Canadian political party forces member to justify "equity group" to keep his job.

[Medusa Cascade]

Minorities must be given the opportunity to succeed.

Everyone must be given the opportunity to succeed.

[Super Kami Dende]

Except it's not equal opportunity. You're arguing for 'equal' rule-sets, that aren't applied equally, and unequal resources. It's akin to a poorly refereed professional sports league with no salary cap. The glitzy, bigger markets get the stars that everyone loves, get more favorable officiating, and have the ability to spend several times over smaller markets on talent.

It doesn't matter the backing you have, you still have the equal opportunity to put yourself forward as a Member of a Political party. It doesn't matter if one candidate has more money than the other because they BOTH have the ability to run.

As I said people mistake equal opportunity for equal outcome.

Lets say me and Usain bolt decide to enter the same 100m race. We both have the equal opportunity to enter, but other than that no Human beings are exactly equal in terms of the race or outcome.

[Polyxo]

It doesn't matter the backing you have, you still have the equal opportunity to put yourself forward as a Member of a Political party. It doesn't matter if one candidate has more money than the other because they BOTH have the ability to run.

As I said people mistake equal opportunity for equal outcome.

The amount of backing, and the reality that the system, while equal on paper, is biased against minorities, pretty much ensures that there will be a disproportionately small amount of minorities involved. Again, you don't actually have an equal opportunity.

[Tradewind]

The amount of backing, and the reality that the system, while equal on paper, is biased against minorities, pretty much ensures that there will be a disproportionately small amount of minorities involved. Again, you don't actually have an equal opportunity.

This doesn't make it ok to just completely discount people based on their sex, race, creed or gender.

[minteK917]

To the tune of thousands of dollars per person annually for decades? Tens of billions of dollars in all? I find that somewhat dubious. It does nothing to explain away the $200Billion+ deficit Alberta has with Ottawa, nor why Quebec intentionally undercuts itself on its resource dealings to bullshit their tax valuation.

That's also what provincial taxes are for. Federal funds are not sent to Ottawa just to offset the cost of unilateral decisions made by provinces, the transfer system is not built for that. "To make sure that no matter where someone lives in Canada, their governments have enough money to deliver reasonably comparable public services." The payments themselves are not tied to what social programs provinces have enacted individually. Whether Quebec has $7/day childcare, or cheap ass tuition has no bearing on the amount of money they receive from Ottawa. It is entirely reliant upon: personal income tax, business income tax, consumption tax, property tax and natural resource revenues. Categories that these habitual "take all" provinces exploit to their benefit.

Federal money is gathered equally and thus should be distributed equally.

Remember too, this has been happening for decades. A childhood gardening program instituted this year is pretty pointless...unless there's also 30 years worth of special programs in Ontario and Quebec to justify their running roughshod on exploiting federal funding to cover their special regional subsidies all this time to the tune of billions of dollars...in which case, what the fuck?

Like i said Hydro-quebec under cut is another issue entirely. Its more of a political fight from another Era. When Hydro-Quebec was created from the Nationalization of energy, the plan was given a huge "fuck you its not a viable plan" from the Federal government after deliberation. Therefore received 0 federal money or help. Instead Quebec had to turn around to Wall street, which agreed to fund it in its entirety the same day it was submitted. Its also a third party that is not directly controlled by the provincial government, like the justice system.

As for the rest. Actually yes Federal funds are used on unilateral programs in such a manner. Quebec Barely uses CRMP, Quebec is sent back federal taxes from such a program, since income federal taxes are the same for every Canadian citizen but that particular province does not use the service provided. Trudeau Childcare plan work the same way, since its based on Quebec Childcare plan from the 80s to begin with. Once the program begins, Quebec will simply receive back the amount of money from Federal income taxes that is used by such a program back based on its population. Kinda like if the Federal was funding it in Quebec too, but Quebec was already funding it themselves via provincial taxes. Its unlikely Quebec will lower its provincial income taxes as a result, so will probably use the money for something else.

[Tradewind]

The hydro quebec thing is exactly part of the issue. It tanks their tax valuation and grants them additional funding under the transfer system. It falls under their natural resources revenue, this includes renewable energy revenues. By charging less than market value compared to other hydro services nationwide, they are artificially understating their natural resources revenue. Ergo, they receive more money in transfer payments.

No, provinces are not reimbursed from transfer payments for their provincial initiatives. It has zero bearing on the amount they receive. What they spend it on however is another matter. If Quebec and Ontario use it for those reasons, that's their business.

Ironically, if they levied less taxes, they'd get even more money from Ottawa in their current state.

Again though, let's table this for a more relevant discussion. It's way off topic.

[Tennis]

From the looks of the article the OP posted, the NDP has a problem with representation is trying to remedy this. Not sure why there is an outcry. Seems like good politics.

[Deleted]

From the looks of the article the OP posted, the NDP has a problem with representation is trying to remedy this. Not sure why there is an outcry. Seems like good politics.

Saying that a person that was elected in a free and fair election should be declared un-elected because that person has identity x - That's, whats the word bad.
You are the sort of person who would say the Kristalnacht was a good thing because those Jews were dis-proportionally represented or some such fucking nonsense, or worse, that it was 'Good politics'.

[Super Kami Dende]

The amount of backing, and the reality that the system, while equal on paper, is biased against minorities, pretty much ensures that there will be a disproportionately small amount of minorities involved. Again, you don't actually have an equal opportunity.

Once again, Equal opportunity is not the same as Equal outcome. They all have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to run. But their Outcome will vary based person to person depending on their situation, which is completely fine since no 2 people are the same.

figured if I really make those few words stick out you will grasp it eventually.

[Polyxo]

Once again, Equal opportunity is not the same as Equal outcome. They all have the EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to run. But their Outcome will vary based person to person depending on their situation, which is completely fine since no 2 people are the same.

figured if I really make those few words stick out you will grasp it eventually.

No, they don't have equal opportunity. They never have had equal opportunity. The majority is playing with loaded dice in every civil arena.

[minteK917]

No, they don't have equal opportunity. They never have had equal opportunity. The majority is playing with loaded dice in every civil arena.

You realize this is a Canadian thread right? Almost every provinces has already elected a women at least once as a Prime minister. I dont think people vote or dont vote for someone based on genitalia in 2016. Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario. Are all ran by a woman currently. Can women even be considered minorities anyway? They make up more than 50% of the population in Canada. That actually mean men are a minority.

[Deleted]

No, they don't have equal opportunity. They never have had equal opportunity. The majority is playing with loaded dice in every civil arena.

Regardless, fixing the outcome does not fix the game.

[Polyxo]

Regardless, fixing the outcome does not fix the game.

You give candidates of an underrepresented demographic an increased opportunity to correct for bias, or you do fix some of the outcome, because that's a net positive effect. The latter isn't an ultimate solution, but it is a much preferred outcome to just letting things go.

[Tradewind]

You give candidates of an underrepresented demographic an increased opportunity to correct for bias, or you do fix some of the outcome, because that's a net positive effect. The latter isn't an ultimate solution, but it is a much preferred outcome to just letting things go.

It's pretty ridiculous that you're trying to defend what is absolutely discrimination...

[Deleted]

You give candidates of an underrepresented demographic an increased opportunity to correct for bias, or you do fix some of the outcome, because that's a net positive effect. The latter isn't an ultimate solution, but it is a much preferred outcome to just letting things go.

How is it a net positive effect?

[Polyxo]

It's pretty ridiculous that you're trying to defend what is absolutely discrimination...

The idea is to correct the numbers so that any given candidate has an unbiased probability of being elected (or hired, or accepted into college, for other cases of affirmative action). Discriminating to the point that the net probability of acceptance/hiring/etc is unbiased is not a bad thing. We know there's a bias, it's been scientifically proven. We're just correcting for it.

[Deleted]

The idea is to correct the numbers so that any given candidate has an unbiased probability of being elected (or hired, or accepted into college, for other cases of affirmative action). Discriminating to the point that the net probability of acceptance/hiring/etc is unbiased is not a bad thing. We know there's a bias, it's been scientifically proven. We're just correcting for it.

It is certainly a bad thing to discriminate. It doesn't matter that you're doing it for the benefit of someone else, it's still discrimination and it's still bad.

Affirmitive action is inherently bad because it's discriminatory.

[Kraenen]

No, they don't have equal opportunity. They never have had equal opportunity. The majority is playing with loaded dice in every civil arena.

You're not saying there's a conspiracy though right?

[Tradewind]

The idea is to correct the numbers so that any given candidate has an unbiased probability of being elected (or hired, or accepted into college, for other cases of affirmative action). Discriminating to the point that the net probability of acceptance/hiring/etc is unbiased is not a bad thing.

So discriminate against X to improve Y? That's what you're going with?

You seem to be struggling with the whole fact that this guy was already elected. He won 163 out of 250 ballots. He then was pressured to divulge his "equity status" to keep the job and be confirmed. This behaviour is acceptable to you?

[Kraenen]

The idea is to correct the numbers so that any given candidate has an unbiased probability of being elected (or hired, or accepted into college, for other cases of affirmative action). Discriminating to the point that the net probability of acceptance/hiring/etc is unbiased is not a bad thing. We know there's a bias, it's been scientifically proven. We're just correcting for it.

But you're talking about probabilities of being hired now, instead of instating people based on demographic earlier.

I doubt you're even talking about Canada at that.