June 2020 - Page 2 of 4 - Loonie Politics

Zero tolerance.

That's what he said. Those are the words he used.

Justin Trudeau has said, many times, that he and his party have "zero tolerance" for sexual harassment and sexual misconduct.

As recently as 2018, he gave inspiring interviews to Canadian Press and CBC about the subject. Here's what he said.

"We have no tolerance for this â€” we will not brush things under the rug, but we will take action on it immediately," he declared to The Canadian Press, describing how his political party and government regard sexual harassment.

He said the same sort of thing to CBC Radio in an interview around the same time. There, the self-proclaimed Feminist Prime Minister proclaimed: "I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well."

He respects your headspace, our Prime Minister does. So, as if to emphasize the point, he noted he had earlier banished a pair of Liberal MPs for alleged sexual impropriety.

In 2014, he expelled two MPs from the Liberal caucus â€” Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti â€” before he told them why. An investigation came later, and it determined that Andrews had indeed engaged in harassing behaviour (groping and grinding), while Pacetti was found to have had having sex with someone (without explicit consent).

So far so good. We don't need sexual creeps and crawlies in our lives. We particularly don't need them in Canadian public life. Well done, Trudeau.

And then, two years ago this week, this writer received a message from a female Member of Parliament. One who really was a feminist, and one who had female friends in all of the political parties in the Hill.

"Have you seen the story about Trudeau groping a reporter in BC?" she said. "It happened years ago, but still."

I had not, I told her. The Liberal Party's "zero tolerance" policy was a hot topic, that June, because of a controversy swirling around Liberal cabinet member Kent Hehr. An Alberta woman, Kristin Raworth, had tweeted to me vague allegations of sexual impropriety by Hehr, who was and is a quadriplegic.

Hehr properly removed himself from cabinet while an investigation was underway. He later lost his Calgary seat in the 2019 election. (Tellingly, perhaps, Raworth was later obliged to apologize, retract, and pay substantial damages for false allegations "he hit his wife" she made against this writer in March.)

But two years ago, the Kent Hehr story had made sexual harassment stories big news. Me Too, too.

And a Member of Parliament had just told me Justin Trudeau had groped a reporter in BC. She had the article, she said. She sent it to me.

It was an editorial, unsigned, from the Creston Valley Advance. It was easy to determine who the author was, but I would not name her (and have never named her). I posted a screenshot of the editorial, the reporter's name on the Advance's masthead removed. Apart from asking "what?" in the title of the post, I said nothing else.

The editorial was titled "Open Eyes." The author stated that Trudeau had groped her, quote unquote, at a beer festival in 2020. Trudeau had "inappropriately handled the reporter," the editorial read, while she was in assignment for the Advance as well as the National Post.

When confronted about his actions which, in many other cases, would be regarded as a sexual assault Trudeau offered an explanation, not a real apology. "I'm sorry," he said. "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I would have never been so forward."

Meaning: you're fair game, woman, if you're reporting for a small paper.

When I posted the screenshot of the editorial, it went viral, as they say. It became international news. When Trudeau now a Prime Minister finally deigned to respond, he offered up an explanation that has since become an object of ridicule. There hadn't been a "negative interaction," he said, although the editorial certainly suggested that was not the case.

Said Trudeau about his victim: "Who knows where her mind was, and I fully respect her ability to experience something differently."

Implying the victim had some unnamed mental instability, and declaring that she experienced sexual assault "differently" doesn't sound terribly feminist, does it? But Justin Trudeau survived the scandal. He was re-elected.

Two years later, the issue is back. This time, a Liberal backbencher is facing assault, break and enter, and criminal harassment charges from 2015. A woman is among the victims.

And Trudeau knew all about it. The allegations were substantiated by an internal Liberal Party probe, the CBC revealed this week.

But Trudeau let the backbencher run under his party's banner anyway. Trudeau signed the MP's nomination papers.

We could go on, but by now you get the point. And the point is this.

When Justin Trudeau said he had a "zero tolerance" policy, he didn't actually mean there was "zero tolerance" for sexual misconduct.

He meant there was literally zero that he wouldn't tolerate.

Photo Credit: Montreal Gazette

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

Did you hear it?

I'm talking about that loud clicking sound which recently reverberated across the entire country, as political journalists collectively jabbed the "delete" button on their computer keyboards, simultaneously erasing the column they had all written profusely congratulating Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for his amazing diplomatic triumph.

I'm sure you know what I'm referring to here.

Last week, Trudeau, despite a massive lobbying effort that included rabid costume changes, huge payouts to incompetent international organizations and kissing up to just about every dictator on the planet, miserably failed in his effort to win a temporary seat on the UN's security council.

