SoVote

May/31/22 11:27:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the difference between women who have earned their places and women being appointed to their places is paramount. Women I have spoken to take offence at the fact that they have to be appointed in order to make it to a position rather than earning their place as they should, and they do. The difference is that we are jumping a couple of steps on that. Eliminating barriers allows women or anyone with an ethnic diversity to get through that barrier in order to earn their own place on the podium. However, we jump that and say we know there are barriers but we are just going to appoint someone anyhow. We eliminate the systemic problems that exist in the first place. UBC, which appointed 60 positions, put out a target ad, meaning it posted a job for women only to apply. The problem when that is done and a quota is filled is that the next ad would say that only people with disabilities could apply and women are excluded. We cannot exclude them in order to get others ahead. What we need to do is break the barriers down, to your point, so we have more women who want to enter politics who can and are able to then do it on their own merit, because we know—

223 words

Context: House Hansard - 78 - May/31/22

Mr. Ryan Williams

May/31/22 11:34:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comment but, at the end of the day, I do not understand. We are talking about equality of opportunity and especially about breaking down barriers. Would the hon. member rather have been appointed to the position she holds in the Parliament instead of earning it, as she rightfully has done? At the end of the day, when we talk to women and to people across Canada, should they have to be appointed in order to break down barriers? Can they not break them down of their own accord? Equality of opportunity means that we break the barriers down so that those individuals can do just that. That is all we are talking about.

122 words

Context: House Hansard - 78 - May/31/22

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

May/31/22 5:10:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this motion seems to be based on a faulty understanding of who gets appointed. There is an assumption that when affirmative action policies are in place, it means that a less qualified candidate is put forward. In fact, what it actually means is that we get a larger pool of qualified candidates and that we are removing barriers for those people who have traditionally been marginalized. I would love to hear the member's comments on that.

79 words

Context: House Hansard - 78 - May/31/22

Hon. Bardish Chagger

May/31/22 5:10:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been watching the member for Victoria engage in this debate throughout the day. I really appreciate the approach she is taking of recognizing that we need to do better, as well as the fact that this is actually much more of a conversation about how quickly, for example, if we see a woman such as myself or herself be appointed, we see the headlines become that it is not merit-based. We are qualified individuals. We are educated. To suggest that when we have more diversity and intersectionalities represented, candidates are all of a sudden less qualified I personally think is, first of all, ridiculous and also disheartening, hence why I mentioned it in my comments. I know we have very qualified people who have been overlooked for far too long. We are creating systems that work for more Canadians, for more talent, and that is why dismantling the systemic issues is instrumental. I would like to assure the member that I will keep fighting to ensure that we do better.

175 words