- Joined
- May 12, 2007
- Messages
- 7,316
- Reaction score
- 1,279
You judge a meritocracy based on how equally citizens are treated at law, not by their accomplishments. The Employment Equity Act prohitibits the kind of discriminatory business practices that you listed so the legal framework is already in place to discourage and mitigate those injustices.How do we determine how much of a meritocracy we live in? I will say that I don't believe we live in any kind of meritocracy. Over a decade working in finance, engineering, construction, and project delivery have convinced me that we work in no such thing. I work with FUCKING IDIOTS who are employed only because of their name. There are employees whose investment in the company through share purchases is so significant that they won't be terminated even if they do absolutely nothing. I cannot find a correlation between skills that benefit the product, project, or customer and compensation/success. I can only find a correlation between skills that socially maneuver someone and their success.
Perhaps to some, that is the merit of effort, as we live in a social society and are social creatures, but it doesn't not benefit an organization, contribute to better products and services, or provide value to the customer.
I guess this is a personal question of the role of government. Whether you think they are capable of affecting outcomes. Again, to simply lean on the language of law and say "everyone is equal and has equal access" I do not believe is true. The law, and the application of the law, or the public's adherence to the law, are very different. The law says you cannot discriminate against a person because of race, gender, or sexual orientation. We all know it still happens.
Even among those who choose to "fully integrate" (I'm not sure what that means. Define full integration for me.) they'll be faced with assumptions and limitations placed on them. I referenced the first nations people before in my posting because of what I see on site every day. Master electricians, amazing craftsmanship, strong work ethics, and yet, there are still a lot of crews that try and not have "an Indian on my crew".
The first nations are part of Canada. Their problems are Canada's problems, and they go deeper than "just be one of us". I don't think Canada has some singular identity. I have not witnessed it. People in Vancouver are massively different than those in Alberta, to say nothing of spending time observing the cultures in the northern territories.
I'm sorry you work with idiots but it's fallacious to attribute the favouritism they enjoy by virtue of their shareholdings to society at large. That level of wealth and privilege is not something enjoyed by the majority of Canadians so it makes no sense to use them as a benchmark.
Of course first nations are part of Canada. I never suggested otherwise. However when you want the right to self govern, you also have to accept the responsibility for providing basic necessities. You cannot have it both ways. The Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development determines how much each First Nation receives in funding, not the Canadian government. Further, while there are "contribution agreements" that stipulate which services are to be provided, there are no provisions dealing with service standards or results. Therefore the Canadian government has no direct say in the quality of basic necessities that are provided. I'm not sure what you expect the Canadian government to do, unless you want First Nations to cede some of their autonomy.