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.