Christopher Dummitt: Four ways Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives can fight woke ideology 

Suspect some of these ideas are being seriously considered by the Conservative Party in planning for a likely change in government. In an ideal sense, this would lead to a new thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis, reversing some of the excesses of the current government while recognizing that greater attention to diversity and inclusion issues was needed to address representation and other gaps.

However, it is more likely that the temptation will be to wade into such “cultural war” virtue signalling given its appeal to their base and the lesser importance of these issues to Canadians compared to housing, healthcare, infrastructure, foreign interference etc. Checking and rating candidates for political viewpoints raises any number of issues whether with respect to right or left-wing views.

But Kaufmann and Dummitt should know better the risks of simply replacing one dominant ideological tendency with another rather. Interesting that they choose that approach rather than arguing for a “merit-based” or more balanced approach., suggesting the intent is as much ideological than arguing for of …Kaufmann outlines a 12-point plan but I’ll simplify it to four points and a coda.

I have sympathy for the view that the pendulum has shifted too far and that a rebalancing is needed but not convinced that some of these ideas are workable or lead to an improved syntheses:

Insist on politically neutral institutions

Conservatives should take the high ground and insist on politically neutral institutions. In everything from the CBC/Radio Canada to university research funding and heritage institutions, the government should enshrine political neutrality. This means not disseminating politically divisive concepts like “white privilege” or claiming that psychological “harm” can override free speech.

Even though some conservatives might not agree, the BBC in the U.K. could be a model. I used to live in London and attend live tapings of topical radio comedy shows. For every joke they did about one political party or idea, they had to have another taking on the other side. It was sometimes over the top—certainly, the comedians poked fun at it—but the emphatic insistence on equal treatment mattered. Right up and down the public service, a new conservative government should insist on politically neutral institutions and the end of spreading woke ideas “on the sly” through the seemingly neutral dissemination of leftist ideas. If an overwhelming majority of the public accepts these ideas—only then should they be taken up by public institutions.

Redo DEI to include political viewpoints

Kaufmann thinks that while it might be tempting to get rid of DEI this probably isn’t feasible. What is possible is to insist that it be done right. Any institution that wants to hire based on categories of identity must include political viewpoint as an equity category. Many of our institutions, especially but not only universities, are now left-wing monoliths. A Conservative government should insist that this obvious lack of diversity be tackled right alongside other issues.

A Conservative government should also insist that DEI be done accurately. That is, it can’t be done by comparing the share of a certain group’s place in a profession, like engineering, with their share in the general population. It should instead be based on that group’s share in the applicant pool. We should try to identify where the problem arises. Are discrepancies happening because of actual discrimination in hiring or are there just not enough applicants? If there aren’t enough applicants, deal with that problem (if indeed it is a problem). We shouldn’t expect every group’s share of the population to be exactly replicated in every field of work. Only if we have evidence of discrimination should discriminatory hiring quotas be implemented.

Focus on national belonging

Different groups of Canadians will find different parts of the Canadian story more meaningful. Maritimers will likely be more interested in our seafaring heritage. African Canadians might take more pride in Canada’s place as one part of the Underground Railroad (though others will of course be fascinated too). But our national heritage institutions should stop focusing on what divides us and instead embrace what brings us together.i

It doesn’t mean overlooking our blind spots. However, it does mean interpreting them correctly. A Conservative government should insist that those dark places in the Canadian record be considered from a global perspective. We should get rid of woke parochialism which exclusively focuses on Canadian and Western sins. When dealing with issues like colonialism and violence, heritage institutions must be made to interpret these parts of our history in line with the existence of worldwide non-Western forms of slavery, imperialism, and violence including among pre-contact Indigenous peoples.

This means embracing a “retain and explain” cultural policy where the assumption should be that names, statues, and other honorifics are retained except in very exceptional circumstances. What’s more, explanations cannot be one-sided accounts but must interpret figures and events within their global context.

 Remember it’s about the people

Given that so many of our institutions have been taken over by woke activists and their liberal sympathizers, a new Conservative government should make it a priority to restaff the boards and institutions to achieve political diversity. Time and again, conservative governments are stymied because the actual people in the public service align with non-conservative beliefs. This means working on two fronts.

