TakeruK

You can definitely decline the CGS-D award and reapply for both next year. (However, I would not advise this. See below).
You should check with your funding agency, but I do not think you can defer the award with the reason that you want to be eligible for different funding. For more on what is and isn't allowed, check out the Tri-Agency's Award holder guide (this link goes directly to deferment but see the rest of the guide, especially also the "interruption" section): http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Students-Etudiants/Guides-Guides/TriRTA-TriBFR_eng.asp#deferment
Regarding declining a CGS-D just so that you can remain eligible for the Vanier: I would say that unless you have some very good intel that states you have a very high chance of winning the Vanier (honestly, not even sure what this intel would consist of), I would not throw away one year of funding in hand just for the chance at the Vanier. As @Adelaide9216 said, this is the most prestigious doctoral scholarship in Canada, so I would say even for the best student in Canada, it's not a sure thing. In addition, don't think of it simply as having another year to improve your application---you will be judged based on how long you have been a student, so someone applying at a later time in their degree program may need to have accomplish more than someone who is just starting.
Finally, there could indeed be financial ramifications to your CGS-D if you decline it and reapply. If you have a CGS-D3 right now (i.e. a 3-year award), and you have already started your doctorate program, then you will likely no longer be eligible for the D3 again the second time around. You are only eligible for the 3-year CGS award if you have completed less than 12 months towards your doctorate degree by December 31 of the year you apply (i.e. if you started in Fall 2017, you would have completed 16 months towards next year's application). This won't apply to you if you start your doctorate program after Jan 1, 2018.

If the website says decisions are made by the end of March, then you should wait until then to ask.
The only exception is that you would not even bother visiting this school if you are not already certain about financial aid. But since the school will pay for the visit then as long as you have time to visit, it makes sense to go ahed with the visit since it won't cost you and you will have more information about the school.
Even though the person told you that visiting funds are reserved for students being considered for financial aid, that doesn't mean that you are being considered (or not considered) for financial aid, even though you are getting visiting funds. Nothing is certain until it's in writing. So enjoy the visit and hope you get good news by the end of March!

The OGS is less competitive than the NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR grants but not that much less competitive. In my field, since the NSERC CGS-M is for one year only, many CGS-M holders apply for and win the OGS for the 2nd year of their Masters study. So, even though it is technically a lower tier award than the CGS-M, you end up competing in the same pool as previous CGS-M holders and therefore I don't think it is that much less competitive than a CGS-M.
As others said, it's a hard thing to pin down because the applicant pool varies from year to year. In addition, there is indeed a two-step selection process, since you must first pass your school(s) selection committee to be forwarded to the provincial committee (someone please correct me if this has changed). Therefore, this is dependent on the applicant pool at your school/program too (i.e. it might be the case that you did not progress to the provincial competition but if you were applying through a different program with a different applicant pool, you may have made it). 
Finally, although this is easier said than done, don't take the rejection too personally. Rejection is a common and normal part of academia. Most academics emphasis and discuss their successes but you can pretty much bet that every success came with several failures. The OGS, as with many other prestigious awards, always has way more qualified applicants than available awards. So, a rejection isn't an absolute determination of your ability. It just means that there were other applicants that fit the award better than you did. Moving forward, I would not worry about things you can't change (e.g. GPA) but you can work on things that will change for the future. For example, both co-authored and first-authored publications count towards the evaluation criteria. 

@FishNerd: I think "partner" is very commonly used, especially where I am now. It's actually now my new favourite term and my partner and I are starting to use it more often to refer to each other. I have been saying "spouse" a lot in the past few years, especially on these forums (for some reason, "spouse" seems more naturally when written but doesn't sound as nice verbally, although I usually just use their name).
The reasons why I like "partner" is that it is the most true description of our relationship. I also like that it is gender-neutral and "legal"-neutral. By that I mean it doesn't require you to be legally married to your partner (for some people, they might come from countries where it would be illegal for them to be married, or maybe from cultures where they would not be accepted as a married couple). I also like that it doesn't imply a judgement on how committed you are---i.e. an unmarried partnership isn't any less valid than a married one. Our Graduate School policies uses this term as well because they don't want to treat married or unmarried partnerships differently (keeping in mind that some partnerships are more accepted by various laws/societies than others). So, for example, the school has benefits to help pay for a partner's health insurance and the school doesn't discriminate between married couples or not.
So I've been using "partner" more and more. Originally, I think people from same-sex partnerships and those who cannot or do not want to be married used this term more. But now, everyone uses it and I think it's great to normalize all relationships
Significant other is also nice but it's a bit longer! 

