SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 78

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 78 - May/31/22
Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)
  • May/31/22 1:01:41 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity to say hello to my constituents in Beloeil—Chambly and to inform you that I will be pleased to split my time with the very distinguished member for Drummond. We are starting a debate. I am not only talking about here, today. I am talking more generally about society, after a number of years that have been quite turbulent in this regard. We are starting, we must start a crucial debate to question centuries of evolution in scientific knowledge. This knowledge is behind pretty much everything in our daily lives, from health to transportation, not to mention our capacity to adapt to the technological and demographic changes in our world. I have questions about a number of related issues. Others will have answers to suggest. Mine are no more valid than anyone else's, but it is my duty to put them up for public judgment. Next weekend, the Bloc will be holding a conference on freedom of expression, which will focus on our topic, on academic freedom, freedom of education, and freedom of research. We have already been criticized for our choice of speakers for the conference. We are organizing a conference on freedom of expression that allows people to speak, and we are being told that we should not give a platform to this or that person. It is rather fascinating, and it shows we have a long way to go. Yesterday, we introduced anti-scab legislation. It is a bill that deals with collective rights. It is important to talk about collective rights. I am talking about collective representation and the need to ensure that our society is not so completely fragmented into individual rights conveyed outside of institutions, particularly institutions of the state, that this starts to impede rather than contribute to progress. For decades, progress was represented by collective rights. It was collective representation. It was an emergence. We have seen this for several decades. Nations have been emerging in waves, of sorts, like with the collapse of the Soviet Union or the decolonization of Africa. As a result, communities, nations, groups, and people who identify themselves as groups and act as groups have been emerging. They emerged without denying individual rights, which must always be preserved. Fragmentation is not the best way to preserve individual rights. On the contrary, it is best to build bridges, bridges of solidarity between people who form groups because they have common interests. Impatience can sometimes lead us to point the finger at institutions. In fact, we recently saw an elected member of another legislature talking up the work of people who had resorted to approaches unworthy of elected officials that even verged on aggressive. Regardless of what was at issue, institutions are being targeted and undermined, and that should worry us. This is an exclusionary approach. Researchers are being condemned. Research subjects are being condemned. Course content is being condemned. Supposed ideology is being condemned. Ideology is being judged as good or bad. What ends up happening is that the conclusions of very high level scientific research are being written before that very high level scientific research has even been done. Knowledge is under threat. Science and the fundamentals of our societies are under threat. When the government gets involved, supports this kind of thing, gives this kind of thing its blessing, there is a significant risk, which is why we need to have this debate and, as a member said, make sure that it is the nature of the research itself that informs choices, not the nature of the researcher. At the core of this debate is science. Science does not want to lie, but science is not perfect, of course. It can be mistaken. What was scientific truth 30, 130 or 230 years ago may be true no longer. Science evolves. Research challenges many ideas we took for granted. The need to move forward comes, of course, with the recognition that, in the past, there will have been choices, decisions, goals, research, results and certainties that suddenly evaporated. However, science remains our best way forward. It has saved lives during the pandemic. It must not be perverted. This is also true in the social sciences. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, our societies must adapt to the speed of phenomenal technological change, as well as the speed of demographic change, with its multiplication of contacts of all kinds, all of them beneficial. This means intervention or attention is also needed in the social sciences, whether it is the very real phenomenon of racism or any form of discrimination. The very notion of systemic racism must be entrusted to science before it is entrusted to ideology and politics. The real fear of difference or the desire to silence others would in itself be a potential research topic. Information in isolation, where we simply reinforce our convictions by not exposing ourselves to different ideas, and the desire for the survival of a language and a culture could also be interesting and legitimate research topics. They all depend on science, which should not be asked to lie by writing conclusions before the research is completed and the science is ready. However, this is the subject of what I believe to be very serious censorship. History is no longer taught according to the scientific method because it is often written by the dominant culture or the victor. Quebec's most nationalistic or sovereignist moments and periods have been gradually expunged from its history books. However, history must continue to contribute its share of knowledge, wisdom and collective experience. It is never a good thing to lie. Lying to oneself is obviously dangerous. Believing one's lies is even more dangerous. We must not make science lie. We must provide science with every opportunity to include everyone, based on the quality of the research project and the researcher's focus. We must let science express itself and continue to contribute to progress. Ottawa's current policies, or its complacency in some cases, discriminate against potential talent by dictating conclusions and not protecting researchers and teachers. This jeopardizes the very essence of what science should be. In doing so, it jeopardizes the well-being of society. In the name of democracy, knowledge, science and diversity itself, which must be enhanced by sound science, we ask Parliament to come to its senses.
1070 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 78 - May/31/22
Mr. Maninder Sidhu (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.)
  • May/31/22 7:02:10 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, in recent years, Canada has observed a dramatic decline in the human rights and fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. Canada first raised its concerns in November 2018, when it provided a recommendation to “Ensure the right of Hong Kong people to take part in government, without distinction of any kind” as part of the universal periodic review of China conducted under the auspices of the UN Human Rights Council. Since then, the situation in Hong Kong has continued to worsen. On June 30, 2020, the Chinese central government imposed its national security law on Hong Kong without the engagement of its own institutions. The chilling effects of the new law and the growing restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly have been felt across civil society, academic institutions, business and media, leading to a rise in unrest and protests on the streets of Hong Kong. The lack of clear definitions in that law and the language about its potential extraterritorial application to persons outside of Hong Kong have also raised alarm bells about the increasing reach of the Chinese central government beyond its borders. In response to these troubling developments, on July 3, 2020, Canada undertook a series of measures to address these concerns. These included: suspending the Canada-Hong Kong extradition agreement, stopping exports of sensitive items and updating our travel advice and advisories for Hong Kong. In addition, on November 12, 2020, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada announced new immigration measures aimed at youth from Hong Kong by offering a new open work permit and broadening their pathways to Canadian permanent residency. On February 4, 2021, IRCC then announced that Hong Kong residents would be able to apply for new open work permits beginning on February 8. The Government of Canada later implemented two further pathways to permanent residence for young Hong Kong residents in June 2021. Canada has never shied away from expressing clear views about human rights in China and expressing our support for Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy under the basic law and the one country, two systems framework. Most recently, on May 9, 2022, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, together with G7 counterparts, issued a joint statement underscoring grave concern over the selection process for the chief executive in Hong Kong. This process was a stark departure from the basic law's intent of election by universal suffrage and further erodes the ability of Hong Kong residents to be legitimately represented. We are under no illusions that authorities in China share our assessment about the worsening situation in Hong Kong, which is why we are fully committed to working with our international partners and standing together with those who are seeking support. Canada and Hong Kong have long-standing people-to-people ties going back over 100 years, contributing to the diverse fabric of our country. The upcoming 25th anniversary of the handover of Hong Kong on July 1 will be an important moment for reflection about the future of the city and its people. We reserve the right to respond to any future developments as we deem necessary.
527 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border