44th Parl. 1st Sess.

May 31, 2022 10:00AM

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/31/22 5:42:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to a very sensitive subject, but it is a very important subject. I want to note that I will be splitting my time. Different members of the House have different experiences with the issue of racism. Quite obviously it is not something that I experience myself, but I think that for those of us who have close personal relationships or perhaps are married to someone from a racialized background, our eyes get opened to certain things in the context of those relationships that deepen our sense of commitment to addressing them. This is a very important conversation we are having about how we can address issues of injustice and racism while also ensuring that our systems and institutions are protecting access in an equitable way. I want to just read the motion coming from the Bloc. The motion says: 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. Essentially, what this motion is saying is that it condemns discrimination. It takes the view that research chair grants should be awarded on the basis of science and not on the basis of the identity criteria of the individuals involved. On the face of it, and I do not think I have ever said this about a proposal from the Bloc before, it seems eminently reasonable and desirable that the decisions made in awarding positions or research grants be based not on identity criteria, but on the work and the products individuals are putting forward. This motion expresses an ideal that we would generally agree that we should work to as a society. It is an ideal that recognizes the equal dignity and value of all individuals, and an ideal that seeks to support and give opportunity to individuals without reference to identity markers that are not the criteria of the position. Again, on the face of it, this is a reasonable motion that emphasizes an opposition to discrimination and a desire to move towards equality. To dig further into it, in terms of saying that the criteria for awarding positions should not be identity markers but should be related to the work being done and a person's experience and so forth, I think it is important to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism in many of our institutions. There is the reality that people from particular backgrounds can often face barriers that are not facial barriers or officially intended as barriers but that nonetheless are unseen barriers that exist and prevent people from receiving access to certain positions. We can see that expressed in the fact that there can be under-representation in certain spaces and overrepresentation in certain spaces. We need to acknowledge the reality of systemic racism, but the question that today's debate has been focusing on is what our response is to that recognition. Some members would say that when we have instances of discrimination, things such as binding quotas are the way to guarantee that equality. I think a better approach, actually, rather than the one recommended, is to dig into a question of cause. It is to ask the question of why certain individuals face these barriers, and to try to discern the origins of those barriers. Maybe an example that is illustrative is of a meeting taking place. A group holds a meeting on a regular basis and it is saying it has an under-representation of people with disabilities, yet the only way to access the meeting space is to go up stairs. There is no ramp and no elevator. In that hypothetical situation, when people are having a meeting and wonder why there is no representation of people with mobility issues, it is obvious that it is because there is a barrier preventing people from accessing that space. These are the kinds of questions we have to ask: Are there barriers that prevent people from accessing certain spaces that we are not paying sufficient attention to? Can we solve that problem by introducing a quota or a regulatory requirement? A better way to say it is, can we try to understand what that cause is and address that cause directly? In the case of the hypothetical example I am using we would ask if we could put in a ramp, make renovations or hold the meeting in a different place so that it was more accessible. Let us acknowledge the reality that there is a problem of systemic racism. Let us acknowledge that the equal treatment of groups or individuals who face barriers does not necessarily lead to equity. We need to recognize when there is not an intentional differential treatment, but in effect a differential treatment because of the barriers that exist that are particularly applied, or are applied in a particular way, to some communities as opposed to others, which still requires us to try to understand and examine the root causes. I do not see anything in the motion the Bloc has put forward that is inconsistent with the question of trying to confront issues of systemic discrimination and barriers as they exist. What I think this motion is saying, on the other hand, is this. If we have positions where we say that only people of certain backgrounds can apply, or there is a mandatory level of representation that has to exist, that is not confronting the issues of what the barriers are. It is not confronting the broader problems. I would say as well that when we put in those kinds of requirements, the individuals who get those positions as a result of those requirements obviously benefit, but they do not address the broader social issues that I think are creating challenges for more people across the board. I want to identify another issue, which is the question of how we define some of these equity categories. On the issue of race, for example, we have a North American way of understanding what particular racial groups are, yet they are defined differently in different societies. What are considered different races in some parts of the world are different from what are considered different races in North America. Of course, there are individuals who are from a broad range of different backgrounds where it would not be obvious for someone to know what category they fit into, so some of these equity programs I think risk essentializing this categorization. That raises questions and problems, such as how we define exactly who counts as being in one particular racial group or another. In some cases, the way to resolve this, or the way around this potential problem, is to say it is a question of how an individual identifies. In the case of my children, their father is white and their mother is East Indian, so will they have access to certain programs if there is a policy of setting aside certain positions? I do not know. I guess it would be up to them to decide or define. Fundamentally, I do not want my children to grow up in a world where they are defined by someone else's arbitrary sense, or their own need to choose whether they are part of a particular category. I would prefer for us to be a society in which people are able to make choices about their own identification. I am out of time already. Maybe I will be able to develop more of these thoughts in response to questions.

1326 words

All Topics

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 78