January 04, 2016

Activists push Trudeau on Senate gender parity -- but it’s 2016, and the Seventies want their affirmative action policies back

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder

We all remember the flippant response Trudeau gave about why he felt he needed to set a 50/50 gender quota for his cabinet - because it’s 2015.

Well, it’s 2016 now and well past time for us to get beyond old fashioned ideas that women need a quota system to help them achieve equality.

You may recall that I was opposed to Trudeau’s 50/50 rule because it could potentially exclude good women and good men and yet it looks like this quota system may be expanded to the process of Senate appointments if a group called “Equal Voice Canada” has their way.

I explain who they are, what they want and why I think we need to stop listening to these agenda driven activists and instead focus on finding the best person for the job.


JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ Brian Lilley's book CBC Exposed -- It's been called "the political book of the year."

"Don't blame me: I voted Conservative"
The t-shirt that says it all -- ONLY from TheRebel.media store!

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-01-06 04:11:26 -0500
Lilley objects to the idea that “women need a quota system to help them achieve equality.” Excellent point! and in the case of the Senate, which is an appointed body, to achieve equality you do not impose a quota, you simply make sure that half are women.
commented 2016-01-06 02:06:56 -0500
You got it bang on Peter…!!!!
Nepotism multiplied by cabinet stacking based on gender = catastrophic failure…!!!
With this boy at the helm the damage that he causes will be irreparable. Internationally Canadians have lost all respect on the world stage.
commented 2016-01-05 21:11:48 -0500
It should be Brain Heart and Common sense Balance. PERIOD Whether that is in a Woman or a Man!
commented 2016-01-05 20:35:01 -0500
Speaking of ‘quota systems’ and ‘affirmative action’, what about the LGTBQRSTfreak-show crowd when it comes to ‘gender’ parity? Now there’s a rotted can of worms yet to opened up…Google lists 70 to 80 different ‘genders’ at this point…
Hang on to your hats boys, were in for a wild ride with Justin and fiend’s…speaking of which, just what ‘gender’ is Justin – has that been officially established out of the 70 or 80 available so far?
commented 2016-01-05 18:59:59 -0500
Sean Penson WHO SPEAKS FOR THE EMPLOYED WHITE MALES SEAN, WHO NOT LIBERALS, NOT NDP, NOT YOU , pretty much no one, the senate is a pathetic waste of taxpayers money no matter how you spin it, pigs at the trough all of them, the women and the minorities included.
commented 2016-01-05 14:30:52 -0500
Kenton Kruger;
They are sure doing a good job in Alberta and Ontario!
commented 2016-01-05 02:17:02 -0500
Sheila Copps just won’t go away. Too bad she didn’t just quit for good, when she said she would resign if the GST did not go away.
commented 2016-01-05 01:55:41 -0500
Don’t worry Brian, as soon as the numbers shift and it looks like more women would get a position then men, that is the day they will drop any quota system. It has nothing to do with parity or wanting an equal number, it is an unspoken “at least” as many. Just like the cry of equality often used, “A woman can do ____ as well as a man, if not better”. Analyze what that truly says, on average, women are better.
commented 2016-01-05 00:55:15 -0500
Sean what makes them disadvantaged? Oh you mean special rights.
commented 2016-01-05 00:33:41 -0500
Basically pigs at the trough.
commented 2016-01-05 00:32:04 -0500
Who cares, they are political animals wanting taxpayers to pay their salaries and expenses. Oh and don’t forget great pensions.
commented 2016-01-05 00:01:08 -0500
A gender equitable Senate is for the best for Canada. Women and other disadvantaged minorities must be protected, and have their agendas propagated.
commented 2016-01-05 00:00:08 -0500
Brian, you don’t understand Affirmative Action!
Gender Parity is only Step #1.
Once Gender Parity is established then White Males will be Excluded to be “Inclusive” of Spectral Parity [Anyone but a White Male].
People go read the Cloward Piven Strategy, this will only stop when are subdued or Rebel! Why do you think they want to make all guns impossible for a law abiding citizen to possess?
commented 2016-01-04 20:44:17 -0500
Every time Trudeau opens his mouth he proves that he is an idiot. He acts like a child with a new toy, this is because he is a child with a new toy. God help Canada.
commented 2016-01-04 20:26:44 -0500
What if one of the women decides to become a man during their term? Does that make it unfair? I would sure love progressives to explain what the hell they want.
commented 2016-01-04 20:25:09 -0500
Yet when a man wants a say in a babies life, he is meaningless , until the baby is born and he is on the hook for life, even if he did not want it, where is the parity?
commented 2016-01-04 20:24:11 -0500
So 2 from each of the 6 genders then.
commented 2016-01-04 20:06:12 -0500
It is a fundamental tennet of Liberal dogma that men and women are adversarial rivals…..can you name ANY policy issue that is men on one side and women on the other? Not that THAT would matter….the Liberal party whip does not tollerate varience….so that women and minority groups for that matter do not represent their group at all.