First, find and appoint non-woke political candidates to cultural and public service institutions across the country. The goal is political balance. Second, and this is where Kaufmann really focuses, conservatives need to build pipelines to ensure that when a government goes looking for people, they can find qualified and trained individuals. This means creating a Federalist Society for the public service—the equivalent of that highly influential American conservative legal organization that funnels law students and ideas into the American legal system. Similarly, we need an Austrian School for culture—a conduit for woke-critical ideas in our university world that can generate an idea base that can serve as the cultural equivalent to what the Austrian School did for economic liberalism.

Coda

Finally, a coda. All of the above will help and can be put into action. But Kaufmann also has one final and important bit of advice that can be done right now. Stop using the woke language. Rip off the velvet glove and expose the radioactive illiberalism that lies beneath.

This means insisting on using evocative words and images. Unless there is specific evidence that a particular institution has been discriminatory, when that institution hires based on DEI quotas this should be called out for what it is: anti-White or anti-Asian or anti-male or anti-heterosexual prejudice. Unmask the language of equity to show the discriminatory and vengeful impulse at its heart.

Don’t accept the language of “gender-affirming” care when we are talking about giving adolescents drugs that might chemically castrate them. When people want to bind young girls’ breasts or surgically remove them, describe it for what it is: gender-based violence. Use vivid imagery like pictures of the outsized prosthetic breasts of the Toronto area teacher who caused such controversy recently. Canadians support liberal non-discrimination. They want a country that accepts all its citizens. But they also can smell when something is foul and conservatives need to be sufficiently brave and clear to point out when woke ideas are illiberal.

What all of this means is that modern social conservatism can look a lot different from the Liberal attack-ad caricature. A new Conservative government could stand for policies that treat all Canadians equally, could enshrine politically neutral public institutions, and could show pride in our national history and culture. These aren’t just defensible shield issues; they are worth going on the attack to promote.

Source: Christopher Dummitt: Four ways Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives can fight woke ideology

J.J. McCullough: How you’re supposed to talk about immigration in Canada—and how Poilievre is poised to capitalize 

Another late to the party commentary.

I agree, however, that the Conservatives have greater licence to engage in immigration policy, not only because of the various commentary noting the need for a more measured approach but also because the Liberal government has largely accepted (or ceded) the arguments and is walking back some of its more ill-advised policies.

And even the Century Initiative appears to be flailing around, trying to remain relevant, when their fundamental premises are largely discredited:

…All this puts the Conservatives under Pierre Poilievre in an interesting position. The Canadian press, and thinky class more generally, has created a permission structure for him to run for prime minister on a platform of reducing immigration without fear of being characterized as a racist fearmonger. Polls suggest over 60 percent of Canadians both want and expect him to do this. Yet Poilievree himself has so far avoided articulating the extent to which he agrees; at his tightly scripted rallies he has no standard immigration-related applause line.

It’s possible his party is still captive to the legends of the Harper years—that they believe immigrant voters are “their” constituency to lose, and Conservatives must therefore tread lightly on rhetoric that could be seen as anti-immigrant. Despite a clearly changing tone in media coverage, the party might also simply not trust the press to accurately characterize a restrictionist Conservative immigration plan, and thus feel there’s no PR incentive to spend much time talking about the issue when they’re already enjoying such a solid lead in the polls.

Or, and perhaps most likely, Poilievre simply wants a restrictionist immigration agenda to be something he can roll out at a more politically opportune time—closer to the official fall 2025 election campaign when Canadians will be paying the most attention, and will be most aware of his promises.

Yesterday’s political taboo could be tomorrow’s ace in the hole.

Source: J.J. McCullough: How you’re supposed to talk about immigration in Canada—and how Poilievre is poised to capitalize

Open letter to Canada’s political leaders calls for greater civility in public discourse

Worthy initiative but will any currently serving politicians follow their advice?

Dozens of former politicians, academics, artists, religious leaders and human-rights advocates are calling on Canada’s political leaders to improve civility in public discourse and mend divisions that they say are undermining peace and security in this country.

They argue in an open letter published Tuesday that many Canadians are afraid because of their identities or beliefs, as public aggression and overt hatred have increased alongside geopolitical events, such as the Israel-Hamas war, and domestic issues that include the trucker convoy protests that erupted in response to pandemic-related health restrictions. The letter argues the phenomenon is part of a worrisome trend in which Canadians are “unwilling, unable or ill-equipped” to interact with people who have divergent views.

