Lalonde and Papineau: Take off the kid gloves for public oversight of Ottawa Police Service
The Ottawa Police Service (OPS), like other police forces across the province, are treated with kid gloves when it comes to public accountability. The OPS receives even less public oversight than other areas of the city.
Article content
Article content
The OPS is governed under the provincial Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA). One key element of the CSPA is a civilian oversight board, which is handled by the Ottawa Police Services Board (OPSB). There are three city councillors, three provincial appointees and one citizen appointed by the city. Police Service Board members are governed by a code of conduct.
Article content
Article content
To ensure that politicians aren't directing police on what and who they can investigate, boards can't direct the operations of the police. That's a good thing. However, how far is that taken? What is the adequate level of oversight for the OPS? How much public oversight is actually done?
Article content
OPSB meetings are split between public and 'in camera' (behind closed doors) meetings.
Article content
Before the COVID pandemic, the OPSB held in-person public meetings. Anyone could go in person and participate. At the start of the pandemic, the OPSB went virtual. Meetings were held online, and they have never turned back. Anyone can watch the meetings, but only those selected in advance to participate are allowed to make statements, and then they are ushered back out of the online meeting room, which limits public dialogue. To boot, what you plan to say must be approved ahead of time. It's a close-knit, gated-community police board.
Article content
Article content
Public agendas for the OPSB encompass pages of feel-good reports, including the monthly compliments report. Compliments are redacted letters from the community giving thanks for a police encounter.
Article content
Article content
The OPSB also has a much more substantive agenda for its in-camera sessions. At every meeting, the chair dutifully cites the legal cover for going in camera. There are good reasons to have some items discussed behind closed doors. Legal and specific employee disciplinary actions are two. That should be it.
Article content
Since October 2023, the OPSB has had a standing in camera agenda item called 'Updates on Demonstrations and Events Management'. The OPSB discusses in camera the police actions related to a fundamental right protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: 'freedom of peaceful assembly.' Why are discussions pertaining to this bedrock of our democracy done behind closed doors month after month? What operational issues related to peaceful assembly require secrecy? Given the concerning attempts to curtail civil liberties among our neighbours to the south, these questions necessitate serious consideration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
23 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
A Harvard acceptance fulfilled a dream for a student in Ethiopia. Trump's order stands in his way
Winning admission to Harvard University fulfilled a longtime goal for Yonas Nuguse, a student in Ethiopia who endured the Tigray conflict, internet and phone shutdowns, and the COVID-19 pandemic — all of which made it impossible to finish high school on time. Now, it's unclear if he will make it this fall to the Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He and other admitted students around the world are anxiously tracking the school's feud with the Trump administration, which is seeking to keep it from enrolling international students.
Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
Why Canada needs a law that gives workers the right to govern their workplace
A major fault line in contemporary society is that while our political lives are governed by democratic principles, our economic lives largely are not. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, Maple Leaf Foods experienced an outbreak in its Brandon, Man. factory. Not only were workers ordered to keep working in unsafe conditions, they were forced to work overtime. Walmart has long been accused of forbidding its cashiers from sitting down, even during long shifts. At one of its warehouses in Pennsylvania, Amazon allowed the temperature to reach an unbearable 102 F in 2011. When employees pleaded to open the loading doors to let in fresh air, management refused, claiming this would lead to employee theft. Instead, Amazon parked ambulances outside and waited for employees to collapse from heat stroke. Employees who were sent home because of the heat were given demerits for missing work, and fired if they accumulated too many. These examples reflect the fact that, in most workplaces, employees have no say in who manages them or how major decisions are made. Entering the workplace typically means leaving the freedoms of democratic society behind and entering a private domain unilaterally controlled by an employer. For most workers who are not in senior management, the main job of every job is to follow orders. Functionally speaking, workers are servants. In its governance structure, the modern workplace operates as a kind of mini dictatorship. Although workplace discipline isn't enforced with physical violence, supervisors still have the power to discipline or punish those who dissent. But what if there were an actual legal right to workplace democracy? My research scrutinized the pros and cons of such novel legislation by drawing on decades of research comparing conventional, top-down firms with democratic worker co-operatives (where workers collectively own the firm and elect the governing board). In large American firms, the average CEO-to-worker pay ratio is now a jaw-dropping 351 to one. As CEO, Jeff Bezos made roughly 360,000 times more than Amazon's minimum wage workers. This inequality ripples across society with significant consequences. By