SoVote

May/31/22 5:23:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from the Green Party for his question and commend him for his excellent French. I absolutely understand that, and I thought it was clear in my speech. I acknowledge this reality. A 50-year-old white mean who says that he understands cannot truly understand since he has not experienced these difficulties. He should say that he can appreciate these difficulties. I am saying that we do need to take measures to make the ratios fairer and more equitable, to better reflect society. However, I do not think that discrimination and prohibiting people from applying for a job is the way to go about that. I think it needs to be done in other ways. We agree on almost everything. I simply do not want to fix one injustice by committing another. It will be more progressive.

144 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/31/22 5:24:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that he recognizes that there has been discrimination in the past, but he says that we cannot swing the pendulum too far the other way. I am surprised. Since women, people from racialized communities and indigenous peoples are still under-represented, does he think the pendulum has swung too far back now?

57 words

Mr. Yves Perron

May/31/22 5:25:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague from Victoria for her excellent question, because it will allow me to clarify matters. I said earlier that we are going too far with this approach. I did not say that the proportion of under-represented people was too high. What I said was that, when introducing new measures, we should avoid discriminating against a new group of people on the pretext that the previous group has long suffered discrimination. I do not know if my answer is clear. The aim is to correct historical under-representation, but it must be done properly, and universities must be allowed to recruit properly by insisting on higher thresholds. However, no one should ever be prohibited from applying for a job because that person has the wrong skin colour. That would swing the pendulum too far the other way.

145 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/31/22 5:26:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, these are such important issues we are discussing in the debate today. I often reflect on the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said the ideal that we seek as a society is one in which people are judged not based on the colour of their skin, but on the content of their character. We have to recognize that there are historical and ongoing instances of injustice and discrimination that people face, while at the same time working toward an ideal in which people are seen fundamentally on the basis of the content of their character and what they offer so that we are not placing so much focus on issues of race and identity in our discussion that they overwhelm other points of discussion. I wonder if the member has thoughts on how we can address injustices while also moving toward the ideal that Martin Luther King Jr. described.

153 words

Mr. Yves Perron

May/31/22 5:27:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, actually, that is what I try to do every day. I will give an unrelated example. It still happens quite frequently that I learn that someone I know belongs to the LGBTQ+ community. I did not know, even if I have known these people for a long time. Why did I not know? Because it was none of my business and because I do not pay attention to these things. It is the same when I meet someone who is Black, Asian or white: I see a human being. Ideally, of course, that is the way it should be. However, measures meant to restore equity are necessary. I want to make that very clear to my colleague. I am not against measures aimed at increasing the representation of under-represented groups. I think they are needed because there has been an extremely long and harmful history of injustice. I simply do not want to do the opposite and discriminate against another group.

