Trudeau at the World Leaders G-20

drummindiver · November 17, 2015

It IS based on REALITY. Women and men are EQUAL and this fact must be reflected in our democratic government. That is equal number of female and male ministers. And of course women given equal rights and representations.

Women and men are equal. Agreed.

To hire or place someone in an office due to quotas is wrong.

If a man is more suited to the job, he should get the job, regardless if that means the ratio goes from 50:50 to 70:30:

The same is true if a woman is more suited.

Worrying about totally equal representation means the person most qualified may lose out due to no fault of their own.

You also cannot vote in equal representation. Sorry pal, you got the most votes, but we already have enough guys. The position goes to the lady.

Doesn't work.

Smoke · November 17, 2015

I disagree. I do not believe that one can undermine or demean a person in a leadership position without weakening the position. The position of leader and the power it represents cannot vary with the individual elected to that position.

When a Prime Minister or a President enters a room everyone stands and stays standing until the leader sits. That was true for Diefenbaker, Nixon, Reagan and Harper. It is the same for Obama and Trudeau. The personality of the temporary office holder has no relationship to the respect shown that position. The position is far more important then the temporary occupant.

I respect your position and have been tempted to share it in the past when referring to leaders with whom I vehemently disagreed but had to catch myself lest I lose respect for the office.

So you are appalled at the way the left treated Harper once he became Prime Minister.

dialamah · November 17, 2015

Women and men are equal. Agreed.

To hire or place someone in an office due to quotas is wrong.

If a man is more suited to the job, he should get the job, regardless if that means the ratio goes from 50:50 to 70:30:

The same is true if a woman is more suited.

Worrying about totally equal representation means the person most qualified may lose out due to no fault of their own.

You also cannot vote in equal representation. Sorry pal, you got the most votes, but we already have enough guys. The position goes to the lady.

Doesn't work.

I'd like to know just when appointments have ever been made on 'merit'. I'd bet dollars to donuts that appointments have always been made for political reasons, far and above merit. Unless you can demonstrate differently, your objections have no merit.

dialamah · November 17, 2015

Canada is not a meritocracy.

look at Peter MacKay, who held a range of high-profile posts, including Foreign Affairs and Justice. Any time cabinet speculation took over with the Conservatives in charge, it was assumed he would never be excluded from cabinet, simply because he was the PC leader who agreed to merge the party with the Canadian Alliance, thereby allowing Stephen Harper to lead the combined forces to victory. Never mind the bungled military procurement files or his use of a search-and-rescue helicopter to shave a couple of hours off his trip back to Ontario when his vacation was interrupted.

Stop pretending cabinet appointments are based on merit:

If cabinets were real meritocracies, wherein the “best” person always got the job, we wouldn’t have health ministers with zero medical education, or defence ministers who haven’t served in the army. Julian Fantino’s pockmarked reputation at the Toronto Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police would have disqualified him from a cabinet position — instead of offering him the opportunity to thoroughly obliterate the veterans’ affairs file — and Pierre Poilievre would be off making “unparliamentary” hand gestures somewhere, instead of steering the country’s employment and social development projects.

capricorn · November 17, 2015

And yet, 9 out of 10 media who offer endorsements, endorsed the other party.

That there is enough to make me believe that the media was more clued in than the 30 odd percent who gave the Liberals a majority.

dialamah · November 17, 2015

That there is enough to make me believe that the media was more clued in than the 30 odd percent who gave the Liberals a majority.

Or less clued-in to the 70% who didn't give the Conservatives a majority. Anyway, the problem is that 30 odd percent can give anyone a majority, so I'm still hoping to hear Trudeau's plan for electoral reform. It'll be pretty disappointing if this is a promise he declines to keep.

Smallc · November 17, 2015

That there is enough to make me believe that the media was more clued in than the 30 odd percent who gave the Liberals a majority.

I don't know about that. The Liberals had a substantive platform with concrete goals. The Conservatives tried to pander to dairy farmers, home owners, and automakers....They offered nothing to anyone. The Liberals did better than the NDP on infrastructure and better than the Conservatives on taxes.

capricorn · November 17, 2015

The Conservatives tried to pander to dairy farmers, home owners, and automakers....They offered nothing to anyone.

Every political party panders to interest groups in an election in order to best the other parties and win the power.

capricorn · November 17, 2015

Anyway, the problem is that 30 odd percent can give anyone a majority, so I'm still hoping to hear Trudeau's plan for electoral reform. It'll be pretty disappointing if this is a promise he declines to keep.

Honestly, do you really think Trudeau will can a system that has the potential to keep him in the big chair?

Smallc · November 17, 2015

Every political party panders to interest groups in an election in order to best the other parties and win the power.

the difference is that the Conservatives have people nothing to vote for.

poochy · November 17, 2015

It IS based on REALITY. Women and men are EQUAL and this fact must be reflected in our democratic government. That is equal number of female and male ministers. And of course women given equal rights and representations.

No, it has nothing to do with reality, the liberals won 184 seats, 50 of those are women, do the math. All you're offering is empty pc platitudes, of course this isn't even to mention that one of those women has already been outed as unqualified for the job, or at least for the title she was given.

So in fact, in reality, women are over represented simply because the government seems to think it needs to buy votes from people who simply have a poor understanding of reality, the actual one.

dialamah · November 17, 2015

Honestly, do you really think Trudeau will can a system that has the potential to keep him in the big chair?

