44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 9, 2024 10:00AM
- Feb/9/24 12:07:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to grape growers in B.C. and across Canada. I know that in Nova Scotia, they have gone through climate change events. Obviously, this is a serious issue. We have been there to support the wine sector previously and we will continue to be there to support the wine sector in the future.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:08:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with five former world junior players now formally charged with sexual assault, a dark cloud hangs over the sports so many of us love. One solution is anti-sexual violence training like that which the Sexual Assault Support Centre of Waterloo Region has delivered to athletes since 2015.
Last year I, and others, advocated to reallocate the millions to Hockey Canada to fund this training, without success. This year, this government has another chance to step up and help root out the toxicity in hockey by funding this critical training and pushing Hockey Canada to do the same.
Will it do it?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:08:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to acknowledge the incredible strength, resilience and courage of athlete survivors across this country, who have come forward to tell their stories for a better sport system. How hockey has been governed in this country and the culture of sport and hockey are of great concern to all of us.
Our government takes allegations of abuse, maltreatment and sexual violence very seriously. That is why our government has launched the future of sport commission.
Sport is a power for good in this country and we will continue to make sure that sport does all the great work across the country that it can, while building a stronger, more resilient sport system.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, presented on Thursday, June 15, 2023, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak with my esteemed colleagues about a subject that is near and dear to my heart, namely science in French in Quebec and Canada, on the occasion of the publication of the report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research entitled “Revitalizing Research and Scientific Publication in French in Canada”. Part of that report reads as follows:
Considerable evidence shows that English is increasingly dominating research and scientific publication, both internationally and domestically. In recent decades...the vast majority of new scientific journals have been launched in English, and the proportion of scientific articles published in English has been increasing steadily in most scientific disciplines.
...
According to Acfas, from a global perspective:
[M]ore than half of all new journals created since the 1960s have been in English, and this percentage has risen to nearly 70% in recent years. French has been slowly declining, accounting for about 3% of new journals published in the last decade.
...
As a result, French is losing ground in the sciences.
That is not the only problem that francophone researchers and academics are facing. When it comes to getting funding for research programs, the report states the following:
...the proportion of funding requests submitted to the three granting agencies—the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—in French is significantly lower than the proportion of francophone researchers.
...
While Acfas estimated in 2021 that 21% of university professors and teaching assistants at the post-secondary level across Canada are francophones, in 2019 less than 15% of funding applications were submitted in French to SSHRC, with this number dropping to less than 10% for NSERC and less than 5% for CIHR. SSHRC receives more applications in French than the other two granting agencies, but the proportion of applications in French has been declining steadily since the late 1990s, dropping from roughly 25% in 1997 to under 15% in 2019.
According to 2016 census data, of the 21% of university professors and teaching assistants at the post-secondary level across Canada who are francophone, 5.8% of them work outside Quebec, and the vast majority, 72.5%, work in Quebec.
These researchers and professors work in anglophone, bilingual and francophone universities and post-secondary institutions across Canada. Institutions with post-secondary programs in French are not exclusively in Quebec.
In its 2021 report, Acfas identified 14 francophone or bilingual post-secondary institutions outside Quebec:
...
According to a report prepared for Canadian Heritage in 2021...21,825 people were studying in French in universities outside Quebec in 2018–19, and 10,518 people were studying in French in colleges outside Quebec.
Among them, scientists, researchers and academics “face a series of obstacles when they decide to conduct research and publish their findings in French.”
Francophone researchers, particularly those working in post-secondary institutions outside Quebec, also experience practical difficulties when working in French, because their institutions are often unable to provide the necessary...support.
...
Valérie Lapointe-Gagnon, a history professor...described the experience of francophone scholars working in minority communities as follows: “lacking recognition, financial support, administrative support and access to research assistants, we francophone researchers are all too often invisible and forced to reject our language and identity and dissolve into the anglophone mass.”
This lack of support is felt in various ways.
First...francophone researchers often have a heavier workload than their anglophone colleagues, as they must take on additional tasks, such as translating documents and engaging in interpretation, representation or communication activities.
According to a scientific study entitled “The manifold costs of being a non-native English speaker in science”, published in July 2023, researchers whose mother tongue is not English take, on average, 91% more time to read an article and 51% more time to write a paper. Their work is 2.6 times more likely to be rejected. Their studies take 12.5% more time to review, and they require 94% more time to prepare.
