SoVote

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Fredericton, Lib.)

May/31/22 1:42:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me. I want to begin by acknowledging that the land we are gathered on today is unceded Algonquin territory and I represent the unceded Wolastoqiyik territory in Fredericton, New Brunswick. I think it is important that we predicate our conversations today on that piece. I could have started by saying how deeply disappointed, even saddened, I was by the motion that the Bloc members have decided to focus on today for their precious time in opposition as an opposition day motion. However, I changed my tune in listening to the conversations that we are having today. I am going to thank them for this opportunity to discuss inequality in Canada, particularly in academia, because it is a pervasive issue that needs concrete steps to address. We will be able to take this opportunity to discuss that today, so I want to thank them for it. I thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and I hope that the members will listen to the other perspectives and pay particular attention to the speeches of their colleagues who are directly affected by the issue: women, indigenous peoples, Black people and diverse individuals. I want to take a moment to say to everyone who is listening to this debate at home, the Black or indigenous researchers, the women and people living with a disability, that not only are they qualified, but their life experiences and identity are an asset to their work and to improving the quality of the research in Canadian institutions. I am a white woman born in Canada. I have been so fortunate in my life that I was able to chase my dreams, reach my goals and have a good life for my children. The first point I would like to make on this motion is that there is no acknowledgement of the high privilege experienced by white males in particular in this country. Perhaps it is important for context to explain how we came to be debating this today. The issue that the Bloc is raising is that positions are being reserved for women, indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. I have heard hon. colleagues mention things. I will read the motion itself. It reads: That: (a) the House denounce all forms of discrimination; Absolument. The motion goes on to state: (b) in the opinion of the House, (i) research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general, Absolument. It continues: (ii) access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates’ skills and qualifications Vraiment. It adds: (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. There is a lot to unpack with such characterizations and assumptions that are baked into this motion. I have heard members warn of a dystopian alternate reality if such targeted hiring measures are allowed to continue. These arguments dangerously hinge on replacement theory rhetoric. We are all too familiar with that fact in Canada. Actually, while I was knocking on doors in my riding this weekend, I was faced with these kinds of opinions. They are very real. They do not need us to stroke them or encourage them in this place in particular. This idea that by not supporting indigenous women, for example, when applying for research chair positions is going to somehow threaten the existence of white males in our society and their positions of privilege is outlandish, to say the least. It is a fact that when diverse perspectives and voices are at the table the outcomes are better, but diverse voices historically have been excluded from participating in research. Today, people continue to face systemic barriers within the research field, including pervasive systemic racism. Systemic barriers within academia and the research ecosystem are well documented in Canada, and it is our responsibility, as a government, to play a role in addressing these barriers to ensure that equity, diversity and inclusion are integrated into all parts of the research ecosystem, even the hiring practice. The lack of diversity leads to oversight, bias and mistakes. I heard the leader of the Bloc in particular talking about the dangers of excluding. I would argue the danger resides in the status quo. Years of not implementing direct action to ensure diversity among our institutions leads to gaps in our collective knowledge. I can give so many examples. The fact that women are excluded from the medical field has led to ignoring the impact of certain medications on their bodies, not having accurate protocols, ignoring their needs and not understanding conditions specific to them. I am thinking of the lack of knowledge on and treatment of endometriosis, for example. There are so many across this country who suffer immensely because, for decades, no interest was put into researching this topic whatsoever. The vast majority of researchers did not have a uterus; thus they were not impacted by that condition. It was not seen as a priority to study or provide that care. The lack of indigenous voices in the sciences field, for example, led to deep gaps in our collective knowledge in fighting the climate crisis and wildfires. Indigenous fire stewardship blends intergenerational knowledge, beliefs and values with advanced methods of controlling several aspects of fire. It is a more holistic approach. Small, prescribed or cultural fires can recycle nutrients into the soil, and support the growth of plant species used for food and medicine. Fire stewardship can also protect communities. In central British Columbia, fire is commonly applied in the spring and the fall to reduce the risk of lightning fires that may cause harm in communities in the summer months. This is a very concrete example. Indigenous knowledge regarding health, the environment, sociology, history and language was not only ignored, but since the foundation of this country institutions have tried to suppress and indeed eliminate it. That is a fact. On other types of systemic barriers, within the research field there continue to be wage gaps between men and women and between white and indigenous or racialized staff. Across Canadian universities, Black people and indigenous people continue to face racism from their colleagues. This is both overt and internalized. They face barriers in advancing their careers because of unconscious or implicit bias on hiring committees, such as a bias on the perspective of resumés from white versus non-white candidates and a bias against people who have accents, for example. This is the reality in this country. Women also face barriers, including stereotypes, a lack of role models and mentors, and institutional practices and policies that prevent their further and full participation. We know representation matters, and that is what these initiatives are about. They are about increasing that representation and removing those barriers in a concrete way. There was conversation about the independence of universities. Universities should be allowed to make these decisions for themselves. If they see this as an issue and recognize these barriers, certainly we can empower them to make those decisions to ensure that equity-seeking groups are represented on the research chair boards. I would like to end with a comparison conversation. I come from a province where there is a continuous debate on the importance of bilingualism and whether we need to take concrete efforts to protect the French language. I find those conversations insulting, and I have found many of the comments in the House today regarding this motion also insulting, from the perspective of a woman. Those are my comments for today. Again, I hope members across the way listened to some of the lived experiences of those who have made their way to the House despite some of these barriers that exist. I look forward to their questions and comments.

1335 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 78 - May/31/22

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

May/31/22 1:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member's wonderful riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith is one that I am very familiar with. Being a relatively new member to the Liberal caucus, it has really been kind of a fact-finding mission for me to see what great work has been done. I have also heard some of the wonderful speeches in this place and wondered if our actions are matching what we say. What I have found is that they are. I had round tables in my riding over the past couple of weeks. I was fortunate to have ministers and parliamentary secretaries visit. We met with groups that represent women, in particular. We met with groups that represent victims of domestic violence. What they told me was that they have never seen so much support and funding. They really feel like their voices are being heard. To me, that is concrete action on the ground. What we say in the House is critically important, but of course those actions must follow. I am really seeing that across the country, and in particular in my riding of Fredericton.

185 words

Context: House Hansard - 78 - May/31/22

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

May/31/22 5:38:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, actually, listening to today's speeches, I get the impression that we are searching for a cosmetic fix to a problem. We have so much work to do to deal with the causes, and imposing these targets and quotas is not the appropriate way to deal with the problem. I will give my colleague an example. During the pandemic, the numbers showed that women were impeded in their research, that they were particularly affected by the pandemic and that this was detrimental to their academic work. Would imposing targets and quotas have solved the problem? I do not think so. We really have to get to the root of the problem. Why were these women affected by the pandemic, why does the mental load still fall on them today, and why are they even more stuck at home, which has an effect on their work? What can we do to improve their work-life balance? These are the kinds of questions I want to raise today. In my speech, I spoke about the quandary that quotas create for universities. I also explained that these things are already being done in Quebec anyway. I think that we need to be addressing this issue on a larger scale. We need to be proactive. I do not think that setting criteria and targets will necessarily help fix the many problems.

229 words

All Topics