The OGS is less competitive than the NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR grants but not that much less competitive. In my field, since the NSERC CGS-M is for one year only, many CGS-M holders apply for and win the OGS for the 2nd year of their Masters study. So, even though it is technically a lower tier award than the CGS-M, you end up competing in the same pool as previous CGS-M holders and therefore I don't think it is that much less competitive than a CGS-M.
As others said, it's a hard thing to pin down because the applicant pool varies from year to year. In addition, there is indeed a two-step selection process, since you must first pass your school(s) selection committee to be forwarded to the provincial committee (someone please correct me if this has changed). Therefore, this is dependent on the applicant pool at your school/program too (i.e. it might be the case that you did not progress to the provincial competition but if you were applying through a different program with a different applicant pool, you may have made it). 
Finally, although this is easier said than done, don't take the rejection too personally. Rejection is a common and normal part of academia. Most academics emphasis and discuss their successes but you can pretty much bet that every success came with several failures. The OGS, as with many other prestigious awards, always has way more qualified applicants than available awards. So, a rejection isn't an absolute determination of your ability. It just means that there were other applicants that fit the award better than you did. Moving forward, I would not worry about things you can't change (e.g. GPA) but you can work on things that will change for the future. For example, both co-authored and first-authored publications count towards the evaluation criteria. 

You can definitely decline the CGS-D award and reapply for both next year. (However, I would not advise this. See below).
You should check with your funding agency, but I do not think you can defer the award with the reason that you want to be eligible for different funding. For more on what is and isn't allowed, check out the Tri-Agency's Award holder guide (this link goes directly to deferment but see the rest of the guide, especially also the "interruption" section): http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Students-Etudiants/Guides-Guides/TriRTA-TriBFR_eng.asp#deferment
Regarding declining a CGS-D just so that you can remain eligible for the Vanier: I would say that unless you have some very good intel that states you have a very high chance of winning the Vanier (honestly, not even sure what this intel would consist of), I would not throw away one year of funding in hand just for the chance at the Vanier. As @Adelaide9216 said, this is the most prestigious doctoral scholarship in Canada, so I would say even for the best student in Canada, it's not a sure thing. In addition, don't think of it simply as having another year to improve your application---you will be judged based on how long you have been a student, so someone applying at a later time in their degree program may need to have accomplish more than someone who is just starting.
Finally, there could indeed be financial ramifications to your CGS-D if you decline it and reapply. If you have a CGS-D3 right now (i.e. a 3-year award), and you have already started your doctorate program, then you will likely no longer be eligible for the D3 again the second time around. You are only eligible for the 3-year CGS award if you have completed less than 12 months towards your doctorate degree by December 31 of the year you apply (i.e. if you started in Fall 2017, you would have completed 16 months towards next year's application). This won't apply to you if you start your doctorate program after Jan 1, 2018.

This is a common question to ask and it's normal for students to answer the question. But there are no "consequences" if you don't want to answer for whatever reason nothing bad will happen to you either. In academia, it's normal for people to update their academic contacts on where they are going to next, and it's courtesy for profs to ask you where you are going. So it's not like a trick question or anything---it's good that they are interested in you! 

There aren't usually any financial penalties for leaving early. By "penalties", I mean extra fees or fines you must pay for leaving.
But if you don't finish your semester/year/degree program, the source of your funding might require you to pay back money paid to you for that time period. This can vary a lot, but some situations my friends have gotten into:
- One person I know had a government award from their home country where if they did not graduate, they would have to repay the entire value of the award back to their funding agency (they didn't have to do this, but it was in their terms & conditions)
- One person I know left their program in the middle of a semester, let's say it was in February and the semester was Jan-Apr. They had to repay back all sources of funding paid to them from January onwards. This particular program pays all scholarships/fellowships upfront (i.e. paid in January for Jan-Apr) so it was a big repayment. In addition, leaving the program meant they were no longer a student, which meant they were no longer eligible to be an RA based on the terms of the contract. Therefore, they were found to be in breach of contract and had to repay wages paid to them for their January and February RA work that was already completed. Their TA work was protected because of a union where the eligibility is based on your status at the start of the semester, not at all times during the semester.
So, usually this means it is best to choose to leave at the end of a school year or semester if possible. And check the terms & conditions of your funding source very carefully.

