Debates of May 31st, 2022

Opposition Motion—Canada Research Chairs Program

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot imagine that my hon. colleague opposes the idea that Canada's research chairs should reflect the diversity of our country. However, I did not hear him spend any time in his remarks talking about the many barriers that indigenous people, people of colour, people living with disabilities and all of these groups face in Canadian society.

I would like to give him the opportunity to elaborate on the many systemic barriers faced by those groups in institutions like our Canada research chairs.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague would like us to increase scholarships to encourage more first nations people to attend university, I would be his best ally. I support that.

There are currently programs that pay first nations students' tuition for a certain number of years. That already exists.

Some measures could still be improved.

Racism is still far too present with respect to first nations, of which I am a member. As was mentioned earlier, let us be proactive. Universities should consider skills and not discriminate based on identity. That is quite simply our message.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have time for a brief question.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be clear. Education and the funding of universities and university research fall under provincial jurisdiction, and thus are Quebec's responsibility.

Judging from the questions from the other side of the House, there would be no inclusion and diversity in Quebec unless Ottawa imposed conditions. It is as though they are saying that letting Quebec do its job results in racism and exclusion.

I would like my colleague to comment on the government members' perception of Quebec.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind members of a historical fact.

The first Jewish person to be elected to public office in the entire British Empire was elected in Trois‑Rivières, Quebec. He did not have the right to sit in this chamber because of his religion.

We will not take any lessons about diversity from Canada.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of rising today to speak to an opposition motion. I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge.

I usually get the text of an opposition motion the night before the debate and take the time back at the hotel to read it over and review the principles.

Two weeks ago, I got the text of the Bloc Québécois's opposition motion on the prayer in the House. When I shared my thoughts on that motion, I said that I thought it was weak. The issue was not very important compared to the war in Ukraine, climate change or affordability, which are all important issues worthy of debating in the House.

I saw the same problem yesterday when I got the text of today's motion. The motion itself is not a problem, because the Bloc Québécois has the privilege of raising issues in the House, but, once again, this motion does not deal with issues of concern to Canadians and Quebeckers.

With the war in Ukraine still raging, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food will be looking at the importance of food safety and the importance of supporting our allies and supporting Ukraine. Ukraine is very important for grains and various commodities. With the Russians targeting critical infrastructure, this is a very important issue. What is the best way for the Government of Canada and our allies, including NATO, Europe and the United States, to address this issue?

Well, no, today we are talking about the Canada research chairs program. Of course, the research program is very important in terms of innovation, science and the various programs designed to improve our economy. I agree with that principle, it is very important.

I will read the principles of the motion.

That: (a) the House denounce all forms of discrimination;

I agree with this principle. I think that most, if not all, members and all Canadians do too.

The motion goes on to say:

(b) in the opinion of the House, (i) research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general,

I just expressed my point of view on that so, of course, I completely agree. Research is very important for Canada's future.

Next, the motion says:

(ii) access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates’ skills and qualifications; and

I agree with this principle as well. In fact, I find the Bloc's position interesting. The text implies that some of Canada's research chairs have the required skills. I think the members of the Bloc Québécois need to stand up in the House and explain their position. Do people think that some research chairs in Canada and Quebec have the necessary skills? I have confidence in the skills and qualifications of those who are in those positions right now, but I think perhaps the Bloc has a problem with that.

The motion concludes by stating:

(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.

These criteria are primordial in order to assess the person's qualifications and understand the purpose and importance of their research for solving certain problems in society. However, I think that it is also crucial to encourage diversity and to make sure that some people have the same opportunities as others. For me, this is where the text of the motion is problematic.

I think it is very important to outline the history of the program. Established in 2000, the Canada research chairs program, or CRCP, is a key component of a national strategy aimed at making Canada one of the best countries in the world for research and development. It invests approximately $311 million annually to attract and retain a diverse group of top researchers in order to strengthen research and training excellence at Canada's post-secondary institutions.

In 2017, a court order required the Canada research chairs program to meet the mandatory equity, diversity and inclusion objectives of a 2006 Canadian human rights settlement agreement. The government naturally supported this equity, inclusion and diversity plan, but a court also ruled that the program was problematic and that the government needed to change the way it selected research chairs.