This drives home the many inequities and barriers that French-speaking researchers face when they work in a language other than their mother tongue.
In addition, 30% of of non-English-speaking researchers decide not to attend conferences, and 50% decide not to give oral presentations on their work. These disadvantages inevitably lead to a tremendous inequality in the development of scientific careers between native and non-native English speakers and the severe under-representation of research from countries where English is not a primary language in publications. It should also be noted that researchers in minority communities lack the resources needed to carry out these tasks as well as their teaching and research work:
[They] must do more with less when considering the need to communicate and publish in French to fulfill their francophone vocation and in English to remain relevant to their colleagues and the broader scientific community.
According to Martin Normand, director of strategic research and international relations at the Association des collèges et universités de la francophonie canadienne, francophone scientists “work on the periphery of the major research networks” and are often isolated: “colleagues who work in French on similar topics are [far away] and English-speaking colleagues do not always understand the research subject”.
The report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research states the following:
...francophone researchers in minority communities lack support to publish their research in French or to submit funding applications in French. In many cases, no one at their institution can help them prepare or reread their application. Even at major universities, research assistance services rarely have the resources to provide services to researchers in French. In addition, various stakeholders said there was a shortage of francophone graduate students at minority institutions because they do not have master’s and doctoral programs in French. Furthermore, ethics committees at institutions outside Quebec are not always able to assess research projects prepared in French.
Given these circumstances, many francophone researchers are left with no choice but to prepare their research projects and funding applications in English, even if the granting agencies give them the option of submitting them in French.
That is an unfair situation because, as Janice Bailey, scientific director of the Fonds de recherche du Québec, nature et technologies, mentioned, “writing scientifically in a language that is not your mother tongue...it's a lot harder.” The dominant position of English in the existing scientific literature also explains why francophones submit applications in English: “[I]f the literature in a field is largely in English, it will be easier to write the funding application in that language.”
The report of the Standing Committee on Science and Research states the following:
Work published in French is not as well indexed in the international databases used to measure the number of times an article is cited in scientific literature. French-language publications are seen as less prestigious than English-language publications, which can affect a scientist’s career progression.
The success rate for applications submitted in French is lower than for those submitted in English. The whole situation has created mistrust on the part of French-speaking researchers. Evaluators assess their own level of bilingualism, and some do not even fully understand the French application they are reading. For example, the acceptance rate for funding applications to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is 29% for those submitted in French, compared to 39% for those submitted in English. Those data were collected over a 15-year period, from 2001 to 2015. This translates into an inordinate level of funding for English-language research, relative to French-language research, that is not proportional to the population of English-speaking researchers.
There is also a concentration of funding for research projects in English. From 2019 to 2022, over 95% of research funding in Canada went to projects written in English. That is significant. Some $8 billion has been allocated to research in English. For the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the proportion is 98%. For the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, it is 95%. For the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, it is 81%.
Jean-Pierre Perreault, president of Acfas, conducted a survey of 515 French-speaking researchers in Canada. Survey responses indicated that researchers “publish in English to reach a broader audience, to be cited more often, to have better chances of getting grants, and to advance their career”.
Many stakeholders highlighted the fact that choosing to work in English or French affects the career progression of researchers, particularly early in their careers.
For decades, the international community [and Canada have] used statistical indicators such as the impact factor to assess the quality of a scholarly journal. The impact factor is an index that estimates the visibility of a scholarly journal based on the number of times that articles it publishes are cited.
The Université du Québec à Rimouski explained that the higher the impact factor of a journal or article, the more the journal or article is considered to be of high quality and influential.
A journal’s impact factor is often also used to indirectly assess the quality of a researcher’s work. An article published in a journal with a higher impact factor is often assumed to be better than an article published in a journal with a smaller audience, even though this practice has long been discouraged.
Canada's three granting agencies are signatories to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, which sought to limit the use of impact factors in the scholarly research evaluation process. It is a shame that so much weight is still being given to this factor of prestige or this parameter and that this has so much influence on research funding in Canada.
