- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34
- Government Page
- Dec/8/22 3:00:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is not about money, it is about criteria.
The research chair funding criteria no longer have anything to do with research. The nature of the research itself no longer counts. What counts is the nature of the researcher, assessed against the following criteria: skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation and disability. The last person anyone wants as a researcher is an average white man.
We agree that all kinds of people should be better represented. Among equally qualified applicants, under-represented minorities should get priority.
How is excluding a group of people consistent with a policy of inclusion?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 2:59:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion on academic freedom:
THAT [the National Assembly] reiterate that promoting greater representation of under-represented target groups must always happen in a context of equal qualifications;
THAT it denounce the interference of the federal government, which funds research chair programs according to certain criteria that do not reflect the specificity of Quebec.
Instead of imposing its ideological agenda, why will Ottawa not let Quebec manage research chairs?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:51:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to what my colleague from Winnipeg North said in order to set the record straight. Quebec is the place and the society with the most accessible school system in North America. That is the first thing.
Does the member for Winnipeg North understand that Quebec is a caring society? Does he not realize that, when it comes to social justice, Canada could find better things to do than to impose dysfunctional criteria on Quebec's universities?
I would like to hear his thoughts on some other things.
We are talking about diversity, but there is a great diversity of opinions. In April, three members expressed their misgivings about the funding criteria for research chairs in Canada. They were the member for Louis-Hébert, the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation and the member for Mount Royal. Where are they today?
Does my colleague from Winnipeg North agree with his party's censure of these colleagues who disagree with the research funding criteria?
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:05:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that research funding should be allocated based on skill. The federal government thinks it should be allocated based on diversity.
Visible minorities represent 51% of the population in Toronto and only 2% of the population in Rimouski, but both regions are subject to the same criteria.
Our universities are scrambling to recruit and reflect diversity, but we have to be realistic. Why not trust the universities and fund scientific research based on scientific capabilities?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:03:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, academic research is essential to the advancement of science, and it greatly enriches our societies. It is critical that the process for hiring research chairs be based solely on the candidates' qualifications and the nature of their research.
However, in the Canada research chairs program, Ottawa forgoes this quest for excellence and prioritizes diversity considerations. Does the minister agree that discrimination should never influence the assessment of competence?
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 11:56:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a very simple question.
Competent researchers from visible minorities do not have access to research chair funding because they do not meet the criteria or do not want to meet them. If that is not discrimination, then I do not know what to call it.
There is already discrimination against people who are under-represented and do not meet certain criteria of the Canada research chairs program. What is my colleague's opinion on this?
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 11:48:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will try to refocus the debate and not make any generalizations or take intellectual shortcuts, out of respect for the debate today.
My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie tried to reduce the debate to skin colour. All that the Bloc Québécois is saying is that the criterion that should take precedence when recruiting researchers in the Canada research chairs program is excellence. However, the criterion that currently takes precedence is based on identity.
I would like to quote a few visible minority researchers, such as Dr. Kambhampati from McGill University. He told me that he does not care about skin colour when he wants to hire someone who is interested in working on a project and is good in that field. What does my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie think about that?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:56:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleague from Halifax to reread the opposition motion, which specifically calls for a review of the recruitment criteria for research chairs, for they are currently identity-based.
At the end of his speech, my colleague said that he was proud that Canada is a world leader in research and development. I urge him to reread the Naylor report, which issued 35 recommendations.
Canada is the only G7 country that did not invest, that has reduced its investments over the past 20 years. It is the only country in the G7 that has lost researchers over the last six years. It is not a world leader, far from it.
Would my colleague agree that there are people who are competent, talented and have projects, but are unable to get funding through the Canada research chairs program because they do not meet certain identity-based criteria?
Their abilities are not taken into consideration due to voluntary targets set by the federal government to increase representation for certain under-represented groups.
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:25:57 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague. It is a pleasure for me to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Science and Research.
There is obviously a shortage, a labour shortage. However, I would like to redirect him to the main debate today, which is specifically about the selection criteria for research chairs at universities in Quebec and Canada.
The primary criterion right now is based on identity, the aim being to meet certain federal government targets and improve the representation of the four groups previously designated by the federal government. We are asking that the criterion based on identity be withdrawn and that excellence be the primary criterion.
Many research chairs remain vacant because the criteria fail to take the socio-demographic reality into account. This situation does not contribute to the development of science and research at any university or in society.
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:24:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the debate is taking an unhealthy turn, and that is not what the Bloc Québécois wants today.
We are asking that the primary criterion for the recruitment of candidates for Canada research chairs be excellence. The best example I can give is this. The policies of Quebec universities have achieved greater representation for women without any federal government meddling.
We recognize the need for equity, diversity and inclusion. However, in the event of equally qualified candidates, although the government may favour certain groups of people, identity should not be the primary criterion. The excellence of the candidates for federal government research chair grants and the quality of their applications must be the primary considerations.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:23:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague from Winnipeg North misunderstood my speech. The debate is not about the importance of diversity. We recognize the need for diversity, inclusion and, of course, equity.
What we are saying is that the basic criterion that must take precedence when selecting candidates for Canada Research Chairs is excellence. This criterion should not be based on identity, which sometimes has nothing to do with the context of the research.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:11:48 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
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.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from La Prairie.
I rise today to open up a debate that is as important as it is necessary for the future of science and research in Quebec and Canada.
Historically speaking, research funding has always been awarded on the basis of excellence. The scientific process takes place at the frontier of human knowledge, and advancing beyond that frontier requires someone with a combination of skills and qualities that are beyond the ordinary. It therefore seems reasonable, essential even, to direct our limited financial resources towards the individuals with the greatest expertise, towards the most promising projects. That is how we maximize the benefits for society as a whole.
In recent years, however, under the federal government's direction, this basic tenet has been undermined by a new set of equity, diversity and inclusion criteria, which advocate a funding approach based on factors related to identity and representation. While these criteria are rooted in a desire to correct certain historical inequalities that we do not deny exist, the way in which they have been implemented is perplexing.
The most obvious evidence of this trend is the Canada research chairs program, where strict representation targets were unilaterally imposed on universities. Moreover, the members of the House of Commons were never asked for their input either, since the policy is based on a decision that was made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and ratified by the Federal Court of Canada.
The impact of the policy is starting to be felt. A number of sometimes absurd and aberrant situations have arisen in recent months, where postings for open positions automatically excluded certain candidates regardless of their qualifications. Some positions reserved for representatives of certain groups also remained vacant because no one applied.
In light of this, it is high time that the House reviewed this matter. That is why the Bloc Québécois is moving a motion today for the House to “denounce all forms of discrimination”, recognize that “research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general”, and acknowledge that, in order to maximize benefits, “access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates' skills and qualifications” above all else.
To that end, the government must review the criteria for the Canada research chairs program.
In addition to posing a threat to the excellence of Quebec and Canadian research, the equity, diversity and inclusion criteria applied by the Canada research chairs program encroach on Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over education in three separate ways, since it is a program for hiring professors, it impinges on the autonomy of universities, and it restricts academic freedom.
I will now give my colleagues a brief lesson on constitutional history. The Constitution Act, 1867, placed education under the sole jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Research is an area of concurrent jurisdiction and can therefore be dealt with by both levels of government.
In 2000, the federal government invoked its powers relating to research funding to launch the Canada research chairs program.
We were told at the time that there was no encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions and that the goal was merely to fund research. However, if we look closely at the program two decades later, we can see that a research chair is a direct pathway to a professorship. In fact, the criteria for awarding research chairs determine who will teach in universities in Quebec and the other provinces.
In addition, the equity, diversity and inclusion requirements under the Canada research chairs program also blatantly violate the universities' autonomy.
As specified in the program policies, “if an institution is not meeting its equity targets, following a deadline stipulated by the program, nominations will be restricted to individuals who self-identify as one or more of the four designated groups until such time as the targets are met”. The four designated groups are women, racialized minorities, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities.
We have started seeing the impact of this policy on Quebec universities. Laval University recently posted a job offer stating that only candidates with the required skills and who have self-identified as members of at least one of the four under-represented groups will be selected. The university is basically being forced to shred certain applications regardless of those candidates' qualifications or the relevance of their research projects.
