i oppose all forms of competition. i don't think the government should be awarding contracts based on "merit", i think it should be awarding contracts based on need. all forms of competition breed violence and fascism. if the claim is that merit-based decision making is liberal, i would suggest the opposite - that competition is always illiberal and that liberal governments should be focusing on cooperative behaviour and on distributive justice, based on the principle to each according to their needs.
that said, the question of contracting based on need rather than merit doesn't come up with the answer of affirmative action, if it excludes members of what are seen as the dominant group that are actually, in fact, at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. if the intent is to balance opportunities, ignoring a growing underclass of impoverished white people in canada is missing the mark. rather, a system intended to balance opportunities should be based on actual data, and focus on class rather than race.
it follows that neither side of this debate takes positions i want to support, but i strongly oppose the language in this article. there is nothing liberal about fostering competition amongst peers; that kind of thinking is regressive and backwards and should be condemned as anti-social and illogical.