Other indicators, such as the h-index, seek to measure the productivity and citation impact of a researcher's work based on how many times an article they publish is cited. These bibliometric indicators play a role in a researcher's career progression. Universities take them into account when they are recruiting or promoting professors or allocating funding.
In fact, “[t]he language in which a scientific article is published...has a significant influence on its impact factor, as it determines the number of readers reached and, as a result, the visibility and recognition of the scientific work.” Work published in French is generally cited less than work published in English....
This inadequate indexing puts journals that publish articles in French at a disadvantage compared with journals that publish articles in English. It also penalizes researchers who publish in French. As Marc Fortin [from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada] said, “When we focus on impact factors, there is a bias—I don't know if it's an unconscious bias—towards English-language journals.”
Yves Gingras, Professor of History and Sociology of Science [at the Université du Québec à Montréal], called this “linguistic rent.” As he explained, francophones have inherently less visibility than anglophones, which gives anglophones an advantage. It is a type of “Matthew effect,” wherein researchers who have already been recognized will subsequently receive more recognition than their due.
Richard Marcoux, Professor and Director of the Observatoire démographique et statistique de l'espace francophone at Université Laval, told the Committee that a number of studies show that, in the social sciences, researchers in anglophone institutions in Canada rarely cite research published in French by their colleagues:
The examples...show that two separate processes are developing within the linguistic spaces of journals and researchers, whether young or older, in Canada and Quebec. On the one hand, there are the researchers affiliated with francophone institutions who draw extensively from scientific publications in English. On the other hand, there are the researchers at anglophone institutions who ignore scientific publications in French.
Assessing research quality using quantitative indicators associated with the number of citations tends to penalize researchers who conduct their research and publish in French. Some francophone researchers choose to publish in English rather than French to avoid this type of bias.
Another reason some researchers choose to publish in English rather than French is to reach a wider international audience. Martine Lagacé, Associate Vice-President, Research Promotion and Development at the University of Ottawa, summarized the situation as follows:
...as a researcher, [she has] often decided to switch from French to English in [her] scientific production, although [she is] a francophile. [She] can see quite clearly that when [she publishes] in English, [she has] an impact that is not at all comparable to what [she] can have when [she publishes] in French, since there is a bigger pool of readers.
According to Benoit Sévigny, Director of Communications at the Fonds de recherche du Québec, the internationalization of research also plays a role in the drop in the number of articles published in French: “The percentage of Quebec publications jointly written by at least one scientist from another country went from 35% in 2000 to 60% in 2019.”
These points explain why many francophone researchers choose to publish their research in English for strategic reasons.
The marginalisation of French has a number of repercussions. Firstly, the dominance of English threatens the dissemination of scientific knowledge in French. Secondly, the domination of English could mean that local research topics are overlooked, particularly those relating to Canadian francophone communities themselves.
According to “Vincent Larivière and Jean-François Gaudreault-DesBiens, professors at the Université de Montréal, the proportion of academic journals published in English at the global level rose from 64% in 1995 to over 90% in 2019. During the same period, the proportion of articles published in French fell from just under 10% to 1%”.
While the increasing domination of English in science is a global phenomenon, Canada is in a unique position: in Canada, unlike in other officially multilingual countries such as Belgium or Switzerland, [people are drawn towards] English...one of the [two] official languages.
There is a difference here, however. In Quebec and Canada, given the dominance of English, this trend pushes us towards anglicization. English does not have the same weight here compared to other multilingual countries, so the effects are different.
According to Statistics Canada, in 2021 63.8% of the population in Canada spoke predominantly English at home, and 20% spoke predominantly French at home. The gradual marginalization of French in science could therefore upset the linguistic balance in Canada.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research...decided to undertake a study on research and scientific publication in French, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
As part of this study, the Committee heard evidence [some of which I quoted today] on the status of French in science and the challenges facing francophone scientists in Canada. Witnesses also identified courses of action that would revitalize research and scientific publication in French.
Based on the evidence heard, the Committee made 17 recommendations to the government.
I will not have time to talk about all 17 of the recommendations, but I will talk about those that I think are the most important.
Here is one of the recommendations: “That the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces and territories, develop and fund a Canada-wide strategy for supporting research and publication in French, in partnership with federal institutions, [Quebec,] the provinces and territories, universities and colleges, and other stakeholders.”
