News   May 08, 2024
Government Funding Fuelling Toronto's FIFA World Cup Dreams
 200     0 
News   May 08, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed at Hwy 7 and Martin Grove in Vaughan
 697     2 
News   May 08, 2024
News Roundup for May 8, 2024
 495     0 

PM Justin Trudeau's Canada

Skeezix said:
As far as I am concerned, that's a reason right there in support of more diversity in terms of our leadership.
Click to expand...

Of course it's an issue that whites are judged differently than the racialized population, but people see headlines like these and think that the Trudeau Liberals are pushing diversity over 'merit'.

Canadian universities must create diversity plans or risk losing research funding: council

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council has given Canadian universities less than two years to find ways to recruit more diverse researchers.
Click to expand...

OTTAWA—Universities have less than two years to find ways to recruit more women and minorities for Canada Research Chairs, or they won’t get any more positions funded by the federal government.

The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which reviews and approves applications from universities for Canada Research Chair positions, issued that edict this week.

Council president Ted Hewitt said the policy comes after a review process showed a lack of progress from existing efforts to get more women, minorities, people with disabilities and indigenous people appointed to research chairs.

“We said ‘OK, that’s it’ we have to think about what we can do here to speed up progress,” said Hewitt. “That was a very serious catalyst for us.”

Last week Science Minister Kirsty Duncan told The Canadian Press she was dismayed about data she had just received showing universities had not improved the rate at which they recruited women for the lucrative research jobs and was prepared to force their hand.
Click to expand...

The program also wants to increase the presence of people with disabilities, visible minorities and indigenous people. In the 2015 to 2017 period, 15 per cent of researchers were from visible minorities, which met the target set by the council. However only one per cent of positions were filled by a researcher who had a disability, below the four per cent target. The universities had granted positions to about 16 indigenous researchers, which met the one per cent target.
Click to expand...

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...-or-risk-losing-research-funding-council.html

It raises the question of how we create diverse and equal environments- are we looking to create diversity through the equality of opportunity (everyone gets their chance), or are we looking to create diversity from the equality of results (everyone gets their representation)?
 
Excellence in STEM fields is pretty objective, and the over-representation of South and East Asians in STEM PhD programs in North America suggests that racism isn't a factor in science. It's too bad we can't preserve merit as a hiring principle in these subjects.
 
jje1000 said:
Of course it's an issue that whites are judged differently than the racialized population, but people see headlines like these and think that the Trudeau Liberals are pushing diversity over 'merit'.

It raises the question of how we create diverse and equal environments- are we looking to create diversity through the equality of opportunity (everyone gets their chance), or are we looking to create diversity from the equality of results (everyone gets their representation)?
Click to expand...

Not people. Some people. Some people who see no issue when white guys are chosen for results/representation, but suddenly whine about merit when women and visible minorities suddenly make it into the top ranks. Like I said above - appalling.
 
Last edited:
Canada needs to 'stand-up to our responsibilities' on defence spending, says Liberal-appointed senator

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/senate-defence-policy-sajjan-1.4105136

Some of the other recommendations include:
  • Doubling the size of the planned fighter jet purchase to 120 aircraft.
  • Buying 21 additional CH-147 D battlefield transport helicopters, over and above the existing fleet of 15.
  • Buying 12 diesel-electric submarines to replace the four already in the navy's inventory.
  • Building 18 frigate replacements, up from the 15 the former Conservative government proposed.
  • Arming coast guard ships and turning the service into a constabulary with broader enforcement powers.
Also
  • a review and possible cancellation of the Conservative-era Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship program: "Seventeen knots is the best speed they can make, which is slower than a B.C. ferry and some fishing boats they might want to interdict," Kenny said. "There's every likelihood they're going to need a coast guard escort in order to get around in the Arctic."
  • improving diversity and the participation of women
We need to do something with our military, it's embarrassing... This is the report:
https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/committee/421/SECD/Reports/SECDDPRReport_FINAL_e.pdf
 
I'm in the air force. What the Senate is proposing ain't realistic but thankfully somebody cares about Canada past an election. A country with Canada's geography should have a lot more. The Australians are half our population and fielding two aircraft carriers, a dozen submarines and a 100 F-35s in the next 15 years.

Canada has serious soul searching to do about sovereignty. I'm in the US at the moment on exchange. I've sat through discussions on Arctic ops. The Americans literally operate as though we don't exist. They have better Arctic surveillance from just their Defense Meteorology satellites than we have with government departments on the ground. They have more submarines patrols in there than we have ships at sea. And since the Chinese and Russians have subs up there, the Americans are now discussing how to send aircraft carriers up there. I have American colleagues who've seen more of the Arctic than most Canadians. In fact, nearlyhalf a dozen countries have had their subs go through the Arctic. Canada is not on the list.

They don't even care about our opinions. They don't even tell our governments when there subs cross into our waters.

So. At what point do we acknowledge that Canada isn't sovereign and basically accept that we're a US protectorate and start talking to them about how their military will operate in Canada? Because the Americans aren't going to leave the northern flank of their homeland unprotected. And if we don't have an adequate armed forces, they'll do what it takes to secure the continental approaches.
 
