Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Junk statistics used to justify quotas for women on corporate boards

Terence Corcoran:
Rona Ambrose, federal Status of Women Minister, says she is leading a new committee of business executives to study the issue of women directors.  Aiming for bold action, Ms. Ambrose told The Globe and Mail “I [told the committee] I  wanted action-oriented recommendations for the government to immediately act on,” she said. “We’ve had enough studies and enough reports.” [That's quite an admission.  Why bother with her phony, loaded committee?]  
Laurel Broten, Ontario’s Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues.  “The statistics are very clear,” Ms. Broten told a CBC Radio audience ..."... Improved financial performance is what you see in a company that has more women on their board.”
Only junk statistics could possibly justify such an obviously junk idea as quotas for women on corporate boards, or quotas for women in any other role for that matter.

And why in the Hell do we still have Ministers responsible for "women's issues"?  Talk about junk politics and a waste of taxpayers' money!


Alain said...

That we still have a Status of Women ministry in this day and age is proof that the CPC is not doing its job. Women have long ago ceased to be an "oppressed" group of the population. Get the government out of private business and promote hiring the best qualified candidate regardless of sex, colour or whatever. This is passè to say the least.

potato said...

If these are private businesses then it's simply none of the government's business who these corporations choose as directors. If they are crown corporations then the taxpayer has a right to expect that these positions will be filled based on merit. Period. That they are looking for "action oriented recommendations" smacks of authoritarianism at least, soft fascism at worst. Looks to me like we have another Progressive Conservative government in power. Anyone who still believes in incrementalism to the right is living a personal fantasy.

JR said...

I agree completely. I would have expected more from Rona Ambrose but I suppose the danger of maintaining these useless, passé portfolios is that the minister will be captured by interest groups (no doubt government funded) who refuse to acknowledge their success and insist on "change" no matter how dopey.