As for affirmative action on the basis of race and aboriginal ancestry, it comes with an entirely different set of problems. Many high-performing East and South Asian job seekers shun government jobs, for instance, not because they face discrimination, but because they simply prefer to find more lucrative positions in other fields. As for aboriginals, it would make far more sense to invest federal dollars in improving their education, rather than simply hiring them into government jobs for which they aren’t truly qualified. The same is true for blacks and other minority groups that skew toward the low end of the socioeconomic spectrum: Affirmative action merely addresses the symptoms of the problem, not the cause. Moreover, it has the added, socially toxic drawback of stigmatizing all minority members as under-qualified affirmative-action hires — even those who were hired on the basis of pure merit.From my prospective, as a consumer, I don't care about "representative" workforce. I want competent workforce. I don't care if the person who provides the service is a man or a woman, if he (or she) is black or white or polka-dot green. I want him or her to be the best skilled for the job.
And, if Pat Martin & Co believe that discrimination is ok, as long as those discriminated against don't belong to a designated "disadvantaged" group - why don't they lead by example? Why didn't Pat Martin and his Liberal colleague from Winnipeg Centre withdraw and let the black female candidate win?