The letter has 51 signatories – a list that includes former Quebec premier Jean Charest, former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, film director Deepa Mehta, former federal finance minister Bill Morneau and screenwriter Karen Walton, as well as groups such as the Ghanaian Canadian Association of Ontario. The letter urges political leaders to put aside their differences to research the cause, scale and impact of various tensions across Canada and take action through law enforcement, education and personal accountability to foster a safer country.

They propose a number of recommendations, from better enforcing existing laws around hate crimes to updating school curricula and postsecondary programs. They want more research into the root causes of such disunity. And they say politicians need to lead by example by changing their own behaviour.

“Perhaps a growing number of us no longer consider it part of a common Canadian value system to put aside our differences and work alongside those with whom we disagree in the broader interests of Canada. Or perhaps such negative tendencies were always present in Canada and it has taken the increasing ubiquity of social media to reveal them fully,” the letter reads.

“Whatever the reasons for the increasingly belligerent nature of many of the current interactions between Canadians with different perspectives on hostilities in the Middle East or other divisive issues, we believe that no Canadian should ever be fearful because of their identities or their beliefs.”

Many Jewish and Muslim Canadians have expressed heightened fear since the Oct. 7 surprise attack by Hamas that left about 1,200 Israelis dead and Israel’s subsequent bombardment of Gaza that has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians. Police agencies in Canada have reported a steep increase in hate crimes, while the war and questions about how this country should respond have fuelled heated debates in Parliament and revealed divisions within political parties.

The letter also acknowledges divisions whose origins are rooted in Canada, such as the violent dispossession of Indigenous people or racism targeting Black communities.

Barry Campbell, a former Liberal MP, said he began brainstorming ideas for the letter last summer after violent clashes between Eritrean groups at community festivalsand the killing of a Sikh separatist leader in British Columbia that heightened India-Canada tensions. He said the group is not suggesting that people can’t disagree vehemently but rather that citizens should be able to engage in complex and difficult conversations without intimidation, violence or expressions of hatred.

“I think political leaders have to take responsibility for where we find ourselves now as a nation and if, in that examination, they consider that they’ve contributed in some fashion, either knowingly or unknowingly, then it’s time to take stock,” he said.

The open letter makes eight recommendations, principal among them that politicians do everything they can to “address hate at its origins” and speak out about the “values that bind us together as a country.” It implores political leaders to partner with academic and civil society to research the root causes of issue-driven tensions and conflict in Canada, support national and local initiatives to confront hate, and strengthen awareness of what constitutes hate speech under the law.

The group also wants politicians to fund the development of curricula in primary, secondary and postsecondary institutions to “foster greater intercultural competency” and “increase community-level empathy.” They are urging politicians to review whether laws that penalize hate-motivated harassment, threats or intimidation are sufficient, while also ensuring that such laws are consistently enforced and do not obstruct the right to freedom of expression.

Lori Lukinuk, an expert in parliamentary procedure, said decorum in the House of Commons and provincial legislatures has been deteriorating for some time. Elected officials, she said, are more concerned with finger pointing across the aisle and reciting partisan speaking notes than engaging in healthy debates on issues affecting the citizenry.

While federal politicians are supposed to be setting an example, she said, their bad behaviour is filtering into other levels of government and society at large. Ms. Lukinuk said there appears to be an unwillingness, generally, for people to follow proper and respectful avenues to push for change. Instead, people are “yelling and screaming” and picking fights in person and online, even on issues as mundane as the weather.

“We’re always looking for the arguments that support the way we presently think. We’re not looking for those arguments that might be as strong or stronger that might persuade us otherwise,” she said. “That’s a cardinal rule, to have a willingness to be persuaded, and you don’t see that because in politics – those political realms – it’s often toe the party line.”

Art Eggleton, who previously served as a senator, federal cabinet minister and Toronto mayor and is a signatory of the open letter, said the anger, aggression and toxic politics currently on display in Canada are threatening democracy. He said American politics have played a role in Canada’s undoing and hatred is on display in the House of Commons.

“Throughout [my] lengthy career, I have taken considerable pride in Canada being a beacon of civility in the world – a place where people of different origins, faiths, beliefs could come together and live in peace and harmony. I see that as is being threatened,” he said. “We need a call to action.”

Source: Open letter to Canada’s political leaders calls for greater civility in public discourse

‘We won’t forget’: How Muslims view Pierre Poilievre’s stance on Israel-Hamas war

We shall see, look forwards to any comments on my analysis of the possible impact:

….The National Council of Canadian Muslims and dozens of Muslim organizations, mosques and groups signed an open letter to MPs ahead of Ramadan, asking them to stay away from events during the holy month if they couldn’t commit to taking several stances, including support for an immediate ceasefire and condemning some of the actions of Israeli forces.

