Shwa

If I recall the article, they aren't "banning a racial group" they are targetting a disadvantged group to amerliorate the condition of their disadvantage. So your opinion goes out the window.

The only person impying that employment equity is "wonderful" it is you. But in the absence of anything better, it is what we have to live with for now. As for your example of "left wing logic" and the Ottawa Senators, is that your right wing logic of left wing logic?

Your beliefs are not the fault of the government. Well, not quite. Temporary foreign workers are used for farms all the time. If you believe all farmers "on the left" then I think there is something wrong with your beliefs. Should all persons be considered for all positions based on merit and not say, whether they fought for this country, such as hire veterans practices or any other distinctive categories for hiring? Or are you limiting it to colour, age or gender? The keyword was: amerlioration

No, it isn't "racism." It is a "...program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups..." Keyword being: amerlioration

This is the thin edge right here, thanks for posting that Bonam. So instead of an 'objective' merit based non-racist hiring system - which "the mode of thinking that sees it as something positive is utterly alien to" to you, now you are allowing exceptions. So not quite as "utterly alien" afterall eh? Good one. So, if instances where hiring visible minorities is useful to perform a certain job - the example given was what is called a 'front-line' or 'public facing' job - all jobs where the public is served should have some sort of visible minority hiring quota to reflect the population is serves because it would be useful to perform this job. Is this what you are saying? So let's carry this a little further as to the meaning of the word "useful" and who determines how that is played out in a practical sense. In creating affirmative action and employment equity programs, someone "thought" it would be "useful" to have visible minorities serving in front line situations that reflected a population's diversity because it could improve service, add comfort to clients, allow for integration, etc. Whatever. They took these thoughts to others, who started thinking about the ideas and eventually it made it into legislation. So, as you can see, the thinking isn't "utterly alien" at all. So let's carry it even a little further using the same sort of sense of "useful" as the example you agreed with. It if is useful to have visible minorities in situations where they reflect their client base, then it would be equally useful to have visible minorities in situations in the back-ends (those providing services to the front end visible minority staff) to reflect their client base, that is, the visible minorities who were in the front ends. So now we end up with visible minorities in HR, IT, file rooms, boiler rooms, barracks, reserves, etc., etc. Some of them, being pretty smart human beings, take full advantage of the internal job training, access to oragnizational knowledge and staff experience and next thing you know, they are qualifying and winning management jobs, then joining the senior management ranks, etc. And trust me Bonam, I have seen enough people over the years access career progression in this way far more than some unqualified person hired just because they are a visible minority and this is with fairly extensive experience in three (or four) levels of government over the past 30 years. While you find affirmative action thinking "uttery alien" it appears that your humble exception has the same end with regard to usefulness. I am sure that the review the Tories will do will come to the same conclusion as you have. When they do, I am sure you will be one of the first to applaud their findings.

Of course, these timely reports from The Treasury Board on diversity and equity might be informative: Demographic study of visible minorities in the federal Public Service - Feb. 2000 Regional demographic and equity profiles - Mar. 2001 Visible minority recruitment issues for the federal public service - Mar. 2002 Not quite. According to this Stats Canada report from Sept. 2009 only 1/3 of Federal employees work in Ottawa. This passage doesn't make sense Argus. Ignore for a moment that only 1/3 of employees are from Ottawa, if there are less visible minorities that can't do the job then I don't think that shows "liberal and unprejudiced." But now, let's not ignore that 2/3 of Federal Employees are not in Ottawa and let's not forget that a great deal of visible minorities in large urban areas can also be...children of immigrants or 1.5 generation that have enjoyed the benefits of our education system, I don't think your Ottawa-centric view quite covers the majority of public servants. And I suspect it doesn't even cover the majority of visible minorities in the Federal Government in Ottawa. I can grant that you have encountered a few new Canadians that have their struggles in the Federal work place, but I would say this is the exception and not the rule. Of course, you could create yourself a speadsheet and do a rough survey of those around you and report back to us...

With facts like that it is difficult to get the sense that you aren't looking to jack the thread. How about you provide some sources to back up your "Fact?"

But does any of this deal with known situations of squatting or any sort of actual sale of (i.e. from over a century ago) Indian lands to non-governmental persons or organizations?

If that were the case, then shame on you for engaging this sort of person. However, I suspect this is more fantastical thinking to cover up your out-of-touchedness on these types of issues. You revolutionary you.

Cool! How did Jennifer Bell get her hands on the expense reports?

Excellent synopsis. I would have also accepted that the 'taint' she was accused of was either bringing MacDonalds in for lunch - or microwaving cheap scat popcorn in the West Block kitchenette - and stinking up everyone's office.

'nuff said. Thank you!

