let us get out of our parliamentary bubble and our big-city bubbles and expand our horizons. Long ago, the Quebec government developed a network of 10 regional universities: the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, the Université du Québec à Rimouski, the Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue, the Université du Québec à Montréal, the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, the Université du Québec en Outaouais, and so on. This network was set up to develop the regions of Quebec. By comparing these universities, we can see that there are significant demographic differences within the network. I urge my colleagues to believe me when I say this: the demographics of Montreal are not comparable to those of Rimouski. If we go further, none of these regions is comparable to the Canadian population statistics cited by the Canada research chairs program. There too, Quebec is different. What will the Université du Québec à Rimouski need to do if the minority referred to by the criteria is simply nowhere to be found in the region served by the university? The “Canadian” criteria in the research chair guidelines do not match the demographics of Quebec. There is a glaring injustice here, in addition to a demonstrable inequity. I will say for the third time that diversity usually enriches a discussion, but it still has to be present in the regions in question. By asking the government to review the criteria for awarding grants to research chairs, we are simply asking it to let science be what it is, which is objective. We are asking the government to let universities be what they are, which is independent. Furthermore, the program ignores the autonomy of universities. Basically, non‑scientists are being entrusted with the task of allocating funds to scientists, even though these non‑scientists sometimes know very little about the process, apart from the diversity criteria. The Canada research chairs program should be content to act as a facilitator for scientific advances, advances that are based on the skills and qualifications of candidates. It should not be telling universities what to do. This is an infringement on the jurisdiction of universities and Quebec, and that is unacceptable. Through its directives, the federal government is once again interfering in matters that are none of its concern and meddling where it is not wanted. Through our motion, we are calling on the government to review its guidelines on equity, diversity and inclusion with a focus on the first, equity, which is the first word in the acronym, EDI. It is important to distinguish between equity or equality, for they are not the same thing. When it is properly understood, equity is a criterion that encompasses and transcends diversity and inclusion. Equity is a fair assessment of what each party is entitled to. If we add a little Aristotle and take a philosophical view, I would even say that it is a fair assessment of what each party is entitled to, as much as humanly possible. That should be the guideline used when allocating funding. Its very meaning transcends the convoluted EDI criteria used in the Canada research chairs program. A word of caution is needed. It is important to remember that certain groups, for any number of legitimate reasons, tend to be drawn to certain disciplines over others. We have to be careful to replace discrimination with colonialism. Discrimination of any kind has no place in our society, and neither does blind, prescriptive virtue.

1556 words

All Topics

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

May/31/22 4:36:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite. I do not necessarily share the same concerns in many ways, but the focus of my question is in regard to women specifically. Women make up more than 50% of the population in Quebec. Would he not see that as a reason in itself to have policies to encourage and have women represented as much as possible, in getting up to that 50%? Does he not see that as something we should be striving to achieve?

84 words

Mr. René Villemure

May/31/22 4:37:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe that those criteria already exist. However, one thing is certain: We must promote access for members of groups, such as women, but I do not believe that we need go so far as to ban and exclude people, because that is not the case. As I stated in my speech, there are certain groups that, for reasons of their own, are simply not present in an area of activity. We must be careful when we push for something. However, I agree with the member. We must foster access, but I believe that universities do a good job in that regard. Having experience with universities and research chairs, I believe that people are making a real effort.

120 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/31/22 4:38:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am just furious, and disappointed, hearing the arguments from my colleagues today. We are talking about initiatives and policies that correct the under-representation of marginalized groups of people, and the Bloc wants to take away those policies. It wants to continue to marginalize and continue to push for the under-representation of these groups. I heard the member speak a bit about how some groups do not want to go into certain fields. I really think I would caution him in his assumption. We, as members of the House, should be working to increase diversity and increase equality in our institutions.

110 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 78