Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright Â© CBC 2016

The Current Transcript for February 4, 2016

Host: Anna Maria Tremonti

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

The first rule of holes is if you for yourself in a hole, stop digging. We're in a hole. Signing this agreement makes it even harder to get out of it.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Jim Balsillie grew a 20 billion-dollar company taking on the global tech economy like no other Canadian company before or since. But he says future and present innovation in Canada will wither under the weight of the just signed Trans-Pacific Partnership. The former co-CEO of Research in Motion speaks out against a deal he says will see Canadians generating prosperity for others. We'll hear from Jim Balsillie in just a moment. And thenâ€¦

SOUNDCLIP

In an exhaustive cross-examination Ghomeshiâ€™s lawyer Marie Henein dissecting the woman's accounts to the media, to police, and to the court.

AMT: It is a legal tactic widely referred to as whacking, the aggressive cross-examination of an alleged victim of sexual assault in pursuit of inconsistent testimony. Critics say it plays to gender stereotypes and can traumatise a witness. Others say it is a legitimate tool when the stakes are so high. It's a debate that swirls throughout the legal community and an issue that moves into research on what memories the brain actually retains in trauma. We'll hear competing views in half an hour. And thenâ€¦

SOUNDCLIP

Because of what the police did we lost him forever, but I would like for the police to remain a source of confidence, security, and respect for all people.

AMT: Sammy Yatimâ€™s mother reached out after a Toronto police officer was found guilty of attempted murder in the death of her son. For the lawyer representing the family the quest to hold police accountable for shooting deaths has been a decades long struggle. In an hour Julian Falconer on the potential ripple effects of this one case. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. This is The Current.

[music:theme]

Back To Top Â»

TPP would be disastrous for Canada's innovators, Jim Balsillie warns

Guests: Jim Balsillie

AMT: It may happen with little fanfare here at home but Canada has just put its signature to the biggest free trade deal ever negotiated. Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland was at the formal ceremony in Auckland, New Zealand where the Trans-Pacific Partnership was inked earlier today, New Zealand time. The TPP, as it is known, links together 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the US and Japan, in a broad trade pact representing 40 percent of the world's economies. Though, that's if all member countries ratify the pact back home. And there are plenty of voices urging Canada not to do that. One of the TPPâ€™s most vocal critics has been Jim Balsillie. The former co-CEO of Research in Motion, now known as BlackBerry, helped create Canada's most successful technology company ever, before leaving in 2012. Jim Balsillie is also a co-founder of the Institute for New Economic Thinking and he's with me in our Toronto studio. Hello.

JIM BALSILLIE: Oh, pleasure to be with you, Anna Maria, thank you.

AMT: Why are you so opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, fundamentally, what it does is it locks in Canada's competitive disadvantages in the innovation economy indefinitely and we've put ourselves in this hole, so we have no one to blame but ourselves for our competitive situation in the innovation economy because we didn't have an innovation strategy for the last 40 years when the rest of the innovation economies were building it. So now we're in a hole and this agreement locks us into that competitive disadvantage indefinitely.

AMT: And just before we go any further, can you define, you call it, the innovation economy or the ideas economy. What is that?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, whatâ€™s happened to the world in the last 40 years is itâ€™s really shifted from tangible goods to intangible goods and a small metric of that is the S & P 500. 40 years ago, five sixths of its value was tangibles. Fast forward to today, Five sixths of it is intangible. So, the way you get prosperous in the 21st century is through knowledge and ideas and owning intangibles and collecting money for them. And Canada doesn't have an ecosystem that takes us to making money off of ideas.

AMT: So how would that hurt our ideas economy? What will it do to the economy we have?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, there's-- First of all, we're in a hole. So, you know, we haven't grown in our innovation growth in over 30 years and we're competing right now by lowering our dollar and lowering our wages and taking on debt, so that's the structure of the economy and what he design of the TPP is, if you go through the key chapters, it's basically written in a way to advantage those that have pre-existing positions. And so if you're Japanese or youâ€™re American, this is a really good deal because America ships three and a half trillion dollars a year of intellectual property, 30 percent of their people work in the innovation economy. It's a way for the rich to get richer and if you're in the club, it protects you in the club and if you're not in the club, it makes it much harder to get in the club and Canada is not in that club right now. So we are-- The first rule of holes is, if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. We're in a hole and signing this agreement makes it even harder to get out of it.

