Debates of May 31st, 2022

Opposition Motion—Canada Research Chairs Program

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

Madam Speaker, I am being told that I refuse to address the root causes of injustice, whereas I am suggesting that we take a positive approach, not a negative one. I am suggesting that we take an approach that will rally people around this diversity. I am suggesting that there be a set of incentives, including financial ones, to help ensure this extraordinary diversity is better represented.

Discrimination and intimidation is out there now, with stickers on doors, calls, attempts to exclude people from faculties, research projects being impeded. I do not think this contributes to anything positive.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today following my distinguished colleague, friend, member for Beloeil—Chambly and leader, in that order.

I also want to acknowledge the exceptional work that my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has done on the research chairs file, work that is behind the opposition day we are presenting today.

The motion reads as follows:

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.

Regarding point (a), as we often say in Quebec, no one is against apple pie. The proposal is easy to accept. As for point (b), it is hard to be against that either.

I think that what the motion proposes makes perfect sense.

I would like to make one thing clear right from the start, because I can already see the pernicious insinuations and attacks coming. We are not against equity, diversity and inclusion. In short, we are not against the principle. Rather, we are in favour of finding solutions and potentially implementing policies that will lead to the intended objective, which is equity, diversity and inclusion. Solutions do exist. Some are well thought out; others, less so. There is always a bit of work to do to improve things. That is why we are here, and that is the spirit of our motion today.

First, how did we get to this point?

The first instinct may be to blame a current movement that is fighting hard to restore some degree of social justice, but we must dig a bit deeper and do more research.

In 2003, a group of eight academics from across Canada filed some human rights complaints. These complaints alleged that the Canada research chairs program discriminated against individuals who are members of the protected groups set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. An agreement was proposed in 2006, which required that the program implement specific measures to increase representation of members of the four designated groups, namely, women, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and visible minorities. The agreement clearly did not work because it was made a federal court order in 2017.

You can try to fix as many cracks as you want in a house, but what ultimately needs to be fixed is the bad foundation. I think that we need to do the long-term work to address the issue of lack of representation of designated groups in research programs. We too often forget that things take time these days and that shortcuts are inadequate and are a bad way to achieve certain specific objectives.

In today's case, this involves facilitating and promoting access to post-secondary education for under-represented groups and getting more young people from different backgrounds interested in the programs that lead to research.

Without a doubt, this will take time. However, it will lead to much more lasting results that will visibly improve over time and a method that will call for occasional improvements. In the long run, we will be able to benefit more from diversity in our research chairs. We will not suffer the disadvantages of so-called positive discrimination, which, as I said earlier, are in fact mere shortcuts that will only compound the problems in the very short term.

The proof that the cart is being put before the horse in terms of achieving the objectives of equity, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, is the fact that more and more job postings for university-level teaching positions no longer even require a Ph.D. This argument alone should be enough to show that we are not on the right path and that we have chosen the wrong one, and to make us understand that the solution lies elsewhere and that we need to dig a little deeper to find better, more effective and certainly more lasting solutions.

Another problem that I see is the way that it hinders university autonomy. Universities are places for the development of knowledge and learning. That is where we learn how to think critically. We need to allow people to exchange ideas, to challenge each other and to have open discussions, while not leaving any room for censorship. We have seen many abuses in this area recently, but that is not really the focus of today's discussion.

Rather, my concern is with the criteria imposed by the federal government in an area of jurisdiction that belongs not just to Quebec and the provinces, but also very directly to institutions of higher learning. Let us be clear: the Canada research chairs program is a way for the federal government to impose its views on the entire academic community.

On April 2, Professor Yves Gingras wrote in Le Devoir about universities suffering from provincial underfunding that cannot afford to turn up their noses at tens of thousands of dollars available from research chairs to pay for these new professors.

Not all university presidents are acting in bad faith. They are faced with a certain reality, and most of the time they have no choice but to stay silent, turn a blind eye, and take the money by accepting guidelines and criteria. Sometimes they agree with them. Often, I am sure of it, they do not quite agree. This is how they slip into a trap that quickly becomes a costly, vicious cycle.

