安全检查员和情报分析员等关键政府职位在招聘时优先考虑种族因素
作者：Tristin Hopper | 2026年9月3日
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/key-government-jobs-such-as-safety-inspectors-and-intelligence-analysts-being-prioritized-by-race
Tristin Hopper：报告显示，42%的联邦政府职位招聘存在“基于群体身份的明确或潜在优先考虑”做法
位于渥太华的国防部总部。国防部今年发布的一则“国防情报官”招聘广告称，“选拔可能基于符合条件的候选人自述属于以下一个或多个指定群体：原住民、可见少数族裔成员、残障人士及女性。” 图片来源：Spencer Colby/Postmedia
加拿大联邦政府一些最关键职位的申请人（包括安全检查员和情报人员）现在被明确告知，如果他们不属于“应获公平对待”（equity-deserving）的身份类别，可能会被拒之门外。
在某些关键的联邦政府部门，100%的新员工招聘都涉及基于种族和身份的筛选。
安全检查员和情报分析员等关键政府职位在招聘时优先考虑种族因素
这一切都源于亚里士多德公共政策基金会（Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy）的一份新报告。
是这样吗？
报告作者分析了2026年2月至7月间发布的301个政府职位空缺。其中，42%的职位存在“基于群体身份的明确或潜在优先考虑”的情况。
报告写道：“这些招聘信息不仅仅是为了展示包容性的工作场所文化或鼓励特定群体的申请。它们明确指出，在选拔过程中，某些群体可能会或将会获得优先考虑。”
一个例子是国防部于2月份发布的“国防情报官”职位。
招聘信息写道：“为了实现具有代表性的劳动力队伍，选拔可能基于符合条件的候选人自述属于以下一个或多个指定群体：原住民、可见少数族裔成员、残障人士及女性。”
加拿大交通部最近发布的一则关于航空安全检查员的招聘信息中，也包含了类似的说明。申请人被要求声明自己是否属于“指定就业公平群体”。
文中写道：“多元化与包容性是加拿大交通部的基本价值观，也是我们身份的核心。我们致力于打造一个让每个人都感到自己的声音、观点、价值观和生活经历受到重视的组织。”
加拿大公园管理局（Parks Canada）的一则应急管理职位招聘启事也将“公平”列为优先考量因素。
文中写道：“我们倡导就业公平，并鼓励您在申请时主动声明自己是否属于指定的就业公平群体。”
尽管基于公平原则的筛选机制在联邦政府各部门普遍存在，但分析发现有三个部门的所有新招聘启事中，都明确指出将根据种族、性别或身体状况（能力）对候选人进行优先考虑。
加拿大渔业与海洋部、加拿大农业与农业食品部以及国家研究委员会发布的每一份招聘启事，都包含了所谓“基于群体身份的明确或潜在优先考量”的条款。
国防部的情况也不遑多让，其92%的招聘启事都告知候选人，他们将面临实质上属于身份歧视的筛选标准。
据亚里士多德基金会（Aristotle Foundation）的报告指出，“基于身份的选拔做法的扩大，可能会损害联邦人事聘用体系的公正性及其在公众眼中的合法性。”
文章内容
这份新报告与亚里士多德基金会此前针对加拿大高校招聘做法的分析（该分析涵盖了2025年的情况）非常相似。
在那次分析中，报告作者审查了489份高校招聘启事，发现只有12份没有明确提及身份因素在候选人选拔中的作用。
报告得出的结论是：“换言之，98%的学术职位招聘启事……直接或间接地歧视了非少数族裔群体。”
尽管加拿大政府至少从20世纪80年代起就开始鼓励招聘女性和少数族裔候选人，但直到过去十年间，这种做法才演变为基于种族、性别及其他“身份”特征的强制性招聘配额制度。以国防部为例，该部门于2018年设定的内部“公平目标”现要求：在穿制服人员中，女性占比须达到25%，原住民占比须达到3.5%，而“可见少数族裔”占比则须达到11.8%。
自2022年起，加拿大农业及农业食品部开始公布“招聘目标”，明确规定了该部门各分支机构预期需招募的少数族裔候选人具体人数。
例如，就在那一年，该部门的工程与科学支持处
设定了招聘38名原住民和27名“残障人士”的“招聘目标”。
“公平”招聘举措通常基于政府的官方立场，即一个组织内部的种族构成必须与加拿大整体人口结构完全一致，而任何偏离这一标准的现象都被视为存在系统性歧视的证据。
亚里士多德基金会（Aristotle Foundation）此前的研究对这一前提提出了质疑。在该智库研究员马修·劳（Matthew Lau）2023年发表的一篇论文中，数据显示，无论是在收入、受教育程度，还是在工程或医学等职业领域的代表性方面，白人加拿大人都落后于非白人群体。
由此得出的推论是，这些发现与一个“被操纵以不利于少数族裔”的国家的形象并不相符。
亚里士多德公共政策基金会2023年论文中的图表，展示了不同族裔加拿大女性之间的收入差距。图片来源：亚里士多德公共政策基金会
推荐文章
“我的人生实际上被毁了”：艾利森调查揭示了反对新冠疫苗政策斗争中的两面性
贾斯汀·特鲁多将在多伦多电影节上创办自己的制作公司
共和党议员提议重命名伊利湖：“不如叫它宾夕法尼亚湖”
卑诗省医生因拒绝为跨性别青少年注射青春期阻断剂而被罚款2.8万加元
民调显示：马克·卡尼（Mark Carney）支持率激增，主要来自前保守党支持者
报告称：“包容性”招聘损害了加拿大的科研产出
智库指出：DEI（多元、公平与包容）已渗透加拿大企业界，这不过是“美德信号”式的作秀
Key government jobs, such as safety inspectors and intelligence analysts, being prioritized by race
By Tristin Hopper Sep 03, 2026
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/key-government-jobs-such-as-safety-inspectors-and-intelligence-analysts-being-prioritized-by-race
Tristin Hopper: Report finds 42 per cent of federal job postings practice ‘explicit or potential prioritization based on group identity’
Department of National Defence headquarters in Ottawa. A job ad posted by DND this year for a Defence Intelligence Officer said “selection may be based on qualified candidates self-declaring as belonging to one or more of the designated groups: Indigenous Peoples, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and women.” Photo by Spencer Colby/Postmedia
Applicants to some of the most critical jobs in the Canadian federal government, including safety inspectors and intelligence agents, are now being explicitly told that they might be rejected if they don’t fit within an “equity-deserving” identity category.
Article content
And in some key federal government departments, 100 per cent of new hires are being screened based on race and identity.
Key government jobs, such as safety inspectors and intelligence analysts, being prioritized by race
This is all according to a new report by the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy.
Right?
Report authors analyzed 301 government job openings advertised between February and July, 2026. Of those, 42 per cent were subject to “explicit or potential prioritization based on group identity.”
“These postings go beyond signalling an inclusive workplace culture or encouraging applications from particular communities,” it read. “They explicitly disclose that certain groups may or will receive priority consideration in the selection process.”