This was an extremely embarrassing setback not only for Trudeau, but also for Canada's mainstream media, which for the past five years has been committed to the running narrative that our prime minister is more than just a mere mortal, that he's a demi-god with blessed powers, or a white knight come to save us from evil dragons, or perhaps more accurately, an angel who descended from heaven to usher in on earth a golden age of pure bliss and happiness.

And this is why, I believe journalists in this country were absolutely certain that the rest of the world would eagerly embrace a Trudeau-led Canada; indeed, that foreign leaders would sprinkle rose petals on Trudeau's path to the UN security council.

After all, supposedly the only reason Canada failed to win a seat on that Council back in 2010 was because the dastardly Stephen Harper was running the show then, and he, the media told us, had destroyed our country's once stellar international reputation with his stubborn determination to turn our country into some sort of right-wing hell hole.

As the Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson noted at the time, "The humiliating rejection of Canada's bid to win a seat at the United Nations Security Council Tuesday presents Stephen Harper with a choice: acknowledge this rebuke from the global community and rethink how his government presents Canada to the world, or ignore it and accept an outsider status unique in this country's history."

So, of course, given that Canada is now run by a certified, progressive, adorable, globalist such as Trudeau how could he not win a seat on the UN security council?

Surely, it was a slam dunk.

But at the end of the day, of course, the only thing that got dunked were Trudeau's pretentions.

And this is not the only time Trudeau has failed to live up to the media's hype.

For instance, the media sold us on the idea that Trudeau was, unlike the cynical Harper, an idealist; yet this is the same Trudeau who also twisted himself into moral and ethical knots to help ensure his corporate cronies over at SNC-Lavalin could escape their pesky legal problems.

The media also assured us that, unlike that nasty bible-thumping Harper, Trudeau was a cultural and social progressive, yet later we discovered (thanks to an American media outlet) that our prime minister had, on more than one occasion, dressed up in racist blackface.

And finally, we were confidently assured that, unlike the planet-hating Harper, whose sole desire was to wreck the environment, Trudeau, who's love of nature was legendary (remember the canoe photo ops?) would grant a "social license" to First Nations thus ensuring oil spewing pipelines would be welcomed by all then the railroad blockades happened.

So yes, the UN fiasco is only the latest case of cognitive dissonance the media has endured over the past few years, but once you've made an emotional investment in adoring a prime minister it's hard to suddenly shift gears and accept reality.

As a matter of fact, the media take on the UN fiasco so far is to basically conjure up theories as to why Trudeau's isn't to blame.

If they can't congratulate Trudeau on his victory, they can at least rationalize his failure.

And this determination by the media to keep the prime minister on his lofty pedestal shouldn't surprise us, because as Oscar Wilde once put it, "illusion is the first of all pleasures."

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics

Click here for more

With the spring sitting of the House of Commons now complete, we were treated to the biennial self-congratulatory press release from the Government House Leader, Pablo Rodriguez. These particular releases are generally full of back-patting about all of the good work that the government accomplished over the past several months, and this one was no exception. What was different, given the current pandemic context, was the level of assurance about just how much they have respected parliament and kept it in operation despite the pandemic, insisting that the Conservatives were wrong, that they've been very productive throughout. The problem, of course, is that Rodriguez, like his prime minister, Justin Trudeau, have been using a rather distorted metric when it comes to just what has been accomplished.

"As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and Canadians did their part by practicing physical distancing, MPs also adapted and showed leadership with virtual and hybrid meetings where all MPs could participate," Rodriguez claimed. "We believe that we struck the right balance of following the advice of our public health experts and ensuring that the role of the House of Commons was strengthened during this crisis."

The idea of the hybrid sittings was largely lifted from the UK, which has very different challenges when it comes to how their House of Commons operates as opposed to ours, in particular because they have a much smaller chamber and some 650 MPs to worry about accommodating in some capacity. The idea of the hybrid was something of a compromise, and it was, like Canada's, a kind of special committee focused on accountability questions, of which the UK has far more focused mechanisms than we do. But theirs was also more temporary, and soon transitioned to regular sittings with enforced social distancing, and an adapted voting system where MPs were physically present to do so. (They don't use the same rollcall system that we do, because it's prohibitive with 650 MPs who can't physically fit in the Chamber).

Whereas we began with virtual sittings of the special COVID-19 committee, comprised of all members of the Commons, in a compromise that largely demonstrated that these sittings were explicitly not official sittings mostly conducted out of a committee room in the West Block, with all MPs on Zoom, but one day a week having a skeleton crew in the Chamber as they frequently had to deal with emergency legislation on those days the clamour for MPs to adopt the hybrid model out of a sense of feeling left out also made it convenient for the government to pretend like these sittings were able to be passed off as real sittings.