164 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

May/31/22 5:28:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé for agreeing to share his time with me. I am pleased to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion concerning post-secondary studies and research chairs, even though this is a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. As the critic for status of women, I am perfectly aware that this group is still under-represented and that more work needs to be done. However, the debate we would like to have is not about the concept of positive discrimination in general, but about the specific policy of the Canada research chairs program, and its requirements and practices concerning equity, diversity and inclusion. We are not against equity. We are not against diversity. We are not against inclusion. I am pleased to note that once again, Quebec is working to raise awareness of such matters. Today I will be speaking about what is already being done in Quebec, I will come back to Ottawa's paternalistic approach, and I will conclude by speaking about the importance of being proactive, especially in the case of women, but also in the case of indigenous peoples, people with disabilities and minorities. First, we must speak about what is already being done in Quebec. The right way to promote equality, diversity and inclusion would instead be to apply a preferential hiring policy, meaning that for equally qualified candidates, preference would be given to certain people. That is what many Quebec universities have already done with respect to women, and it has worked well. We are not directly opposed to all current, future or possible policies aimed at promoting equity, diversity and inclusion, especially since these exist in Quebec. We are starting a debate on the matter, a societal debate which has not yet taken place, but which is necessary and desirable. I do want to say that in Quebec, there are also CEGEPs. Today, we are talking a lot about universities and research chairs, but we must not forget about CEGEPs. There is no university in the riding of Shefford, but there is an excellent CEGEP in Granby. It may be training future researchers. We must not forget them in the post-secondary education continuum, whether it is for pre-university studies or technical courses. That is why I was delighted to present female science students with certificates to recognize their academic excellence as part of Hooked on School Days. I also talked with Yvan O'Connor, the director of the Granby CEGEP, who told me about his institution's projects and development and the problems related to foreign student visas. If the federal government wants to contribute to education, it should work on matters under its jurisdiction. For example, it could provide adequate funding for science, which it is not doing at the moment. We are opposed to a federal policy that is specific, ill-conceived and tainted by ideology. It creates paradoxical situations, anomalies or inequities. Moreover, it represents federal interference in an area under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, expressly confers jurisdiction over education on the provinces. It is generally known and accepted that education is a Quebec matter. Quebec's universities belong to Quebeckers, and they are funded through taxes paid by Quebeckers. In fact, it is a direct intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, because the influence of the Canada research chairs program goes beyond simply funding research. In fact, it acts as a professor hiring program. The federal government is dictating hiring conditions to universities. This is unacceptable. The program must be reviewed. The federal government can use its spending power to finance research, but it cannot, in any way, use this approach to change the way Quebec's universities function. Yet, that is what is happening because of the excessive constraints imposed by the Canada research chairs program, particularly because of its unreasonable equity, diversity and inclusion requirements. In addition, through the requirements it imposes on its research funding programs, the federal government is undermining the autonomy of universities. There is no excuse for the government dictating the conditions for hiring professors. If the government wishes to appropriate the ability to spend on education, it must do so with no strings attached. It is unacceptable for the federal government to impose targets on Quebec universities under threat of sanctions. Quebec universities are perfectly free to develop programs to address diversity and inclusion without having the federal government dictate the terms and conditions under threat of having part of their funding withheld. Federally imposed requirements are unacceptable and illegitimate impediments to their independence. It is possible to have a policy that fosters hiring from certain groups of equal qualifications. That is true and it is already being done for women in some Quebec university departments, for example. However, to apply an equal opportunities policy, you must have candidates who are available and interested. The federal EDI policy on academic research funding is an ideological drift that creates absurd situations, and it must be abolished. If we want the academic workforce to be more diverse and representative of the Canadian population, the solution is not to impose arbitrary quotas at the time of hiring, because the most important criteria should be the excellence of academic records and the value of scientific research projects. The solution should be proactive instead, so that at the time of hiring, the pool of candidates is already more diverse and representative of the general population. We are therefore being asked to collectively reflect on how we can find positive measures that will promote equal opportunities by stimulating interest in the arts, science and all spheres of society. In all cases, this will be a Quebec discussion, as education is at the heart of our social model. The federal government's responsibility is to stop interfering in the management of Quebec universities and to improve the granting agencies' research grants for students. Yes, quotas create certain effects. They are unequal. To put it bluntly, the CRC program's current policy prevents some researchers from applying for research chair positions because they are not part of the designated groups. They are automatically excluded, despite their qualifications, even if that means some chairs remain vacant. The unequal effects of the hiring targets for the four designated groups, namely women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and visible minorities, came under public scrutiny when Laval University posted an ad for a job in the biology department in the winter of 2022. There was also an interesting column by Jean‑François Lisée, who denounced the incongruity of setting targets using the Canadian average. With its Université du Québec network, Quebec made the choice to set up universities in the regions. That way, knowledge is not concentrated in the major centres, and this contributes to the social vitality of our regions. The current CRC policy requires our universities to recruit not only outside their walls, but well outside the regions in which they are established. The CRC policy directly hinders Quebec's vision. This is very important to me because it hurts our communities. The federal government's position is rigid and ideologically driven. What is more, it constitutes interference in provincial jurisdictions. It is also an attack on the autonomy of universities. The federal government should review its research funding policy and allow the universities to determine their own hiring policies. In Quebec, these criteria are evaluated based on the efforts made by the candidate to promote EDI, not on hiring quotas that exclude qualified researchers. We must not forget the important issue of university autonomy. These requirements prove that the federal policy does not respect the autonomy and independence of universities. The federal government's approach is extremely authoritarian and high-handed. I would also add that, in the context of a labour shortage, it can take time to renew this pool, as requested by the federal government, given that many years of study are required for this process. That is the quandary faced by universities when they are required to fill positions with people from designated groups, except for women. Setting aside the issue of hiring quotas and the curious fact that women, indigenous people, people with disabilities and ethnic minorities are put in the same boat, this temporary excitement among elected officials and the media gives us an opportunity to again point out a fundamental fact about universities and their autonomy. We should remember that this is not about discussing the legitimacy of certain appointments from specific groups, because, in the case of women, that has been happening for more than 20 years. Instead, we are noting that the requirements imposed by the federal program are not being condemned by universities as an illegitimate and unacceptable restriction on their autonomy. However, is this not a striking case of the denial of their management autonomy? In other words, these prejudices will be eliminated not by excluding certain people, but by improving selection processes. For example, universities could anonymize CVs or establish standard exams for a position. This is being discussed as a means of promoting the hiring of women. These are points to ponder, because, beyond the debates on these exclusive criteria, I would like us to have a calm, healthy debate on proactive measures we can take. What barriers need to be broken down? Why are women still under-represented as entrepreneurs? Why are there still fewer women in politics? Why do we have to work harder to recruit female research chairs, especially in economics? I was reading about that this summer in Hélène Périvier's excellent book about feminist economics, L'économie féministe. I highly recommend it. At the end of the day, I want little girls like my little Naomie to aspire to do the work they want to do, no matter what they choose. Let us give them the choice. Let us give our universities the choice to operate the way they want.

1685 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

May/31/22 5:37:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech, and I think a good point was raised at the end about an anonymous process. I think that works in some fields. We are not at a point where diversity inclusion targets are being met, and in many of the speeches, I have heard that because there were historical injustices, we should not be committing a reverse injustice. Well, I would argue that these injustices, with the lack of diversity in research institutions and universities, are not just historical injustices, but continue today. There still exists racial discrimination in the workforce. That is a reality and a fact in Canada. I have heard we need to do better, but without setting goals and targets and requiring institutions and corporations to meet them, I feel we will make backward progress. I want to know what the member feels about that. We will not make progress on inclusion and having more women in the workforce if we do not set targets for ourselves. I would like to hear what the member has to say.

180 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/31/22 5:38:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, actually, listening to today's speeches, I get the impression that we are searching for a cosmetic fix to a problem. We have so much work to do to deal with the causes, and imposing these targets and quotas is not the appropriate way to deal with the problem. I will give my colleague an example. During the pandemic, the numbers showed that women were impeded in their research, that they were particularly affected by the pandemic and that this was detrimental to their academic work. Would imposing targets and quotas have solved the problem? I do not think so. We really have to get to the root of the problem. Why were these women affected by the pandemic, why does the mental load still fall on them today, and why are they even more stuck at home, which has an effect on their work? What can we do to improve their work-life balance? These are the kinds of questions I want to raise today. In my speech, I spoke about the quandary that quotas create for universities. I also explained that these things are already being done in Quebec anyway. I think that we need to be addressing this issue on a larger scale. We need to be proactive. I do not think that setting criteria and targets will necessarily help fix the many problems.

229 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

May/31/22 5:40:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent and well-articulated speech. I enjoyed it. After listening to the speeches earlier today, I want to remind members that there is one people in Canada that is particularly susceptible to discrimination, the people my grandparents called French-Canadians in Lower Canada, now known as Quebec. We were discriminated against because of our language. There was even a time when some institutions did not think that we were smart enough to work for Hydro-Québec or hold senior civil engineering positions. As my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville pointed out earlier, the big unions, which were early proponents of equality of opportunity, responded to this sentiment. That is why women, members of visible minorities and other minorities are prioritized when they are equally qualified. Quebec has made a lot of progress in this arena, and this principle is now a given. Does my colleague think that the government is going too far and that it should simply apply this old philosophy in universities, which are looking for qualifications?

183 words

All Topics

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/31/22 5:42:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while listening to my colleague from Montcalm, I realized that in my speech, I dealt too quickly with Ottawa's paternalism and with the fact that it does not recognize our distinctiveness as a nation, our feelings and our desire to achieve equal opportunity for all. Once again, we are told by know-it-all Ottawa that we are not doing things correctly and that it will impose new conditions, as it does everywhere, as if we were incapable of managing our own schools, our own health care system—

92 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/31/22 5:42:44 p.m.
Watch

We must resume debate. The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

13 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/31/22 5:42:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to a very sensitive subject, but it is a very important subject. I want to note that I will be splitting my time. Different members of the House have different experiences with the issue of racism. Quite obviously it is not something that I experience myself, but I think that for those of us who have close personal relationships or perhaps are married to someone from a racialized background, our eyes get opened to certain things in the context of those relationships that deepen our sense of commitment to addressing them. This is a very important conversation we are having about how we can address issues of injustice and racism while also ensuring that our systems and institutions are protecting access in an equitable way. I want to just read the motion coming from the Bloc. The motion says: 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. Essentially, what this motion is saying is that it condemns discrimination. It takes the view that research chair grants should be awarded on the basis of science and not on the basis of the identity criteria of the individuals involved. On the face of it, and I do not think I have ever said this about a proposal from the Bloc before, it seems eminently reasonable and desirable that the decisions made in awarding positions or research grants be based not on identity criteria, but on the work and the products individuals are putting forward. This motion expresses an ideal that we would generally agree that we should work to as a society. It is an ideal that recognizes the equal dignity and value of all individuals, and an ideal that seeks to support and give opportunity to individuals without reference to identity markers that are not the criteria of the position. Again, on the face of it, this is a reasonable motion that emphasizes an opposition to discrimination and a desire to move towards equality. To dig further into it, in terms of saying that the criteria for awarding positions should not be identity markers but should be related to the work being done and a person's experience and so forth, I think it is important to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism in many of our institutions. There is the reality that people from particular backgrounds can often face barriers that are not facial barriers or officially intended as barriers but that nonetheless are unseen barriers that exist and prevent people from receiving access to certain positions. We can see that expressed in the fact that there can be under-representation in certain spaces and overrepresentation in certain spaces. We need to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism, but the question that today's debate has been focusing on is what our response is to that recognition. Some members would say that when we have instances of discrimination, things such as binding quotas are the way to guarantee that equality. I think a better approach, actually, rather than the one recommended, is to dig into a question of cause. It is to ask the question of why certain individuals face these barriers, and to try to discern the origins of those barriers. Maybe an example that is illustrative is of a meeting taking place. A group holds a meeting on a regular basis and it is saying it has an under-representation of people with disabilities, yet the only way to access the meeting space is to go up stairs. There is no ramp and no elevator. In that hypothetical situation, when people are having a meeting and wonder why there is no representation of people with mobility issues, it is obvious that it is because there is a barrier preventing people from accessing that space. These are the kinds of questions we have to ask: Are there barriers that prevent people from accessing certain spaces that we are not paying sufficient attention to? Can we solve that problem by introducing a quota or a regulatory requirement? A better way to say it is, can we try to understand what that cause is and address that cause directly? In the case of the hypothetical example I am using we would ask if we could put in a ramp, make renovations or hold the meeting in a different place so that it was more accessible. Let us acknowledge the reality that there is a problem of systemic racism. Let us acknowledge that the equal treatment of groups or individuals who face barriers does not necessarily lead to equity. We need to recognize when there is not an intentional differential treatment, but in effect a differential treatment because of the barriers that exist that are particularly applied, or are applied in a particular way, to some communities as opposed to others, which still requires us to try to understand and examine the root causes. I do not see anything in the motion the Bloc has put forward that is inconsistent with the question of trying to confront issues of systemic discrimination and barriers as they exist. What I think this motion is saying, on the other hand, is this. If we have positions where we say that only people of certain backgrounds can apply, or there is a mandatory level of representation that has to exist, that is not confronting the issues of what the barriers are. It is not confronting the broader problems. I would say as well that when we put in those kinds of requirements, the individuals who get those positions as a result of those requirements obviously benefit, but they do not address the broader social issues that I think are creating challenges for more people across the board. I want to identify another issue, which is the question of how we define some of these equity categories. On the issue of race, for example, we have a North American way of understanding what particular racial groups are, yet they are defined differently in different societies. What are considered different races in some parts of the world are different from what are considered different races in North America. Of course, there are individuals who are from a broad range of different backgrounds where it would not be obvious for someone to know what category they fit into, so some of these equity programs I think risk essentializing this categorization. That raises questions and problems, such as how we define exactly who counts as being in one particular racial group or another. In some cases, the way to resolve this, or the way around this potential problem, is to say it is a question of how an individual identifies. In the case of my children, their father is white and their mother is East Indian, so will they have access to certain programs if there is a policy of setting aside certain positions? I do not know. I guess it would be up to them to decide or define. Fundamentally, I do not want my children to grow up in a world where they are defined by someone else's arbitrary sense, or their own need to choose whether they are part of a particular category. I would prefer for us to be a society in which people are able to make choices about their own identification. I am out of time already. Maybe I will be able to develop more of these thoughts in response to questions.