“To achieve a representative workforce, selection may be based on qualified candidates self-declaring as belonging to one or more of the designated groups: Indigenous Peoples, members of visible minorities, persons with disabilities, and women,” it read.
A similar caveat was contained in a recent Transport Canada posting for an air safety inspector. Applicants were told to declare whether they were a member of a “designated employment equity group.” “Diversity and inclusion are foundational values at Transport Canada and are core to who we are,” it read. “We strive to become an organization where everyone feels that their voice, views, values and life experiences are heard.”
Equity was also prioritized in a posting for an emergency management position within Parks Canada.
“We promote employment equity and encourage you to self-declare if you belong to one of the designated employment equity groups when you apply,” it read.
Although equity-based screening was present across the federal government, the analysis identified three departments in which 100 per cent of all new job postings explicitly stated that candidates would be prioritized based on race, gender or ability.
Every single job posted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the National Research Council contained what they called an “explicit or potential prioritization based on group identity.”
And the Department of National Defence was not far behind, with 92 per cent of its job postings telling candidates they would be subject to what amounts to identity discrimination.
According to the Aristotle report, “the expansion of identity-based selection practices risks undermining both the integrity and perceived legitimacy of the federal staffing system.”
Article content
The new report is very similar to a 2025 analysis by the Aristotle Foundation that examined hiring practices at Canadian universities.
In that instance, report authors examined 489 university job postings, and found only 12 that didn’t make explicit mention of how identity would be a factor in candidate selection.
“In other words, 98 per cent of academic postings … directly or indirectly discriminated against non-minorities,” it concluded.
While the Government of Canada has tried to encourage the recruitment of women and minority candidates since at least the 1980s, it’s only been within the past 10 years that this has taken the form of mandatory hiring quotas based on race, gender and other “identity” characteristics.
In the Department of National Defence, for instance, internal “equity targets” set in 2018 now require that 25 per cent of uniformed personnel be women, 3.5 per cent be Indigenous, and 11.8 per cent “visible minority.”
Starting in 2022, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada began publishing “hiring goals” that specified the precise number of minority candidates that each branch of the department was expected to recruit.
That year, the department’s engineering and scientific support division, for instance, was given a “hiring goal” of 38 Indigenous people and 27 “persons with disabilities.”
“Equity” hiring initiatives are usually premised on the government’s official position that the racial mix of an organization must precisely match the demographics of the Canadian population generally, and that any deviation from this constitutes evidence of systemic discrimination.
Prior research by the Aristotle Foundation has questioned this premise. In a 2023 paper by researcher Matthew Lau, the think tank presented numbers showing that white Canadians lagged behind non-white cohorts in everything from income to educational attainment to representation within professions such as engineering or medicine.
The inference being that these findings were not consistent with a country
“rigged to disfavour racial minorities.”
Graph from 2023 paper by Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy showing income disparities among different races of Canadian women. Photo by Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy
