Debates of May 31st, 2022

Opposition Motion—Canada Research Chairs Program

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

moved:

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.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from La Prairie.

I rise today to open up a debate that is as important as it is necessary for the future of science and research in Quebec and Canada.

Historically speaking, research funding has always been awarded on the basis of excellence. The scientific process takes place at the frontier of human knowledge, and advancing beyond that frontier requires someone with a combination of skills and qualities that are beyond the ordinary. It therefore seems reasonable, essential even, to direct our limited financial resources towards the individuals with the greatest expertise, towards the most promising projects. That is how we maximize the benefits for society as a whole.

In recent years, however, under the federal government's direction, this basic tenet has been undermined by a new set of equity, diversity and inclusion criteria, which advocate a funding approach based on factors related to identity and representation. While these criteria are rooted in a desire to correct certain historical inequalities that we do not deny exist, the way in which they have been implemented is perplexing.

The most obvious evidence of this trend is the Canada research chairs program, where strict representation targets were unilaterally imposed on universities. Moreover, the members of the House of Commons were never asked for their input either, since the policy is based on a decision that was made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and ratified by the Federal Court of Canada.

The impact of the policy is starting to be felt. A number of sometimes absurd and aberrant situations have arisen in recent months, where postings for open positions automatically excluded certain candidates regardless of their qualifications. Some positions reserved for representatives of certain groups also remained vacant because no one applied.

In light of this, it is high time that the House reviewed this matter. That is why the Bloc Québécois is moving a motion today for the House to “denounce all forms of discrimination”, recognize that “research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general”, and acknowledge that, in order to maximize benefits, “access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates' skills and qualifications” above all else.

To that end, the government must review the criteria for the Canada research chairs program.

In addition to posing a threat to the excellence of Quebec and Canadian research, the equity, diversity and inclusion criteria applied by the Canada research chairs program encroach on Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over education in three separate ways, since it is a program for hiring professors, it impinges on the autonomy of universities, and it restricts academic freedom.

I will now give my colleagues a brief lesson on constitutional history. The Constitution Act, 1867, placed education under the sole jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Research is an area of concurrent jurisdiction and can therefore be dealt with by both levels of government.

In 2000, the federal government invoked its powers relating to research funding to launch the Canada research chairs program.

We were told at the time that there was no encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions and that the goal was merely to fund research. However, if we look closely at the program two decades later, we can see that a research chair is a direct pathway to a professorship. In fact, the criteria for awarding research chairs determine who will teach in universities in Quebec and the other provinces.

In addition, the equity, diversity and inclusion requirements under the Canada research chairs program also blatantly violate the universities' autonomy.

As specified in the program policies, “if an institution is not meeting its equity targets, following a deadline stipulated by the program, nominations will be restricted to individuals who self-identify as one or more of the four designated groups until such time as the targets are met”. The four designated groups are women, racialized minorities, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities.

We have started seeing the impact of this policy on Quebec universities. Laval University recently posted a job offer stating that only candidates with the required skills and who have self-identified as members of at least one of the four under-represented groups will be selected. The university is basically being forced to shred certain applications regardless of those candidates' qualifications or the relevance of their research projects.

That is only the beginning. The program also states that “[i]nstitutions that do not meet their equity targets by the December 2029 deadline will have their allocation of chairs reduced”. Universities are being held hostage by the federal government, which is threatening to slash their allocated funding and reduce the number of prestigious research chairs they get. One of the cornerstones of university autonomy is the power to select and appoint professors, so the idea that the federal government could change the process cannot and should not be tolerated.

The third issue with the current policy is that it is an assault on academic freedom, which guarantees academics the inalienable right to teach or study any subject, school of thought, or theory without fear of reprisal or discrimination. However, the numerous administrative and bureaucratic requirements heaped on researchers in all disciplines include the submission of an EDI action plan that conforms to certain social sciences theories that are not universally accepted in academia or in society in general. This type of requirement impedes the academic freedom of researchers, who are forced to adhere to certain concepts if they want to obtain a research chair.

As a result, the very imposition of these criteria by the federal government for research chairs undermines several key principles and is in itself sufficient justification for a review. This being said, a quick analysis of the numerical requirements reveals the full scope of the policy's incongruity.