1326 words

All Topics

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

May/31/22 5:52:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wanted to question my colleague, whom I have gotten the chance to work with in some capacities. I would say some of those capacities are my colleague's passion for protecting religious freedoms and religious rights in Canada, so I have a lot of respect for him in that regard. I am wondering if I can get his comments and feedback, because I have some concerns. I know, personally, highly qualified and well-trained people who used to live in Quebec who have moved to Ontario in recent times due to the change in laws in Quebec. Could Quebec, as I fear, face a smaller capacity or population of diversity in that province, and therefore find it even harder to be able to fill positions of diversity?

130 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/31/22 5:53:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend is maybe dancing around Quebec's Bill 21 a bit, so if that is the question, I have been on the record repeatedly saying that I strongly disagree with Bill 21. My own province of Alberta has certainly been blessed by francophone immigration. We see many people coming to Alberta from all over the world, and I think our province has been well served not only by a policy that says people are free to practice their faith while working in the public service, but we have tended to have a very open policy in terms of school choice, and allowing different minority faith and language programs to be represented within our education system. I think that has been a great source of strength for us as a province, and it has been about diversity, choice and freedom, and part of the result of that is that anglophones, francophones and people from other language groups are choosing to come to our province in large numbers.

172 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

May/31/22 5:55:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, speaking from my own university experience, especially on the research side, it is an extremely competitive environment. Never—or hardly ever—would a university turn down a candidate with high research potential who will publish and make the university look good regardless of that candidate's skin colour or ethnic origin. My sense is that the Liberals and the NDP think our motion presupposes that, in the absence of federal criteria, universities would engage in discriminatory hiring practices. I think that is deeply insulting to the research community in Quebec and Canada, a community made up of highly educated people who are very much in favour of diversity. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of that. Is that kind of thinking across the way an insult to our institutes of higher learning?

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/31/22 5:56:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, respectfully, the point I would make on this is a bit more subtle. It is to say that there are barriers that people face that are not necessarily the result of the intention of somebody to discriminate. There may be issues of unconscious bias or there may be structural issues that lead to an effect of discrimination without there being an intent to discriminate, but my point is also that the solution to that problem is not saying we should slap a band-aid on and have quotas. My solution to that problem is saying we should do everything we can to understand what the root causes of those barriers are and try to remedy them. That is important not only for those who would otherwise benefit from a quota, but for everybody society-wide, if we could try to understand and confront those root causes.

148 words

All Topics

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

May/31/22 5:57:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the mention of unconscious bias by the member. He is asking about the underlying root problems. There is a lot of research about that and unconscious bias, and there is actually something called the Matilda effect in the science community that I would encourage the member to look at, if he has not. My question is around who is adjudicating and deciding. We have a lot of talk in industry about meritocracy, skills, knowledge and ability, but really it is about who is adjudicating and deciding who has skills, knowledge and ability. Could the member talk just a bit about this myth: the fallacy around meritocracy, what he thinks about who adjudicates, and what impact that has on who gets chosen?

125 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/31/22 5:58:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think meritocracy is an ideal. We want to live in a society where everybody is judged based on merit, but we have to also acknowledge that we are inevitably going to be imperfect in living out that ideal of meritocracy. That is why we need to try to understand and respond to various issues. It is not that meritocracy is not desirable. Of course it is, but we should not presume that we are living it out perfectly. We should continually be working toward it.

