That’s all passe and now, thanks to years of affirmative action, we are no longer colour blind or looking past other issues, we ask about them up front in the name of diversity. But asking about your sexual preferences is new to me.

Andrew Lawton has an interesting story on the latest fad in HR queries – U of T wants to know who you prefer having sex with.

Beyond the usual “Members of Visible Minorities,” “Sex,” “Aboriginal Peoples” and “Persons with Disabilities,” was a field I had never seen on a job application before.

It asked, “Do you identify as a sexual minority (e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual, two-spirited, queer or transgender)?”.

Read the whole thing and weep for the decline of Western civilization.

by Lorne Gunter

Good for B.C. Liberal leader and Premier Christy Clark on her surprising (and overwhelming) election victory. Despite every pollster and pundit (including me) predicting her political extinction, Clark won with personal energy and determination, coupled with an appeal to voters’ interest in economic growth.

(A little reminder here and there of how disastrous past NDP governments have been didn’t hurt, either.) Clark’s win is good news for B.C. and the country.

The former talk-show host was not a full-throated advocate of resource development in her province. Still, voters correctly judged that she was more pro-development — her policies were more likely to preserve existing jobs and create new ones — than her chief rival, NDP Leader Adrian Dix.

And a growing British Columbia economy is good for the country as a whole.

The western-most province is traditionally a “have” province and traditionally a net job creator. So, were it to slip back into have-not status, as it did under its last NDP premier, Glen Clark, it wouldn’t be contributing either to the national employment picture or to equalization payments.

Under an Adrian Dix government opposed to pipelines, energy extraction, mining and forestry, and in favour of rapid expansion of private-sector union membership, B.C. could easily have become a net consumer of Confederation’s benefits, rather than the net contributor the rest of the country needs it to be.

Clark is also less likely than Dix would have been to create a national unity crisis.

To be sure, Clark’s rhetoric was every bit as in-your-face to Alberta and the rest of the country as Dix’s. And it was Clark, not Dix, who went to Alberta last fall to meet Premier Alison Redford and spent most of her time mugging for the cameras about how B.C. would never roll over to Alberta’s desire for a pipeline across her province from the oilsands to the west coast port of Kitimat.

But, again, no one — not even Redford and her staff — really believes Clark is as anti-pipeline as her bombast. Her words, it is assumed, were for the consumption of B.C. voters in the run-up to this week’s election. They were largely a tactic that, now that the ballots have been counted, will give way to a more pragmatic, conciliatory approach.

Had Dix won, it seems he truly would have kiboshed Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline and the twinning of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline.

Which means he would have put at jeopardy both the national economy and national unity.

Nearly a fifth of the economy of the country as a whole is dependent, directly or indirectly, on resource exports. Had Dix blocked Alberta bitumen from getting to Asian markets, he would have put at risk thousands of jobs across the country, not just in Alberta.

And had he sought to block Gateway, he would have tread on federal toes since the Constitution gives control of interprovincial trade and rights-of-way for rail and pipelines to Ottawa. He also would have set Alberta and the rest of the country against B.C. as surely as any Parti Quebecois government has stirred up anti-Quebec animus in the past

20 years.

None of that means Clark and her Liberals will be flawless.

Economic development and job creation numbers from the past four decades show B.C. Liberals have not been that much more pro-business than the NDP when they have been in power, with the exception of the awful (but thankfully brief) tenures of New Dem Premiers Dave Barrett and Glen Clark.

The rest of the country should exhale and wipe its brow in relief that Christy Clark won.

But the Liberal victory is not without reservations.

by Jerry Agar

Here’s more evidence that public unions are out of their minds.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), representing LCBO employees, has filed a gender-discrimination complaint against the liquor retailer with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Their argument? OPSEU alleges the LCBO is discriminating against women, since 70% of their casual workers — those working less than 40 hours, with fewer benefits — are women.

So supposedly this is anti-female?

What would the union like the government to do? Would they agree to a hiring freeze on women, with literally all new hires for casual employment being men until they hit 50/50 male/female parity?

They would certainly do that in the reverse if their complaint was that the LCBO was not hiring enough women.

By the way, the LCBO says the majority of full-time employees are also female.

Would they like the government monopoly to pay women more than they pay the men doing the same job? They would have a hard time defending that scenario, of course.

Does the union believe that women are stupid? That women, but not men, can be tricked into taking part-time work counter to their best interests?

According to CouponCabin.com’s Mother’s Day survey, nearly seven in 10 moms would stay home if they could.

PRNewswire quotes Jackie Warrick of CouponCabin.com: “Many companies recognize the challenges that working moms face and provide alternative schedules to allow for moms to continue their careers while raising a family.”

Perhaps the LCBO is one of those companies, whether by design or accident, fulfilling that need, to the benefit of women.

Are women victimized by anti-female policies or treated to an arrangement that lets them be more flexible and spend more time with their families?

Perhaps women know where to find a part-time job that balances the desire to stay home with the need to support the family.

It pays a decent salary in relation to comparable work.

Another possibility is the union knows their human rights complaint is ridiculous, and it is just a part of their troublemaking tactics as they threaten a strike just ahead of the May long weekend.

