There was a similar case in the US a few years back. A lot of the details are chillingly similar - privately owned landfill, victim is a woman from a minority of that country, etc. And again we see the same choice to not even do a cursory search.
The suspect disposed of the first two victims' remains in garbage bins that went to the Brady Road landfill. They know this for certain because some traces were found in the bins, and the rest in the landfill.
The investigators say the remains are "likely" in Prairie Green landfill, because they suspect - but have no proof - that he disposed of the remains of the other two victims' remains in garbage bins that, when emptied, would go to the Prairie Green landfill.
Unfortunately, people seem to look at this and other problems in very black-or-white terms, when the reality is shades of grey.
There are tradeoffs to be made: respect for the missing remains, likelihood of finding them, danger to the people trying to recover them, the total expense.
Other provinces and other cities can make these tradeoffs differently. Compare this one to previous searches in Winnipeg.
If a search would take a day, present no danger to the recovery workers, be relatively certain to find the remains, and cost $10,000, then obviously you do it.
If it would take a year, present an enormous hazard to the people attempting the recovery, have a smaller chance of recovery because the area was not known with any specificity, and would cost $20,000,000, then you probably wouldn't do it.
Somewhere in between there is the dividing line. It is extremely difficult to set.
Compare this one to previous searches in Winnipeg.
Not aware of these. Which previous ones are you referring to?
If it would take a year, present an enormous hazard to the people attempting the recovery, have a smaller chance of recovery because the area was not known with any specificity, and would cost $20,000,000, then you probably wouldn't do it.
The $20mil is an issue for me because I don't have that much. If I had $40 mil though (so spending the $20 mil was actually possible for me), and it was not an enormous hazard, then I'd do it.
Anyways, the feds seem eager to do it, so a possible compromise is just to somehow grant the feds jurisdiction and then let them deal with everything (cost, logistics, safety risk).
I'm saying compare the #decision as to whether to search this landfill to the history of similar choices made by the same #authorities, rather than to other decisions made by different authorities (cities, provinces).
The #hazards are significant. #Refuse has really poor #structural qualities. People are #killed every year when the hole they're digging in a landfill while looking for #valuables collapses.
I’m saying 3 landfillls were searched in Toronto and no expense was spared because the guy was white.
Yeah, agreed! Toronto is bigger and has more money flowing through it (millions of folks vs around half a million IIRC), but those are the only two differences that I can see, and the 2nd one is remedied by asking and inviting the feds (or even another province) for help/to help.
I'm saying compare the #decision as to whether to search this landfill to the history of similar choices made by the same #authorities, rather than to other decisions made by different authorities (cities, provinces).
Sure. (Not sure why, actually, that it makes sense to limit the decisions just to the ones made by Winnipeg, but for the sake of argument...)
But I wasn't familiar with past WInnipeg cases. When did Winnipeg ever agree to do a landfill search before for remains of someone that was an indigenous woman?
The #hazards are significant. #Refuse has really poor #structural qualities. People are #killed every year when the hole they're digging in a landfill while looking for #valuables collapses.
That may be so, but the article about the report regarding the process (which I indirectly linked to) points out how it can be done far more safely. Granted, it doesn't say zero risk, but the conveyor belt idea is a stroke of genius.
They know this for certain because some traces were found in the bins, ... because they suspect - but have no proof
Makes sense. Like, if I had lost a hard disk containing millions of dollars worth of bitcoin, and the above was the difference in odds, then I'd likely just give up and not even try in the latter case, with those kind of odds.
Considering what's at stake here though, if those odds were the only difference, then I'd say it's still a lead worth pursuing.
I suspect there were many considerations that went into the decision in Winnipeg, though I'm not privy to the discussions.
Things like danger to employees, what their insurers and Occupational Health & Safety say about it, the odds of success, the cost to taxpayers. And don't forget the opportunity cost; a few million spent on a search means a few million that can't be spent on homeless shelters, or public pools, or whatever other purposes might serve the public.
...
Hypothetically, if you happened to have a perfect fly-on-the-wall recording of those discussions, I strongly suspect you would hear all of those factors discussed.
What I suspect you would not hear would be "They're First Nations people, so let's not search for their remains".
Authorities in Winnipeg, and authorities in Toronto, make decisions. But each makes their own decision, based on the totality of the circumstances in their own jurisdiction and their own understanding of the wants, needs, and requirements of their own public.
You can't compare "Abbotsford town council decided issue X in Y way" with "Halifax town council decided similar issue Z and didn't pick Y" and come up with any conclusion from it.
In the real world, all actions have consequences. Decisions have to be made based on the facts, not feelings.
I'm 100% behind you with the idea that the moral, ethical thing to do would be to recover the remains, whether they're in that landfill or not.
I never said "They shouldn't search that landfill".
It sounds like we're mostly aligned then here - we both agree that the moral and ethical thing to do would to search the landfill and recover the remains.
My point is that a decision to not perform this particular search was likely made for other reasons, not "because racism".
I asked for examples where Manitoba similarly approved a landfill search for remains of indigenous women in the past, or failing that cases where other provinces did so. The reason for this was to try to get a better understanding of why they would say no in this case, when the reasons publicly stated seem so weak (the report explains how to do it safely, for example). As it seems that we don't have something like detailed meeting notes of where and when the gov't discussed this case, emails between officials discussing it, and so on to shed light on this point.
Otherwise, the lack of transparency here means that racism may have very well played a role, especially if one factors in unconscious biases and the like.
I suspect .. many considerations .. I'm not privy...
That's exactly the problem here. The responses given don't show a lot of transparency behind the decision-making process here.
danger to employees, what their insurers and Occupational Health & Safety say about it,
Assuming that city and provincial employees will handle this - well, it'd be odd, seeing that the same technique in the report was used successfully in Toronto, that OHSA would balk at this. (Presumbly the insurers are different across the two provinces.)
That said, I'll grant that the insurance part is somewhat plausible. Insurance and such often takes into account details that wouldn't be obvious to a layperson but which end up making a big difference in their decisions.
Still, the province could always self-insure this operation. And perhaps it's not a problem at all (for the province) if they hand it off to the feds or similar.
the odds of success,
Already mentioned but I'll repeat myself - considering what's at stake, it seems like the odds are worth it, if there were no other considerations.
the cost to taxpayers... opportunity cost..can't be spent on homeless shelters...
Fair point, but again, not an issue if handled off to the feds.
Hypothetically, if you happened to have a perfect fly-on-the-wall recording of those discussions, I strongly suspect you would hear all of those factors discussed.
Again it's an issue with the transparency of the decision making process - why did they reject the idea of passing the buck to the feds or seeking out help for funding to lessen the burden on taxpayers and reduce the opportunity cost for the province?
What I suspect you would not hear would be "They're First Nations people, so let's not search for their remains".
Still, without enough transparency, one has to wonder how much role unconcious bias and even microaggressions might have had in the decision making process here.
Authorities ... each makes their own decision, based on ... requirements of their own public.
You can't compare ... decided issue X... with ... decided similar issue Z ...
Not understanding how it's different X and Y here. Looks like the exact same issue being decided.
I imagine the worry is how many more women they will find.
To not search for this reason is gross and horrifying. If anything the reverse should be true - think of how many unsolved cases could be closed and closure for those families given.
Decisions like this are not normally particularly public, but in a highly-publicized and controversial situation like this, additional transparency would definitely be warranted. It would be good to release minutes, memos, studies, whatever exists.
Note that OH&S is also a provincial matter, and so will differ.
> considering what's at stake, it seems like the odds are worth it, if there were no other considerations.
Saying "pass the buck to the feds" doesn't change the costs involved, it just distributes them differently. Which leads to ...
> > You can't compare ... decided issue X... with ... decided similar issue Z ...
> Not understanding how it's different X and Y here. Looks like the exact same issue being decided.
The issue may be the same, but the circumstances are very different. In Ontario, the cost is distributed over 15M people.
And that number hardly budges even if you limit it to the Windsor <-> Ottawa urban corridor.
In Winnipeg, the costs would be distributed over 750,000 people. If you include the whole province, it's 1.3M. So the cost per-taxpayer is at least ten times higher in this case vs. the Toronto one for similar searches.
Significantly different circumstances (without even getting into the cases): different decisions.
I already said that morally and ethically I am 100% behind the idea of "search as long as takes to find the remains".
However, morals and ethics do not comprise the sole components of such a decision. Practicality and all the facets of that are a large and required part of it, and cannot be dismissed.
I said in another message that I never said they shouldn't search the landfill. I said that the decision not to could not blindly be blamed on racism.
I said in another message that I never said they shouldn't search the landfill.
And I said exactly that in another message.
Thank you for taking the time to explain and clarify things. It sounds like we are largely aligned and in agreement on almost all points now.
The issue may be the same, but the circumstances are very different. In Ontario, the cost is distributed over 15M people.
In Winnipeg, the costs would be distributed over 750,000 people. If you include the whole province, it's 1.3M. So the cost per-taxpayer is at least ten times higher in this case vs. the Toronto one for similar searches.
Makes sense and is totally fair. Province with a smaller population may not be in a position to pay.
I think we are also agreed through - it's not a binary choice between "province can pay" and "province cannot pay". There are additional options>
I said that the decision not to could not blindly be blamed on racism.
Agree with the blindly part. I am still worried that unconcious bias may have played a much stronger role here than it should have but that's a more nuanced thing than overtly blatant racism.
Saying "pass the buck to the feds" doesn't change the costs involved, it just distributes them differently. Which leads to ..
Exactly! Now it's nearly 40M - much more affordable. Easier to get to a search this way. So why did the province close the door on that option?
but in a highly-publicized and controversial situation like this, additional transparency would definitely be warranted.
Yup. Especially would like to know why they closed the door on passing the buck to the feds, who otherwise seem so willing to help. (The cynic in me worries that they'll change their tune if Winnipeg and Manitoba actually decide to invite the feds to do the search and bear all the costs, but we'll cross that bridge if we ever get to it.)
Add comment