In another recommendation, the committee recommends that Canada's granting agencies discontinue the use of assessment criteria like “bibliometrics such as the impact factor” and that they introduce “weighting mechanisms to more accurately recognize research conducted or published in French.”
The committee also recommends that “the granting agencies, namely the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research” evaluate the language proficiency of the peers who assess these funding requests.
I would remind members that, currently, the people who sit on these committees self-report their proficiency. Someone who took 12 hours of French in college may think they are able to understand the language well enough and recognize scientific terms, but that is not always the case.
Here is another recommendation: “That the Government of Canada, through the granting agencies, invest in translation support services in both official languages for use by researchers.”
Another key recommendation involves open access. There are platforms for disseminating knowledge in French. One such platform, which is wonderful, is called Érudit. To ensure that we encourage the transmission of knowledge in French, we must provide financial support for platforms like Érudit.
To wrap up, I would like to say that a lot of work has gone into the publication of this report. I would also point out that it has taken 60 years, but Bill C-13, which was passed and seeks to modernize the Official Languages Act, finally recognizes the value of scientific publication in French. There is still a lot of work to be done. I invite my colleagues to read the report of the advisory panel on the federal research support system, which was commissioned by the government and seeks to increase the presence and influence of French in scientific research and publication in Canada.
2998 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:30:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for interrupting his questions. I hope it gives members of the government and the opposition an opportunity to come up with better questions to ask him when I am done.
However, I rise on a question of privilege related to written Question Nos. 2068, 2069 and 2070, which I submitted on December 7, 2023.
I ask that you look at the following three pieces of evidence when you review my request. First, I ask that you look at the questions I submitted to the government. Second, I ask that you look at the answers the government provided to my questions. Third, I ask that you also look at the procedural aspects of this question, what procedural experts have said about the matter and the troubling precedent being set with regard to written questions. I hope you will find that the government's treatment of written questions calls into question its respect for the rights of parliamentarians to seek information on behalf of their constituents and on behalf of all Canadians.
You will note that my three questions deal with Canadian foreign policy, specifically with regard to the long-standing conflict in Israel and Palestine. While this is, of course, an issue of serious debate in Canada, my question of privilege is not meant to debate the crisis and the potential genocide in Gaza but to raise serious concerns about the government's refusal to provide answers to clear questions raised by my constituents and Canadians across the country. I believe that the government is not meeting its responsibilities towards parliamentarians in its handling of written questions.
I first turn to the response I received to written Question No. 2068. I asked a question on the export of military goods and technology to Israel. My question included 22 very specific sub-questions, as is the norm for written questions. I will not read the entire question to the House since you can find it in previous Order Papers; however, I will give some examples of the level of specificity of the sub-questions.
For example, I asked:
“has [Global Affairs Canada] reviewed its assessment on export permits to Israel in light of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the situation in the West Bank; has [Global Affairs Canada] identified any serious violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law since October 7, 2023; in [Global Affairs Canada]'s analysis, do the deaths of [at the time] over 6,500 children and 4,000 women amount to serious violence against women and children”?
Of course the number has now doubled to over 12,000 children.
Instead of a response to my specific question, I received a boilerplate, cut-and-paste response. Furthermore, and I raise this with great concern, the answer contradicts information in the 2022 report on the export of military goods, tabled in the House, which clearly states that there were 199 export permits for military goods and technology to Israel that year and 315 export permits used that year. More than $21 million in military goods and technology were exported to Israel from Canada in the year preceding the 2022 report, yet the response to my Question No. 2068 did not mention any of these.
The answer, further, contradicts information Global Affairs Canada has provided to The Globe and Mail, in which it admitted that Canada has sent non-lethal military goods, which appears to be a euphemism for military-grade parts and components that comprised very lethal systems and that may require export permits.
I wonder why the information provided by the government to my written question contradicted information it has provided in a report to the House and to the media. The government has the responsibility to provide the House with accurate information. What explains these discrepancies in the response to my question?
As you will see, I asked specific questions to which there are specific answers. These questions are of the highest importance to Canadians at a time when tens of thousands of people are calling for an arms export ban against Israel. I remind you and the House that, for years, New Democrats have sought details on Canadian arms exports, whether it be to Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or, recently, to Kyrgyzstan and onwards to Russia. We have very little information available to us as parliamentarians to investigate the many loopholes in the arms export system.
