Defenestrate Them All: Canadian Politics 2021

I didn't even read that because I was immediately distracted by this headline: https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/sante/2021-03-17/hopital-de-saint-eustache/dix-offres-d-emploi-pour-femme-blanche-seulement.php

Their justification for it is quite bizarre, to say the least:

A spokeswoman with the authority said the job posting, which La Presse said was distributed to external placement agencies, was exceptional and connected to a patient at the St-Eustache hospital suffering from dementia who was disruptive in the presence of racialized staff.

"So it seems that the choice to ask for a white employee was more about ensuring the safety of the staff of colour, whom we do not wish to place in risky situations, and not to respond to a patient's racist preference, which is very different," Julie Lemieux-Cote wrote.

"On the other hand, this is absolutely not the right way to resolve such a problem, and we will see that other options are considered instead in the future."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/quebec-health-officials-investigate-job-posting-requiring-applicants-be-white-women-1.5351247

I mean, this doesn't exactly pass muster when set against Occam's razor.

yeah I mean this can't possibly be the first time a hospital has had to confront a situation where a patient "was disruptive in the presence of . . . staff"

Our ministre responsable de la lutte contre le racisme, ladies and gentlemen:

"So be careful before you cry racism, but, yes, the posting was clearly, clearly inappropriate, the choice of words was utterly inexcusable," he said in response to a question from the opposition.

is this sort of like when you fight fire with fire?

Those HR employees were probably just having a bad day.

am I being an ignorant American here? why are they talking about whether or not this was appropriate -- surely this isn't even remotely legal?

The Gazette article on this quotes Charette in full:

“An investigation is underway to find out exactly what happened. What we suspect now is that it is clearly a lack of training at the human resources level. They wanted to take care of a man who is very sick, with significant cognitive issues who can be violent.

“But at the same time, they clearly violated the civil rights of employees who could not apply for this job offer. It is a troubling situation, with completely inappropriate acts, but before concluding it was a racist act we need to wait for the results of the investigation. If it is true, trust me, my actions will be swift.”

https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/saint-eustache-hospital-posts-job-offers-for-white-woman-only-report

It's cool, we've only got, like, seven more years under this government at the very least.

I could totally see the hospital staff always using a white person with a patient such as this just because it causes less trouble, but that does not seem like any kind of reasonable justification for potentially denying employment to a person of colour. I don't know, this is a weird one and I'm trying to give some benefit of the doubt but surely this kind of stuff has happened elsewhere and must have been dealt with in a non-racist way.

surely this kind of stuff has happened elsewhere and must have been dealt with in a non-racist way

Exactly.

that's the sticking point

I suspect the unspoken, not-at-all-racist-I-swear underlying situation here is that care-giving jobs are largely staffed by people of colour and/or immigrants. That does not explain or justify management's actions of course.

Rob, IANAL but I think this would violate section 8 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, although idk where provincial jurisdiction comes in here, nor what QC's specific human rights law is: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/h-6/page-1.html#h-256800

Also section 15 of the Charter: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

Same thing in Quebec: http://legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca/fr/showdoc/cs/c-12 (see chapter I.1, esp. 'Nul ne peut exercer de discrimination dans l’embauche, l’apprentissage, la durée de la période de probation, la formation professionnelle, la promotion, la mutation, le déplacement, la mise à pied, la suspension, le renvoi ou les conditions de travail d’une personne ainsi que dans l’établissement de catégories ou de classifications d’emploi').

Ah, thanks, I was sure there was something similar at the provincial level but wasn't sure what it was exactly for QC - that does make Charette's response seem especially curious.

He stated that 'the civil rights of employees who could not apply for this job offer' were 'clearly violated', so he's aware of the legal stakes, yet he believes that it's not necessarily indicative of racism.

thank you both

"The civil rights of non-white employees were violated due to racial discrimination but let's not be hasty to call this racism"?