As I said earlier, universities have been ordered to meet representation targets by 2029. These strict, one-size-fits-all targets are applied equally to all Quebec and Canadian universities. They are based on the average representation rates in Canada of the four under-represented groups targeted by the program.

For visible minorities, the target is 22% for all universities because that is the Canadian average according to the latest census in 2016. However, what seems to have been forgotten or, worse still, ignored, is the fact that the population is not evenly distributed across the country. In Toronto, members of visible minorities represent 51.5% of the population. In Quebec City, they represent just 6.5% of the population. As it turns out, 6.5% happens to be the exact proportion of Université Laval professors who are members of visible minorities.

Where I am from, Rimouski, which is far from the big cities, members of visible minorities make up barely 2% of the population, but for the purposes of the Canada research chair program, they are supposed to hit a target that is 10 times higher than their actual representation. The federal government's one-size-fits-all solution does not take distinct regional characteristics into account and forces universities in the regions to recruit abroad rather than develop homegrown expertise. That makes no sense at all and it flies in the face of Quebec's university model, which is all about developing skills and expertise across Quebec.

Again, there needs to be a review of the federal government's policy of applying ideological math that does not work in the real world. There are concrete solutions to this nonsense. Of course, we need to increase funding for research and development. Canada is the only G7 country that has reduced its investment over the last 20 years. We need to increase graduate scholarships at the master's and doctoral levels. These scholarships have not been indexed for almost 20 years, since 2003.

In closing, I would like to clarify, specifically for my colleagues in the House, that the debate that we wish to have is not about positive discrimination in general, but about this specific, poorly crafted federal policy that is, moreover, encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is time for questions and comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House Leader.

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

Madam Speaker, at first blush, when I listened to the member, I had a grave concern for how important it is that we recognize the diversity that exists in Canada. Recognizing it is more than just acknowledgement. We have to have policies in place to ensure that there is a higher sense of fairness and a more level playing field.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the importance of diversity to the province of Quebec. He makes reference, for example, to Quebec City, but one could equally make reference to the city of Montreal. How important, for that member, is diversity of population in the province of Quebec?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague from Winnipeg North misunderstood my speech. The debate is not about the importance of diversity. We recognize the need for diversity, inclusion and, of course, equity.

What we are saying is that the basic criterion that must take precedence when selecting candidates for Canada Research Chairs is excellence. This criterion should not be based on identity, which sometimes has nothing to do with the context of the research.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, as somebody who spent almost 20 years teaching in academia, I can tell members that the last thing we need to be fighting for is more white males in power. In fact, I would argue that we did not get the best and the brightest because all of the focus and prestige was given to white males in power.

I would say that we are at a time in history when we need diversity. We certainly need gender parity, and I would ask this: Why is the Bloc fighting so fiercely to keep white males in positions of power, to the exclusion of others?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the debate is taking an unhealthy turn, and that is not what the Bloc Québécois wants today.

We are asking that the primary criterion for the recruitment of candidates for Canada research chairs be excellence. The best example I can give is this. The policies of Quebec universities have achieved greater representation for women without any federal government meddling.

We recognize the need for equity, diversity and inclusion. However, in the event of equally qualified candidates, although the government may favour certain groups of people, identity should not be the primary criterion. The excellence of the candidates for federal government research chair grants and the quality of their applications must be the primary considerations.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to sit with my hon. colleague on the science and research committee. We are studying top talent right now in Canada. As for the job market, we are short 1.03 million jobs in Canada.

My question for the member, as we are studying this important decision and talking about talent, is this: Do we have a shortage of talent for research chairs in Canada? Do we have a shortage of talent in Quebec right now?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague. It is a pleasure for me to sit with him on the Standing Committee on Science and Research.

There is obviously a shortage, a labour shortage. However, I would like to redirect him to the main debate today, which is specifically about the selection criteria for research chairs at universities in Quebec and Canada.

The primary criterion right now is based on identity, the aim being to meet certain federal government targets and improve the representation of the four groups previously designated by the federal government. We are asking that the criterion based on identity be withdrawn and that excellence be the primary criterion.

Many research chairs remain vacant because the criteria fail to take the socio-demographic reality into account. This situation does not contribute to the development of science and research at any university or in society.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the motion we are discussing today is extremely important, and I salute my colleague who moved it.

I would like to start by addressing the revolution in economic thinking. From 1929 onward, economic interventions tended to be short-term. Towards the end of World War II, the Keynesian school of thought emerged. Keynesianism advocates spending more money to stimulate the economy and spending less money and tweaking taxes to slow inflation. The Keynesian school of thought was alive and well during what is known as the “Glorious Thirty”, a three-decade period that lasted until 1973.

After that, a change happened. It was very slow, but it foreshadowed what was to come for university economics. Madam Speaker, you will see what I am getting at. I know you well, and I know that you are interested in economics.

Since I taught for 20 years, I know that, starting in the 1990s, the focus turned more and more to long-term economic growth. The important thing was no longer to solve current inflation and unemployment problems, but rather to consolidate current political and economic actions to create stronger growth in the future. This is more complicated than starting to spend money at a given point in time. It was decided that the best way to make a population richer in the medium and long terms was to implement measures that would have an impact in the medium and long terms. The concept of long-term economic growth and its determining factors was a novelty.

The number one determining factor for economic growth is research and development. If we want to improve society as a whole, we need to improve every member of society, regardless of their origin, using knowledge. We need to increase production without creating inflation.

I will return to what the Conservative member was saying about the labour shortage. There is a simple solution to the shortage, and it is to improve every employee's productivity. I am not talking about increasing the efforts of every employee, just improving their productivity. For this, we must improve the knowledge that will allow them to increase their productivity. That will slow inflation and reduce the labour shortage, because our people will be better equipped in terms of knowledge and know-how. The source of the knowledge is irrelevant, since knowledge is like a fruit. We eat the fruit, not the tree. Consequently, we need to invest in research and development. In many cases, research and development is carried out in universities.

That brings me to today's topic. Canada has a reputation for underinvesting in research and development. The first major problem is that we are not investing in our future. Canada invests less than other countries. While other countries are moving swiftly, we seem to be shuffling along in a burlap sack. We are inching forward, trying to catch up, because we do not invest enough money in research and development. It is not easy to run in a burlap sack.

We are saying that we need to encourage research and development. Today's motion will allow us to do just that. It will allow us to determine how we can ensure the accumulation of knowledge and know-how in order to improve our position in the medium and long terms.

Obviously, that will take money and concerted government action, but this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. For research and development in universities, the federal government should give Quebec and the provinces money to hire people with the necessary qualifications to produce the knowledge we need.

It is not easy to find people skilled in research and development. We are not talking about jobs in fast food. Not everyone is up to the task. It requires years of study, and there is a lot of competition between cities, between universities and even between governments, which are all trying to hire the most highly qualified people in the world. It is obvious that the search for knowledge is predicated on finding the most highly qualified people.

That is what we need to do. I think that just about every country on the planet is doing it. Once again, the federal government is encroaching on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, saying that it will give money through the Canada research chairs program, with strings attached.

The government realized that some minorities were under-represented in research chairs. It targeted four groups: indigenous peoples, women, persons with disabilities and racialized minorities. Well done. That is good. Do I think that is a bad thing? Not at all. As I was saying, the government noticed this and decided it should do something about it. The money that the government gives will dictate how many people will be hired. That means that universities will no longer necessarily base their decisions on candidates' qualifications, but on EDI criteria. If not, their funding will be cut.

That is the problem. Some people who do not fall into any of these categories will be rejected. Even if they have outstanding qualifications, they will be locked out, despite the fact that they have expertise that could help build knowledge and improve the situation in the community. These people will be deprived of research and its fruits. In some cases, these people will be the best qualified by far. That is the situation in university research. Highly qualified candidates from a variety of backgrounds will be rejected. That is where things stand.

Are we in favour of equity? Of course. Are we in favour of diversity? Of course. Are we in favour of inclusion? Of course. This being said, we are not in favour of discrimination. The government is trying to solve an obvious problem by using discrimination. In the end, it is not solving much. What should we do in this situation? We should do what we would do in any other situation. Doctors can look at patients' symptoms and treat them. However, they try to find the source of the problem. That is what we need to do.

If fewer members of these minorities are working as researchers in universities, let us determine where the problem lies. Let us be proactive by working on the cause rather than on the effect. That will be effective, and universities will then be happy to say that there are more and more members of minorities holding research chairs. In fact, if we do this, the accumulation of knowledge will double or maybe even triple in Quebec and Canada, and that is what we want.

My colleague spoke about women in Quebec. More and more of them hold university research chairs. The situation is not yet perfect, but we worked on the cause rather than the effect. I am taking a proactive approach with my children. I have three daughters. I am being proactive. I told my daughter that she can do anything she wants in life. These people need to understand that anything is possible. We need to make sure the university gates are open to them from the beginning. Do these people have financial problems? If so, we must help them. There must be grants for more of these people to go to school. Do these people live in remote areas or have accessibility issues? If so, we need to make school more accessible. These people need to go to school. We have to work on that. They must embrace an academic career the minute they walk through the door. When we open the door to university, it is a victory. That is what we need to work on.

That is the problem the Bloc Québécois is proposing a solution for, but we do not support the Liberal government's solution, which is to use discrimination.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and found it quite interesting. I agree that we need the right talent in Canada in order to innovate and to grow our economy. Quebec is no different, but the concerns raised by the member lead me to think that perhaps Quebec is having an extra strain or an extra hardship in finding talent among diverse groups.

I am wondering, as the member spoke about finding solutions to the root cause of this problem, whether he could shed some light on what the root cause might be, and whether this problem is worse in Quebec than in other provinces.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. The root of the problem is access to university. That is it exactly.

For whatever reason, these people do not have the same access to university as most other people, and that is what needs to be addressed. Is it a financial problem? If so, there should be grants or scholarships to help them go to school. Is it because they live in a remote area? Going to university can be more difficult for first nations people. We need to work on that and find solutions. We must provide these people with access to university. That is what we need to do. We must make services more accessible to the public and allow these people to go to school. They should not be impeded by a lack of income or accessibility.

That is how we should be working. We need these people. They need to be integrated so that we can all work together.

When I was teaching, I liked walking into a classroom filled with people from around the world. It made for extremely interesting debates. It is a way for us all to prepare for the future together.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, from what I understand of this debate, the CRC is getting funding. The government is handing out funding for the Canada research chairs. That funding is based on a lot of different criteria, but some of it is based on inclusivity and diversity requirements.

Could the member just give me some examples from Quebec of what he is seeing in job postings, which are part of this motion? What examples is he seeing of postings that are excluding some or including others?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. However, to be honest, I do not really understand it.

Let us talk about job postings for research chairs. When hiring researchers, nothing is more important than qualifications. That is what universities should focus on. I do not even want to know who discovered the coronavirus vaccine. I got my shot, and those people have my gratitude. That is science.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

Women are still under‑represented in academic communities. This discrimination reinforces biases that are deeply rooted but that can be mitigated using active measures.

Instead of strengthening measures that eliminate the systemic barriers that women face, why does the hon. member want to maintain those barriers?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and her effort to speak French. It is wonderful.

Perhaps I was not clear.

Whenever my students did not understand something I had said, I would never tell them that they had misunderstood. I would say that I had misspoken.

I never said that we need to maintain the barriers that women face when trying to teach or do research. On the contrary, I want to break down these barriers. Women make up half of Quebec's population. There should be no barriers to entry for students, regardless of the type of barrier.

I have three daughters, and I do everything I can to make sure that they do not put any barriers in their way to do what they want to do in life. I work very hard on that. I raise my children to know that there are no barriers to their ambition, and I would like to see that everywhere.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on the Bloc Québécois motion about science and research in Canada.

I would like to begin by stating my unequivocal agreement with the notion that science is foundational to our economic prosperity, to our well-being overall in Canada and to the quality of life for all Canadians. World-class research and scientific excellence are a critical foundation of Canada's social, health and economic well-being. The talented individuals include countless in my riding of Halifax doing their work at Dalhousie University, the University of King's College, St. Mary's University, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design and so on. These researchers in Halifax and across the country are our primary engines of discovery, innovation and new knowledge to help us advance our country.