We all want what is best for our friends especially when we think that they are making choices that are going to make their situation worse not better for them.  Since you mentioned that you have already talked to her about the pros and cons of changing programs and it presumably did not change her mind - I think that is all you can do.  She knows your opinion on the matter and she is choosing to change programs because of valid reasons to her. Perhaps they are not logical or make no sense or aren't going to work.  But like you have said, it's her life and it's her choice to make.
While I don't think there is anything wrong about being worried about your friend, I do think you need to respect what her decision is and stop trying to get her to see your point of view/change her mind/etc. It wasn't clear from your post whether it was one discussion or multiple discussions that you kept on having with her. If it is multiple conversations, you need to drop it. Ultimately, she doesn't need your permission to change programs and trying to convince her that she is wrong and you are right may drive a wedge in your friendship. Instead, I would ask what she needs to help her with the transition.

The best advice I ever received and did not take: DO NOT GO TO GRAD SCHOOL UNFUNDED!!!

I just finished my first semester unfunded and it is the worst. The work is demanding and thankless and it sucks to put your heart and soul into it all and not have a dime coming in for all of your efforts. It sucks having to choose between eating or heating your place.

It's just not worth it. Try again next year, apply for more grants and such but it's just not worth it. I thought i wanted this more than anything and I didn't care what it took to get here and here I am miserable I did not accept good advice 6 months ago.

Although my experience is limited, from talking to faculty members, I think many schools now have policies in place that provides incentives for faculty to announce their intention to retire early. For example, one school has an arrangement where faculty members have the option to state their intention to retire 4 years in advance. If they choose to do so, then they will be paid their full salary for four years (and maintain full benefits) but they will be phasing out: working full time for the next 2 years then dropping to half-time for the last 2 years. The school that has this policy is a fairly small school so the 4 years notice is helpful to arrange things like committee membership, class scheduling, and of course, hiring their replacements (academic job searches can take several years and then it might take another year or two for the new person to start). 
So, most people would be up front about this when meeting prospective graduate students, especially if they have already publicly announced their retirement plans. But even if the prof is planning to announce retirement after you start, most professors don't just retire and disappear off the academic world (although some do!). Many professors will at least hang around to graduate their final students and do whatever research they want. I know many emeritus profs who say working for free post-retirement is the best part of their career because now they really can do whatever they want without any other commitments!
There are other considerations such as getting reference letters for jobs after you graduate (emeritus profs / retired people may be harder to track down) and whether the more senior prof is still active in the field. But honestly, these can be problems for profs of any age. In my PhD department, there is a prof in his 70s that is still graduating students, producing papers, teaching classes, playing sports and even organizing hikes and ski trips with students.

There aren't usually any financial penalties for leaving early. By "penalties", I mean extra fees or fines you must pay for leaving.
But if you don't finish your semester/year/degree program, the source of your funding might require you to pay back money paid to you for that time period. This can vary a lot, but some situations my friends have gotten into:
- One person I know had a government award from their home country where if they did not graduate, they would have to repay the entire value of the award back to their funding agency (they didn't have to do this, but it was in their terms & conditions)
- One person I know left their program in the middle of a semester, let's say it was in February and the semester was Jan-Apr. They had to repay back all sources of funding paid to them from January onwards. This particular program pays all scholarships/fellowships upfront (i.e. paid in January for Jan-Apr) so it was a big repayment. In addition, leaving the program meant they were no longer a student, which meant they were no longer eligible to be an RA based on the terms of the contract. Therefore, they were found to be in breach of contract and had to repay wages paid to them for their January and February RA work that was already completed. Their TA work was protected because of a union where the eligibility is based on your status at the start of the semester, not at all times during the semester.
So, usually this means it is best to choose to leave at the end of a school year or semester if possible. And check the terms & conditions of your funding source very carefully.

