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—