Science and research supply knowledge to develop new technologies, solve complex and persistent problems and generate innovations with real economic and social value for Canadians. Such research touches upon all aspects of our daily lives, including the challenges we face in protecting our environment, moving to clean growth, how we recover from major crises like COVID-19 and how Canada can be an effective player and role model in the shifting geopolitical context.

The federal government plays a very important role in providing the framework and funding that support and enhance Canada's performance in scientific research. Since day one, our government has put science and research front and centre and prioritized evidence-based decision-making in all that we do. After a decade of neglect under the Harper Conservatives, our government has brought science back. It is now at the forefront of our decision-making, and our scientific community looks a lot more like Canada does right now.

In keeping to our commitment to evidence-based decision-making, in 2016 we set up a blue ribbon panel of experts to advise on the ways to improve federal support of the Canadian science ecosystem so that our investments in the sector could be strategic and effective. I am proud to say that we responded to almost all of the recommendations in that report.

This approach has been buttressed by historic levels of funding. In fact, since 2016, our government has committed more than $13 billion to support research and science across Canada. Through budget 2018, for example, we announced nearly $4 billion in new funding to support Canadian research and researchers. This included the single largest investment in discovery research in Canadian history, at $1.7 billion over five years, as well as ongoing funding after that to support researchers through Canada's world-class granting agencies and research institutes.

Within this investment was funding to create the new frontiers in research fund, which supports research that is international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking, higher risk and higher reward. This is an agile and responsive program that is unleashing some of our best minds to tackle important domestic and international challenges.

Budget 2018 also included significant new funding for the Canada research chairs program to better enable it to attract and retain younger, emerging research leaders in Canada while increasing the diversity of nominated researchers. This was done because the COVID-19 pandemic also brought home the importance of science and research to Canada and the world.

Canada's science and research community responded admirably to the challenges brought about by the pandemic, and Canadians can rightly be proud of our scientific and research community. Our scientists and researchers have shown profound resilience throughout these challenging times, playing a huge role in the unprecedented mobilization and ramping up of international collaboration. Indeed, if there is a silver lining to this pandemic, it is that the world has been reminded of the power and importance of scientific research.

The true value of our investments in science has indeed been brought into sharp focus. The enduring strength of Canada's science and research capacity meant that we could get to work straight away with Canadian businesses to develop vaccines and therapeutics, as well as to help produce ventilators and personal protective equipment. That strength also meant government and health authorities were able to connect with expert, evidence-based advice through bodies such as the vaccine and therapeutic task forces and the Industry Strategy Council.

As we begin to pivot from the pandemic to a postpandemic economic recovery, a made-in-Canada plan will help to anticipate the challenges and opportunities that may lie ahead for our country. Cutting-edge government investments in life science research and biotechnologies will be a key part of this.

Strength in these areas is not only critical to our health and safety. These are also emerging growth industries that support well-paying jobs and attract investment. Our government is taking steps to grow a vibrant domestic biomanufacturing and life sciences sector. This includes foundational investments to build and support Canada's talent pipeline and research systems, as well as to encourage the growth of Canadian life sciences firms.

That is why, through budget 2021, our government allocated $1 billion to the strategic innovation fund to support promising life science and biomanufacturing companies; $500 million to the Canada Foundation for Innovation for a new bioresearch infrastructure fund and support of infrastructure at post-secondary institutions and research hospitals; $250 million to increase clinical research capacity through a new Canadian Institutes of Health Research clinical trials fund; $250 million for a new Canada biomedical research fund; and investments in the stem cell network and regenerative medicine research, as well as in adMare Bioinnovations, to support company creation and scale up on training activities in the life sciences sector.

To continue, through budget 2022, we would continue to provide new funding to attract leading researchers, advance Canada's critical research priorities and strengthen the security of research institutions. This funding would include $38.3 million over four years and $12.7 million ongoing to add new Canada excellence research chairs to attract and retain top-tier global researchers; $40.9 million over five years and $9.7 million a year ongoing to support targeted scholarships and fellowships for promising Black researchers; $159.6 million over five years and $33.4 million ongoing to protect federally funded research from foreign threats; and $100 million over six years to support post-secondary research in developing technologies and crop varieties that will allow for net-zero emissions in agriculture.