In its response to my Question No. 2068, the government states that Canada has one of the most rigorous export control systems in the world, which is a talking point we have heard for many years but which does not match the reality. This is why I asked these specific questions.
The government has claimed for years that it has a rigorous export control system, but we see at every occasion that it does not. There are loopholes everywhere. There are political choices being made, such as what we saw with the recent Turkey decision last week, and what we are now seeing with Israel, where the Arms Trade Treaty and the substantial risk of human rights violations is only applied in some cases and not in all cases. We have no way to evaluate this without a fulsome response to our written questions.
Unlike what happens in the United States, Canadian parliamentarians do not have oversight of export goods and technology. Despite our election to the House, we do not have more information than the average person on the street. The government clearly does not want us to know what is being exported, to whom and for what purpose, and that is evident in the response provided to me for Question No. 2068.
If we are to fix this broken system, then we need the proper information to do so, which is why my question is so important to have been answered and why the government's response is clearly a breach of my privilege as a parliamentarian. These are the most crucial conversations that we need to have as a country, and the government is deliberately avoiding those hard conversations by refusing to answer my question.
I will turn to Question No. 2069, which asked a series of specific questions about the government's policy toward the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and I will remind members that my question was submitted to the government prior to South Africa's submission to the ICJ alleging possible genocide in Gaza by the Government of Israel and prior to the ICJ finding a genocide case against Israel as “plausible” and ordering six provisional measures, including for Israel to refrain from acts under the genocide convention, prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to genocide and take immediate and effective measures to ensure the provision of humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza.
My written question was divided into 10 sub-questions, which is the norm for written questions. Again, I will not read the entire question, but will give some examples. I asked:
how many states does the government accept are parties to the ICC;
...what motivated Canada to submit its views opposing the ICJ’s advisory proceedings on the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in East Jerusalem; and
...prior to submitting its opposition to the ICJ’s advisory opinion, did government officials hold meetings with other states to coordinate efforts to oppose the case at the ICJ?
Again the government has not answered several of these sub-questions. Instead, it provided the same language it has used in its public statements. I am not looking for the same language as its public statements. I am looking for specific answers to specific questions that many Canadians have.
Turning to my third question, this question dealt with the very complex issue of international law with regard to Israel and Palestine and the government's interpretation of that law in determining its foreign policy toward the region. This question included 18 sub-questions. Again, this is the norm.
Once again, I will not read the question. However, can the Speaker believe that, instead of engaging seriously with these 18 sub-questions, the government instead provided the exact same response to Question No. 2070 as it did to Question No. 2069? There is no difference. The questions are completely different, with completely different sub-questions, and the government chose to copy and paste the same answer to both questions.
Again, my questions were submitted before South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. One would think that, since the horrendous attack on October 7, the war on Gaza and the resulting South Africa case against Israel on the question of genocide, Canada would be engaging thoughtfully with questions of international law, yet these answers do not engage with the difficult questions I raised. Rather, it seems the government is trying to avoid engaging its international legal responsibilities entirely and is instead hiding behind vague public statements that have no real substance.
As the Speaker can see, I asked specific questions, and there are specific answers that need to be provided. Someone in Global Affairs Canada knows the answers to these questions. Certainly, the minister and her staff must have the answers to these questions. The government has made absolutely no effort to answer my questions in good faith, but these questions are not just questions on paper. They go to the heart of the government and the responsibility the government holds.
What I mean by this is that the government must recognize its responsibilities under international law, including conventions and treaties it is signed on to. The government has a responsibility to explain how it interprets international law in complex cases, such as Israel and Palestine. It is my responsibility as a parliamentarian to hold the government to account and to ensure that Canadians are getting the information that they are entitled to, using the tools that I have available to me.
Canadians are asking me every day for information on how the government is interpreting international law with regard to the war and the potential genocide in Gaza. I have received more than a quarter of a million emails from Canadians expressing their outrage at the government's position. First, the reluctance to call for a ceasefire; next, its refusal to support South Africa's case; then cuts to life-saving humanitarian assistance through UNRWA; and now its reluctance to call on the United States and Israel to end this war.
