44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 31, 2022 10:00AM
- May/31/22 3:18:29 p.m.
- Watch
It being 3:17 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:19:44 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of amendment to House]
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:34:20 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:34:57 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:35:05 p.m.
- Watch
We are requesting a recorded vote, please.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:47:20 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 3:49:46 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at second reading of Bill C‑18.
The question is on the amendment. May I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of amendment to House]
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the main motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. deputy House leader.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:03:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
The Speaker: I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 56 minutes.
40 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:16:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off earlier.
To begin, I want to repeat what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said earlier today. According to my colleague, if the Bloc members' priority is to defend white men who want a job at a university, then we need to own that.
This makes me think of something I often accuse the Conservatives of, and that is taking a populist approach. If there can be right-wing populism, then there can also be left-wing populism. I will try to connect that to today's debate. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie made that comment because he was referring to something that I think is ideologically central to today's debate and that affects what we call identity politics.
In identity politics, there is a very simple concept known as Anglo-conformity. Anglo-conformity means that western societies were built with one specific person in mind, namely the white Anglo-Saxon male. It is often said that white Anglo-Saxon males would fit into every institution in western societies and have no concern about having their identity recognized.
I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that this is indeed the case. Often, it is necessary to make a special effort to ensure that our institutions are representative of our diversity. Although I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, we have to see whether the thinking on EDI fits in with this concept of creating a society whose institutions are more representative.
I thought of something interesting. Every member should read Max Weber's lectures on science and politics as vocations. The author makes a distinction between the role of the scientist and the role of the politician. To that end, Max Weber describes two types of ethics: the ethics of responsibility, and the ethics of conviction. I will briefly explain this.
The idea that Max Weber wants to present is that a good idea that is tainted by ideology can often have disastrous results. I agree with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie that we must make our institutions more representative. That is certainly correct. I believe that, in the employment sector and in the public service sector, we definitely need to put in place measures to ensure that our institutions are more representative of ethnocultural diversity.
If this works in those two sectors, does it mean that this also works in the area of university research?
That is where we need to come back to the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of conviction. The ethics of responsibility encourage us to look at the negative impacts that the ideas we are trying to implement might have. Scholars often use ethics of responsibility. In politics, it is much more common to examine the ethics of conviction, which correspond with ideological purity. There must be representation because the concept of Anglo-conformity makes western societies less representative, so let us apply this to everything.
But is it possible to apply this principle to everything? I do not think so. I do not think that we should look at the research sector the same way that we look at the employment sector and the place that ethnocultural minorities hold in the public service. The research sector is very different. I would even go so far as to say that there is a correlation with the political representation system. Would it be acceptable to decide to create elected office positions for which only certain categories of individuals could run? I think members will agree that that would be an abuse of the ideology we see today in identity politics.
I would like to come back to the possible repercussions of adding conditions that have nothing to do with education to the criteria for awarding research chairs. The first one is the implication that the peer review committees that study these applications for research chairs are already insensitive to differences.
I do not believe it. How is a research chair awarded? It is the peers—
688 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:22:00 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I did try to signal him to let him know that his time was up. He will be able to continue during the question and comment period.
The hon. member for Montcalm.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:22:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to build on what he was saying, because I am tremendously interested in the notion that the ethics of conviction are somewhat inappropriate in the field of research.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:22:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague is being very kind.
This raises a question for me. For example, today's “diversity ideology” raises the following question: Are there fields of study that may now be off limits? Can a person who is non-indigenous specialize in studying indigenous communities? The definition of EDI suggests that this is not a possibility.
One thing scares me. What I wanted to say earlier is that “diversity ideology” represents a danger not unlike the one we observed in the academic world of the 1970s, when Marxism was so dominant in political science departments that all the people who had a different view were pushed aside and basically could not access funding for their research. By potentially hindering academic freedom, we run the risk of hindering knowledge, which is even more dangerous.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:24:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am happy to hear someone say Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie correctly, without making puns or jokes.
I am very comfortable with diversity ideology and believe that our institutions should reflect the diversity and representativeness of different groups.
Does my colleague not see that there is a fundamental problem when only 6% of researchers or professors are members of visible minorities, even though visible minorities account for twice that percentage of the Quebec population? This means that change is not happening, or that it is happening much too slowly, and that more proactive measures are needed.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:24:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that would mean that the committees awarding research chairs have members who are insensitive to diversity.
That is what you are saying.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:25:17 p.m.
- Watch
4 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:25:17 p.m.
- Watch
Only a small percentage of the population has access.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:25:17 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I remind members that they are not to debate each other.
I would ask the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie to wait his turn before asking another question.
The member for Jonquière.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 4:25:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem is that science cannot be beholden to an ideology, no matter how noble that ideology may be. While I see the worth of the ideology of diversity, which I adhere to myself in many aspects of society, what we are seeing here is an attempt to dictate how university research should be conducted. That is not how this works, and if we allow it to happen, knowledge will become inaccessible, which is not how universities should be seen.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