In his release, Rodriguez praised the "lengthy Question Periods" (which were not actually Question Periods), and that eleven of the Commons standing committees were able to hold 134 virtual meetings, which he neglected to mention were denuded of most of their powers.

"Our government is committed to parliamentary accountability and we took steps to ensure the opposition had greater opportunities to hold cabinet ministers to account through unprecedented meetings that ensured MPs could question cabinet ministers," Rodriguez said. "In a normal spring sitting schedule, MPs would have asked a total of 1,800 questions in Question Period. This spring, the opposition asked more than 3,000 questions on a range of topics, including the government's response to COVID-19."

It's a deceptive bit of marketing, because it pretends that this is what accountability is MPs engaging in the political theatre of asking performative questions for the cameras, and the government giving their scripted talking points of "good news" pabulum in response. Actual accountability would have meant additional parliamentary tools, like Order Paper questions, the follow-ups provided for during Adjournment Proceedings, Supply Days, and even to an extent, Private Members' Business (though MPs have largely ceased using that for accountability, but use it for private hobby-horses instead). There would also have been actual proper legislative scrutiny and debate, and ministers called before committees to answer about the Estimates in their departments. In fact, of the ten bills that passed, which Rodriguez patting himself on the back for, only one of them the implementing legislation for the New NAFTA saw an actual proper legislative process, and it too was truncated at the very end in order to pass in time to suspend for the pandemic.

Looking ahead to September, Rodriguez sounds ready to normalize these hybrid sittings as the way to carry on proceedings.

"If public health advice means that it is unwise for 338 MPs to travel to Ottawa and sit in the House of Commons chamber, we are committed to the option of a full hybrid House of Commons with its regular daily business, and with all MPs able to cast votes electronically," said Rodriguez. "Electronic voting is the only way of ensuring that every Canadian has their vote represented in a full hybrid Parliament."

This is also demonstrably false. There is no need for all 338 MPs to sit in the Chamber, and Rodriguez knows it. All MPs could be in Ottawa and spread out between committee rooms that can be appropriately distanced to carry on their work while regular contingent of MPs on House Duty often little over the quorum of 20 carry on with the usual legislative speeches. All MPs don't have to attend Question Periods, and voting can be modified to be done in shifts and the results applied to subsequent divisions. It simply hinges on MPs having enough fortitude for the sacrifice of staying in Ottawa for a few weeks at a time rather than constantly travelling back and forth between their ridings.

"It's time for the Conservatives to put politics aside and support proposals to modernize the House so that MPs can vote electronically," Rodriguez called out, but in doing so, lets slip the ultimate agenda "modernization" that has thus far eluded the Liberals in their quest to allow more MPs to stay in their ridings and not be in Ottawa, and that should be concerning to everyone. If we want a properly functioning parliament once this pandemic is over, then we should be saying no to the insistence on hybrid sittings and electronic voting, and ensuring that we have proper sittings, rather than this facsimile that Rodriguez and Trudeau are trying to pass off as the real thing.

Photo Credit: CTV News

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

Yesterday's french debate between the candidates to replace Andrew Scheer was probably not the bang Tories were hoping for. The Conservative leadership race was suppose to come back on the radar screen with a vengeance, after having been relegated almost to oblivion for the past three months because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The debates were originally scheduled for April.

So there was some level of anticipation before Wednesday's first of two debates amongst the four contenders. It was going to be the re-launch of the campaign. It didn't start so well though: the Conservatives couldn't get the debate started on time, forcing talking heads to fill the air an extra 30 minutes during the prolonged pre-game shows. That said, the quality of the French was certainly much better than what would ensue.

Because, more than the substances and the platforms, this first debate was indeed first and foremost a chance to evaluate the quality of the French of each candidate. After all, 62% of Canadians believe that the next Conservative leader should be bilingual. That level rises to 69% in the case of the Prime Minister, according to a LÃ©ger poll.

The Conservative party tried to help the candidates to pass the test. According to information obtained by La Presse, the questions were provided in advance to the candidates to help them formulate their answers and to avoid them the embarrassment of long silences in front of the cameras (this is denied by a Conservative spokesperson of course). I suppose it helped, somewhat.

The spectacle on display probably didn't reassure everyone. At times, it was difficult to follow the discussion. Debate tactics, such as attacking or responding to another topic, left the impression that the questions had not been understood. This tactic was a mistake. The cacophony, especially when Erin O'Toole was trying to destabilize Peter MacKay, did not serve anyone. To be fair, MacKay's game plan was clearly to keep the puck as long as he could, leaving O'Toole trying to interrupt him systematically.