The other problem with this measure is the recruitment pool. I will now take my colleagues back to Quebec, which is home to the Université du Québec network that is well established in various regions: we have a Université du Québec in Rimouski, in Chicoutimi and in Trois-Rivières, and I am proud to say that we have a beautiful campus in Drummondville, thanks in part to my leader and colleague.

Imagine the challenge and the major issue the recruitment pool would represent for institutions located outside large urban areas like Toronto should EDI criteria be imposed. I draw my colleagues' attention to a recent column by Jean-François Lisée in Le Devoir, published on April 7 and easily found on the Internet, in which he draws a parallel. Imagine being able to require that the ratio of francophone professors and researchers in Canada match the representation of francophones across Canada, 23%, or else universities would not receive federal funding. Imagine the headache that recruiting the required percentage of francophone professors would cause for universities out west and even elsewhere.

That is basically the issue here. Virtue is all well and good, but there is also reality, and we have to take that into account. We cannot start standardizing everything. We cannot set up criteria across the board and introduce hiring processes to achieve instantaneous equity overnight. There are processes that take time.

In closing, my colleagues need to understand that we fully support the principle of equity, diversity and inclusion. However, we believe that it must be applied thoughtfully, not simply in response to pressure from activists who demand immediate results, regardless of collateral damage or effectiveness.

For example, fostering inclusion can be done by giving preference to candidates from groups that are under-represented, but equally qualified. This has been done in the past in a variety of settings, such as academia, to achieve gender equity.

There is still a long way to go, but the work has begun. It may not be a perfect solution, but it is a solution that works. We need to focus on solutions that work, not utopian goals.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide me with his idea of what systemic racism looks like and how we could address those barriers without concrete measures like this. This is a measure that the university administrators took upon themselves in order to take a concrete step toward ensuring more diversity and inclusion. They are going to see how it works. We should give them the space to do that work as autonomous institutions.

What does your understanding of systemic racism look like, and how do we address it without measures such as these?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind members to address the questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, those are two different things. My colleague talked about systemic racism, and I think that is an issue that can be dealt with separately. However, my colleague raised a very important point in her question. We should let universities manage the hiring of professors.

Targets can be set. Universities can be asked to ensure that they achieve a certain representation and make room for under‑represented groups. They can be told to favour candidates from these under‑represented groups, in the event of equally qualified candidates. However, imposing criteria is a very slippery slope and very dangerous.

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

Madam Speaker, setting aside the selection criteria imposed by the Liberal government, the whole identity aspect that appears in these criteria, and the interference, once again, by the Liberals, is there not a major risk that the government may in some way undermine the autonomy that is so important to universities?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, my colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles is raising a very important point. The independence of institutions of higher learning is fundamental and essential. Any institution where knowledge is developed and shared, where the leaders of tomorrow hone their critical thinking skills, must not be influenced by any external factors, and certainly not by any government.

These criteria must be applied, enforced and fulfilled, or else funding will be pulled. This is very serious. These are not just objectives for reaching a certain ideal. These objectives are being imposed with serious financial consequences attached for universities. My colleague's question is therefore very relevant. The government, regardless of its political stripes, is playing an extremely dangerous game when it imposes criteria and objectives with financial penalties attached. This is highly problematic.

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

Madam Speaker, as of right now, there are few people from racialized communities and indigenous groups on Canadian university faculties. This is unfortunate, and it is because of the history of systemic and colonial practices. This under-representation is real, and it is caused by barriers that prevent access and participation by academics from these groups. If these symptoms are to be corrected, equity measures must be taken to change the culture and make the academic environment more inclusive.

Why is the member opposed to the steps needed to remove these systemic barriers to ensure that these groups have access to these positions?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question is a pernicious one. People need to stop saying that we are against achieving objectives. They have to stop insinuating that we are sabotaging the achievement of equity objectives. That is not okay, and that is not the right way to ask questions.