contrast, most worker co-ops maintain a pay ratio of three to one and only very rarely exceed 10 to one. There's also a stark difference in how workers are treated. While conventional firms lay off workers whenever it's profitable to do so, co-ops do everything in their power to save jobs. Top-down decision-making also breeds degradation and disrespect. A 2016 Oxfam report, for instance, documented how some Tyson Foods employees were prevented from using the bathroom to the point where some urinated themselves and other felt compelled to wear diapers to work. A Gallup survey from 2021 found that across the American economy as a whole, only 20 per cent of workers strongly agreed with the statement that "my opinions seem to count." In co-ops, workers are generally treated with more respect and dignity. They typically participate more in decision-making, have higher job satisfaction and have less antagonism with management. In conventional workplaces, many employees hate or fear their boss. Roughly 17 per cent of the workforce opt for self-employment in order to get away from the tyranny of the boss, even though self-employed workers typically earn about 15 per cent less than their salaried counterparts and receive less than half the benefits. Worker co-operatives are typically less dominating than conventional firms because workers elect their managers and can create self-managing teams where workers have more autonomy over matters like scheduling and how tasks are carried out. Though co-ops are far from perfect, with workers often feeling that they aren't able to participate in decision-making as much as they would like. Most workers have no viable alternative to undemocratic work, and so no choice but to suffer its harms. While in theory, workers can quit and rely on welfare or social assistance, in practice, this isn't viable because welfare rates are often too low to live on. Starting a business or becoming self-employed is another theoretical option, but it's too financially risky to be a serious alternative for most. Joining a worker co-operative is the most promising alternative, but there were less than 400 worker co-ops in Canada in 2022, representing less than one per cent of employment. Converting an existing workplace into a co-op faces serious barriers too. Even if the workers desperately want a conversion, if the employer doesn't, they're out of luck; their employer owns the organization and can simply say no. Canada needs a new law to expand democracy by granting workers the legal right to collectively buy into the firms they work for. The process would resemble how unionization works today. It would start after a majority of employees sign a declaration stating their intent to form a worker co-operative. After this threshold is reached, a formal process would be triggered: employers would be required to disclose all relevant financial documents with the workers, and workers would receive education on the managerial, technical and legal requirements of co-ops. Co-op development bankers would provide loans and financing options. Once this is done, workers would hold a final vote. If a simple majority (50 per cent plus one) votes in favour, the employer would be paid the fair market value for the firm and the business would be restructured as a worker co-operative. Importantly, the law would allow this transition even if the employer is opposed, just as collective bargaining legislation allows workers to unionize without employer approval. It would also ensure owners are fairly compensated; owners shouldn't lose their property, but they should lose the right to unilaterally govern other human beings in perpetuity, especially when those others are willing and ready to govern themselves. Of course, this law might bring some economic disruption. It's possible that certain owners might oppose democratic ownership so strongly that they would rather shut down the business altogether than work as equals, but such cases would likely be rare. On the other hand, research shows that worker co-ops are just as productive as conventional firms (if not more so) and they have similar survival rates. This is highly reassuring for the overall well-being of the economy. Moreover, workers would need to invest significant amounts of their own money in order to buy out the firm, so conversions will occur only after serious consideration. The bottom line is that while the costs of this legislation would likely be modest, the benefits to workers and society at large would be substantial: reduced inequality and domination, increased job security and respect. Canada should establish a right to buy-in as soon as possible.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Who's in charge? CDC's leadership ‘crisis' apparent amid new COVID-19 vaccine guidance
WASHINGTON (AP) — There was a notable absence last week when U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced in a 58-second video that the government would no longer endorse the COVID-19 vaccine for healthy children or pregnant women. The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — the person who typically signs off on federal vaccine recommendations — was nowhere to be seen. The CDC, a $9.2 billion-a-year agency tasked with reviewing life-saving vaccines, monitoring diseases and watching for budding threats to Americans' health, is without a clear leader. 'I've been disappointed that we haven't had an aggressive director since — February, March, April, May — fighting for the resources that CDC needs,' said Dr. Robert Redfield, who served as CDC director under the first Trump administration and supported Kennedy's nomination as the nation's health secretary. $9.2 billion-a-year agency without leader as nomination awaits The leadership vacuum at a foremost federal public health agency has existed for months, after President Donald Trump suddenly withdrew his first pick for CDC director in March. A hearing for his new nominee — the agency's former acting director Susan Monarez — has not been scheduled because she has not submitted all the paperwork necessary to proceed, according to a spokesman for Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who will oversee the nomination. HHS did not answer written questions about Monarez's nomination, her current role at the CDC or her salary. An employee directory lists Monarez, a longtime government employee, as a staffer for the NIH under the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health. Redfield described Kennedy as 'very supportive' of Monarez's nomination. Instead, a lawyer and political appointee with no medical experience is 'carrying out some of the duties' of director at the agency that for seven decades has been led by someone with a medical degree. Matthew Buzzelli, who is also the chief of staff at the CDC, is 'surrounded by highly qualified medical professionals and advisors to help fulfill these duties as appropriate,' Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson said in a statement. Adding to the confusion was an employee-wide email sent last week that thanked 'new acting directors who shave stepped up to the plate.' The email, signed by Monarez, listed her as the acting director. It was was sent just days after Kennedy said at a Senate hearing that Monarez had been replaced by Buzzelli. The lack of a confirmed director will be a problem if a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic or a rapid uptick in measles cases hits, said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota. 'CDC is a crisis, waiting for a crisis to happen,' said Osterholm. 'At this point, I couldn't tell you for the life of me who was going to pull what trigger in a crisis situation.' An acting director rarely seen, and stalled decisions At CDC headquarters in Atlanta, employees say Monarez was rarely heard from between late January – when she was appointed acting director – and late March, when Trump nominated her. She also has not held any of the 'all hands' meetings that were customary under previous CDC chiefs, according to several staffers. One employee, who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media and fears being fired if identified said Monarez has been almost invisible since her nomination, adding that her absence has been cited by other leaders as an excuse for delaying action. The situation already has led to confusion. In April, a 15-member CDC advisory panel of outside experts met to discuss vaccine policy. The panel makes recommendations to the CDC Director, who routinely signs off on them. But it was unclear during the meeting who would be reviewing the panel's recommendations, which included the expansion of RSV vaccinations for adults and a new combination shot as another option to protect teens against meningitis. HHS officials said the recommendations were going to Buzzelli, but then weeks passed with no decision. A month after the meeting ended, the CDC posted on a web site that Kennedy had signed off on recommendations for travelers against chikungunya, a viral disease transmitted to humans by mosquitos. But there continues to be no word about a decision about the other vaccine recommendations. Controversial COVID-19 vaccine recommendations bypassed CDC panel The problem was accentuated again last week, when Kennedy rolled out recommendations for the COVID-19 vaccine saying they were no longer recommended for healthy children or pregnant women, even though expectant mothers are considered a high-risk group if they contract the virus. Kennedy made the surprise announcement without input from the CDC advisory panel that has historically made recommendations on the nation's vaccine schedule. The CDC days later posted revised guidance that said healthy kids and pregnant women may get the shots. Nixon, the HHS spokesman, said CDC staff were consulted on the recommendations, but would not provide staffer's names or titles. He also did not provide the specific data or research that Kennedy reviewed to reach his conclusion on the new COVID-19 recommendations, just weeks after he said that he did not think 'people should be taking medical advice' from him. 'As Secretary Kennedy said, there is a clear lack of data to support the repeat booster strategy in children,' Nixon said in a statement. Research shows that pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness, mechanical ventilation and death, when they contract COVID-19 infections. During the height of the pandemic, deaths of women during pregnancy or shortly after childbirth soared to their highest level in 50 years. Vaccinations also have been recommended for pregnant women because it passes immunity to newborns who are too young for vaccines and also vulnerable to infections. Nixon did not address a written question about recommendations for pregnant women. Kennedy's decision to bypass the the advisory panel and announce new COVID-19 recommendations on his own prompted a key CDC official who works with the committee – Dr. Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos – to announce her resignation last Friday. 'My career in public health and vaccinology started with a deep-seated desire to help the most vulnerable members of our population, and that is not something I am able to continue doing in this role,' she wrote in an email seen by an Associated Press reporter. Signs are mounting that the CDC has been 'sidelined' from key decision-making under Kennedy's watch, said Dr. Anand Parekh, the chief medical adviser for The Bipartisan Policy Center. 'It's difficult to ascertain how we will reverse the chronic disease epidemic or be prepared for myriad public health emergencies without a strong CDC and visible, empowered director,' Parekh said. 'It's also worth noting that every community in the country is served by a local or state public health department that depends on the scientific expertise of the CDC and the leadership of the CDC director.'