@Adelaide9216 I read that thread, and I thought that comment to you was somewhere between microaggression and straight-up aggression. No matter the identity of the person saying it, I think "you should just study your own [not straight-white-cis-male] community"* is wrong and essentializing to scholars of color, female scholars, etc.
*I have heard of communities that cannot be ethically studied by outsiders, or certain kinds of outsiders. Sure. However, that only requires saying, "you can't study us, I would suggest you find some other topic." And that is a VERY different statement than, "you can't study us, you should just go study other black people because you're black."
Although I am white, this 'mining your trauma' is something I have been very angry about as it pertains to me as a queer, disabled woman. Most of the time, I would prefer my work just stood on its own, you know? I don't want to have to talk about just the degree of trauma being queer caused in my family relationships or whatever to get into graduate school. It often feels like, or is actually, required, however.

I agree and I apologize if I implied that a mismatch of the gender distribution of graduate students and the general population means there is discrimination at the graduate admissions level.
(Aside: I do, however, think that each field of academia should have roughly equal distribution in demographics of academics as the general population. One reason is that people are often personally motivated to do research, often in areas of disease treatment etc. Another is that it is my opinion that the only point of doing any research is to benefit humanity and therefore, the people doing the research should represent humanity, not just a subset of humans who have the opportunity to do so. However, this is problem at a much larger level and I'd say it is beyond the scope of whether there is bias at the graduate admissions level or not.)
Back to the scope of this thread: The "control group" we must compare to is the pool of which the graduate applicants come from. So, if you accept the basic premise that men and women are equally brilliant**, then you would expect that the demographics of people accepted into grad school should match the demographics of people applying to grad school. If we do not see this, then there is something introducing bias at the admissions committee step. This is why I also brought up the fields medal example. The fraction of women in Math is much more than 1 in 56, yet the Fields Medal has only been awarded to a woman once in 56 times.
The bias could be many things, including unconscious ones due to the committee choices, conscious ones due to prejudiced committee members, and systematic ones that unfairly favour men over women that aren't directly in the control of the committee. An example of the last one is GRE scores. Findings from ETS show that men score higher than women. Again, if you accept the premise that men and women are equal, the only logical conclusion is that the test is biased to favour men. Incorporating these metrics into the evaluation means the committee will (knowingly or not) favour men.
Why does everyone think it is happening if no one can actually provide evidence for it. That doesn't sound like logical thinking to me and this also leads to observation/confirmation bias. I have had colleagues comment on the gender bias in conference sessions (i.e. "too many women were speaking") but when you actually count, it was representative of the field. When the norm is under-representation, equal-representation appears to be over-representation.
Also, I want to address this point too. I think you are setting up an unrealistic imaginary scenario and then trying to draw conclusions from it to apply to circumstances you appear to be observing in the math departments. For any pool of applications to grad school, it is very unlikely for two applicants to be otherwise identical.
However, there have been lots of actual studies done where reviewers/evaluators get two applications/proposals/resumes/etc. that are indeed identical, except for the name, and the result is that men are picked much more often than women. Here is an example. Same resume, different gender for a STEM job: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/

In my committee work, we have seen clear empirical evidence to the contrary. That is, we find women underrepresented in the candidates that were accepted to the program. In all of the STEM fields. We find further underrepresentation in the number of women that choose to attend (i.e. the fraction of women that attend our school is lower than the fraction of women accepted to our school). Our school is a top tier program. 
I don't think there is a bias against men at all in STEM admissions, if that is what you are implying. If we want to discuss Math specifically, I can point to many examples of gender bias against women / for men. For example, the Fields Medal in Math has been awarded 56 times since 1936, to 55 men and 1 woman (in 2014) [citation]. There will be another round of medalists this year so maybe that number will increase. Yes, I am aware that the Fields Medal is certainly a different type of competition than a graduate school application, but to match your statement, I would say that anyone familiar with the field of Math would contend that the field itself has a bias towards men and the Fields Medal list is just one example.
As @Comparativist said, can you provide any evidence for your claim that math graduate schools are biased towards admitting women?