Perhaps we need a law that forces a choice — the right to strike and to be represented by a union, or a monopoly, but not both.

Monopolies are illegal in the private world for the very good reason that they hold all the cards. Monopolies lord it over both the supplier and the customer. That is a pretty good description of the LCBO, which is in a position to dictate to suppliers or to not work with them at all if they choose, regardless of whether there might be a market for a particular product.

Ontarians living near the Quebec border regularly enjoy taking advantage of the cheaper prices there, even though it is illegal to “import” across provincial borders. That law is counter to freedom in Canada, but is typical of the thug tactics necessary to maintain a monopoly. Either that or it is a recognition that Quebec really is a separate nation.

If the Human Rights Commission is going to weigh in on anything to do with the LCBO, how about our right to buy a legal product even if the government employees are having a hissy fit?

— Agar is the 9 a.m. to noon host on Newstalk 1010

by Christina Blizzard

Why is the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO) meddling in the affairs of Catholic schools?

They don’t represent Catholic teachers.

That union is the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA) — so what gives with ETFO president Sam Hammond putting out a news release Thursday slamming two Toronto Catholic school trustees’ move to have Gay-Straight Alliances banned from Catholic schools?

“This motion goes farther than banning GSAs. It would shut down all student discussion on issues of sexual orientation or gender identity in school-based clubs,” Hammond said in a release.

“How does that make a young student who is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) feel welcome or safe in a school environment? How does that educate students to be respectful of differences?” he asked.

Trustee Garry Tanuan has brought “The Anti-Bullying Clubs Policy Change” motion to the Toronto District Catholic School Board.

Seconded by Trustee John Del Grande, the motion supports the anti-bullying program recommended by the Archdiocese of Toronto, which opposes bullying of any type — not just that directed at gays and lesbians.

The Catholic view of Gay-Straight Alliances is that it is a program promoted by activists and is not part of the curriculum.

Cardinal Tom Collins took the unusual step last year of holding a news conference to slam the hard line former premier Dalton McGuinty took in forcing GSAs on Catholic schools.

Hammond’s meddling in this issue is just plain wrong.

Like it or not, Catholics have a constitutional right to their schools — and to teach the morals and values in keeping with their faith. It was a deal made 150 years ago to bring Catholics into Confederation.

You and I may not agree with those beliefs, but until a politician has the courage to break that deal and take away funding from Catholic schools, you have to either put up or shut up.

The government risked a constitutional challenge with the GSA legislation.

And Hammond is wrong when he says it will shut down discussions about gay and lesbian issues in Catholic schools.

When I covered education, I found Catholic schools did a far better job of teaching the touchy-feely stuff than did public schools.

Why? Because they put it in a sensitive context that includes values and ethics — which the public board largely ignores. Unless your idea of values and ethics includes a sexually explicit poster depicting a gay sex act.

In fact, OECTA’s website includes a prominent article about International Day Against Homophobia.

There’s a reason why parents put their kids into Catholic schools — in droves.

They want their kids educated according to their own values. They don’t want interfering, meddlesome activists and union leaders dictating their morals.

Remember the outcry when the Liberals tried to foist a far too explicit and inappropriate new sex-ed curriculum on the province? Where is it now? Underneath a pile of papers on her desk, Education Minister Liz Sandals said recently.

It’s not her top priority. Watch out, though. If the Liberals ever form a majority government, it’ll miraculously soar to the top of the pile.

Why is government so eager and determined to force their own sex agenda on our children?

Bullying is bullying — no matter why a kid is being singled out. It’s not just a gay issue. Kids are bullied simply for being different.

Hammond should go back to his day job — and try to get a deal with the government. While his members are back doing extracurriculars because they’re happy with the way talks are going, his is still the last hold-out and the most militant.

(Hammond did not return a request for an interview Thursday.)

Perhaps media interviews are an extracurricular.

by Brian Lilley

To say this is a bad week for politicians and the public trust would be an understatement.

In Ottawa, a scandal involving expenses for senators has burst wide open with claims and denials that the prime minister’s Chief of Staff Nigel Wright helped Sen. Mike Duffy pay back inappropriately claimed expenses using his personal funds. We’re told no taxpayer money was used and no money was given by the Conservative Party.

As for Duffy, he says he got the funds to pay back the expenses from a bank loan. Both sides are asking us to take their word for it rather than offer up proof.

As for the other two senators in the expense scandal, they’re getting lawyers and refusing to pay back money the auditors say they never should have received.

But as they say on those TV infomercials — but wait, there’s more.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair is now facing questions about being offered a bribe back in the 1990s, when he was a Liberal MNA representing the Laval area, by another Quebec politician now facing a raft of charges. I asked Mulcair about reports that Gilles Vaillancourt, then the mayor of Laval, had offered envelopes of cash to other politicians.

“Were you ever offered cash in an envelope by the mayor of Laval? Did you ever see envelopes of cash around the mayor of Laval?” I asked Mulcair in November of 2010.

Mulcair’s answer was one word, “No.”