Skeezix said:
Not people. Some people. Some people who see no issue when white guys are chosen for results/representation, but suddenly whine about merit when women and visible minorities suddenly make it into the top ranks. Like I said above - appalling.
Click to expand...

I don't think many would complain if women or minorities were selected purely based on merit. The issue is when groups come out and say that they're mandating a certain % of a role to be women or minorities. Hence, it is no longer a merit-based decision. Even if the minorities or women are truly the most qualified, it is reasonable to assume that at least some were selected to fill quotas. This is why I believe that quotas actually hurt minorities because many people will assume they are just quota-fillers even when that is not the case.

If Trudeau came out and just appointed his current cabinet without making a big deal about it filling certain quotas before hand it wouldn't have been an issue at all. Now when people like Monsef and Sajjan drop the ball, people are going to assume they weren't the most qualified in the first place and were selected to meet a quota.

I'm from the MLK camp: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Ironically, it's now self-proclaimed progressives that are clamoring to group people together based on ethnicity, gender, etc.
 
Yamborghini said:
I don't think many would complain if women or minorities were selected purely based on merit. The issue is when groups come out and say that they're mandating a certain % of a role to be women or minorities. Hence, it is no longer a merit-based decision. Even if the minorities or women are truly the most qualified, it is reasonable to assume that at least some were selected to fill quotas. This is why I believe that quotas actually hurt minorities because many people will assume they are just quota-fillers even when that is not the case.

If Trudeau came out and just appointed his current cabinet without making a big deal about it filling certain quotas before hand it wouldn't have been an issue at all. Now when people like Monsef and Sajjan drop the ball, people are going to assume they weren't the most qualified in the first place and were selected to meet a quota.

I'm from the MLK camp: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Ironically, it's now self-proclaimed progressives that are clamoring to group people together based on ethnicity, gender, etc.
Click to expand...

*sigh* It has never been a merit-based decision in the history of Canadian politics. But people only started to whine about it when women and visible minorities started to get named to cabinet in larger numbers. When it was all or mostly white guys, it was all good.

This discussion started with Sajjan. You look at his CV, and just "assume" he is a "quota-filler"? I can't even.

And, FFS, having a cabinet that actually starts to reflect the Canadian population is "quotas"? But somehow it wasn't quotas before? I don't even know where to start.

Your MLK quote in incongruous with everything else you posted.
 
kEiThZ said:
I'm in the air force. What the Senate is proposing ain't realistic but thankfully somebody cares about Canada past an election. A country with Canada's geography should have a lot more. The Australians are half our population and fielding two aircraft carriers, a dozen submarines and a 100 F-35s in the next 15 years.

Canada has serious soul searching to do about sovereignty. I'm in the US at the moment on exchange. I've sat through discussions on Arctic ops. The Americans literally operate as though we don't exist. They have better Arctic surveillance from just their Defense Meteorology satellites than we have with government departments on the ground. They have more submarines patrols in there than we have ships at sea. And since the Chinese and Russians have subs up there, the Americans are now discussing how to send aircraft carriers up there. I have American colleagues who've seen more of the Arctic than most Canadians. In fact, nearlyhalf a dozen countries have had their subs go through the Arctic. Canada is not on the list.

They don't even care about our opinions. They don't even tell our governments when there subs cross into our waters.

So. At what point do we acknowledge that Canada isn't sovereign and basically accept that we're a US protectorate and start talking to them about how their military will operate in Canada? Because the Americans aren't going to leave the northern flank of their homeland unprotected. And if we don't have an adequate armed forces, they'll do what it takes to secure the continental approaches.
Click to expand...

None of this is new though - we had this discussion in the 80s when we had the last big push on arctic sovereignty. Besides, are they are going to care to change their practices even if we took it seriously? The last time we tried to acquire SSNs, we're told more or less by the US it isn't something they'd like us to have. The Americans aren't going to leave the northern flank of the continent to the dictate of anyone regardless of our capabilities - and that decoupling of US security (or potential territorial/resources designs) with Canadian interests should be the starting point of what the Canadian effort on asserting our sovereignty should be. Not an excuse for us to do nothing or spend as minimally as possible like we have been doing for the past what, half a century - but to ask ourselves who we are doing this for and to what end. If the answer is pleasing our southern allies, we need to think again - because they could very well be the happiest with what we're doing now, i.e. nothing.

AoD
 
Last edited:
So worst case scenario, PM chief of staff committed a crime, or the PM himself committed a crime. Which is better?
Chief of staff crime resulted in tax money being paid back, or crime resulted in waste of tax money. Which is better?
 
BurlOak said:
So worst case scenario, PM chief of staff committed a crime, or the PM himself committed a crime. Which is better?
Chief of staff crime resulted in tax money being paid back, or crime resulted in waste of tax money. Which is better?
Click to expand...

Let's not be so cute. Worst case scenario is who has the need to pay off a troubling senator - which is bribery, and then covered their tracks and have his Chief of Staff serve as a sacrificial lamb, vs. taking a vacation trip on someone elses' helicopter. Lest I remind you - bribery is criminal.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top