What would you like to discuss / debate, specifically? I ask since it sounds like you want to speak about a specific issue. But if you'd like someone else to start, I have some thoughts! During my time in grad school, I worked with other students to address the issue of unconscious gender bias in admissions to STEM programs at our school specifically, so it's something that's been on my mind!

I agree with you. Upward trajectory is good, but I don't think that means we should be content / think that our work is done.
I see a huge juxtaposition of ideas here. You say that the system isn't perfect and has traditionally favoured men. This is discrimination against women. (The system doesn't only favour men, as you point out). Telling people to adapt to the system nicely glosses over the real issue (in my opinion), which is why is it that men like me get to benefit from a system that favours me? I don't want to be part of a system where I automatically get more respect and recognition because I present as male and have a male name. So I think I should work to change it, not demand that everyone change to the system that conveniently already favours me. In addition, how do we even know that the current system is actually the best one? If we were truly scholars/innovators and we desire to see a better world, we would not be afraid to lose our male privilege in order to create a better system.
Discrimination is not just overt actions like you have said here. And by the way, I have seen men in their 20s and 30s have the same attitudes and mentalities that you ascribe to these old guys. I agree that I notice it much more in the older generation of scholars but I don't think it's safe to say that all (or even a majority) of these people will disappear in the coming decades. For example, one case of overt sexism I know about from my school was spoken by a young assistant professor.
Perhaps you have heard of micro-aggressions? I only started to notice them more and more in recent years when I started to be more involved in addressing these issues and listened/read to more women about their experiences. They are little actions that generally create an impression on a woman (or minority group) scientist that suggests they don't belong in science. They are often unintentional in the sense that the person doing it does not intend to cause harm and often come from a system where there is already an imbalance in demographics.
Each micro-aggression on their own is usually pretty innocuous. You can often chalk it up to some other reason that isn't sexism. But the problem is that women and other minority groups face many of these throughout their career, much more than men, and it could lead to pushing these thinkers out of the field for no reason other than their gender. Here's one example article (although the article seems to focus on some of the more direct micro-aggressions): https://www.nature.com/news/speak-up-about-subtle-sexism-in-science-1.19829 and some stories shared because of the article: http://www.speakyourstory.net/stories
The article also makes an interesting point. The author tells a story from when her colleagues question her math background. She isn't sure if it was because of her biology background or because of her gender. If a man was questioned by his colleagues in the same way, he likely would have not wondered if it was because of his gender, only because of his training. The article mentions this as an example of not a microaggression, but it is an example of the not-overt discrimination I mentioned above. We are not operating in an level playing field because women (in this example, but is true for other minority groups too) due to this. (e.g. see also: http://mahalonottrash.blogspot.ca/2014/10/race-and-racism-why-wont-you-believe-me.html for a similar discussion).

I don't disagree with you at all that this is how things are, more so in some fields than others. 
But whereas you are saying this is the way it has to be, everyone needs to adopt this style, I'm saying that we should reconsider whether this way actually works or if the fields just got to be this way because these fields are/were dominated by men. 
Instead of seeking women who "have masculine qualities", why don't we actually we take a step back and decide what qualities are actually desirable. In the setting you describe here, the loudest opinion and/or the quickest opinion will win. Or whoever says it the most confidently will win. But that actually doesn't jive with what most people say they want when they talk about the goals of an academic discussion. Do we want to be publishing papers, awarding grants, and spending time/effort on science presented by the loudest, quickest, most confident people? Or do we want to publish, award and spend time on the best/correct/meritorious science cases?
In addition, if we do accept your statement that in some cases, we must take the first opinion and not wait for the best ones, I would hope that whatever field you work in is not one where shit hits the fan every day. Not every decision needs to be made this way and if we only hire/promote/train people who can think the way you describe, then we are missing other critical points of view, especially when we are in cases without this urgency. We are denying the opportunity to work in our field. And we are creating areas of weaknesses for our field because we are choosing to ignore important contributions.
But I actually think that even in most shit-hits-the-fan cases, there are ways to get to the best/right decision quickly without resorting to just listening to the loudest/fastest/most confident. Proper mitigation of risk may have some protocols in place such as a chain of command or key persons authorized to make important decisions and act on them. You can decide these key positions ahead of time through a careful selection process. You can also plan for several contingencies when it's not an emergency so that you can have the whole "circle discussion" thing in order to ensure you didn't miss out on the best solution because the source of that solution doesn't have these "alpha male" traits. 
In my opinion, the situations that you describe should be the exception, not the norm. And maybe when your team is new and inexperienced, they come up a lot. But the difference between a good team and a great team is that the great team should be going back and involving everyone in their debrief. Come up with new solutions so that these cases are avoided in the future. Handling situations with the loudest/quickest suggestion is an act of desperation, where you've already screwed up so badly that you can't even afford time to think of the best solution because every second of inaction is hurting you more. This is hardly an ideal model and I don't know why we would want to hire/promote people who can work in this way, instead of hiring for diversity of perspectives.