Leslyn Lewis was clearly the most disadvantaged by her lack of a grasp of the language. Her French is simply not to caliber. In this context, she choose to systematically read her answers and her questions. It was, let's say, an interesting tactic, one that can leave some to wonder how much worse it would have been if she hadn't read everything.

Derek Sloan's French is mediocre, to be sure. He has made significant progress, however. Although he was not as active a participant as the two main contenders, he did venture away from his notes and had prepared lines and comebacks. Sloan seemed to have taken the exercise seriously and prepared himself well enough to survive the ordeal.

Erin O'Toole and Peter MacKay were much better. O'Toole's accent is softer than MacKay's, but MacKay gained confidence and ease as the debate progressed. The two's French appeared to be ahead of Andrew Scheer's, at the same point in the previous leadership campaign.

Erin O'Toole went as far as to boast on Twitter that he was "ready to win the french debates".

No. Not really. O'Toole couldn't even win the Conservatives' French debate. Peter MacKay had a simpler message, a better strategy and a slightly better grasp of the French language.

Nevertheless, when election time comes around, it was clear last night that neither Peter MacKay nor Erin O'Toole would look particularly good debating in French against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Bloc QuÃ©bÃ©cois Leader Yves-FranÃ§ois Blanchet. Jagmeet Singh's french has also improved and is ahead of the Tory candidates.

The first debate of the last campaign, hosted by french TV network TVA, was a turning point for Andrew Scheer, and not in a good way. Scheer was not ready for French Prime Time. His lacklustre performance stopped his momentum and killed his hope of growing the Conservative beach head in Quebec. His quest to become Prime Minister and his subsequent ousting from the Conservative leadership began that night. The next Conservative leader better keep this in mind, whomever it may be.

Photo Credit: National Post

Click here for more

This summer Albertans can sell low-risk home-prepared foods at craft fairs and festivals.

It used to be that dreaded red tape prevented that type of activity, but the provincial government has its scissors out and is cutting nonsensical and enterprise-killing over-regulation.

In the same vein, last fall a rule was eliminated that required a legislature debate on approval of small-scale hydro projects.

Under Bill 22, now wending its way through the legislature, vital statistics reports which had to be tabled in the legislature before being made public can now be tossed up online in a much more timely manner.

There are 13 other legislative changes over six ministries in the bill.

For instance, Bill 22 also lets oil sands companies skip that pesky cabinet approval stage on projects. And the energy minister can tinker with oil and gas royalties without consulting cabinet too.

Waitâ€¦ we seem to have strayed a fair distance from selling rhubarb pie at the county fair.

Like many omnibus bills, Bill 22, the Red Tape Reduction Implementation Act, sounds benign. But the devil is in the details. What appears to be minor housekeeping can turn out to be major renovation.

Under the bill, the province's Alberta Energy Regulator will have the last say on oil sands projects. The government argues taking the politics out of these approvals will speed development and get Albertans back to work.

But oil sands projects are at the very heart of politics in Alberta. They touch most of the key issues in the province: economic development, dependence on non-renewable resource revenue, greenhouse gas emissions and indigenous land rights.

Even before Bill 22, the Alberta Court of Appeal shot down AER approval the proposed Prosper project near Fort McKay because the regulator had not considered the government's promises to the Fort McKay First Nation to protect a sensitive wild area.

The AER had argued that its mandate didn't include considerations of consultations with indigenous groups.

"The public interest mandate can and should encompass considerations of the effect of a project on Aboriginal Peoples," argued the justices.

Grant Hunter, associate minister of red tape reduction, said when Bill 22 was introduced that the requirement for consultation with indigenous people will be respected under the new regime.

"The duty to consult is still the law and we still have that responsibility. So AER will have to have that responsibility and make sure that they take care of it in the best way," he said.

Surely dealing with the public interest and the Crown's obligations on such important issues as oil sands development is the very truck and trade of the elected officials in the cabinet. But the UCP would rather pair down the process than take that responsibility directly.

Bill 22 also lets the energy minister make changes in resource royalties paid to the province, rather than require cabinet approval.

Cabinet decisions are made public in Orders in Council documents, so there is at least some transparency. How the public gets wind of the energy minister's decisions is not quite as cut and dried.

NDP Leader Rachel Notley is protesting the change.

"We cannot have them slip backwards into a situation where we can have backroom deals and backroom conversations with the minister who can with a flick of a pen make allowances for different folks," she told reporters.