AMT: You know, under the Harper government we were told that if Canada doesn't ratify the TPP, weâ€™ll be excluded from the largest free trade deal in the world, weâ€™ll be left out, weâ€™ll be on the side lines.

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, I'm not sure what that means because we have free trade agreements with many of them, not the least of which is United States, which is well over half of those in it. We have NAFTA. Weâ€™ve done something like 14 free trade deals in Canada and we can do these bilaterally and most people will. So, if we're saying it's a bad deal and it's going to make us poorer, but if we're out of it, it's an even worse situation that could make us poorer still, weâ€™ll say that. I'd like to see the numbers, but has anybody done a study of this? Has anyone put forward the growth projections in or out? I have not seen any of the assessment and the government, I would think, you would want to do the math before you sign something like this.

AMT: So, let's stick with the innovation economy then because when we talk about what gives something value, what's the difference between owning a patent and owning drilling rights on an oil well?

JIM BALSILLIE: Nothing except oneâ€™s tangible and one is intangible and the ownership of a drilling well is incontestable inside of Canada, if Canada of course have done it, but when it comes to an idea those are very temporary rights that are construed in a very predatory and quite frankly manipulative geo-political realm and the decisions, 99 percent of the time, are made outside of Canada. So if you don't own it, you can't get money. If you don't own the well, you don't get any money and if you don't own the idea, you don't get any money. So we never built an ecosystem to make money from our ideas. We built an ecosystem to make money from our tangible goods. We have a very good traditional economy, 19^th century resources and some 20^th century manufacturing. 2016â€™s mighty late to be talking about an innovation strategy; we're kind of 40 years late.

AMT: What kinds of things have we had have you seen innovated that we could have done more with?

JIM BALSILLIE: What Canada built-- I mean, we came up with, U of T came up with the touchscreen, Flickr was the first video and picture sharing that was invented by Canadians, we invented the Ebola vaccine. We invent lots of stuff that create hundreds of billions of dollars of wealth, just virtually none of it in Canada.

AMT: Whoâ€™s got it?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, various corporate actors around the world, often in the US. But we're very innovative. We're very smart. We're very resourceful. We just don't know how to make money. And America's very smart and resourceful, but most importantly they know how to make money and they know how to manage the system in a way to make money and in Canada our approach to this was just it's the innovation economy is practically like the traditional economy except we do a little bit of, what I call, spray and pray of grants and hope it all works out. And that's not how it works out. I've done business around the world. I know how Germany does it and Israel and Japan and Korea and the US and Scandinavia. We did something dramatically different than others did it and ours failed and theirs worked out. So, my point is, we need to urgently course correct, icebergs ahead, and signing TPP makes it dramatically more different to course correct the hole weâ€™ve put ourselves in.

AMT: Signing the TPP moves us closer to the iceberg?

JIM BALSILLIE: It makes us-- It doesn't allow us to control the steering wheel anymore. Not even closer, it means we can't course-- We don't-- We've said we're locked in on a course.

AMT: You do talk about the need, though, for a judicial fairness on IP, like, as part of a better Canadian system we need some judicial weight as well, do we not?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, we need a judicial strategy. So when I talk about a strategy to get money from our ideas, you need a strategy, you need an ecosystem in a judicial capacity is one of them. Smart innovation economies both have domestic and international judicial strategies. I've never seen one in Canada for the ideas economy. They have many-- They have strategic technologies, strategies with sovereign patent pools and prior art libraries. We should be teaching how to commercialize in the global economy. We should design incentives in our post-secondary research institutions. We should have performance accountability to our incubators. We should be having collaboration frameworks between our business innovators and our government. TPP was written in the US in intense, on-going collaboration between their chief negotiator and their main innovators for six years. There was not one conversation between our lead innovators and our negotiators. So once we sign TPP Canada is going to be selling a lot more low-margin traditional 19^th century goods and we're going to be importing a lot more high-margin intellectual property goods. That's going to be the practical effect of it. And our prosperity is going to continue its erosion just like it's been and that's the effect of it. It ultimately comes down to how many cheques flow out of Canada and how many flow in, and I'm telling you by the structure of our economy we're going to be writing far, far more cheques for imported high-margin goods, trying to make up for it by exporting traditional low-margin goods. And that's not a path to prosperity. That's a race to the bottom. That's why where our currency is down and that's why we're having these deficits.