Hard to say, since he's already demonstrated a commitment to promises made prior to the election - such as openness and transparency. Has any other government ever publicly posted the mandate-letters they sent to their ministers? According to https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/, he's made 184 campaign promises, and in his first 14 days, he's achieved 3, and made progress on 8 more. Still, 173 more promises outstanding, and hopefully electoral reform will be one of them.

CITIZEN_2015 · November 17, 2015

I am not offering empty platitudes. The reality is that 50% of Canada's population is female and the government of such a progressive country should reflect that reality where it can. It is unfortunate that only 50 out of 184 liberal MPs elected are female but the government cannot help there but where it can help is the appointment of equal number of ministers and all of them are well qualified for the job.

WestCoastRunner · November 17, 2015

So in fact, in reality, women are over represented simply because the government seems to think it needs to buy votes from people who simply have a poor understanding of reality, the actual one.

I can't believe that some men are arguing about this still. Move on for crying out loud. Can't you find something more relevant to debate?

Smallc · November 17, 2015

So in fact, in reality, women are over represented

No, women are under represented in Parliament. It's actually disheartening how many smart people have suddenly abandoned logic now that a Liberal is in charge.

drummindiver · November 17, 2015

I'd like to know just when appointments have ever been made on 'merit'. I'd bet dollars to donuts that appointments have always been made for political reasons, far and above merit. Unless you can demonstrate differently, your objections have no merit.

Of course they are based on merit.

Let's realize there are different types of merit.

No one is appointed with the thought they have no merit, add nothing to the job.

If you can't show otherwise, your argument is groundless.

Big Guy · November 18, 2015

So you are appalled at the way the left treated Harper once he became Prime Minister.

There were a number of posters who disagreed with Harper, here and elsewhere, who did try to ridicule Stephen Harper during time he was in the position of leadership. I thought it was wrong then and wrong now.

Appalled? - no. It has been a long time since I have been appalled at anything.

As to those who did not treat Harper well, it was not only his political rivals but included his former mentors - Tom Flanagan and Preston Manning.

Michael Hardner · November 18, 2015

No, it has nothing to do with reality, the liberals won 184 seats, 50 of those are women, do the math.

Yes, 50/184 or 27.2%... which of course is far above the ratio of women in society, leading to your inarguable conclusion that women are over-represented... :blink:

drummindiver · November 18, 2015

I don't know about that. The Liberals had a substantive platform with concrete goals. The Conservatives tried to pander to dairy farmers, home owners, and automakers....They offered nothing to anyone. The Liberals did better than the NDP on infrastructure and better than the Conservatives on taxes.

How did they pander to dairy farmers when the TPP would actually hurt the farmers, according to them.

And your assertion they offered nothing to anyone is the reason we should have voted them in. All these selfish interest groups getting handouts-don't get me started on the unions-is nothing but buying votes with our money and putting us further into debt.

Smallc · November 18, 2015

How did they pander to dairy farmers when the TPP would actually hurt the farmers, according to them.

They were to give them billions of dollars for it....for a loss of 3% of market share. The Liberals may do the same, mind you, but that's about all Harper offered in terms of vision (in other words, none).

drummindiver · November 18, 2015

Yes, 50/184 or 27.2%... which of course is far above the ratio of women in society, leading to your inarguable conclusion that women are over-represented...

So, by your reasoning. we should fill 50% of ministerial positions with the 27% of women who were voted in?

So, punish men who were democratically voted in to fulfil an affirmative action agenda?

Michael Hardner · November 18, 2015

I did not make any claim.

capricorn · November 18, 2015

According to https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/, he's made 184 campaign promises, and in his first 14 days, he's achieved 3, and made progress on 8 more. Still, 173 more promises outstanding, and hopefully electoral reform will be one of them.

It worries me that Trudeau intends to keep all his election promises come hell or high water. I mean if he broke a few of those 184 promises for good cause won't cause me to like him more or like him less. In fact, I'm used to having politicians of all parties lie to me in my face. :lol:

69cat · November 19, 2015

Regarding the dairy farmers, i am not one so my only exposure is to what we discuss on farm forums. The dairy farmer buys a 'quota' to be able to sell milk from a cow into the government supply managed market. One guy estimated it at $18,000 for one cow/per year. This money is paid to the government. So when the government makes changes to the system that cuts down how much milk can be sold then that farmer who bought in has seen the value of his quota decreased. So when talk of money being 'given' by the government to the dairy farmer you need to consider where that money came from.

Wilber · November 19, 2015

Regarding the dairy farmers, i am not one so my only exposure is to what we discuss on farm forums. The dairy farmer buys a 'quota' to be able to sell milk from a cow into the government supply managed market. One guy estimated it at $18,000 for one cow/per year. This money is paid to the government. So when the government makes changes to the system that cuts down how much milk can be sold then that farmer who bought in has seen the value of his quota decreased. So when talk of money being 'given' by the government to the dairy farmer you need to consider where that money came from.

New quota is issued by government, after that it is bought and sold on the open market. Like a taxi license, it's real cost to a farmer can be much higher than what the government originally charged and can become a large part of the equity he has in his farm. To just drop the quota system with no compensation could bankrupt many farmers who have borrowed a lot of money in order to play by the rules and would now be stuck paying for something that has no value. Lending agencies would also take big hits from those bad loans.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Wilber