There's a difference between this and "Affirmative Action".Affirmative Action is a state requirement which compels businesses to ensure that typically underrepresented groups will be hired, to address that underrepresentation. It's the government telling (often reluctant) business owners that they have to do the right thing. It's not at all unreasonable to think that in the absence of AA, many hiring business owners wouldn't.
No, this is affirmative action:
an active effort to improve the employment or educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women; also : a similar effort to promote the rights or progress of other disadvantaged persons.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirmative%20action
Business law is just one application of affirmative action.
Why is this distinction meaningful? Because if Trudeau (or the leader of whichever party forms government) were to simply appoint a cabinet that's half female MPs, then not only has the goal of parity been met, but NONE of those female MPs will be saddled with the potential criticism that they were chosen not for their skills and talents, but because they helped the leader fill a quota to keep a promise.
The type of people who would question the qualitfications of women like Freeman or other women purely on the basis that they were meeting a quota regardless of their background are mostly Harper voters.
What's the REAL goal here? Gender parity in cabinet? Or winning feelgood votes by promising a quota to ensure it?
I don't know about you but I want to know what parties are planning before I elect them not after. I don't consider gender parity in government a "feel good" measure. My ears perked up when he defined prostitution as violence against women. I was gratified that he openly stated that he believed the women's accusations were credible which left him no choice but to suspend the two men until an investigation could be completed. Both men accepted the findings of the investigation without the women having to make an "official" complaint or go to police. If only the reaction to Jian Ghomeshi had been as prompt when rumours started circulating about him instead of avoiding assigning female co-eds to internships with him. Limiting women's careers as a reaction to abuse is unacceptable. Now Trudeau has committed to gender equality in cabinet. Not everyone agrees with those three positions but I do and I think many others do as well.
Far from being just a "feel good" measure it is one that opens him up to a lot of criticism. Not everyone supports gender equity so he could lose votes over it too. Just look at the comments in this thread.
I don't bother defending Trudeau's character on this board except in the narrowest sense on individual issues. But I will say this now, Trudeau impressed me on how rapidly he denounced the hijab ban in children's soccer in Quebec, and the same for the Charter of Quebec Values, nor did he hesitate to defend the Clarity Act. He pointed out the need to address the root causes of terrorism including water shortages. His change of position on marijuana is laudable. Same goes for the gun registry. He did support it, still does in principle, but won't push for it on the basis that it is too divisive and there are many other issues that people are more united on. He's going to go there first. I support the gun registry but I respect his reasoning. Since then Paladin has pointed out gun laws that are too lax as well as too strict. I agree with Trudeau that it's important to get everyone to the same table to collaborate on solutions. On pipelines he has said from day 1 that pipelines must have social licence to proceed as a separate issue from meeting environmental reviews. He has never promoted Energy East or the pipelines crossing B.C. because they do not have social licence. He supports Keystone because it does have the support of Albertans and has passed all environmental reviews. He opened up his personal finances more than any PM has to. He unhesitatingly defended the rights of women to wear a full face veil when taking the citizenship oath. That is not a popular stance.
People here denounce him as a vacuous figurehead, a liar with no values or principles but that is not the man I see.