The outcome of that decision is very important. From 2016 to 2021, the percentage of women who received CRCP funds rose from 28.9% to 40.9%, the percentage of visible minorities receiving funds rose from 13.4% to 22.8%, the percentage for people with disabilities rose from 0.3% to 5.8%, and the percentage of indigenous recipients rose from 1.3% to 3.4%. These numbers are statistics, but they represent much more: They are opportunities that have been offered to certain people. Therefore, they are not just statistics. This is important for diversity and for ensuring that everyone across the country has a chance at success. We need to make sure these jobs are open to all.

It is important, and research shows that diversity can lead to better results. Yes, we can put a lens on diversity and inclusion and trying to be equitable, but we also want the best results from what we do.

As I mentioned earlier in French, the Bloc Québécois motion reads as though individuals who are currently being appointed to these chairs are not qualified. I take issue with that. The parliamentary secretary before me said the same thing in that same vein. At the end of the day, as has been illustrated, diversity is important in leading to teamwork and driving better results.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I congratulate him again on his excellent French, which just keeps getting better.

My colleague seems to wonder what the problem is in our motion today. There is always this argument that we could have chosen another topic. We hear this every time that we bring an issue forward. I will identify the problems and ask my colleague to respond.

The first problem that we are raising today is that the federal government imposes funding conditions in an area under Quebec's jurisdiction. As this House is aware, this is something that the Bloc Québécois condemns all the time. It is in our DNA. I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks.

The second problem that we are raising is exclusion. We are all for diversity and positive discrimination. What we condemn is the fact that certain applicants are excluded out of hand. Is this not a problem?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I am a bit confused, because when I read the text of the motion, I did not see anything about provincial jurisdiction. I think that Quebec probably respects the principles of diversity and inclusion. If the goal is for the federal government to work with Quebec to incorporate the principles of inclusion and diversity into the field of research, then I think that this is another matter. However, that is not in the text of the motion. I thank the hon. member for his explanation, but that is not in the text of this opposition day motion.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, some groups experience multiple discriminations at the same time, such as, for example, women from indigenous communities who are under-represented in academic settings. That is just one example. Therefore, an intersectional approach is essential to understanding and addressing the barriers and biases that exclude under-represented groups.

Does the member believe that removing affirmative action may reinforce these biases and further exclude under-represented groups?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to that with a couple of things. Obviously, as I mentioned, the tribunal had suggested the government had to do a better job of trying to drive diversity and inclusion. The hon. member mentioned that some people, such as women in indigenous groups, have a double challenge. At the end of the day, what I take notice of in this Bloc Québécois motion is that it almost reads as though it is a type of discrimination to encourage individuals who are under-represented to have more status in these chairs. I disagree with that principle.

I think it is also extremely important for universities and that culture to play an important role there. I would like to commend Acadia University. They are doing really important work in this domain. They have great research chairs, some of whom are supported by us, some of whom are being driven by themselves.

To answer her question, institutionally it is important, and to her point, these types of principles need to stay.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that I have been raising is the issue about young people and how young people look to important positions that are in society, such as university chairs or research chairs, and how they can be very inspiring for youths who are of a minority.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts as to why it is so important that, as we diversify, young people see that these important positions are reflective of Canadian society.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary has hit it right on the head with the question. I will certainly just elaborate a little bit further.

Regardless what profession might seek to take on in the future, one wants to see oneself reflected and have mentorship in that role. Whether or not that is the diversity that the parliamentary secretary talked about, or indigenous communities or handicapped individuals who have been finding their way here, that is extremely important. That matters in research chairs, and that matters in politics.

That is why we are certainly trying to get even more women involved in politics and more women involved here in Parliament. It extends far beyond the research programs that we are talking about, but he does make a very good point.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on the Bloc Québécois motion and to have the opportunity to speak to the Government of Canada's commitment to supporting Canada's best and brightest minds, and to highlight Canada's efforts to attract and retain global research leaders.

Talented people conducting scientific research are our primary drivers of discovery, and they provide new knowledge that helps us move forward as a nation. Talented researchers play a critical role in science and research activities by ensuring that Canada has the capacity to make discoveries, tackle challenges and seize research opportunities.