I assume his argument has to do with intent. This is eerily reminiscent of debates across the border as to whether the Atlanta shootings were racially motivated or not. Is it bad faith or sheer obliviousness or both?

Well, with the Atlanta shootings, the shooter didn't afaik explicitly state that he meant to target a racial group (although we can take it as implicit given his choices - even if it is the case that those just happened to be the massage parlours he frequented, one could question why he selected those in the first place for an act he considered sinful enough to justify murder). In this case, the ad explicitly excluded, i.e. discriminated against, non-white racial groups - in order to cater to a patient who was being explicitly racist. I realize (or am guessing) Charette's point is most likely that the provincial employees themselves do not harbour ill will towards non-white people in their hearts and were just trying to accommodate the situation by practising racial discrimination - for all of its problems, I think this is the sort of thing the term "systemic racism" was meant to describe but I suppose that concept has been taken off the table? I'm not sure what Charette would even do differently if he could prove 'racist intent' by his definition. What sort of "swift action" is he thinking of?

(Tbc, I do think the Atlanta shootings should be seen as racial violence. I just don't think there's any grey area in this case as to whether the discrimination was based on race, since it was spelled right out in the ad, where I can at least see how someone could see grey in the Atlanta case.)

I just don't think there's any grey area in this case as to whether the discrimination was based on race

I very much agree, but from Charette's perspective, there *is* a grey area here: the ad itself was indeed discriminatory, he admits, but it was not necessarily racist per se, since the intent may not have been to harm non-white candidates but rather to protect them (see the spokeswoman's statement, quoted upthread: 'it seems that the choice to ask for a white employee was more about ensuring the safety of the staff of colour, whom we do not wish to place in risky situations, and not to respond to a patient's racist preference, which is very different').

Yeah it seems consistent with his view, discussed above, that racism is a matter of the prejudices an individual harbours within himself or herself, so maybe it's not bad faith wrt your question. But, ok, let's call this racial discrimination and a civil rights violation instead of racism (as far as provincial employees are concerned) - what does that change on a policy level? Does it just mean that it no longer concerns him since he's the Minister responsible for fighting racism? What if we could somehow prove racist intent - what would he do in that case? I think that's what I'm wondering.

The very existence of his ministry implies the need to tackle racism from a systemic angle, or so it seems to me, but I imagine Charette would retort that this doesn't mean racism in Quebec is itself systemic, which strikes me as convoluted. Publicly acknowledging systemic racism appears to be a greater challenge for the CAQ than claiming something needs to be done about it (and setting up a new portfolio for this very purpose!), weirdly enough.

But yeah, I have no idea what he would actually do if racist intent was legally averred in this particular instance. Read out a strongly worded statement?

Re: verbally abused indigenous woman in Joliette, the plot thickens:

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2021-03-19/infirmieres-renvoyees-a-joliette/c-etait-un-congediement-politique.php

There might have been an overreaction after the previous, genuinely awful, case but it does still seem incredibly condescending for a nurse to ask an adult patient "can you sing a song in your language"? If that's what they learned to do in their training session, there might be some kind of, uh, systemic issue. (That said, I've been patronized lots of times without anyone getting fired.) And why would they tell someone named Jocelyne that they are going to nickname her "Joyce", even if they somehow didn't remember the scandalous death of a Joyce in their hospital?

Ce serait aussi dans l’espoir de briser la glace que cette même infirmière a demandé à Jocelyne Ottawa si on l’appelait Joyce dans sa communauté. « Jamais elle n’a pensé à Joyce Echaquan, jamais », jure M. Cormier. « C’était pour essayer d’entrer en communication avec elle. »

I'm not going to try to read their minds, but that's at the very least a really bad gaffe. It's not like 'Joyce' is a normal nickname for 'Jocelyne,' afaik.

The sheer cringeworthy awkwardness of it all is too much to bear.

In the version that was reported here, they actually told her they were nicknaming her "Joyce", which is more aggressive, although neither is great: https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2021/03/16/je-me-suis-sentie-humiliee--jocelyne-ottawa-1

«Une [ autre ] a vu mon nom dans le dossier, puis elle a dit : ‘’on va t’appeler Joyce, puis ça va être comme ça pour les intimes», rapporte Mme Ottawa.

No one could have seen this coming:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-delegates-reject-climate-change-is-real-1.5957739

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-rcmp-destroyed-police-records-from-the-night-colten-boushie-died/

This is perfectly revolting and sadly unsurprising

The CRCC said the police investigation was generally professional and reasonable but it highlighted several serious shortcomings: from surrounding the victim’s family home with weapons drawn and searching it unlawfully, to failing to preserve forensic evidence, issuing press releases that inflamed public feeling and improperly handling witnesses.

I’m curious what aspect was actually “professional” or “reasonable”

I wondered the same thing. Correct syrup-chugging technique?

I question why one of the only fully bilingual universities in English Canada, and the largest, seems to have been chosen as a target for outrage.

PQ leader Bérubé just wants to ~emphasize~ that 5500 QC students attend UOttawa, and that a number of them receive provincial funding to do so, when he calls on the Assembly to denounce "all persons and institutions in Canada" who refuse to intervene to stop "unacceptable comments about Quebec" (i.e. a prof trolling on Twitter).

Situation à l’@uOttawa quant aux attaques haineuses, discriminatoires et francophobes à l’égard de la nation québécoise.

Voici la motion que je vais présenter ce matin à l’@AssnatQc au nom du @PartiQuebecois. Il faut condamner avec force. @profamirattaran #Assnat #PolQc pic.twitter.com/Sx1Mhqx94n

— Pascal Bérubé (@PascalBerube) March 24, 2021

How accurate is the first sentence here btw?

With India stopping vaccine exports, and the EU possibly doing so, 100% of Canada's vaccine supply is now at risk.

Hope for the best, expect the worst, and never forgive Team Trudeau for refusing to manufacture some at home. https://t.co/RrYseMiaL2

— Amir Attaran (@profamirattaran) March 24, 2021

I thought I read something specifically pointing out that the EU problems wouldn't affect Canada, but now I can't find it.

The couple of times I've looked at that guy's timeline I've seen a ton of disingenuous crap, e.g., comparing Alaska's successful vaccination roll-out to all of Canada's, which is absurd. Annoying as hell that the PQ are determined to make him into a hero.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/pm-concerned-about-vaccine-restrictions-no-indication-canada-is-impacted-1.5359764

Seems that despite all the reassurances that we’ll probably still get deliveries, it’s all contingent upon those countries not having an exceptional domestic need at the same time. So yeah.

I’m still not sure that producing it domestically was ever a viable option within just the one year though. If mistakes were made, have to look backwards there.

Just saw that it’s confirmed we will be getting the US’s “spare” Astra Zeneca doses - yay?

Re: Attaran, Hachey is no hypocrite after all:

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/2021-03-25/a-la-defense-du-prof-attaran-un-peu.php

Haha, a week ago, she was wondering aloud on Twitter whether she should write about him (most respondents seemed to assume she meant critically) or should not feed the troll. I replied like this, without expecting she actually would!

Oui, j'espère que vous défendrez encore la liberté académique.

— Sundar Subramanian (@SundarSubrama13) March 19, 2021

Ontario budget sounds OK, in broad strokes. Will need to read more since this piece is very general but even the NDP's criticisms sound tepid in this article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-budget-2021-covid-19-doug-ford-1.5962279

not much about education in that article:

https://pressprogress.ca/doug-fords-2021-budget-confirms-over-1-billion-in-cuts-to-education-ontario-school-boards-say/

Ugh, figured there was a catch (at least one).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/canada-suspends-astrazeneca-vaccine-covid-19-1.5968657

not loving this