And if history of Liberal appointments is any indicator there will be thirty Nancy Ruths appointed to represent women at their adversarial best.

I can put forward several names that will be on the short list….Sheila Copps……Judy Rebic…..numerous directors of battered women’s shelters…..and of course ….the mumified remains of Margaret Atwood.

Oh it isn’t 2016….this is the seventies back….with a vengence.
commented 2016-01-04 18:49:23 -0500
How is gender parity supposed to result in a the most effective Senate or Cabinet or what have you? I’m not saying that it isn’t statistically possible but the best chance of forming the most effective Cabinet/Senate is to select the strongest candidates, irrespective if it’s 1915 or 2015. I know that I am stating the obvious to most of the readers on here , but there are a disturbing number of readers who consider parity to be an excellent idea. I am fishing around here trying to illicit some kind of response that would be in support of the parity approach; a response that goes beyond " because it’s 2015". After-all folks these are yours and mine tax dollars at work here and we should be demanding the best that our money can buy. In my opinion, parity will likely result in watered down, costly, initiatives, which are creatively stifled because some of the members of this parity group will know intuitively that they are there only to fulfill some quota and therefore will never endeavor to create waves, play it safe in other words. Run on sentence I know but I’m in a hurry. In other words non contributory bobble heads, but politically correct none the less.
commented 2016-01-04 18:46:23 -0500
Go for it Bravo. Will we call you Bravetta, or Zu-who? You got the support.
commented 2016-01-04 18:29:13 -0500
I could fake being a transgender for a while if it would get me inside that door – oh the fun I could have with them.
commented 2016-01-04 18:28:21 -0500
I feel like I am living in a time warp or something.

I really could care less about the body equipment for most government jobs and appointments, it is the life experience and knowledge that I care about. Having a policy like this will hurt the Senate just like JT’s appointments for Cabinet. Each and every one of the women in Cabinet loses standing as their colleagues don’t know whether or not they got the appointment due to merit or due to body parts. Yes, a post like Women’s studies should go to a women, but most everything else should go to the best person for the task at hand.
commented 2016-01-04 18:26:21 -0500
I can’t believe Justy doesn’t have any transgender ministers. He’s excluding the third ( fourth and fifth, and possibly sixth) sexes here with no apologies. This is an absolute travesty. If all your after is inclusion, then include. Shame on you Justy, you’re missing out on some votes in 2020.
commented 2016-01-04 17:32:36 -0500
I remember applying for a safety/security position at our local university . After a three person panel interview came separate interviews with the LBGT reps, the handicapped student reps followed by a last test . There were eight final candidates , four male, four female . We were told that regardless of test scores two male and two female would be hired . I wasn’t hired so I went to work for a local private ambulance company . A month later the company hired a woman who was the most abrasive individual I had worked with in a long time. She had just been fired from the university safety/security job. So much for gender parity over merit .
commented 2016-01-04 16:54:39 -0500
??? Does anyone really know what’s going on in our government anymore ? It’s a certainty that Justin Trudeau hasn’t a clue !