The government is helping Canadian universities attract and retain the best researchers from Canada and abroad to meet the research interests and priorities of the institutions and the country.

The Canada excellence research chairs program aims to position Canadian universities at the leading edge of discovery, building long-term research strengths in areas of strategic importance to Canada. Its prestigious awards are supporting important research in areas such as global food security, which we know is of paramount concern today, big data, green technology and artificial intelligence. A former chair, Dr. Michael Houghton, was jointly awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the discovery of the hepatitis C virus.

It is clear that supporting top research talent benefits Canada and all Canadians. That is why in budget 2022 we announced an additional $38.3 million over four years starting in 2023-24, and $12.7 million ongoing, to expand the Canada excellence research chairs program.

The government has recognized that, while supporting established researchers in their endeavours is essential to a strong research community, it is crucial that steps be taken to make Canada attractive to promising early career researchers.

Supporting these early career researchers ensures that a pipeline of highly qualified individuals are available to grow Canada's research activities, which is critical for this country's knowledge economy.

Through its exploration grants, which inspire high-risk, high-reward and interdisciplinary research, the new frontiers in research fund supports early career researchers by design. The proportion of awards granted to early career researchers equals the proportion of applications that are submitted by these emerging scholars, an action that levels the playing field for those who have not yet established an extensive record of research achievement.

The Canada research chairs program supports exceptional emerging researchers in kick-starting their careers, awarding five-year grants valued at $100,000 annually. Each of these early career Canada research chairs comes with an additional $20,000 as an annual research stipend for the first five-year term.

The Canada research chairs program allocates proportionally more chairs to emerging scholars over established scholars who have had the opportunity to establish a record of research achievement. Furthermore, I am happy to say that when budget 2018 announced the creation of 285 new Canada research chairs, the majority were allocated to emerging research.

The government values the critical role played by graduate students and fellows, who are Canada's future researchers, in producing the knowledge, discoveries and innovations that help build a strong future for Canada and the world.

Through the three federal granting agencies, the government is making significant investments to support students and fellows with a range of scholarships and fellowships that make a post-graduate education more accessible to those interested in pursuing higher learning and developing the skills needed for the knowledge economy.

The government has committed to ensuring Canada's next generation of researchers is more diverse. This diversity includes trainees who are at different life stages, including parenthood. Recognizing that research trainees receiving federal scholarships are unable to take advantage of parental leave benefits offered under the EI system, in budget 2019 we expanded the duration of paid parental leave coverage for students and post-doctoral fellows funded directly or indirectly by the federal granting agencies from six months to 12 months. This investment is making a real difference for research trainees, supporting their pathway to careers as highly qualified personnel in Canada.

The government recognized the vital research role played by highly qualified staff and the need to maintain the talent pool during major disruptions caused by the COVID‑19 pandemic.

To mitigate the impact on students, fellows, and research support personnel funded by research grants, the three federal granting agencies have extended the scholarships and fellowships that directly support fellows and have provided additional funding to eligible research grant recipients who indirectly support fellows through salaries and allowances.

The government fully recognizes that in today's rapidly changing world, diverse and inclusive science is essential for maintaining the talent pool that is integral to new discoveries and innovations, and for building the evidence base that we need in order to tackle the big problems facing Canada and the world.

Canada will always be a place where science is valued, independent and encouraged. We understand and cherish the value of scientific freedom. That is why the government is working to provide support to research trainees affected by Vladimir Putin's unjustified invasion of Ukraine with the creation of the special response fund for trainees. We have established this measure as a way of demonstrating our support for Ukraine and to help Ukrainian trainees working in Canada continue their important work. This action contributes to Canada's diverse and inclusive research community, a goal that our government is fully committed to.

There is no doubt that a diverse, inclusive and equitable research community contributes to better scientific research and is essential if we want Canada to reach its full potential. It is also true that many people face systemic barriers that prevent them from fully participating in our country's social and economic life, including in post-secondary institutions.

To underscore the government's commitment to building a diverse, inclusive and equitable research environment, budget 2022 announced new funding to support scholarships and fellowships for promising Black researchers, a group that remains particularly marginalized in Canada's post-secondary research ecosystem. We see this investment as a step forward in ensuring that people from all backgrounds are welcome in the labs, in the field, and in the classrooms, and that Canada remains an inclusive and welcoming society for all, where everyone has the opportunity to participate.