The energy minister's press secretary says there is already an act in place that prevents major changes to the royalty regime for 10 years. Major changes and individual deals are two different things.

Bill 22 also eliminates Energy Efficiency Alberta, the agency that promoted and provided incentives for individuals and small business to reduce their carbon footprint. The UCP had already gonged several incentives the agency offered for homeowners to improve their environmental footprint.

The government argues that the agency just duplicated the effort of another agency, Emissions Reductions Alberta. However the second agency deals with big industry not Joe Homeowner looking for a break on solar panels.

It seems some Alberta government's red tape reduction measures are designed to serve ideological imperatives rather than just clear up inefficiencies. Some of this slicing and dicing takes important decisions out of the hands of the elected officials who should clearly be held accountable.

Photo Credit: House and Home

Click here for more

Had a vegetable recently? Ever think where that came from, what had to be done to get it to your table. And, here's the big one, did you wonder why it was so cheap? The short answer to all of that is migrant workers.

Turns out that working in a farmer's field isn't exactly desirable work, especially when wages are a bottom basement levels, so hiring locals is difficult. This is where migrant labour comes in.

Canadian farmers need people to harvest their crops. To keep costs low, and profits high, those farmers bring in migrant labourers to do the jobs locals won't. Low pay, gruelling working conditions with 12-hour work days aren't uncommon.

The working conditions are bad, but they are given space to live that's perhaps even worse. A pair of reports this month, one in Maisonneuve Magazine, another in the Globe and Mail, detail how the pandemic has spiralled things further into the abyss for the people who have come to preform an essential job.

Crammed into rooming houses and converted shacks, migrant workers have never had it particularly good. With the onset of the pandemic things have deteriorated. Stories of workers ill enough to be bleeding from the nose forced to stay on until the end of their shift, a widespread lack of PPE, a culture of keeping people working whatever the cost.

The report in the Globe summarizes it well:

"A lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), an information vacuum and pressure to work, despite symptoms. â€¦ Photos, videos and interviews portrayed overrun bunkhouses with broken toilets and stoves, cockroach and bed-bug infestations, and holes in the ceiling."

Strict rules were put in place to isolate workers for the first two weeks upon their arrival. After that, things deteriorated. Little oversight was provided and what rules were in place "weren't adequately enforced and failed to consider what life on a farm is actually like for a migrant worker," the Globe report says.

The problem is structural. Workers who are part of the temporary program aren't guaranteed a minimum wage, overtime, they aren't even guaranteed access to the money they pay into social programs, which they can't access either. Things you or I might take for granted, like a maximum number of working hours or breaks, aren't party of the deal for them. Many of the workers come on immigration permits that tie them directly to specific employers.

These are Canadian farmers that do this to workers. These farmers have the workers under their thumb, unable to leave the job and at the mercy of whatever conditions the agri-food companies force on them.

The Maisonneuve piece starts with a scene from 2018, where the reporter visits a migrant rooming house. The labourers are kept under close watch, front door of their ramshackle apartment â€” a running washing machine was enough to shake the floor â€” was fitted with an alarm set to go off if the door is opened after 8:30 pm.

There is something particularly sinister about this. A company-enforced curfew, and they not only hold over your head your job, but your home, and your immigration status.

Back in the present, minimal oversight is exacerbating abuse. Before the pandemic, living quarter inspections were typically only done when the quarters are empty before anyone had arrived. It's a system not just ripe for abuse, but designed to encourage it. The start of the pandemic meant that many inspections, such as they were, were now being done remotely.

The Globe spoke to multiple farm workers at Scotlynn Group farms in Norfolk, Ont. Throughout their operations, 169 workers have tested positive with COVID-19. The newspaper talked to three workers, all of them who had tested positive and were in isolation. "We notified supervisors when people were falling ill and they didn't do anything," one worker told the Globe. "They treated us like animals." Another said to the newspaper supervisors would push them to work with symptoms, didn't provide necessary PPE, and could have avoided the outbreak at the farm if they had listened to worker's complaints.

The CEO of the company predictably denied these complaints. "There would be no advantage to us not to tend to a sick worker," Scott Biddle said in the report.

No advantage? If there was no advantage it's hard to imagine multiple workers getting sick and being forced into isolation, all saying they'd not been given the proper protection.

For all the resources the federal government gave to the agricultural sectorâ€” millions upon millions â€” it seems to be doing little good. With only virtual inspections, we are essentially relying on the companies being inspected that things are fine. Scotlynn Group got money for PPE, they say they spent it appropriately and provided their labourers with the necessary equipment. From isolation, infected workers say otherwise. And, this is worth repeating, the company has had 169 workers test positive.