As we have said, we agree, we are aware and we fully support implementing measures that will give these communities and these under-represented groups the space they are entitled to. In fact, we think there is a need for effective, sustainable measures. That is what I said in my speech earlier. In this kind of situation, shortcuts are dangerous and will end up doing more harm than good.

What we need to do is implement measures now that will, for example, give young people from communities that are under-represented among research chairs better access to post-secondary education and spark their interest in the programs that lead to these research chairs. That is how we can create an environment in which these communities are adequately represented, are present, and can ensure the diversity we want to see in research chairs and in university and post-secondary faculties in general.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Fredericton.

I rise in the House today to talk about the undeniable fact that the people of Quebec and Canada are increasingly diverse. As a society, we are being called upon to ensure diversity in all sectors.

In 2016, 22.3% of Canadians reported being members of a visible minority and 4.9% reported being members of the first nations, Inuit or Métis. In addition, 70% of these people indicated that they had been born outside of the country.

There are more than 250 ethnicities represented in Canada. Statistics Canada estimates that by 2036, visible minorities will represent between 31% and 36% of the population.

In spite of these statistics, indigenous peoples, Blacks, racialized communities and minorities are subject to racism and discrimination on a daily basis, at work, when applying for jobs or a promotion, or when renting or buying a house.

The notion of systemic racism and discrimination refers to an organizational culture, policies, directives, practices or procedures that exclude, displace or marginalize racialized communities and indigenous peoples. This creates unfair barriers to real options and opportunities, which means that non-racialized groups end up being prioritized over others.

In recent years, our government has worked hard to address systemic racism and discrimination, in particular through Canada's anti-racism strategy. We have also focused on including diversity and indigenous peoples across all government policies.

When it comes to the research environment, it is important to recognize the need for ongoing and sustainable action to address growing inequalities.

Our government is taking important and necessary steps to build a more inclusive society, notably by developing a national action plan on combatting hate and by increasing funding for Canada's new anti-racism strategy.

Budget 2022 announced $85 million over four years, starting in 2022‑2023, to support ongoing work to launch a new anti-racism strategy and a national action plan on combatting hate. This funding will support community-based projects that ensure Black and racialized Canadians and religious minorities have access to resources so they can fully participate in the Canadian economy, while raising awareness of issues related to racism and hate in Canada.

Fighting racism and discrimination also means working to ensure that this diversity is better represented among our scientists and researchers. After decades of neglect, our government has reinvested in the scientific community. Budget 2022 provides $38.3 million over four years to add new Canada excellence research chairs.

The Canada research chairs program aims to make Canada one of the world's top countries in research. This requires us to ensure better representation, and we have a long way to go. In 2016, visible minorities were about 13%; today, this figure is just over 22%.

For new researchers, especially those from diverse backgrounds, it is very difficult to find their place in the scientific community, because historically the scientific community is a white Western community based on white knowledge. This refers to a white elite that has grown up in conscious and unconscious privilege.

There is a lot of work to be done to ensure that we include diverse communities and indigenous peoples in the scientific community and to break out of historical white paradigms that do not represent multiple perspectives.

Today we need to work toward a multiplicity of knowledge. Paradigms are diverse, and the multiplicity of knowledge helps give people a greater understanding of the world, an understanding that is more open to different perspectives.

Research criteria and scientific rigour are the same for everyone. I find it dangerous to claim anything else. We need to recognize the challenge that indigenous and diverse peoples face when taking their place in the scientific community. It is a real challenge.

It is critical because, once again, a multiplicity of knowledge brings diverse perspectives. It provides a broader spectrum of knowledge, and fosters a broader and more inclusive understanding of the world. This multiplicity of knowledge is expressed through the diversity of researchers who have experienced the realities of racialized communities and indigenous peoples. Otherwise we end up with a single world view in a monolithic identity, and that is the danger looming over Quebec.

If you are from a diverse background or indigenous, that means you are not white. Wanting to be sure that we include these diverse perspectives is in no way indicative of a lack of scientific rigour.