I am very proud to represent a riding as diverse and as thriving as Halifax. Moreover, I am certain that my colleagues on all sides of this House would join me in recognizing that Canada is a tremendously diverse country and that this diversity is a source of strength, resilience, innovation, knowledge and growth. It is this diversity that drives our very success as a society. In that vein, the importance of equity, diversity and inclusion in supporting research-based innovation is well documented. Studies show that capturing diverse cultural and social perspectives contributes to scientific impact. They also show that highly diverse teams outperform in innovation, critical and creative thinking, problem solving, productivity, and ethical conduct, and a lack of diverse thinking is actually a barrier to innovation in the Canadian economy.

Despite this, many Canadians continue to face systemic barriers to full participation in our society and our economy, including in science and research. Our government has recognized the importance of inclusivity and diversity in science since the outset. Budget 2018 tied new funding to federal research granting agencies to establishing clear objectives and plans to achieve great equity and diversity in federally funded post-secondary research. Since then, government has continued to improve the representation of marginalized and under-represented communities in Canada's research ecosystem to address deeply entrenched systemic barriers and biases to enable all talented individuals to participate in research if they wish to.

To oversee this and other work, in 2017 we instituted the Canada Research Coordinating Committee with a mandate to improve the harmonization and coordination of the granting agencies as well as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Under the direction of the committee, the agencies have launched a cohesive tri-agency equity, diversity and inclusion action plan that outlines measures to increase equitable and inclusive access to granting agency funding opportunities to address systemic barriers that limit participation of all talented individuals. It has instituted the Dimensions Canada pilot program, a made-in-Canada adaptation of the internationally recognized Athena Swan program, which aims to remove systemic barriers and improve equity, diversity and inclusion by providing a structure for universities and colleges to transform research culture. Further, it has provided capacity-building programs to post-secondary institutions to tackle challenges and barriers faced by under-represented groups in career advancement.

We have also taken a broader view with regard to realizing equity, diversity and inclusion across the economy and society. In budget 2021, we announced funding for academic research into systemic barriers that diverse groups face in our country.

Earlier this month our government announced an investment of $19.2 million to support 46 community-based and community-led research partnerships through the race, gender and diversity initiative. This initiative is led by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, or SSHRC, in partnership with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, or CIHR, and the investment is helping to fund projects that have a focus on health. These funded partnerships will draw on collaboration and mutual learning to foster the co-creation of new knowledge, capacity building and knowledge mobilization on issues related to systemic racism and discrimination of under-represented and disadvantaged groups.

In that same spirit, we have also instituted the 50-30 challenge, which challenges businesses and other organizations in Canada to increase the representation and inclusion of women and other equity-deserving groups in their workplaces.

Finally, the government provided new ongoing funding in 2019 for the granting agencies to offer extended paid parental leave for students and post-doctoral fellows, so these promising young workers can take the time they need to start families without having to worry about their career paths being adversely affected. We need these minds working for our country, and affording them this leave will help us to retain them here in Canada.

To close, I would like to speak to the importance of the Canada research chairs program to our country. Created in 2000, this program stands at the centre of a national strategy to make Canada one of the world’s top countries in research and development. Budget 2018 added 285 new positions to the program, so there are now over 2,000 chairs available, and provided researchers early in their careers with a new $20,000 annual stipend.

The program has its own equity, diversity and inclusion plan, which is yielding results with record proportions of women nominees in recent competitions and increases for members of other under-represented groups. In the most recent round, women accounted for 53.2% of nominations, while 29.8% of the nominations were racialized minorities, 5.9% were persons with disabilities and 2.7% were indigenous peoples.

A research ecosystem that looks more like Canada itself will deliver better results for Canada. This is our country’s flagship research program, and we must ensure that all talented individuals who wish to participate have a chance at obtaining these prestigious positions.

Earlier this month, the Canadian Science Policy Centre hosted a science meets Parliament event here on the Hill. MPs were paired with Canadian scientists from across the country, and I was lucky to be paired with a constituent of mine from Halifax, Dr. Rachel Chang, a Canadian research chair in atmospheric science and assistant professor at Dalhousie University. She, like all of the representatives who met with MPs of all parties, represents the best of what our country has to offer in research and discovery, and our government is committed to supporting their work. I want to take this opportunity to thank Rachel and all of the delegates who came to Ottawa to share with us their perspectives.