In the absence of clear answers from the government, as my letters go unanswered, my questions in the House go unanswered, my calls on social media go unanswered and my questions in committee go unanswered, written questions are one of the few tools I have to understand the government's position and to engage with that position on behalf of Canadians. The government will surely claim that it answered some of my sub-questions and that my dissatisfaction is merely a matter of opinion.
I am not asking you to judge the quality or lack thereof of this. What I am asking you to do today, Mr. Speaker, is rule that the government's refusal to answer most of the sub-questions in my written question constitutes a violation of my rights as a member of Parliament.
According to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, page 517, the purpose of written questions is, “written questions are placed after notice on the Order Paper with the intent of seeking from the Ministry detailed, lengthy or technical information relating to “public affairs”.
In chapter 7 of the November 2004 report entitled “Process for Responding to Parliamentary Order Paper Questions” the Auditor General wrote, “The right to seek information from the Ministry of the day and the right to hold that Ministry accountable are recognized as two of the fundamental principles of parliamentary” democracy.
Written questions are one of the tools that Canadians, via their elected representatives, can use to force the government to be accountable. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will consider this matter seriously and recognize that it involves a prima facie breach of my privileges as a member of Parliament.
The government has the answers to my questions. It could have responded to my questions as I asked them and with the transparency that Canadians deserve, but it has not. I believe this constitutes a breach. I would like to refer to the Speaker's ruling from December 16, 1980, found on page 5797 of the House of Commons Debates where the Speaker states, “It would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.”
I would also refer to the 21st edition of Erskine May, which describes contempt as:
any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of their duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results, may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
I would like to emphasize the word “omission” and I would like to finish. Again, these questions are important to Canadians. In order to do my job as a parliamentarian and to hold the government to account, I need the proper information that I am entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking that you examine my three questions, look at the responses provided by the minister and reach a decision. If you find a prima facie case that my parliamentary privileges have been breached, I will move the appropriate motion in due course.
2339 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:45:01 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for raising this question of privilege. The points that she raised are important points.
The more I am in this chair, the more I am seeing some similarities to other points raised by members of Parliament. Currently, there is a point of order that is similar to this that was just raised last week. I will get back to the House with a determination on the matters that were raised.
Questions and comments.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:45:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech and for his commitment to defending French, science and technology. We sat together on the same committee and found that virtually nothing prevents researchers from publishing in their mother tongue or in French.
I would like my colleague to explain why some researchers, whether French-speaking or bilingual, may choose to publish their work in English internationally. I would also like him to talk about access to the international market, where researchers may find greater openness if they publish in English, even for francophones from Quebec.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:46:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation's work in committee. We studied this issue thoroughly. Some people, especially my anglophone colleagues, were not aware of the problem.
My colleague makes an interesting point. We understand that the federal government can hardly reverse global dynamics. It is true that researchers in certain fields are increasingly likely to publish their scientific papers in English. However, where the federal government is failing is when it continues to force Canadian francophones to submit funding applications in English. Why is that? It is because of the evaluation structure. Because of the so-called impact factors, scientific research papers or publications in French have no value whatsoever. That creates a form of discrimination against francophones from the get-go.
What is more, the approval rates for funding applications submitted in English are higher than for those submitted in French. If the federal government does not want to address the entire issue, it should at least stop interfering and getting involved in education, which is an exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:48:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have attended several Acfas conferences, where francophone researchers from across Canada and Quebec share information vital to the future of applied sciences and several other sectors. It is extremely important that the federal government understand the importance of funding research in French in equal measure to research in English.
In British Columbia, the province I represent, we have a growing number of francophones. The percentage of francophones continues to increase. There are more and more people doing research there.
Does my colleague agree that it is important to provide funding for research in French and that it is just as important for that funding to be available across Canada?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:49:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, indeed, I worked closely with Acfas, and I salute them for everything they do.
What this committee report tells us is that there is currently an inequity between francophones and anglophones when it comes to the granting of research funding in Canada and the obligation to submit funding applications in English.
