Trudeau’s labor minister pushes ‘equity’ mandate to favor LGBT job applicants

The report presented by Liberal Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan suggests giving special privileges to ‘LGBT-identifying and Black Canadians’ in the hiring process in the name of ‘equity,’ and dismisses concerns that such a move is tantamount to discrimination.

The Trudeau government is celebrating a newly proposed equity mandate which would reward LGBT-identifying job applicants over those with natural sexual proclivities.

On December 11, Liberal Labour Minister Seamus O’Regan announced the Employment Equity Act Review Task Force report, which seeks to add “LGBT-identifying and Black Canadians” to the list of those with special hiring privileges.

“It’s pretty historical,” O’Regan said outside the House of Commons foyer on Monday. “We are naming Black people and 2SLGBTQI+ individuals as designated groups under the Employment Equity Act.”

According to information obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the Liberal government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, “broadly supports” the recommendation.

The report, led by McGill University law professor Adelle Blackett, assured Canadians that it would not lead to “reverse discrimination” or abolish a merit-based hiring system, despite seemingly being formulated to do exactly that.

“Let us be clear: the Employment Equity Act framework does not impose quotas, and the notion of ‘reverse discrimination’ is not part of Canadian equality law and is likewise not part of the Canadian Employment Equity Act framework,” reads the introduction.

While the job candidates would still have to meet certain requirements to be considered for the position, they would not be competing against all candidates for the position but just those within their so-called minority group. As a result, they would have a higher chance of being hired for the position compared to someone who did not fit into the group.

The report dismissed this concern, however, labeling it as an American, not Canadian, argument. “The U.S. idea of ‘reverse discrimination’ has in particular gained a lot of attention. It is used so often in common parlance that many people do not recognize that it is not a part of Canadian substantive equality law,” reads the report.

The report also attempted to address the problem that because being an LGBT-identifying person is not an objective category, it is conceivable that people could just say they are members of the LGBT so-called community as a way to gain an advantage in the hiring process.

In recent years, there has been a push for in Canada, the United States and much of the West to go along with so-called “diversity, equity, & inclusion” (DEI)  hiring and promotion practices.

The controversy surrounding DEI is that it usually goes hand-in-hand with a slew of identity-based social causes and grievances that undermine merit-based hiring, meaning that the most qualified person for a job may be overlooked in favor of someone of a particular skin color, ethnicity or sexual proclivity.

In 2019, the Canadian military was exposed for periodically closing all applications to the armed forces except to women if their so-called employment equity targets had not been met.

Similarly, in June 2023, Ontario announced free training for truck drivers; however, the offer was only extended to “women, newcomers and others from underrepresented groups,” effectively barring anyone except white, heterosexual men.

Additionally, this October, British Columbia construction companies were offered an extra cash incentive if they hire first-year apprentices who “self-identify” as LGBT, disabled, or anything other than a white heterosexual male.

Related Topics:#ClareMarieMerkowsky #EmploymentEquityActReviewTaskForce #EquityMandate #LabourMinisterSeamusO'Regan #LifeSiteNews

Up Next

Canada reports 300% increase in ‘unspecified causes’ of death, sparking calls for investigation

Don't Miss

What 100 million “unbanked” Nigerians can teach Canadians about Central Bank Digital Currency

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

The Toppling of the woke authoritarians

COVID-19 / 6 hours ago

Japan’s most senior cancer doctor: COVID shots are ‘essentially murder’

COVID-19 / 15 hours ago

Trudeau government only sought legal advice after Emergencies Act was invoked, records indicate

Automotive

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

Published on May 12, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By WILL KESSLER

Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial trucking, according to a new analysis released Wednesday.

The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.

“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”

Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.

Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.

The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.

The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.

Business

Economic progress stalling for Canada and other G7 countries

Published on May 10, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

For decades, Canada and other countries in the G7 have been known as the economic powerhouses of the world. They generally have had the biggest economies and the most prosperous countries. But in recent years, poor government policy across the G7 has contributed to slowing economic growth and near-stagnant living standards.

Simply put, the Group of Seven countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States—have become complacent. Rather than build off past economic success by employing small governments that are limited and efficient, these countries have largely pursued policies that increase or maintain high taxes on families and businesses, increase regulation and grow government spending.

Canada is a prime example. As multiple levels of government have turned on the spending taps to expand programs or implement new ones, the size of total government has surged ever higher. Unsurprisingly, Canada’s general government spending as a share of GDP has risen from 39.3 per cent in 2007 to 42.2 per cent in 2022.

At the same time, federal and provincial governments have increased taxes on professionals, businessowners and entrepreneurs to the point where the country’s top combined marginal tax rate is now the fifth-highest among OECD countries. New regulations such as Bill C-69, which instituted a complex and burdensome assessment process for major infrastructure projects and Bill C-48, which prohibits producers from shipping oil or natural gas from British Columbia’s northern coast, have also made it difficult to conduct business.

The results of poor government policy in Canada and other G7 countries have not been pretty.

Productivity, which is typically defined as economic output per hour of work, is a crucial determinant of overall economic growth and living standards in a country. Over the most recent 10-year period of available data (2013 to 2022), productivity growth has been meagre at best. Annual productivity growth equaled 0.9 per cent for the G7 on average over this period, which means the average rate of growth during the two previous decades (1.6 per cent) has essentially been chopped in half. For some countries such as Canada, productivity has grown even slower than the paltry G7 average.

Since productivity has grown at a snail’s pace, citizens are now experiencing stalled improvement in living standards. Gross domestic product (GDP) per person, a common indicator of living standards, grew annually (inflation-adjusted) by an anemic 0.7 per cent in Canada from 2013 to 2022 and only slightly better across the G7 at 1.3 per cent. This should raise alarm bells for policymakers.

A skeptic might suggest this is merely a global phenomenon. But other countries have fared much better. Two European countries, Ireland and Estonia, have seen a far more significant improvement than G7 countries in both productivity and per-person GDP.

From 2013 to 2022, Estonia’s annual productivity has grown more than twice as fast (1.9 per cent) as the G7 countries (0.9 per cent). Productivity in Ireland has grown at a rapid annual pace of 5.9 per cent, more than six times faster than the G7.

A similar story occurs when examining improvements in living standards. Estonians enjoyed average per-person GDP growth of 2.8 per cent from 2013 to 2022—more than double the G7. Meanwhile, Ireland’s per-person GDP has surged by 7.9 per cent annually over the 10-year period. To put this in perspective, living standards for the Irish grew 10 times faster than for Canadians.

But this should come as no surprise. Governments in Ireland and Estonia are smaller than the G7 average and impose lower taxes on individuals and businesses. In 2019, general government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 44.0 per cent for G7 countries. Spending for governments in both Estonia and Ireland were well below this benchmark.

Moreover, the business tax rate averaged 27.2 per cent for G7 countries in 2023 compared to lower rates in Ireland (12.5 per cent) and Estonia (20.0 per cent). For personal income taxes, Estonia’s top marginal tax rate (20.0 per cent) is significantly below the G7 average of 49.7 per cent. Ireland’s top marginal tax rate is below the G7 average as well.

Economic progress has largely stalled for Canada and other G7 countries. The status quo of government policy is simply untenable.