(emphasis added)
To me, this is a description of one of the ways gender discrimination is indeed happening in STEM settings. We (well, the people in power) get to decide how STEM settings work and the choice to organize them in ways that favour traditionally masculine qualities is one of the ways discrimination manifests itself. And when the field (especially the group of people in power, which are often more senior) is over-represented in one gender, it creates possibilites for that gender to choose to favour traits that they have themselves instead of valuing diversity/differences.

Well, as a first step I'd get of the mindset of interviewing them for a position that they are interested in. You have as much of an interest in this than they do, if not more. Think of this as a conversation, not an interview. You can't really know from one conversation how an entire advising relationship will look like. So I'd just think of it as the potential first conversation in the relationship. Tell them about your ideas and potential topic and see what they say. Ask them how they approach working with a student: how often will they meet with you? Will they read parts of drafts or only whole chapters? Do they expect you to come with fully formed ideas or will they guide you through confusion? You should also discuss these questions with their other students, to get a sense of how the other side of the relationship views it. Talk to them about how they think about the timeline to completion; what your post-MA plans might be; if they encourage you to talk to other faculty or not; whether they think submitting to conferences/journals early is wise or if you should wait. If you have any non-traditional plans (take extra courses, get a certificate, whatever), how do they feel about that? But frankly, mainly, you should just have a conversation to get a feel for how you'd get along. 

That's great info! I left Queens in late 2012, so that explains why I was taxed
I think the way they lay out the differences between a GRAF and a regular RA is great and it's consistent with what the CRA says in the links/quotes above. 

Troll or not, if anyone is still interested, here are Canadian websites of gender bias in two of the highest research chairships:
http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/program-programme/referees-repondants-eng.aspx#
https://www.universityaffairs.ca/news/news-article/new-crc-guidelines-aim-reduce-unconscious-hiring-bias-women/
https://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/gender-gap-distribution-canada-research-chairs-and-canada-excellence-research-chairs
 
From Canada's Tri-Council Research Funding Agency's evaluation of those two prestigious awards, which supports @fuzzylogician's post (I can't tag fuzzy for some reason): @fuzzy
Emphasis mine: "Some of the potential explanatory factors identified by the panellists relate to the CERC program design, while others relate to the wider university context (given that universities did not submit any female candidates)...The CERC program focuses on the most senior international researchers with “eligible nominees required to be, or soon to be, full professors” in a context where approximately only 20% of Canadian and 19% of US full professors are female....The CERC program focuses on the S&T Strategy’s four priority research areas and the STIC sub-priorities, in which women are underrepresented." http://www.cerc.gc.ca/about-au_sujet/publications/evaluation_2014-eng.aspx#3_0
Emphasis is mine: "In this regard, the inaugural competition of the CERC Program has been a great success, awarding 19 Chairs to an array of truly outstanding researchers within the four S&T Strategy priority areas. However, all of the 19 Chair winners are male. Given the leading contributions of Canadian and international female researchers across the range of research disciplines and fields, this outcome is troubling and requires an examination and redress. Excellence in science, technology and innovation necessitates the insights and contributions of the best minds. The full contribution of all, regardless of gender, is not only an equity imperative, but also a pragmatic reality. In a global competition for talent, and with an aging workforce, Canada needs the contribution of everyone." http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/icgc.nsf/eng/h_05589.html
S&T: Science and Technology; STIC: Science, Technology, and Innovation Council
These aren't made up by my own perception of bias. They're actual official evaluations by Canada's Tri-Council agency, which oversees funding across all research fields in Canada.
 
Personally (and, yes, I'm not in math @justwonderin), I have had personal experiences in my STEM field where faculty have made derogatory comments that would appear to be re. my gender. And, yes, I am making a subjective judgement about being about my gender thus the word "appear." And, yes, my sample size is 1.
Like "get used to being under men if you want to progress in academia and get a job," and just recently "nice boobs" which was especially disgusting because I was talking about my work and this prof some twice my age was just staring at my chest. Apparently, what was in my head was overshadowed by the size of my chest and my gender.
 
As @samman1994 notes above, it's rare for two applications to have a similar application.
Just because a person does not go about talking about their achievements does not mean they don't have them. I am ranked one of the highest in the country for one of the federal scholarships in Canada (I know because I got a a special citation), but I have never mentioned it to anyone in my cohort. My recent federal scholarship application, the feedback from one of the reviewers included "In addition, exceptional letters from referees make this a remarkably stellar application; applicant is well deserving of this award. I am thus awarding this application a perfect score." 
But to anybody else, I might look like I have the same exact accomplishments (i.e., I got the same awards as X).
My point is that sometimes things aren't as black and white as they seem. And, yes, again, I acknowledge my sample size is 1. 
Give yourself a chance to engage your female peers in conversation. You might just discover that they could make your experience in university a better one. And lest I sound like a hypocrite, let me share my side as a woman: despite some bad experiences since starting grad school, I refuse to paint all male peers and faculty with the same brush. One of my most valuable mentors is a (male) full and very distinguished professor and he has been a much trusted ally who has always fought for me; I actually cried when I learnt of the level of his support for me very, very recently, which he never explicitly stated. I do know, though, that I am a much better academic and person because of him.
 

Oh forgot to mention---for home internet, each apartment building needs to be connected to whatever network you're using. So even if AT&T or whatever company is operating in your city, if your actual building isn't wired for that company, you won't be able to use it (or you may have to pay them a big fee to set it up). So definitely just find the best contracts separately and if they happen to be the same company, great!

Not in your field, but something that is generally true: sometimes the feedback given when requested is extremely generic and may not actually constitute good/useful feedback! Sometimes, statements like what you got are general catch-alls some people give when they don't really know what to say. Schools almost always have way more candidates/applicants that are qualified and suitable for the program than there are spots. So #3 on the waitlist indicates to me that you likely met all of their requirements and so there may not be much more feedback they can give.
However, if you do think this is sincere feedback, then I would also consider that perhaps the committee thought:
a. You had good fit with one POI but not with the rest of the department / other potential advisor fit. Generally, it's a good idea to apply to places where you can fit with more than one advisor since you never know what could happen. And on a related note, it may be that the advisor did think you were a great fit but there was someone else who was a better fit so they picked the other person instead. Having more than one good fit means more chances.
b. You did have great fit and your advisor thought so too and wanted you admitted. But your advisor may have little say in the process and so the committee could only rely on your application to determine the fit. Maybe you didn't express this fit well enough in the application. I suggest this because it sounds to me like you are focussing your question on the absolute goodness of fit as known to you (or other applicants). But the admission process doesn't know about what you or the advisor thinks, it only knows about what is on paper.

Box 105 does include some things that qualify as taxable income but my understanding was that scholarships did not fall under that category. I included the reference to correct this, since you must follow whatever rules the CRA states. OP, might be worth giving them a call to talk about your exact situation if you're unsure about this.
As for student assistantships, they are employment income, not scholarships. They are taxable as is TA pay. Some other things differentiate scholarships from assistantships. For example, scholarships are normally paid in lump sums while assistantships are paid monthly. Assistantships are normally for a specific project. If you're unsure if the funding you receive is a scholarship or assistantship, you should contact your university financial aid office/graduate coordinator in your department or equivalent person who handles graduate student funding.