- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
- Jun/7/24 11:16:16 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on May 17 we marked International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. For the occasion, I received a very special report with a reminder that every day in the world, acts of hate are committed against the 2SLGBTQQIA+ communities.
We are never free from brutal regressions. We are now in June, which is Pride Month. Beyond the festive side of things, let us not forget that we need to continue to fight for inclusion and tolerance.
Let us take the opportunity to promote the right to freely love who we want. No one should be oppressed for their sexual orientation. Let us respond with the rainbow flag, but let us not forget to honour those who advance this cause against discrimination.
We need to keep up the fight for equal rights and for a more inclusive future for everyone. Let us seize this opportunity to look at how far we have come and at what remains to be done. I wish everyone a good Pride Month.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 7:54:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I am finally taking the floor this evening in this take-note debate on indigenous services in Canada.
I would first like to acknowledge the exceptional work done by my colleague from Manicouagan, who is currently vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I have no doubt that she would have had far more to say than I do in this take-note debate. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou also had a lot to say. It is interesting to discuss these issues with them.
I am taking the floor tonight with great humility, in my capacity as the status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois and as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Unfortunately, indigenous women and girls are disproportionately affected by numerous issues. In particular, I am thinking about the problems surrounding resource development in western Canada and the issue of human trafficking and modern slavery. Our committee will soon be studying the idea of creating a “red dress alert” to try and tackle violence against indigenous women and girls. We conduct study after study, yet one question still gets repeated far too often: Why these women?
Last week, I met with representatives of native friendship centres, who were here on the Hill to make us aware of the important work they are doing for indigenous communities, particularly with respect to promoting languages and passing on their culture and traditions. I want to commend Édith Cloutier and the members of the Val‑d'Or Native Friendship Centre, who do vital work and with whom I have had constructive discussions. I hope to have a chance to go visit them on site soon to better understand their reality.
We need programs that are tailored to the culture of indigenous families. We also need to respond to the calls for justice from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls by providing adequate, stable, equitable and ongoing funding for indigenous-centred community health and wellness services that are accessible and tailored to the culture of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ persons.
We must respond to the calls of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
With regard to the rights of indigenous people to better economic outcomes, they also need better social outcomes and support for their community infrastructure. Indigenous people, including seniors, women, girls and indigenous people from diverse communities, need access to appropriate services, as well as to infrastructure that meets their social and economic needs, such as safe housing and clean drinking water, and that promotes hygiene, health and social security.
We need to ensure that funding for economic development respects the right of indigenous partners to self-determination. We need more entrepreneurship initiatives for indigenous women. We need to increase the supports available to women and improve the social and economic security of indigenous women entrepreneurs. That is another study that we are conducting at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, a study on women's economic empowerment. Of course, indigenous women are under-represented in entrepreneurship. This study looks at that.
I am aware of all the work that still needs to be done. We need to think about the relevance of the Indian Act in 2023.
We need to think in terms of additional legislation on the road to reconciliation. These amendments will help acknowledge, protect and support missing and murdered indigenous women and girls, notably by seeking to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples to give their free and informed consent as part of decision-making processes that affects them—and that must be comprehensive—in order to eliminate gender discrimination in the Indian Act and ensure equal rights.
Our committee is particularly interested in gender-based analysis plus, which, incidentally, should lead us to reflect on the impact our policies have on indigenous women and girls.
Some of the most recent crime statistics were released in 2020, and they indicate that the homicide rate among indigenous people is still seven times higher than among non-indigenous people. The fact that the rate remains so high is a human rights failure for Canada. The completion of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls should not be seen by the government as an end point, but as a starting point. These murders are proof that we are still at square one.
Between 2004 and 2014, while homicide rates were falling across Canada, the number of murdered indigenous women and girls was six times higher than among non-indigenous women and girls. This calls for a new relationship in equal partnership with indigenous people.
In conclusion, we must recognize the root causes of this violence and support indigenous people in their recovery, promote gender equality and help empower women. We also need a nation-to-nation partnership with indigenous peoples, and the Bloc Québécois has long promoted that idea. Those are the hopes that I bring to this debate.
870 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/23 10:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her question. Unfortunately, I do not know why we are here once again.
I so wish I did not have to be here tonight talking about this issue. I wish that when we talk about feminism, we could put words into action.
It is not right that, in 2023, we still have to point out that indigenous women and girls are being killed simply because they are indigenous women and girls, because they are victims of discrimination. Why are so many women still victims of violence in our society?
Why is it that when women and girls are assaulted, even in the world of sports or in the military, it is only when there is a sensationalized case in the media that the government finally thinks about doing something?
We know the solutions. There have been plenty of reports on various issues that affect women. I could even talk about EI. We know the solutions. Why are the reports shelved? Why are they not implemented? There is the financial aspect, but I have the impression that political will is also a major factor.
As I said at the end of my speech, the fake feminism must stop. Tears are all well and good, but it is time for action.
218 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/22 2:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not what I am talking about. The Liberals gave seniors aged 75 and up a $500 election cheque, but they gave nothing to seniors aged 65 to 74. They are increasing OAS by 10% for seniors aged 75 and up, but they are not giving seniors aged 65 to 74 a penny more. That is the discrimination that I am talking about. Enough is enough.
Half of seniors are living in situations of insecurity. The government knows it. The government could increase OAS by $110 a month for all seniors starting at age 65, as we have been proposing for years. However, the government chooses to do nothing.
Why?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