Outbreaks have been recorded across the country, with hundreds of temporary workers being infected with COVID-19. In some instances, it's only when farm workers have been exposed to local workers that they've contracted the illness. Once one of them is infected, living conditions allow the virus to spread with abandon.

Well, now it's come around on us. Mexico, where the president isn't one who's taken COVID-19 particularly seriously, has banned a group of several thousand workers from coming north because of insufficient protections put in place for workers.

This puts us in a tight spot. We've created a system where putting in place the protections necessary to keep people from contracting COVID-19 would go against the system's very construction. It would require treating, and paying, the migrants coming in at the same level we treat resident workers. But that would put the underpinnings of cheap food at risk.

The narrow profits in the sector, along with the hard bargains demanded by the country's few supermarket corporations are the very conditions that make migrant labour necessary.

The temporary foreign workers program needs more than tweaks or reform. It needs a full overhaul. To be torn down to the ground and built again. The system exploits the people that are necessary to keep us fed. Fixing it may mean we pay more for our food.

Hundreds of migrants have contracted the virus. Two men have died of it. Killed by working for Canadian farmers, trying to earn a living to send back to their families. They died alone, thousands of miles from their homes and their families.

That's the cost of your produce. You pay it with every bite you take.

Photo Credit: Owen Sound Sun Times

Click here for more

Over the past couple of weeks, as the conversation about systemic racism and defunding/abolishing police takes hold as part of the national discourse, there are all kinds of demands for the federal government to take immediate action to deal with the problem. Of course, the problem being systemic and ingrained in the very foundations of many of our institutions, there won't be any quick fixes, and certainly none that will be an overnight success. Nevertheless, there are some things that prime minister Justin Trudeau and his Cabinet should start discussions about, particularly with the provinces, as they are going to bear a lot of this responsibility. A big part of that will be about changing the role of the RCMP.

Currently, the RCMP is responsible for the front-line policing in eight provinces and all three territories in a contract capacity the provinces haven't developed police forces of their own, and rely on the RCMP to do the job for them. If we are going to be serious about radically transforming the way that policing works in this country, this would be the opportunity for Trudeau to change all of that by ending the practice of contract policing. The practice has been controversial for decades and often defended with the notion that there is a lot to be gained organizationally by having a national police force that operates at all levels like it does. But given that the entire model is built upon racist construction its predecessor, the North-West Mounted Police, was designed to prepare the prairies for colonization by white settlers in a way that didn't involve the wholesale slaughter of the First Nations as happened in the United States (and I believe the historical record shows more incidents of the NWMP protecting Indigenous people from settlers than the other way around) then perhaps it's time to start over again.

Ending contract policing would give provinces time to develop their own local policing models that are more in line with the particular values that we are hearing calls for, that would focus on relationship-building within communities than on enforcement and filling quotas the kinds of things that lead to over-policing to begin with. These new policing forces can also begin with ground-up training in de-escalation and anti-racism that have not penetrated with the current models, where the focus is on establishing dominance, which is what leads to escalation and the death of so many Black, Indigenous, and other racialized minorities. It also allows provinces to shift funds from over-policing to properly funding healthcare particularly mental healthcare as well as education, housing and other social services that can steer people away from criminal behaviour. These are, after all, areas of provincial jurisdiction that Trudeau can do very little about.

Federally, it can help move resources toward creating culturally appropriate Indigenous police forces across the country where they are needed, which to be fair, the government has been moving on in consultation with Indigenous communities, but setting a deadline for ending contract policing and a handover to new forces could light a fire under the bureaucracy. It would also end the practice of sending rookie Mounties out to First Nations reserves to "train them," which has led to many of the problems we are currently facing in this country.

It should be noted that there will still be a federal role for the RCMP, or a successor organization if we plan to abolish it entirely, which has to do with areas of particular federal jurisdiction things like commercial crime, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, border integrity, organized crime, dealing with domestic terrorism, and the protection of members of the Royal Family, the prime minister and certain Cabinet ministers, and other visiting dignitaries. Much of this reduced role doesn't involve the front-line policing that has caused so many needless deaths, but would still need revamping (and a whole other column or thesis could be written on the racism inherent in policing drugs), particularly when it comes to profiling at the border and in domestic terrorism.

The other important aspect of being able to rebuild both local and federal policing is the ability to build it with proper civilian oversight from the ground up, which would also be a good time for the federal government to abandon its legislation to bring CBSA under the same impotent Civilian Review and Complaints Commission that the RCMP employs, given that the RCMP are free to ignore its recommendations. Add to that, the current proposal would simply continue to allow CBSA to investigate itself and report the results to the CRCC, rather than having an independent investigative body (and yes, the CBSA also has a massive problem with systemic racism, and this could be a good opportunity to overhaul it as well).