I would also like to thank the opposition member for his insightful question and assure him and all my parliamentary colleagues that the government continues to work hard to keep Canada a world leader in science and research, while making opportunities available to all qualified individuals in the interests of driving new knowledge and innovations to the benefit of all.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleague from Halifax to reread the opposition motion, which specifically calls for a review of the recruitment criteria for research chairs, for they are currently identity-based.

At the end of his speech, my colleague said that he was proud that Canada is a world leader in research and development. I urge him to reread the Naylor report, which issued 35 recommendations.

Canada is the only G7 country that did not invest, that has reduced its investments over the past 20 years. It is the only country in the G7 that has lost researchers over the last six years. It is not a world leader, far from it.

Would my colleague agree that there are people who are competent, talented and have projects, but are unable to get funding through the Canada research chairs program because they do not meet certain identity-based criteria?

Their abilities are not taken into consideration due to voluntary targets set by the federal government to increase representation for certain under-represented groups.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, to begin with the Naylor report, I have read the Naylor report quite carefully, and I have had extensive discussions with researchers in my riding about it over a number of years since it was completed. In fact, they are often reminding me that one of the key findings and recommendations within the Naylor report is to improve diversity, equity and inclusion. That is what we are focused on doing.

On the point of researchers being left out, it is very clear from some of the studies I mentioned in my remarks that our ability to innovate and conduct world-leading research is improved when we have a much more diverse and inclusive research ecosystem in Canada. That is what the tri-council is focused on. That is what the Naylor report prescribed, and that is what our government is working hard to accomplish.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple. Does the member believe that the most qualified people should be the ones receiving grants, or does he believe that positive discrimination is the best way forward?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned discrimination. Of course, the very intention around my speech and my response to the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion is to eliminate any kind of discrimination. As I have said, our work to innovate and face the greatest problems of our country in the world today is improved by the participation of equity-seeking groups, including women and people from all backgrounds and all nationalities. This is the strength of our ecosystem, and we are building on that strength to address the future.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, many years ago—in 1988, to be precise—I was recruited by the spectacular scientist who headed The Royal Society of Canada, which is Canada's premier scientific body. He was Dr. Digby McLaren, and he realized they had a problem. The Royal Society had fellows, and they happened to mostly be fellows, so they asked this question: Why do we have such a high proportion of men? This was the beginning. It is hardly diversity and inclusion to recognize that white men dominated everything. Bringing in more white women is an improvement, but our society has overwhelmingly failed to have institutions that look like Canada.

In the context of this debate, the research councils and the tri-councils have made it a priority to look at diversity and inclusion. Was that their decision or was it politically dictated by the Liberal Party, as some have suggested in this debate?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her remarkable advocacy for science and research in Canada and for her friendship as well.

The tri-councils themselves have a posture of seeking to improve the equity and diversity within their ranks. The federal government's role in this is to fund their work and offer support of direction. That is what we are doing. My answer to the member would be that we are working together with the tri-council to achieve mutual goals that will improve outcomes for all Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

We all agree that we need to increase representation within our institutions for visible minorities, women and people with disabilities, but we have to do it the right way.

Does my colleague not believe it is better to engage in positive discrimination based on a criterion that, for equal or comparable qualifications, favours certain minority candidates rather than disqualifying certain candidates outright?

I feel it is important that we address this fundamental issue. The problem we have today, with all due respect to the House, is that certain candidates are being disqualified outright. In my view, you cannot right a wrong by creating another wrong.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the ultimate goal is to get the best researchers possible in place and achieve the best possible outcomes. The notion of positive discrimination is a very tricky one. We are operating in a Canadian society that admittedly has systemic barriers to the advancement of people who do not look like me. Let me just say it that way. We need to change that, because it is the diversity of people from all backgrounds that will strengthen our research community, and it is incumbent upon us to create those pathways.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have noticed over the years is that it is often the appointments of minorities, whether they be of ethnic origin, women or people with disabilities, will inspire younger people in those different areas to get engaged and be more inspired to do what is before them.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts regarding how, as a society, we benefit when we get the types of appointments that reflect our nation and the inspiration that is provided directly and indirectly to future generations, which enriches our nation.