Now it has been revealed that he did meet with Vaillancourt and was presented with an envelope. According to police documents quoting Mulcair, there was no doubt in the NDP leader’s eyes: “It was clear that this was money.”

On Thursday, Mulcair issued a statement saying he has told everything to the authorities.

“In early 2011, I met with the police in order to help in their investigation,” Mulcair said. “I gave to them my account of a meeting I had with Mayor Gilles Vaillancourt dating back to 1994. “As is indicated, I effectively and immediately ended the meeting with Mr. Vaillancourt.”

So just to recap, Mulcair was offered a bribe in 1994, denied he was offered one in 2010, but then told police everything in 2011.

Vaillancourt is facing gangsterism charges with police alleging he ran a criminal operation out of Laval city hall. All of this is related to kickbacks, bribes and payoffs surrounding the construction industry and public infrastructure projects.

Mulcair was obviously offered what he believed to be a bribe, but chose not to say anything for 17 years. He was an elected official being offered an envelope that he believed to be cash by another elected official; he had a duty to say something and didn’t.

This is the man now attacking the Conservatives over ethics in the Senate expense scandal?

When Vaillancourt was arrested last week, police told QMI Agency they were looking for up to $15 million in dirty cash hidden in bank accounts in Switzerland and Panama.

Here are a few questions for Tom Mulcair:

How much did he know or suspect about the kickback scandal now engulfing Quebec politics? Was he ever offered a bribe or even an envelope by other politicians or developers? Does he think now that maybe he should have reported something back in the ’90s and saved taxpayers untold millions wasted on bribes and corruption?

Mulcair owes those answers to the Canadian people. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.

by Eric Duhaime

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair keeps sinking in quicksand on the oilsands issue.

Two months ago, the leader of the official opposition was accused of treason when he visited Washington, D.C., and publicly criticized the TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline, a 1,800-km pipeline project that could ship 830,000 barrels a day of bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to Texan refineries.

While U.S. President Barack Obama is expected to decide the fate of the pipeline in the near future, Mulcair’s statement made him look like someone who wanted to interfere in the American decision-making process and a traitor who backstabbed his fellow countrymen.

That controversy did not seem to teach the NDP leader a lesson. He made another faux pas this week regarding another pipeline.

Mulcair came out against Enbridge’s 9B pipeline reversal, which currently carries crude oil from West Africa and the Middle East.

A surprising move, since less than a year ago, in a speech to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Mulcair said shipping Alberta’s oil to Quebec via an existing pipeline was a “pro-business, common sense solution.”

He could have added it’s also the patriotic and ethical thing to do. However, in Repentigny, Que., on Tuesday, Mulcair flip-flopped.

He is now against the idea of reversing Line 9B between North Westover, Ont., and Montreal, Que. Why? For environmental reasons.

“There is no system of environmental regulation in Canada, with Stephen Harper. So, people have to say ‘no’ to this (pipeline reversal) because you absolutely cannot trust them (the Conservatives) to produce a result that is safe for the environment,” Mulcair said. Partisan Mulcair does not trust Canada’s environmental regulation system anymore since we have a Conservative government. That is the latest excuse used by Mulcair to try to take the NDP out of the muck.

We are not talking about building a new pipeline in this specific case, just reversing the flow. How could it provoke more spills and environmental catastrophes when it goes from west to east than east to west?

Even the Quebec separatists have not tried to use such an argument.

Isn’t it safer to carry oil in an existing pipeline than by boat on the St. Lawrence River as we currently do?

By trying to please his environmental fanatics on the left, Mulcair is thrashing about, up to his neck in sand.

Now that the NDP has

57 of the 75 seats in Quebec, he might have a hard time convincing Quebec motorists they better buy more expensive petroleum from a dictatorship in the Middle East than cheaper fuel from fellow Canadians.

It could also become difficult for the leftist leader to tell unionized workers at the refineries in the east end of Montreal that he refuses to protect and expand their industry. There now is no easy way out out of the quicksand in which the environmentalists have lured Mulcair, other than a step backward.

The NDP leader had better flip-flop one more time before he sinks for good in his own mud.

The debate over whether to use negative advertising in election campaigns is over, it died with Adrian Dix’s hope of becoming premier of British Columbia last night.

Dix should have won the BC election and with a properly run campaign he would have. Instead he brought a knife to a gun fight.

I will give great big kudos to Christy Clark and her campaign team for their victory. They worked hard, the hit Dix hard, they delivered their message to BC voters and they won. But if Dix had not decided to “take the high road” and avoid attack ads, then no amount of hard work from the BC Liberals would have changed the result.

From day one of the campaign the NDP should have been running ads with one simple message, the BC Liberals lied last election on the HST question, can you trust them again. The answer for most voters would have been no. Reminding voters that the governing party broke a big promise last time around is not hitting below the belt.

Then Premier Gordon Campbell ran a campaign promising not to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST. He quickly broke that promise and was run out of office. There was a referendum on dumping the HST and those who wanted the tax dumped won.

If Dix had hammered that message home day in and day out, he’d likely be premier.

Thankfully, he didn’t.