When asked about Polievre’s outreach this year, Conservative spokesman Sebastian Skamski said Poilievre has articulated a clear position that Israel has a right to defend itself and that Palestinians need humanitarian relief “as a result of the war that Hamas has started.”

Andrew Griffith, a former director of multiculturalism policy for the federal government, said while Muslims are not a monolithic group, it’s likely Poilievre’s loud pro-Israel stance will cause some people to turn from the party, including in key ridings around Toronto.

However, he said, given the current polling numbers, it would be unlikely to do much damage to Conservative fortunes when the next election rolls around.

Skamski also pointed to a speech Poilievre delivered Tuesday in Montreal to the Beth Israel Beth Aaron Jewish congregation, where he addressed the matter head-on.

“I want you to know,” Poilievre the crowd, “I say all of these things in mosques. I do go to mosques. I love meeting with the Muslim people, they are wonderful people.”

He went on to say that when the issue of Israel is raised, “I say, ‘I’m going to be honest with you — I’m a friend of the state of Israel and I will be a friend of the state of Israel everywhere I go.'”

That runs counter to the approach taken by Justin Trudeau, continued Poilievre, accusing the prime minister of muddying the government’s position.

“While it might make for good politics to have one individual MP who says the right thing in order to get a seat back and keep Justin Trudeau in power, it does not solve the problem of having Canada take a right and principled position,” he said.

Skamski said Poilievre has met with thousands of Muslim Canadians during his team as leader and has connected on their shared values of “faith, family and freedom.”

“You can’t talk to Muslim Canadians about faith, about family values, all of those things, while at the same time turning a blind eye to 30,000 dead,” Tahir said, referring to the number of people killed in Gaza since Israel began bombarding the territory in October.

Tahir said many were disappointed in Poilievre’s opposition to funding the UN aid agency UNRWA….

Source: ‘We won’t forget’: How Muslims view Pierre Poilievre’s stance on Israel-Hamas war

ICYMI: Ibbitson: Canada’s foreign policy and its domestic politics on Israel’s war against Hamas are shifting

Indeed. Riding demographics highlight the relative importance of religious minorities, particularly the contrast between Canadian Jews and Canadian Muslims:

….The Liberals have tried to keep both Jewish and Muslim constituencies onside. But as last week’s vote suggests, they increasingly accord a high priority to the rights of Palestinians and to the Muslim community in Canada.

As with other religious communities, Muslims are hardly monolithic. Someone who comes to Canada from Senegal may have different values and priorities than a Canadian who comes from Syria or Pakistan or Indonesia.

And the plight of Palestinians in Gaza may not be the only issue influencing Muslims, who struggle with inflationinterest rates and housing affordability as much as other voters.

Many new Canadians come from societies that are socially conservative. Some Muslim voters may be uncomfortable with the Liberal Party’s strong support for the rights of LGBTQ Canadians.

Finally, Muslim voters for whom supporting the rights of Palestinians is the ballot question may be drawn more to the NDP than the Liberals.

Regardless, the days of Liberal/Conservative bipartisan consensus in support of Israel are over. This is the new lay of the land.

Source: Canada’s foreign policy and its domestic politics on Israel’s war against Hamas are shifting

Le Devoir Éditorial | L’immigration et les petits calculs politiciens

Malheureusement:

Si les enjeux d’immigration présentent des défis planétaires de plus en plus aigus et compliqués, ces défis gagneraient indubitablement en clarté si les gouvernements de tout acabit évitaient d’en instrumentaliser les côtés sombres à des fins politiques et électorales. Prenons seulement l’actualité récente en Grande-Bretagne, en France et aux États-Unis. Trois pays dont les gouvernements embrument le débat et cultivent les méfiances xénophobes en cédant aux sirènes du populisme.

Au premier ministre britannique, Rishi Sunak, armé d’un slogan alarmiste (« Stop the boats »), revient la palme de la déshumanisation des migrants pour son projet de transfert de demandeurs d’asile vers le Rwanda. Fondé sur un accord signé avec l’autoritaire Paul Kagame il y a près de deux ans, le projet de loi adopté le 18 janvier dernier par la majorité conservatrice aux Communes vise à décourager les migrants de traverser la Manche — ils ont été environ 30 000 à le faire en 2023, au péril de leur vie. Sunak entend procéder bien que la Cour suprême britannique ait désavoué le projet en estimant que le Rwanda peut difficilement être considéré comme un « pays sûr ». 