AMT: Did our negotiators get sideswiped?

JIM BALSILLIE: There's no question, from my point of view, that you cannot enter into a negotiation if you don't know what success looks like. And if you look at our outcomes it was pretty clear what our strategy was: Protect some traditional kind of agriculture-type industries and those are 19^th century industries. I think whatâ€™s important to understand is every industry is, if it's not already, it's all becoming a technology industry. Thomson Reuters did their big innovation report just a couple months ago. Do you know what sector had by far the highest growth in patents filing in 2015 over 2014, 21 percent growth?

AMT: Tell me.

JIM BALSILLIE: Food and beverage. Agriculture is a tech game. Profits and food are going to go more and more to the innovators. The commodities game is going to be more an innovation game. So know that if we weaken ourselves structurally in the innovation game, it's not for just high tech, it's going to be for where all the wealth is going to be created, even in the traditional sectors of agriculture and in oil and gas. So, pay attention. It's a serious issue.

AMT: Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has been having a lot of meetings about the TPP. Have you met with her?

JIM BALSILLIE: Many times.

AMT: And how did she react to your concerns?

JIM BALSILLIE: Chrystia is very intelligent. She's open-minded. And I'm encouraged by the new government and their open-mindedness. And they're willing to collaborate and understand this. I think the jury's out, because we've also created a new Minister of Innovation. So weâ€™re saying the right things, but we need to understand that we're 40 years late to this game.

AMT: So, what do you want to see for an innovation strategy?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, an innovation strategy is a set of deliberate and systemic elements. So we need a whole set of deliberate, exercises, institutions and capacity building that we should have been building 40 years ago.

AMT: To nurture the people who have the innovation?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, nurture the people.

AMT: And the companies.

JIM BALSILLIE: And nurture the companies, absolutely. So we would call that agency. Yes. You need judicial strategies that foster innovation in a sophisticated fashion. You need tremendous amount of education to the civil service, to the business community, to young people on how this works and how to navigate it. We need strategic approaches to regulations and standards. We don't participate in all of these strategic things, really, at all. It's been AWOL and it one hundred percent explains why we've got zero growth innervation zero puts in 35 years in this country.

AMT: Well, you're the chair of a new lobby group called the Council of Canadian Innovators. Well, why does a lobby group have to play into this? What's the importance of a lobby group?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, it's a business council for the 21st century. And they really realize that these big US tech companies are in the White House every week and guess what? They're all in Ottawa every other week. And they're writing rules that make those big foreign tech companies richer. And they persuade us that what's good for them is good for Canada. And, well, that's just not true. So, no, they have to-- They asked me to chair it. They want to form discussions with the government on policies that will help them get more customers, attract more people. And there's no question they were bothered that TPP was negotiated without a single call to a Canadian innovator, but they talked extensively to American tech companies and the American government talk to American tech companies and surprise, surprise, we get a bunch of rules that supports the large incumbents. And itâ€™s not going to work for Canada the way we're doing it.

AMT: In very simple terms, this comes down of the myth that the giant tech companies in the States just grew themselves out of, you know, capitalism and the government was hands off, that, in fact, there was a role for government to play in regulation and infrastructure and all of that.

JIM BALSILLIE: I built RIM to 20 billion precisely by building an ecosystem, an infrastructure outside of Canada in the US.

AMT: I was just going to ask you, how did you bring RIM to 20 billion dollars?

JIM BALSILLIE: I mean, I'm in Washington once a month working with all the regulators, working with all the policy makers. Iâ€™m on the telecommunications board with all the PAC meetings. I'm in Brussels all the time. I meet with the DOJ. All of the different-- My world was acting like an American commercialization engine in America and in Europe precisely because it's not in this country.