I would like to point out that if the Montreal police force had not been using hiring selection criteria to ensure that the police looked like their community in the 1990s, we would not see this much diversity on the police force today.

While we have a strong legislative framework that supports diversity and fights discrimination, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have witnessed some troubling events here and abroad in recent years, which tells us that the charters and laws are not enough and that better representation of diversity and indigenous peoples in the scientific community is part of the work that remains to be done.

Eliminating racism and discrimination is part of the government's responsibility—it is everyone's responsibility, in fact—to support a society that brings out the best in its members and treats them with dignity and respect. Treating people with dignity and respect means acknowledging that scientific rigour is not the issue. The issue is equal opportunity to ensure that our research chairs represent Canada's and Quebec's population as a whole.

All Canadians, along with all Quebeckers, have a duty to do their part to fight all forms of hatred, discrimination and systemic discrimination, including at the research chair level.

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

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga, whom I respect and admire. I would like to ask her a very simple question.

Imagine she is choosing between two job applicants. One has a great personality, an outstanding resumé and amazing experience. The other meets one of the four criteria.

Assuming we are talking about science, and not some other thing, would my colleague really be okay with hiring the second applicant?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and his kind words about me. I also have a high regard for him.

I think this question is dangerous, because it assumes that right now, there is no rigour in the analysis of research programs. I can give the example of my aunt, who is a Ph.D. student. She is part of the research programs. The scientific rigour with which issues are studied is very real. Assuming that things are done differently is a rather inappropriate and dangerous observation by my colleague.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, after the 15th-year evaluation of the research program, they responded to the recommendations by implementing the equity, diversity, and inclusion action plan.

Does the member agree that continued implementation is required to continue to ensure that there is transparency in the allocation, selection and renewal processes of chair holders?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I agree with her that there is a need to ensure transparency in the programs and in how funding is allocated.

We need to make sure that we do so in order to counter my colleague's previous question, that is to say that we are not questioning the scientific rigour or the competence of indigenous peoples and racialized communities. What we are questioning is equality of opportunity.

I agree with my colleague. We need to make sure that all programs are transparent, because we have to demonstrate that they have the merit to be among the research chairs and to be funded by the research chairs.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her fine speech. Once again, I feel like I am taking part in a dialogue of the deaf, because I agree with everything she said. She pointed out that we need to tackle all forms of discrimination, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.

Prohibiting someone from submitting their application crosses a dangerous line. How does the member feel about the fact that certain groups of people are being prohibited submitting applications?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I find dangerous is what I have been hearing about what is going on in the scientific community, where the focus is on checking off boxes. Research groups will be created, people will come together and two or three researchers who represent this visible minority will be invited in order to check off boxes. Researchers from visible minority groups are also entitled to access funding through research programs on their own.

I understand my colleague's question, but this dangerous tendency can go too far and we have to be careful. I am a little disappointed by today's motion, because it compels us to ask questions that certainly do not reflect the Bloc's intention, which is a shame.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I get the impression that there was a very superficial or cursory reading of this bill.

Our motion is absolutely not about discrimination. We are all in favour of equity, diversity and inclusion. I would ask my colleague, who focused on women in her speech, which is great since we would all like there to be more women, what she thinks about the fact that, right now, 70% of the medical students at the Université de Montréal are women.

Should there be criteria for reducing the number of female medical students at the Université de Montréal?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great example of a success story. That institution should be applauded, and perhaps we should explore what measures they took to ensure that women had adequate representation, specifically in the medical field. These are the conversations that we should be having, but I am sure it is by no accident that the environment was created and that the culture was created to foster women in those positions, in those halls and institutions.

My thanks to the member for bringing that fact to our attention.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the member opposite for her advocacy.

Colleagues may know that I am the first female engineer in the House of Commons and began as an engineer when only 13% of engineers were women. There was significant systemic discrimination at that time. I experienced it throughout my career. Of course, as I was in construction, that was also quite a toxic environment. I was sad to hear testimony in 2017, as the chair of the status of women committee while we were studying how to get more women into STEM, that this situation still exists.

I wonder if the member would agree that we have not made progress as we should have. Does she have any suggestions as to how we could accelerate getting to equity?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, there is so much more that we could be doing. I certainly identify with the example she gave about being a female engineer in a space that was not necessarily fostered to promote women's inclusion.

I think about many of the women who are also here in this space. I am sure they have also faced some of the discrimination that we are talking about today. I will give a couple of examples of questions that have come my way that really reflect the misogyny that is still in our society today: whether I have earned my position in this place, whether I was offered certain things or maybe had relationships along the way, maybe I was not doing my duties at home or I was really neglecting my children, perhaps, by being in this space. These are the things we have to face when we try to enter these spaces that were not designed for us.

What we need to do is to continue to have these conversations. We need to be bold. We need to be out loud. We need to show women that they belong here, they belong in engineering and they belong in construction across this country.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to express my gratitude to the member for Fredericton. I went from feeling quite frustrated and discouraged at the beginning of this debate to now feeling much more optimistic as we shift into solutions and addressing real barriers in accessing equity.

We know that the rate of women holding research chairs in Canada still falls short of the parity goal. I wonder if the member could share a little bit about how, in the seven years that the Liberals have had power, there have been lots of great words spoken but we are not seeing that translating into action. Women are still being discriminated against. Can the member please share her thoughts on how we best move forward to ensure that everyone feels welcome within our systems, including that which we are debating today?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

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.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the ever‑charming member for Manicouagan.

This is the best time of day, right before question period, when no one is listening and we can say stupid things, although I will not do that.

I would like to begin with a reflection on the issue of positive discrimination. When research chairs are being selected, should positive discrimination be applied? I would like to come back to what positive discrimination means. Sometimes, in the workplace and in access to education, there are biases that can favour certain people. Yes, men can be favoured for certain jobs, people of different ethnic identities can be favoured for certain jobs, and we have to accept that positive discrimination is a mechanism that allows us to restore some equity.

Can that be done in the university framework and context? I do not think so, and I will explain why. First, we need to agree on something. University research means a university is involved. In my opinion, the simplest definition of a university, one that has been around since the Middle Ages, is a place where all knowledge is permitted. That is because people quickly tried to make a distinction between certain ideologies and the development of knowledge outside the confines of certain ideologies and religions. I want to start with that, since I think it is rather crucial.

I want to tell the House about some of my first loves. I was an avid reader of Michel Foucault. In a short but very interesting book called The Archaeology of Knowledge, Foucault says that, during any given time period, there are things that we can know and things that we cannot. He called this an episteme. According to Foucault, an episteme is a form of rationality in a given time period. Knowledge of medicine could not advance in the Middle Ages because the body was considered sacred. Anyone who dissected a body would meet the same fate, but at the hands of religious authorities, so medical knowledge could not advance.

Academia was created based on this idea of leaving every possible field open to various kinds of knowledge. I wanted to emphasize that because I have the impression that what is really going on here is simply an attempt to limit the advancement of certain kinds of knowledge by including criteria that ensure access to research chairs based on identity issues. Research chairs are usually awarded based on how applicants' peers view their projects and their work. Now, if another criterion is added that has to do with identity, the pool of applicants who can apply for research chairs will be seriously limited. Research chairs are not awarded based on the notion of resolving any flagrant inequity or the fact that there are fewer people from a particular group, such as the LGBTQ community or people of a certain faith or from a certain cultural community.

The goal of awarding research chairs is advancing knowledge. They are not earned based on any particular identity. In chemistry, physics and all of the pure sciences, knowledge is developed by people who have the skills to advance in their particular fields. As we can imagine, there is some degree of competition involved in earning these chairs, which does not really correspond to the idea of requirements around equity, diversity and inclusion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I must interrupt the member.

When we resume debate, the member will have five minutes to finish his speech and then respond to questions and comments.