One of the reasons why doing research in French is important is the need for local relevance. As researcher Frédéric Bouchard mentioned, in physics, a neutrino is a neutrino, whether one speaks English or Portuguese. However, let us take as an example the school drop-out rates in Rouyn-Noranda or Rimouski. If we want research to be effectively implemented, it needs to be accessible to the predominantly French-speaking local community. Doing research in French is important because it is directly linked to the potential positive impacts of that research. It can address issues that certain communities face depending on what language they speak.
Again, I think the picture is pretty clear. As I mentioned, French-speaking researchers doing research in English have additional steps to go through. It is more difficult and it takes longer. They are also penalized when it comes to the granting of funding.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:51:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his excellent speech and his dedication to the French language. He mentioned a lot of figures, including the percentage of funding allocated to French-language research funds compared to English-language research funds. I think it was something like 95% for English. It reminds me of official language funding in Quebec, where 94% goes to support English.
Can the member tell us what he thinks is the cause of this imbalance, this inequity?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:51:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is quite simple.
The federal government currently has a structure in place that gives preference to English-language research both in terms of funding and in terms of the evaluation criteria, which assign more weight to research and scientific papers published in English. It starts from there, and the funding follows the same pattern.
Another issue is that the federal government undermines francophones who do research in French. It has to be said. Canada, from what I understand, is supposed to be a bilingual country. However, in science, French and English are not on an equal footing.
When people ask me whether doing science in French is important, I reply that the biggest language crisis in Canada is in science. It is not only at the Tim Hortons on Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:53:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague on his work in our science and research committee. He is a very strong advocate for research. He and I have been pressing the Liberal government to provide more sufficient support, especially for graduate students. That is not what I am going to ask him about today. We are talking about a different subject, but I wanted to thank him for that work.
He claimed, in his speech, that the funding rates for francophones were lower than for anglophones, but in the report, there is conflicting data that shows that the percentage of francophone applicants asking for money from the tri-council is actually higher, in all cases, than for English applicants.
I am wondering if he could comment on the source of that conflicting information. It looks like, to me, francophones do very well in funding applications.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:54:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I salute my fellow member of the Standing Committee on Science and Research.
I think we can agree on a few things. I know exactly what he is talking about. I would suggest that he look at the proportion of francophones who apply for funding in French compared to English.
It is fine to say that 75% of francophone researchers in Canada qualify for Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council funding, but let us take a look at the facts. I have the numbers here: Only 5% to 12% of funding applications are written in French, even though 21% of researchers in Canada are francophone. That means that 50% of francophone researchers in Canada apply for funding in English. They do it because it is easier to get approved.
What the report says is true. For the three granting agencies, funding rates are higher for requests in French, but that is not representative of the proportion of francophone researchers. Francophones in Canada are forced to apply for funding in English in the hope of obtaining funding.
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:55:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I quite enjoyed my colleague's speech and learning a little more about this study. I know that it was mentioned that there are probably a lot of anglophones in the chamber who do not understand the unique problem that francophone researchers face across Canada and, of course, in the province of Quebec.
I have to say that, upon reviewing the committee's report and the government's response, the issue is becoming very interesting indeed. Our government has responded with the actions it will take. I will get into that a little later. I also want to thank the committee for diving into the subject matter. I think it has done good work, shining a light on the matter. I would like to thank the chair, the member for Guelph, who did exceptional work with all the other members to produce this report. In doing so, they made 17 different recommendations in the report.
The report does find that evidence shows English has increasingly dominant usage in scientific publications, both internationally and domestically, here in Canada. In recent decades, in Canada, the vast majority of new scientific journals have been launched in English, and the proportion of scientific articles published in English has been increasing steadily in most scientific disciplines.
As a result, French is losing ground in the sciences, so I can see why this is of great concern, and should be, to all Canadians who value our bilingual country and the position that French holds. For example, the proportion of funding requests submitted to the three granting agencies—
264 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:57:46 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on a point of order.
18 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:57:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious that this government does not give a flying fig about French. We have the proof right here: We are debating the issue of research and scientific publication in French, and the government sends a unilingual anglophone member who cannot even say a single word in French. I think that—
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:58:24 p.m.
- Watch
The member knows that this is debate. That is not a point of order.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:58:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, members should be reminded that we are all entitled to speak the official language of our choice in the House. That applies to every member of this House.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/24 12:59:07 p.m.
- Watch
Again, that is not a point of order.
The hon. member for Brampton North.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