That is only the beginning. The program also states that “[i]nstitutions that do not meet their equity targets by the December 2029 deadline will have their allocation of chairs reduced”. Universities are being held hostage by the federal government, which is threatening to slash their allocated funding and reduce the number of prestigious research chairs they get. One of the cornerstones of university autonomy is the power to select and appoint professors, so the idea that the federal government could change the process cannot and should not be tolerated.
The third issue with the current policy is that it is an assault on academic freedom, which guarantees academics the inalienable right to teach or study any subject, school of thought, or theory without fear of reprisal or discrimination. However, the numerous administrative and bureaucratic requirements heaped on researchers in all disciplines include the submission of an EDI action plan that conforms to certain social sciences theories that are not universally accepted in academia or in society in general. This type of requirement impedes the academic freedom of researchers, who are forced to adhere to certain concepts if they want to obtain a research chair.
As a result, the very imposition of these criteria by the federal government for research chairs undermines several key principles and is in itself sufficient justification for a review. This being said, a quick analysis of the numerical requirements reveals the full scope of the policy's incongruity.
As I said earlier, universities have been ordered to meet representation targets by 2029. These strict, one-size-fits-all targets are applied equally to all Quebec and Canadian universities. They are based on the average representation rates in Canada of the four under-represented groups targeted by the program.
For visible minorities, the target is 22% for all universities because that is the Canadian average according to the latest census in 2016. However, what seems to have been forgotten or, worse still, ignored, is the fact that the population is not evenly distributed across the country. In Toronto, members of visible minorities represent 51.5% of the population. In Quebec City, they represent just 6.5% of the population. As it turns out, 6.5% happens to be the exact proportion of Université Laval professors who are members of visible minorities.
Where I am from, Rimouski, which is far from the big cities, members of visible minorities make up barely 2% of the population, but for the purposes of the Canada research chair program, they are supposed to hit a target that is 10 times higher than their actual representation. The federal government's one-size-fits-all solution does not take distinct regional characteristics into account and forces universities in the regions to recruit abroad rather than develop homegrown expertise. That makes no sense at all and it flies in the face of Quebec's university model, which is all about developing skills and expertise across Quebec.
Again, there needs to be a review of the federal government's policy of applying ideological math that does not work in the real world. There are concrete solutions to this nonsense. Of course, we need to increase funding for research and development. Canada is the only G7 country that has reduced its investment over the last 20 years. We need to increase graduate scholarships at the master's and doctoral levels. These scholarships have not been indexed for almost 20 years, since 2003.
In closing, I would like to clarify, specifically for my colleagues in the House, that the debate that we wish to have is not about positive discrimination in general, but about this specific, poorly crafted federal policy that is, moreover, encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction—
1467 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 3:01:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is one thing for the government to oppose any proposal from the Bloc Québécois and to accuse us of bad intentions, but can it keep ignoring the fact that many members, including some Liberals, have said they are not comfortable with using exclusion as a way to be more inclusive?
That is exactly what the member for Louis-Hébert did yesterday when he called for changes to the federal rules on research chairs to prevent these kinds of situations. Will the government at least listen to reason from its own member?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 3:00:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Bloc Québécois presented a motion stating that excluding some candidates from holding university research chairs was not the right way to foster inclusion and diversity in our institutions. The motion was rejected.
In principle, this decision is debatable. However, by imposing the same quota for university research chairs in Quebec as in other parts of Canada, the government is completely ignoring the regional realities of Quebec and of its university network. Could we at least agree that a French-language university in Rimouski does not have the same diverse candidate pool as a university in Toronto?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/6/22 3:17:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties, and I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House recognize that inclusion and diversity must be encouraged within our institutions; that exclusion is not a method of inclusion; and that this House call on the government to revise the federal criteria for research chairs to prevent exclusion in job postings.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/31/22 2:41:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government says its decisions are evidence-based, but when the government funds research, it tells science what criteria to look at. That is risky.
Science is neutral, objective and apolitical. Those are the conditions that make scientific progress possible and improve the human condition everywhere without discrimination.
Does the government acknowledge that criteria imposed by the federal government must never, under any circumstances, interfere with scientific progress?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
