From the article, he took a leave for “secondary employment” to write a book about being black in the RCMP, which he considers to be work done as a private citizen that he wholly owns. When he was tasked with creating the workshop a couple years later, he used material/research from that book as part basis for some of the course.
Reading a bit between the lines, the argument seems to be that he was happy for the RCMP to freely use material from his work when it was only going to be used for their own officers, but expansion to a larger national program offered to other police forces was beyond the original license to use his work.
The RCMP did remove his work (and him) from the course though. Whether that’s just avoiding the mess entirely, punitive, or because they think his claim is credible is beyond me to judge.
I’d be interested in knowing what in the article sounds like an “American media perspective” (especially given the The Economist is British).
It seems fairly measured for an article written before the Liberals had confirmed Carney as the new leader. It agrees with you that the Liberals were starting to recover after Trudeau’s resignation, before the trade war started, and that’s it not just Trump helping them come back but Carney’s bona fides as a proven economic handler.
I’m not seeing anything too off-base.