There will be calls over the coming weeks to insist on body-worn cameras for the RCMP, but that would wind up being fairly antithetical to the notion of radical transformation, and would mean sinking even more resources into the current policing model rather than in transforming it into something more sustainable and less lethal not to mention that there are ways for police to get around them, and as one Toronto lawyer put it, "The solution isn't to give them toys that allow the world to watch them kill us â€” it's to remove their power to kill us."

It is worth remembering, however, that even if Trudeau announced this plan tomorrow, it would take years for it to come to fruition. It takes time to build capacity, both in building new police forces, as well as within the mental health and social service providers who will be picking up the work that they should be doing currently instead of the police. But it has to start somewhere, and Trudeau has the opportunity to kickstart this transformation if he wanted to. The first step could be in setting a date to end contract policing, and moving forward with the provinces on a nation-rebuilding project that will dismantle the tools of systemic racism in the country.

Photo Credit: CTV News

Click here for more

Caryn Lieberman is an intelligent, hard-working crime beat reporter for Global News in Toronto. She's worked at CTV and CP24, and was an anchor for the now-defunct Sun News Network. She's provided important, moving coverage on a variety of topics, including Canadian military training in Afghanistan and an award-winning examination of Holocaust Education Week.

Lieberman was recently assigned the task of reporting on her city's anti-racist/Black Lives Matter protest. She diligently wore a mask, thoughtfully interviewed several protesters, and explained the peaceful daytime march in a straightforward, non-biased manner.

It was an important moment in history to be doing this type of televised coverage. But in many ways, it was just another day on the job for the 15-year news veteran and mother of two young children.

This changed while the cameras were rolling, however. A male protester walked right past her and yelled out, "Fâ€” her right in the pâ€”."

It's a vulgar and boorish phrase that's plagued droves of female reporters for years. The origins go back to a fake 2015 YouTube video uploaded by Kentucky native John Cain. In the skit, Cain claimed to be a Fox News reporter discussing the disappearance of a missing local woman. Not realizing the "broadcast" was still "live," he started talking to a "cameraman" about the things he would do to the woman if she were found alive and this was the worst of the lot.

Incredibly, Cain almost cut out the phrase in his YouTube video. "It was 100 per cent fake," he told Toronto Star columnist Vinay Menon on May 13, 2015, "And I didn't think anything of the 'fâ€” her right in the pâ€”-' thing."

He decided to leave it in for shock value, and it worked. The video went viral, with millions of views. Cain made several other videos with friends of a similar nature, and the same thing happened. He would make a small fortune in merchandise, and briefly became a minor celebrity (for all the wrong reasons).

That was a long time ago, and Cain's role is largely forgotten. Yet, the ugly footprint remains as fresh as a daisy.

Some young men were, and continue to be, inspired by this tomfoolery. They've yelled out the same disgusting phrase to female reporters during live telecasts. Although there have been instances where the instigator was eventually identified, shamed and fired from his job, the trend just won't stop.

Lieberman is already part of that long list. But unlike most female reporters, who have understandably been taken aback by this disgusting comment and lost their train of thought, she reacted this time in a way I've never seen before.

The talented reporter confronted the protester, who was wearing a shirt containing the phrases "BLM" (Black Lives Matter) and "F**k the Police." She walked right alongside him and said, "Really? Really? Super cool! That was really classy and just so you know there's police all right here so thank you for doing that, that was really professional of you taking away from the message."

It was a bit of a risky decision on her part. The protester could have theoretically turned around and hit her. An unlikely scenario, since he probably assumed the cameras were still rolling, but anything was possible.

In the end, the cowardly protester just kept walking and never looked at her.

Lieberman, as it happens, shares one unusual trait with Cain: she almost didn't upload this video, but changed her mind.

"The death of George Floyd has once again sparked a conversation about racism around the world. I do not want to undermine that in any way, shape or form," she wrote on Global News's website on June 7. "The person who thought it was OK to speak to a woman in such an obscene, oppressive manner is part of the problem. The protestors were marching for equality. He detracts from that message. I just want to be able to do my job."

Lieberman, who I first met at Sun News, did the right thing. She showed real strength and courage in her decision to confront this problem rather than shy away. If more female journalists are inspired to follow her lead, maybe this disgusting phrase will finally be permanently tossed into the dustbin of history. Let's hope they do.

Photo Credit: Global News

Click here for more

Mere months after his election into office as Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau announced Canada's bid for one of the two available seats on the United Nations Security Council for the 2021-2022 term.