Now you are turning into a nutjob crank: That was seven days ago genius. Did you notice the hint of the refusal to get into your little exclusive $1 trillion dollar circle-jerk? hahahha - no. What is supposed is that you are interested - of even capable of - anything resembling discussion on these types of issues. You are more interested in attacking people and appeals to popularity that debating or sourcing. I wouldn't call you a troll, but I would call you useless. And somewhat out of touch on this issue too.

Sensible. The only problem I see is that this whole issue was caused by am EE target not being met where it should have been. That would seem that it had already been examined to a degree, at least in this specific instance. Are you saying that targets should be re-examined and re-adjusted to reflect the demographics? Again, very sensible and reasonable. As a public servant once observed, when you take your comments to the Director, I am firmly behind you. But mainly so I don't trample over you when the scat hits the fan.

No, treat him according to his own standards. You only need to replace the object of his ire, with a similar one I call 'Alberta:' Not only is the government helping Alberta, it's babysitting Alberta. Has been for generations. The rest of the world is experiencing this whole crisis where adult children are beginning to live at home into their 30's, but forgets to look in their own backyards in Edmonton and Calgary where fully-dependent families and corporations are spending their entire lives on handouts - when their not murdering one another or wrecking the environment. Or being second rate in hockey. My kids are 17 and 19 and they work and go to school. Thank God I won't have to pay that forever like we do to Albertans. At least my son and daughter will learn to stand on their own two feet in an atmosphere of intellectual and political freedom.

It would remove the cloak, but would anyone look? Many budgets are published internally for most government departments, available to most staff and government auditors. Here is the summary of the 2010-11 Estimates for the Ministry of Energy and Infrastrcuture Do you see any fraud here? I think you are looking for detailed expenditure statements for a past period time, esp regarding contracts yes?

I agree heartily, but until someone comes up with something better, this is what we have to live with. Do you have a better way to suggest Bonam or do you think the original cause of these programs has sufficiently disappeared from the employing public so that we can merely strike down the equity laws and policies? Or will we need a period of Equity-from-Employment-Equity legislation?

Or even better bebe, a philosophical question for you: Can the Crown sieze your real property - that you've estimated is worth, say $1 million - without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement? And a corollary, with a slight variation: Can the Crown take it's own property - i.e. Crown Land estimated to be valued at, say, a $1 billion - without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?

If I recall, C.R "claimed" that it "is estimated" and then qualified it a few posts later saying that it was estimated by Six Nations accountants, but the governments estimates were much lower. So point out the thread where he continued to argue the validity of the $1 trillion dollar figure. After the post where he clarified the source, he is only guilty of valuation. You on the other hand grabbed right on. You lost your objectivity right there (i.e. out of touch). I don't think so Mr. Roarke, you artful dodger you. How be you show me the "several pages" where it was C.R's focus? The only one focusing on it was you. In fact, I recall C.R taking you to task for being sucked in by myth. A myth of your own creation, complete with Constitutional re-writes and revolution. Fascinating fiction at that, but says more about you than anything - or anyone - else. "It doesn't matter what numbers you focus on." Is that how it will happen? Or will someone tug on your shirt and says, "Boss, de plane, de plane!" Aw. You don't like being treated like that Mr. Roarke? I thought that by the wording of your posts and their tone, that it was perfectly acceptable. Now are you claiming to be the exception to the rule? The taking-my-ball-and-going-home fallacy. I recall C.R making a post in the early pages about sulking in a corner? In retrospect, a spot on observation methinks. I have not answered a "single question anyone has asked?" That is your problem right there in a nutshell: I stand by this remark.

Perhaps it was an ideology that deemed inclusiveness in government employment a meritable principle by which to act. But trust me, the programs are designed to correct, not hinder. Cherry picking. You forgot to include: Fairness •Decisions are made objectively and free from political influence or personal favouritism; policies and practices reflect the just treatment of persons. •Persons have the right to be assessed in the official language(s) of their choice in an appointment process. Transparency •Information about strategies, decisions, policies and practices is communicated in an open and timely manner. Access •Persons from across the country have a reasonable opportunity to apply, and to do so in the official language(s) of their choice, and to be considered for public service employment. then Representativeness. You can see how Representativeness sort of fits with Access.

No thumbs up icon, but thumbs up anyways!

Yep, which would mesh in nicely with the overall policy towards self-government for Aboriginal people. Here is the INAC page on the topic: Self-Government

Did you ever ask yourself why the "merit principle" went "out the window?" Seems to me that bilingualism, affirmative action and employment equity programs were brought in to correct the flaws of the "merit principle" in the first place were they not? Furthermore, I believe the operative principle is still merit in the federal public service.

So are you saying that we haven't seen any Constitutional changes since 1982?

LOL! How about this then: Francophone rights are, under the current arrangement, separate, and different. They lack some rights that others have and they enjoy some that others don't. It is, in reality, a justice of a sort. Does that work better?