Simply put, we are committed to supporting Canadian science and all the talented individuals belonging to the Canadian science ecosystem. Going forward, the government remains committed to gathering the ideas and talent in our research community to help address the opportunities and challenges we face.

In closing, we must continue to build a more inclusive and stronger Canada. One way of doing it is through the Canada research chairs program.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge, whose French is getting better all the time.

Obviously, the Bloc is opposed to any sort of hiring quota and the imposition of such quotas on the basis of the four criteria set out by the Liberal government.

How would the member, who is from the business community, react if his superiors gave him similar instructions and he had to hire people in his sector based on those four criteria?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles for his question this afternoon.

In society today, we must recognize that there are obstacles or systemic barriers for people in advancing and receiving opportunities. We must continue to break down the barriers that certain communities face in Canada. At the same time, we must encourage diversity within our Canada research chairs. There are ways of doing that. We have identified ways to continue to diversify them while we continue to break down the systemic barriers that exist for particular communities that are marginalized here in Canada.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and making an effort to speak French.

I get the impression that we are engaging in a dialogue of the deaf. People think that we support discrimination, when the exact opposite is true. We absolutely support better representation of women, cultural communities and so on in institutions.

The main problem, and the reason for our motion, is that some candidates are being excluded from the very beginning of the hiring process. Why not trust the institutions? It is risky to not let people apply. It is all well and good to want the pendulum to swing back, but we must not go too far either. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I will say this about the motion the Bloc Québécois brought forward: I agree with denouncing all forms of discrimination. We all agree on all sides of the House that we must always confront, denounce and condemn all forms of discrimination, whether it is anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or others, and the systemic barriers that exist, for example, against Black Canadians in this country. With that, we must continue to put in place programs that reflect and look at the way Canadian society is and where we are today, ensuring that people have opportunities to succeed and have opportunities to do groundbreaking and innovative research.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, people with disabilities face multiple barriers, including those of research chairs, which we are debating today. In order to make academic communities more accessible to people living with disabilities, positive action is needed to improve accessibility.

Does the member believe abolishing affirmative action would undermine the long-standing efforts of people with disabilities?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, looking at the statistics this morning, I saw that the percentage of persons with disabilities who are now participating in the Canada research chairs program has risen to over 5%. I think that is a great effort.

The actions to make sure that Canada research chairs reflect what Canada is about and who we are as a country must continue. We must put in parameters to ensure that we have representation from all groups, that the groundbreaking research these individuals are doing is allowed to continue and that they are provided the resources and tools to continue doing their great work.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars coming from the federal government to fund over 2,000 very important jobs dealing with research, technology and so forth. When we take at look at Canadian society being as diverse as it is, there is an expectation that the government will try, in the best way, to ensure that these appointments reflect the population.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the importance of society being properly reflected in many different spectrums of our communities, including our post-secondary institutions and their research chairs?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully support the notion that institutions of all kinds should be representative of and reflect the extraordinary diversity of the societies in which we live.

Today's debate is not about inclusion. It is about the need to resist the temptation to exclude people, the need to avoid discriminating, even with the best possible intentions, against people who can make a significant contribution to knowledge, science and the betterment of society.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, what I heard today from the leader of the Bloc Québécois was more or less a speech in which he mentioned democratic evolution, scientific evolution, social evolution, the amalgamation of all philosophies together and the impact on society in a country such as Canada.

I have a specific question: How does he see ideology in the world we live in, which is evolving to basically compete with scientific evolution, and others, to change societies?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would respectfully submit that ideology does not compete with research and science, but rather it comes from research and science. An opinion must be based on some minimal knowledge. Science, research, education and the sharing of these ideas and these possibilities all contribute to the shaping of minds and forming of opinions. As those opinions expand, deepen and develop, they often become an ideology. We are simply saying that ideology derives from knowledge.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The under-representation of marginalized groups will not fix itself. Active measures need to be taken to ensure that academia is more inclusive and representative. Why does the member refuse to tackle the root causes of these injustices?