It was an incredibly risky decision for the rookie PM.

Canada's global reputation had already taken a hit the last time the country competed, and subsequently failed in its bid for a UN seat under the Harper Conservatives. A second consecutive defeat would only diminish Canada's standing even more.

Furthermore, with only four years to campaign, Canada would be entering the race at a disadvantage. Both of its two distinguished competitors, Ireland and Norway, had long since announced their candidacies for a seat, allowing them plenty of time to woo the global electorate.

Still, a potential victory at the UN proved far too enticing for Trudeau to resist. Not only would a win at the Security Council increase Canada's influence abroad, but it would also boost Trudeau's own brand recognition, as well as that of the governing Liberal Party.

After a near decade of controversial Conservative rule, the Liberals were in active search of differentiating themselves from their predecessors in every manner possible. And what better way to accentuate the differences between Trudeau and the reviled Stephen Harper, than a win at the Security Council?

It should have resulted in a complete revamp of policy to give Canada a greater presence on the world stage; one where it could significantly contribute to furthering the UN's goals of international peace and security.

Unlike the Harper Conservatives who had been mean-spirited and inward-looking, the Trudeau Liberals promised instead to be charitable, compassionate, and international in outlook.

Lamentably, the Trudeau Liberals have not lived up to their word. After over four years in office, the promised revamp of foreign policy instead resulted only in a minor tinkering of prioritization.

Peacekeeping contributions remains at abysmally low levels. Foreign aid continues to be vastly underspent. And Israel still largely receives Canada's unequivocal backing, even as its illegal settlements are continuously extended into Palestinian territory, fueling a never-ending human rights calamity.

Its like nothing ever changed from the Harper years in office.

Now, with the UN General Assembly just days away from concluding its elections, Canadians must ask themselves yet again; do we deserve a spot?

It is a challenging question to ask of ourselves.

As proud citizens and patriots, surely all Canadians wish to see their country represented at the highest circles of global influence. That Canada would benefit from having a seat at the table with all the world's major political players is surely beyond refute.

But do we really deserve that rare honor and privilege?

More specifically, is Canada better suited than either of its fellow competitors â€” competitors, who, keep in mind, commit more personnel to peacekeeping missions and outspend us on their aid contributions â€” to advance the UN's goals of international peace and security?

The answer is no.

The fundamental truth is Canada has not lived up to its reputation as a force for good in its international engagement. Nor for that matter has Trudeau lived up to his promise to "restore Canadian leadership in the world."

This assertion will surely trouble some Canadians and enrage countless others.

And how could it not?

We have become imbued with the belief that Canada is, as one New York Times columnist put it, a "moral leader of the free world." With such preconceived, high appraisals of our country, we sometimes fail to grasp the true degree of our own shortcomings.

Unfortunately, to state that Canada's recent record of global engagement has only some marginal shortcomings would be a severe understatement. In reality, Canada's influence on the international stage is often far more nefarious than many would like to believe.

After all, Canada ranks as one of the world's leading exporters of arms, including to some of the globe's most repressive regimes. Just last month, the federal government quietly pushed ahead with its agreement to sell light armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia, a country with a particularly appalling record for committing human rights abuses. That Canada continues to export its arms to the Saudi regime, even as they persist in waging a deadly war in neighbouring Yemen, is beyond excusable.

And that is not Canada's only sin.

Canadian mining companies continue to commit injustice after injustice, causing untold ecological damage and human rights infringements across the globe. In response, the federal government sits idly by, complicity enabling their abuses.

Not only this, but Canada's federal government has spearheaded harmful efforts to oust Venezuela's UN-recognized government from office. This, in stark contrast to one of Canada's Security Council opponents, Norway, which has instead attempted to peacefully mediate between Venezuela's government and opposition camps.

As stated in a petition circulating online, signed by eminent scholars and social critics like David Suzuki and Noam Chomsky "Canada is not acting as a benevolent player on the international stage."

Of course, Canada may yet win a seat once voting at the UN has come to an end.

As a member of the G7, and as the eighth-largest donor to the UN, Canada has significant pull on the world's stage. In addition, Trudeau's last minute charm offensive could prove effective in securing votes, as could the considerable efforts of Joe Clark, our special envoy for Canada's bid for a UN Security Council seat, and Marc-Andre Blanchard, Canada's Ambassador to the UN.

But that will not vindicate Canada's s record of global engagement. Only once our federal government corrects these injustices and begins acting as a driving force for the "real change" once promised by Trudeau, will Canada deserve a seat.

It is a sad situation to acknowledge, but for its second time in recent history, the government of Canada has not earned itself a spot on the Security Council.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics