44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2022 10:00AM
- May/31/22 11:34:46 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my amazing colleague, the member for Nunavut. I am eager to hear what she has to say.
I would like to point out that we are currently, here in Ottawa, on Algonquin territory. Personally, as a member for Montreal, I represent a territory that was never ceded by the Kanyen'kehà:ka, a place for the nations to gather and exchange. I think that it is important to point this out, especially given the nature of today’s debate.
I am not particularly surprised to hear the Conservatives speak of unbridled individualism and individual responsibility. I am a little surprised, however, to hear my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois following the same line. That is a symptom of a conservative shift in the Bloc that has been happening for years but is coming to the fore once again. We can see it in today’s motion. However, intellectually speaking, the motion raises some interesting questions. These are questions concerning equity, sociology, social determinants, systemic racism, the representation of diversity in our institutions and the fact that our public and private institutions should be a reflection of our society, a society that is as open, diverse and inclusive as possible. We need to work on that. I think we need to think about that. These are important subjects and issues.
Did this warrant an opposition day and a full day of debate? That is a good question. That being said, the choice was the Bloc Québécois’s.
I would like to put things in context. After devoting an entire day of parliamentary work to the prayer in the House of Commons, the Bloc now introduces a motion whose main issue is that some white males will not have access to positions in federal research centres. That is the biggest problem for them. That is the Bloc’s priority. That is what we are talking about today. It is frustrating that these white males are facing restricted access to positions where they have been the overwhelming majority for decades.
We are experiencing a housing shortage; some people cannot pay their rent; others have not received an employment insurance cheque for three or four months; still others want to regularize their status but are in the dark because the wait times for immigration are interminable; people are unable to get a passport; we are in the middle of a climate crisis and a climate emergency; we are being told to expect a hot summer with forest fires, floods and violent storms.
However, let us talk about the poor white males who may not have access to certain positions, when they have occupied 65%, 70% or 80% of these positions for years.
A minimum of effort is being put in to facilitate access to these positions for women, indigenous peoples, visible minorities and persons living with disabilities. Apparently, that is unfair and discriminatory. It is called affirmative action, with a view to effecting a social change that will not happen on its own for historical, sociological and societal harmony reasons. I could give several examples, since we still have to deal with sexism, we still have to deal with systemic racism, and we still have to deal with discrimination and prejudice against immigrants and first nations.
That does not count, because we live in a meritocracy. Each individual is responsible for their own success or failure, and that is it. It is that simple. Now there is an intellectual shortcut if I have ever seen one.
I will use the percentage of women in this Parliament, in the House of Commons, as an example. In 2011, when I arrived here, 24% of members were women. That figure was 26% in 2015, 29% in 2019, and 30% last year. On average, the percentage of women in parliament in a democratic G7 country increases by 1.5% to 2% a year. At this rate, our Parliament will have achieved equity in 40 years. My daughter Marianne will be retired when Parliament achieves gender equity. Without serious incentives and sometimes even coercive measures, it will never happen.
We could also look at unemployment rates. In January 2021, unemployment among Black people in Quebec stood at 13%, which is 70% higher than the Quebec average. The Black community has more university graduates but an employment rate that is 5% lower than the average rate, and they earn $4 an hour less than white people.
In February 2021, one month later, the unemployment rate in Canada increased by 0.6%. That same month, the unemployment rate increased by 4.5% for Latin Americans, 5.5% for the Black community and 7.6% for Southeast Asians. They have higher unemployment rates, earn less and have greater difficulty finding a place to live, even though they are better trained and educated than the average Canadian.
If this is not proof of systemic racism and barriers that must be broken, I do not know what is.
At Laval University it was an awful scandal that women make up 38% of professors, or below 40%. This figure is 6% for members of visible minorities. Fully 13% of Quebeckers are members of a visible minority. That represents one million people. That is halfway to the target. Persons with disabilities represent 1% of professors at Laval University.
As far as research chairs in general are concerned, the numbers are practically the same if we look at the average of federal research chairs. Women represent 34%, even less than at Laval University, and members of visible minorities 6%. The number of persons with disabilities or members of first nations is so low that it cannot be counted. The numbers are not available.
Then I am told that we should not have measures to increase these shameful percentages by giving a chance to someone who does not have the same opportunities in life when it comes to filling a researcher or professor position.
Affirmative action measures work, as we have seen in many countries, such as the United States, where such measures were absolutely necessary. I know that “affirmative action” is sometimes translated in French as “discrimination positive”, or “positive discrimination”. Some people find that amusing and say that you cannot fix discrimination by adding discrimination. That is a bad joke that comes from a narrow, short-sighted perspective. Éric Duhaime, the new leader of the Conservative Party of Quebec, was the first to say this in 2019. That is the very perspective that the Bloc Québécois is embracing here. Bravo.
As a way forward, this is just appalling. We could be talking about any number of things that could be done to help people, but instead you move a motion that will actually hurt people.
1161 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 12:02:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
We are talking about research funding in a provincial jurisdiction, meaning Quebec's jurisdiction, and we are talking about it here in the federal Parliament. Clearly, there is already a problem. What is even more problematic is that these criteria for awarding Canada research chairs are not a lesson in democracy. It is not a lesson in democracy because they were introduced in 2000 and this is the first time we have debated them here in the House.
Regardless of what the NDP members say, it is healthy to debate, even if they do not like it. This is especially true given that we have never debated this matter here, thoughts have not been shared, and what I have heard today shows a complete lack of understanding of the academic world. I would very much like to hear what the Minister of Health has to say about this motion, as he is a professor at Laval University. I hope he will have the opportunity to speak.
Let us go back in time. Let us look at the Liberal legacy with regard to funding public services, particularly that of Paul Martin in the 1990s. What was done then? From the first half of the 1990s until 1998, cuts were made to health transfers and social programs, leaving provinces in so much trouble that they had difficulty funding their public services.
Of course, as time went on, health care took up more and more space in the provinces' finances and came to cannibalize all other government responsibilities, including funding for higher education, preschool education and elementary school education. Ottawa's actions left the provinces in turmoil.
Moreover, in the mid-1990s, there was a referendum in which half of Quebeckers said no to Canada. What did Ottawa do? It decided to plant its flag all over provincial jurisdictions. It started with the sponsorship scandal, one of the worst Liberal disgraces in history. It continued in the late 1990s with the millennium scholarships, when a jurisdictional squabble took place with Quebec. The Liberals thought that Quebec's financial assistance to students was not doing the job. They had to get involved.
Since the provinces were in trouble because of the cutbacks, Ottawa said it would create these research chairs. This is the typical old Liberal reflex: they place the provinces in a tight spot, they wait awhile, then they come to the rescue. First, there are no conditions, but, with time, more and more conditions are set, which are expensive for the provinces to administer. Thus, 22 years later, here we are today to discuss the matter.
The issue with the criteria has nothing to do with inclusion or exclusion. Quite simply, the federal government has no business in the matter. It is none of its business. The Liberals will claim they established these criteria to satisfy the courts. However, the courts are only involved because the Liberals are involved. If they had minded their own business, the courts would never have gotten involved in their programs.
Today, we find ourselves with all kinds of criteria for hiring professors. These criteria impede academic freedom, even though professor recruitment is under the purview of the universities, the professors and the researchers.
I am a university professor. I have participated in the meetings to hire professors. Hiring a researcher is such a delicate situation that even university HR departments do not get involved, whether we are talking about McGill University, Laval University or the University of Toronto. However, here we have the smart alecks from the NDP who are able to tell us, in a convoluted way, how researchers should be hired in fields they know nothing about.
I will explain to the House how a professor is hired. Let us say, for example, that there is an opening in the economics department at UQAM. There is a particular need for someone who specializes in health economics, and 300 people apply. After we eliminate those who do not speak French, we still have between 100 to 110 applicants remaining. Unlike the Liberals, we think that French is important in Quebec. Of those applicants, there are some who specialize in all sorts of fields that are not needed, such as macroeconomics and the like, so we have to sort through all the applications. We are left with between 50 and 60 excellent candidates from all over the world, because the market is global. Then, we have to interview about 40 of them. Some of them fail the interview, so we are then left with a short list of about 20 to 25 candidates. Of those 20 to 25 people, we will choose the best seven or eight to attend what is called a fly out. They are invited to present their research to other researchers who have knowledge of the field, unlike the Liberal Party and the NDP. In the end, a professor is selected and offered the position.
What happens then? Sometimes the person who is offered the job will turn it down because our public services are poorly funded and we do not have the means to pay our researchers properly.
Off they go to France, Great Britain, or back to the United States. Even francophone Quebeckers, who have long been under-represented in academia since before the Université du Québec came to be, no longer want to come to Quebec because our institutions have a hard time paying them. We move on to our second choice, our third and our fourth and we do the best we can. In the end, the shortlist is whittled down to one or two candidates who are the only ones we can hire. That is how it works in universities.
Some people here think that introducing new criteria and making this costly process even more burdensome makes it easier to hire skilled people. They obviously know nothing at all about the sector. Like many of my colleagues, I spent the past 20 years in and around academia. Every time researchers were hired, the most important criteria were gender equality and the integration of cultural minorities. Every time we managed to hire researchers, those criteria were met without the help of federal government conditions or the Canada research chair program. These criteria expose the Liberals' moral narcissism. It is their way of signalling that they are better than anyone else.
What happens in the short term when criteria like these are imposed? Sometimes a few candidates who are members of a visible minority or women qualify for the position. However, because of these criteria, every university wants them. If we are unable to hire them, it is because we cannot afford to increase salaries because of the current salary scales. The money is in Ottawa, and Quebec City has been “defunded” once more in its history, so we do the best we can.
This brings me to Quebec's reality and the Liberals' vision of diversity and inclusion. At the Université du Québec à Rimouski, for example, there is a marine sciences department. There is also the Université du Québec en Abitibi‑Témiscamingue. The Université du Québec has campuses in several different regions, and in some places, the local social makeup makes it hard to recruit researchers. In these places, these criteria are doubly, triply and quadruply limiting. Once again, the universities pay the price, because the Liberal method is to impose conditions but not pay.
The federal government tells us that to have diversity every university needs to reflect the average. When diversity is just an attempt to reflect averages that is a big problem. These conditions substitute appearance for competence. The Liberals know about that because that is how they chose the Prime Minister.
However, our universities need to be independent and have academic freedom. It was universities and their rules that gave us the Enlightenment and that gave rise to the greatest research we have today. Every university and every department across Quebec and Canada knows this and is already acting accordingly.
The government is not telling us that this requires diversity. It is telling us not to trust Quebec to manage its own university sector and research funding. Criteria exist to include diversity, but that is up to Quebec, not the federal government.
Where do we go from here? The universities need to keep working on diversity and inclusion, but the federal government needs to leave them alone. The government needs to stop interfering in research because that is not its wheelhouse, because it is ineffective and incompetent. Personally, I do not get involved in areas of expertise that I know nothing about.
We need to get rid of these ineffective rules that are costly for the Quebec government and the universities and that violate long-standing traditions of academic freedom. These rules are adversarial and punitive, and they are poisoning the work environment of our universities. I will repeat that I participated in departmental meetings to hire professors where these inclusion criteria were used, and it is not an easy process.
What should we do? We have to be proactive, restore funding to the provinces and increase student scholarships. We must ensure that those involved in hiring university professors, as I was, have access to a pool of competent people and have all the necessary options. The moral narcissism of the Liberals and the NDP will not result in better research.
1605 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 2:33:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with respect to Bill 21, we are on the side of Quebeckers who are shocked and disappointed that a young teacher can no longer practise her profession. We support and follow Quebeckers who are defending their rights in court with respect to this law that they feel is unjust.
We expect that this matter will be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and, if that happens, our government is determined to contribute to the debate, given the vast implications for all Canadians across the country and the need to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:09:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am smiling because I always enjoy my opposition colleague's dramatic flair. Let us applaud that lively performance.
What I can say on behalf of members on this side of the House is that our government is working very closely with Quebec to make sure workers can work.
As I made clear, we have twice as many work permit applications as last year. We will always make sure that Canadians and Quebeckers can work.
77 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