Outre qu’il est loin d’être acquis que les expulsions ralentiraient les arrivées par « petits bateaux », les chiffres montrent noir sur blanc que la croisade de M. Sunak, qui est largement menotté par l’aile droite du parti, tient du délire. Le fait est qu’entre juin 2022 et juin 2023, la migration a été essentiellement légale au Royaume-Uni, répondant aux besoins urgents du marché de l’emploi, particulièrement en santé. Les migrants en situation irrégulière ont représenté 7,7 % de la totalité des  682 000 entrées. Qu’à cela ne tienne : à la traîne dans les sondages face aux travaillistes, M. Sunak n’a pas seulement décidé de faire de son « projet Rwanda » le socle de sa politique contre l’immigration clandestine, il compte aussi en faire l’un des ressorts principaux de sa stratégie de campagne aux législatives de janvier 2025.

En France, des mois de controverse autour de la nouvelle loi sur l’immigration ont obéi à de semblables petits calculs, permettant in fine à Marine Le Pen, cheffe du Rassemblement national, de crier à une « grande victoire idéologique » — du moins jusqu’à ce que le Conseil constitutionnel ne censure une grande partie de la législation la semaine dernière. C’est ainsi qu’en cheval de Troie, le concept de « préférence nationale », si cher à l’extrême droite, s’est imposé de façon inédite dans un texte législatif français, avec le soutien de la droite traditionnelle (Les Républicains) et de la majorité macroniste. Résultat : les Français auront vécu une saga où Emmanuel Macron aura moins cherché à penser une politique migratoire réformée avec clairvoyance, à l’abri des dérives, qu’à enregistrer un succès législatif à n’importe quel prix, lui dont la présidence ne va nulle part à six mois du rendez-vous des élections européennes.

Aux États-Unis, Donald Trump s’emploie ces temps-ci à saboter un projet d’accord migratoire entre sénateurs démocrates et républicains pour empêcher coûte que coûte que sa conclusion ne fasse bien paraître le président Joe Biden en cette année de scrutin présidentiel. Sur le fond, le projet repose pourtant sur des mesures étroitement punitives et tout à fait au goût des républicains. Seraient sensiblement élargis, en vertu de cette entente, les pouvoirs d’expulsion manu militari dont disposent les agents frontaliers. Dans l’espoir à courte vue de raplomber sa popularité, M. Biden se trouve ainsi à jouer le jeu de la droite dure anti-immigration. Il est d’autant plus piégé par cette dynamique que le clan trumpiste au Congrès lie l’augmentation de l’aide militaire à l’Ukraine, pièce maîtresse de sa politique étrangère, à l’adoption de mesures radicales de refoulement à la frontière mexico-américaine.

En Europe comme aux États-Unis, sur fond de stagnation législative, la « pression migratoire » ne diminue pas. Ils ont été 267 000 migrants à débarquer aux frontières méridionales de l’Union européenne l’année dernière et 2800 à se noyer en Méditerranée ; ils ont été 300 000 pendant le seul mois de décembre dernier à cogner à la porte des États-Unis. Des nombres records. Des années de politiques d’endiguement et d’externalisation des contrôles n’y ont rien changé, bien au contraire, de la même manière que la fermeture du chemin Roxham — c’était écrit dans le ciel — n’a rien réglé.

À prétendre qu’il y a des réponses simples à des problèmes compliqués ; à faire l’économie des faits et à laisser prospérer les faussetés ; à trop peu investir, en amont des mouvements de migration, dans le développement des pays du Sud ; à faire depuis toujours, aux États-Unis, l’impasse sur une réforme du système d’immigration, on se trouve trop souvent à laisser la réflexion autour des enjeux de géopolitique migratoire, d’une portée pourtant capitale sur la vie des sociétés partout dans le monde, à se conclure sur des décisions politiciennes prises à la petite semaine.

Source: Éditorial | L’immigration et les petits calculs politiciens

New Electoral Map and Diversity

My analysis of the impact of the new electoral map on racialized and religious minorities and Indigenous, and how it will be further impacted by the ongoing increase in immigrants.

Source: New Electoral Map and Diversity – The Hill Times

Tasha Kheiriddin: Trudeau frittered away a good immigration policy for the sake of Liberal votes – National Post

Discounts the flawed policy rationale of the Barton commission recommendations but of course, political considerations also played a role. And, as we saw during the Kenney years, the liberals cannot take these voters for granted:

Immigrants are also grateful to the party that bring them in. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau learned this from his father. Pierre Elliott Trudeau took credit for the citizenship of millions of Canadians, even though many had come to Canada under previous governments. Why? Because they took their oath under his watch. And when it came to elections, the immigrant communities of the day — Italians, Greeks, Haitians, Vietnamese — tended to vote Liberal.

The implications of Trudeau Jr.’s replication of this policy are dire. Studies show that they are turning Canadians against immigration: even 62 per cent of current immigrants think we’re letting in too many people. They are impoverishing Canadians, both current and newcomer, according to the bank study. And they are also helping fuel Quebec separatism, as francophones look with alarm at rising immigrant populations in the Rest-Of-Canada. By the end of the century, Quebec risks becoming a bit player in Confederation, with only 15 per cent of its population.

This cannot continue. Instead of flooding the country with newcomers, the government needs to boost domestic productivity. That’s a harder fix — and one that won’t give them more votes. But then again, if Canadians can’t afford a decent life, the Liberals may not get their votes either.

Source: Tasha Kheiriddin: Trudeau frittered away a good immigration policy for the sake of Liberal votes – National Post

When ‘conservatives pounce’: The right finds its cautionary tale of subtle media bias

Always find MacDougall’s comments reasonable and balanced:

“I can think of no reporters I’ve ever dealt with who had it out for a party or a worldview. Most were trying to do the job in the fairest way possible,” said Andrew MacDougall, who was director of communications for former prime minister Stephen Harper and is now a director at Trafalgar Strategy.

“But like all biases, you’re not really aware of them until somebody points them out. If you’re university-educated and urban-living, you tend to have a worldview that is different from somebody who isn’t — and it takes a lot of effort to open your eyes up,” said MacDougall….

While MacDougall agrees that conservatives generally have to work harder to get a fair shake from the media, he also warned people on the right not to get too caught up in playing the victim. He pointed to the current controversy around Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent free luxury holiday in Jamaica as proof that, above all, the media craves juicy stories.

And when conservatives govern, he said, there are times when the negative reporting targeting them is just proper reporting.

“The hardest thing in government to do is to distinguish between the fact that you’re getting heat for being in government versus for being the party that you are in government,” he said.

Source: When ‘conservatives pounce’: The right finds its cautionary tale of subtle media bias

Les femmes et minorités, encore souvent des candidatures «poteaux» au Canada

Of note (my previous analyses have focused on growth in minority candidates and MPs but this reinforces other studies showing similar overall pattern):

….Le parcours de Nathanielle Morin fait partie des données compilées dans un article rédigé par des chercheurs de l’Université d’Ottawa à paraître dans la prochaine édition de la revue Electoral Studies, et consulté par Le Devoir.

L’analyse du parcours de 3966 candidats qui se sont présentés lors des trois dernières élections générales montre que les lesbiennes, les gais, les bisexuels, les transgenres ou les queers (LGBTQ+) autodéclarés et les femmes sont nettement surreprésentés (de 17 et de 6 points de pourcentage respectivement) dans les défaites écrasantes — celles dans lesquelles ils sont arrivés plus de 15 points derrière. Les candidats autochtones ou issus des minorités visibles sont aussi désavantagés, quoique d’une moins grande ampleur.

À la surprise des chercheurs, le Parti libéral ne fait pas meilleure figure que le Parti conservateur à ce chapitre : les candidats issus de minorités sont plus souvent nommés là où les deux formations s’attendent à perdre.

« On n’a pas trouvé de grandes différences entre les libéraux et les conservateurs, même si les libéraux ont tendance à souligner qu’ils ont la parité et la question de diversité plus à coeur que le Parti conservateur », souligne Valérie Lapointe, chercheuse postdoctorale en études politiques à l’Université d’Édimbourg et coautrice de l’étude.

En fait, ces deux partis présentent surtout des hommes hétérosexuels dans les circonscriptions réputées « prenables », une tendance aggravée par le fait que les députés sortants conservent généralement leur place comme candidats. À l’issue des dernières élections fédérales, la Chambre des communes était constituée à 69,5 % d’hommes….

Source: Les femmes et minorités, encore souvent des candidatures «poteaux» au Canada