Connect with us

Business

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

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

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. 

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

Automotive

Red States Sue California and the Biden Administration to Halt Electric Truck Mandates

Published on

From Heartland Daily News

By Nick Pope

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country”

Large coalitions of red states are suing regulators in Washington, D.C., and California over rules designed to effectively require increases in electric vehicle (EV) adoption.

Nebraska is leading a 24-state coalition in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recently-finalized emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and a 17-state coalition suing the state of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California over its Advanced Clean Fleet rules. Both regulations would increase the number of heavy-duty EVs on the road, a development that could cause serious disruptions and cost increases across the U.S. economy, as supply chain and trucking sector experts have previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“California and an unaccountable EPA are trying to transform our national trucking industry and supply chain infrastructure. This effort—coming at a time of heightened inflation and with an already-strained electrical grid—will devastate the trucking and logistics industry, raise prices for customers, and impact untold number of jobs across Nebraska and the country,” Republican Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said in a statement. “Neither California nor the EPA has the constitutional power to dictate these nationwide rules to Americans. I am proud to lead our efforts to stop these unconstitutional attempts to remake our economy and am grateful to our sister states for joining our coalitions.”

(RELATED: New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business)

While specifics vary depending on the type of heavy-duty vehicle, EPA’s emissions standards will effectively mandate that EVs make up 60% of new urban delivery trucks and 25% of long-haul tractors sold by 2032, according to The Wall Street Journal. The agency has also pushed aggressive emissions standards for light- and medium-duty vehicles that will similarly force an increase in EVs’ share of new car sales over the next decade.

California’s Advanced Clean Fleet rules, meanwhile, will require that 100% of trucks sold in the state will be zero-emissions models starting in 2036, according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB). While not federal, the California rules are of importance to other states because there are numerous other states who follow California’s emissions standards, which can be tighter than those required by the EPA and other federal agencies.

Critics fear that this dynamic will effectively enable California to set national policies and nudge manufacturers in the direction of EVs at a greater rate and scale than the Biden administration is pursuing.

Trucking industry and supply chain experts have previously told the DCNF that both regulations threaten to cause serious problems for the country’s supply chains and wider economy given that the technology for electric and zero-emissions trucks is simply not yet ready to be mandated at scale, among other issues.

Neither CARB nor the EPA responded immediately to requests for comment.

Nick Pope is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Service.

Originally published by The Daily Caller. Republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Automotive

New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business

Published on

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 truckingaccording 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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X