SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 75

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 19, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22
Mr. Mario Simard
  • May/19/22 11:46:15 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was a judicious intervention. I apologize for offending my colleague. It is an unflattering play on the word inflation and the Prime Minister's name that I feel conveys that populism. Before I go on, I would like to define the word “populism”. Generally speaking, it is a style of politics that divides by attempting to simplify issues and amplify antagonism. It is us versus them. In this particular case, there are travellers on one side and the government on the other. A simplistic interpretation is that the government is preventing travellers from moving freely and that all it has to do is change the rules to solve the problem. That is simplistic because we know this is a public health issue. When we talk about populism, we can also say that we are talking about personalized speech and behaviour that relies on rhetoric that combines utopia and demagoguery. In an ideal world, we are not affected by the pandemic. It does not affect us, and everyone can come and go as they please. If we were to take a demagogic approach, we would say that all of the border crossings can be reopened tomorrow morning, and there will be no problems. Generally, this sort of thing is done to pander to the people and pit them against the elite. The travellers, the people, the truckers, to use a term dear to my colleague from Carleton, have a view of society that is against the elite. That is populism. Populists usually condemn institutions that do not sufficiently consider the public's aspirations. The government and public health do not care about the aspirations of the average person. Populists characterize political opponents as elites who care very little about the ideas of the people and popular common sense. Generally, when it comes to populism, the truth is in popular common sense. That sets the table for a debate which, in my opinion, is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics today: the democracy of opinion. Those of us who know a bit about philosophy make that distinction. On the one hand there is opinion and doxa and, on the other, episteme, the sciences. Opinion is based on appearance. You say “it appears to me that,” without having checked the facts. On the other hand, science involves a deeper reflection. I feel that that is what today’s debate is about. Conservatives are saying that it appears that the measures in airports are far too restrictive and that we are further along in the pandemic, but they have not taken care to consult a public health expert. I said that I wanted to help my Conservative colleagues, who are poisoned by populism. I would like to cite Pierre Rosanvallon, an author I particularly like. When he speaks of populism, he says we must beware of the “threefold populist simplification”. I would like to explain what threefold simplification means using my friend and colleague from Carleton. First, according to Pierre Rosanvallon, there is political and sociological simplification, where “the people” is a defined homogeneous subject. Considering the people a defined homogenous subject is the same as saying “Canadians think that”; for example, all Canadians think that we should immediately lift all measures in airports. It defines the people as different from the elite, in other words, from other politicians who think differently, as if the people were a monolith. On the one hand, there are truckers and unvaccinated people and, on the other, a form of elite that is completely disconnected from reality and that is hostile to freedom. There is also, according to Pierre Rosanvallon, procedural and institutional simplification. This involves attacking institutions and politicians who think differently. I will give you an interesting example. My colleagues may have followed the debate between the hon. member for Carleton and Jean Charest. In the debate, my colleague from Carleton said to Jean Charest, “to hear you talk about law and order is a bit rich, given that your party, your [Quebec] Liberal Party, took a half-million dollars of illegal donations when you were the head of that party. The average trucker has more integrity in his pinky finger than you had in your entire...Liberal cabinet.” We can see here that this is a populist discourse that attacks, in a manner of speaking, populist adversaries. Let us take this a bit further, and consider what we heard from the hon. member for Abbotsford, who finds that what our friend from Carleton is doing on cryptocurrency is entirely inconsequential. Moreover, in response to a recent direct attack on institutions by the hon. member for Carleton and his threat to dismiss the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the hon. member for Abbotsford said, “We lose some credibility when we do this. It is fair to ask questions, to demand solutions to the skyrocketing cost of living. But we also have to respect the institutions that have been granted independence to ensure that they function apart from political interference.” Members can then see a dynamic that reflects the lowest form of populism, which can even lead a member to call our colleague from Carleton to order. I will conclude by addressing simplification that arises from populism. The hon. member for Carleton said in the House, “We are going to give Canadians their freedom back and make them the authors of their own stories. That is the approach we will take as Conservatives. Everybody has their story, and the story that I am hearing right now is that people feel like they are losing control of their lives.” In my opinion, this is what is poisoning my Conservative colleagues in today’s debate: They want to make people believe that institutions are preventing them from taking control of their lives, and they are doing it to the detriment of science. It is a very dangerous game.
1004 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22
Mr. Mario Simard
  • May/19/22 11:53:53 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's thoughts were poorly expressed. A person can ask questions whether they are a member of the Bloc, a Conservative, a papist or whatever else, but those questions have to be rational. We need to listen to the science. You can please somebody by saying that global warming does not exist and that they can keep burning gas until the end of time and nothing will ever happen to them. I have people asking me about the price of gas, but I think it is important to be honest with them and answer them in a reasonable way. Populists do the opposite and present simple solutions to complex problems. A public health issue like COVID-19 is complex, so we cannot just propose a simple solution like lifting all restrictions. I often hear people calling for an end to the mandates, but that is completely irrational and does not follow the science. That is what I wanted to explain to my colleague.
166 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border