88 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

May/31/22 5:58:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place and speak to the issues that are facing Canadians. I appreciate the opportunity to listen to this debate over the course of the last number of hours. I certainly appreciate the fact that the House is able to address some of the serious issues that face our nation, such as things like discrimination and racism, while also touching on, as this motion does, the quality of Canada's research and ensuring that there are processes that are not only condemning and denouncing racism, but also talking about how research and academia is able to be conducted fairly. I would simply note and share first what I think would be valuable, which is a story, and this is a very recent story. Just a number of hours ago, I had a chance to speak with a group of young people who are in town for the National Prayer Breakfast, an event that the Prime Minister attended and spoke at this morning, along with the Leader of the Opposition and other representation from across government. It is certainly very powerful, as a Christian, to see our nation come together in prayer. It was a very powerful time this morning. This group of young people I spoke with a few short hours ago are a part of a program that is associated with the National Prayer Breakfast, which brings young leaders together from across Canada. I will summarize what was said because I certainly would not want the stories they shared to come back and impact the individuals who shared them. This group of individuals, people of colour, from eastern Canada shared some of their experiences. One woman in particular talked about the clear difference between words, programs, quotas and the nice ideas of ensuring that there is equality, and actual acceptance and opportunity in the workplace. This individual works for a level of government and implored me to ensure I do what I can to encourage action so there is equity of opportunity, so it is not simply a program where an HR individual or public servant in the field of HR, when conducting initial hiring or doing assessments, simply checks off boxes, but that they address some of the root causes of some of the discrimination that exists. This individual, over the course of our conversation, shared how although in a workplace that talks the talk, it does not necessarily walk the walk, even though there are things such as quotas. My overall message, as I look at this and in ensuring that we address some of the significant issues surrounding the discrimination that does exist in this country, is to ensure that we do not simply talk or have a band-aid solution, as my colleague aptly referenced. We do not simply put a band-aid on it and say there has to be a certain number of people with a certain designation, whether it be race or another factor, while not addressing the root of what is causing the challenges. It could be systemic, implicit bias or whatever the case may be. On behalf of this young woman, a public servant working for a level of government, let us not look at band-aid solutions. Let us address the real and root causes of discrimination. As Conservatives, we talk a lot about freedom. We also acknowledge that when it comes to the idea of freedom and we have a conversation about trying to get somebody ahead by holding somebody back, we see that ultimately there is a loser. My encouragement is that we ensure we can create an economy and a public service where everybody is given that equity, that equal opportunity to ensure that we can have a diverse workforce representative of Canada and ensure that some of these significant challenges are addressed. I would like to mention some accusations I have heard often and heard today about the Conservative Party and about the Bloc Québécois. Certainly when it comes to the Conservative Party, I am proud to be part of a party that has a strong history of seeing individuals empowered. There has been one female prime minister in this country. That prime minister was a Conservative. I am proud of that legacy. There have been a number of leaders of our party who have also been women. The current interim leader of the opposition has shared on numerous occasions how proud she is that she was selected, not based on her gender but because she was the most qualified for the job. Certainly, I find it ironic that there are those who come from privileged positions who would suggest that somehow those who have made it to the top, who were chosen, are somehow less valuable when they are given those positions. There are many examples and many firsts that this party has had in terms of ethnicities, individuals who have taken their place in the chamber, who have served in cabinet positions or who have been a first for those ethnic communities in our country. I am very, very proud to be part of a party that has seen those firsts in this country. As well, various Conservative former prime ministers have appointed some minorities to be senators who have done incredible work. Just to come full circle here, I would note that there is a very relevant study that the ethics committee, which I am honoured to be a member of, is currently undertaking about racial bias in facial recognition technology. As the previous speaker mentioned, some barriers do exist. I know that as my time is short, I cannot get into some of the details and, quite frankly, reveal what could very aptly be described as systemic racism. In some cases, it is very, very overt, which is backed up by the numbers. There is a very troubling trend in addressing the realities that exist for certain communities and people of colour in this country. The motion today, I believe, is quite reasonable. It denounces discrimination. It talks about research, its necessity and that it should be based on those who are most qualified. I am paraphrasing, but it ensures that the government does not use exclusive criteria to hold certain people back while trying to advance the cause of others. I would simply repeat what was shared by the individual I referenced earlier: Let us not look for a band-aid solution. Let us not simply talk. Instead of things like quotas and some of the details of the story that I will not get into out of respect for the privacy of this individual, let us ensure that in an effort that is—

1130 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/31/22 6:08:47 p.m.
Watch

We are going to run out of time for questions. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Brampton North.

19 words

Brampton

SoVote

House Hansard - 78