AMT: Do you stand to lose money personally if Canada ratifies the TTP?

JIM BALSILLIE: No, no. I'm a capitalist and I know how money is made and wealthy people like me know how to make money in this. So, actually, I will make a lot more money under TPP than not, but I think it'sâ€”

AMT: Because you have money elsewhere?

JIM BALSILLIE: Yes.

AMT: So why do you care so much about the Canadian innovators?

JIM BALSILLIE: Well, I'm a I'm a proud Canadian. I think I bring a unique perspective. I have unique experience and I think the prosperity, that they're going to be the engines of our prosperity in the 21st century and I care. I live here. I care about our future prosperity. These are my friends. This is my country. I care about it. And if I have unique experience to contribute to the discussion, then I think it's the right thing to do.

AMT: If the kind of change you're talking about had existed 20 or so years ago, would that have changed things, how you worked when you were growing RIM?

JIM BALSILLIE: No, no, not at all. You know, I built an infrastructure outside of the country so, no, weâ€”No, it wasn't-- It was unique what I did. And it took a certain resourcefulness, which I'm very proud of, so, no, I think we were, I was able to figure out how to become an American company in Canada or a Canadian company in America, however you want to say it. So, no, I don't think it would have changed me, but I don't think it's likely another company will navigate that.

AMT: It was a lot to navigateâ€”

JIM BALSILLIE: It was worth it. You get to change the world. You get to go toe-to-toe with the biggest in the globe, you prosper. It's something I'm immensely proud of and it's a wonderful, wonderful experience. So, yeah, but you need to be resourceful. But I think the most important question is why isn't that infrastructure here for the hundreds of billions of dollars over the past whatever number of decades that Canadian taxpayers have spent on this, invested in this? We should rightly ask why such poor outcomes? Why no complete infrastructure? Why no innovation strategy? And I think the policy community has to answer that?

AMT: So your message is this is not a place where government needs to be hands off, this is the place where government needs to dive in and do its part for Canadian innovators?

JIM BALSILLIE: Every country I've dealt business with that's got a successful innovation economy in the world the government is enormously involved in the innovation strategy. In the US, I dealt very actively with commerce, and the Justice Department, and the White House, and many other parts where they are deeply involved in their innovation strategy. Same is true in Japan where we worked with their prior art libraries very critically. I bought very important patents from the German government sovereign patent fund, dealt a lot with the Brussels in their Competition Bureau. I was on their digital advisory committee. These people are active in this all the time every day shaping rules, focusing strategies, engaging to drive success in this because they know that prosperity comes from selling ideas. So you have to design these systems and engagement way that does that and in Canada we just don't do it because we have an orthodoxy that says, you know, get a free trade deal and spray and pray some grants and stable banking and should all work out. And it was a unique approach in the world, that I've seen, and it didn't work.

AMT: Okay, I have one more question for you. What kind of phone do you carry?

JIM BALSILLIE: I carry the classic. I love it. Iâ€™m a devoted BlackBerry user. I still advocate and love it and use it all day, every day.

AMT: I had to ask.

JIM BALSILLIE: [laughs]

AMT: Jim Balsillie, thank you for coming in. Thank you for your ideas.

JIM BALSILLIE: The pleasureâ€™s mine, Anna Maria.

AMT: Jim Balsillie is the former co-CEO of Research in Motion, now known as BlackBerry. He was with me in our Toronto studio. He's also the co-founder now of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. We want to hear your thoughts on what he has to say about the TPP and what you think the deal would mean for the country or your industry. Send us an e-mail by going to our website, cbc.ca/thecurrent and click on the Contact link. We're on Facebook and on Twitter, @thecurrentcbc. Stick around if you want to hear him tell the story of what it was like inside BlackBerry when the iPhone arrived and how his company reacted. Something he really opens up about. He'll be back to talk about that for today's Last Word in about an hour.

Back To Top Â»

Ghomeshi trial sparks debate about treatment of sexual assault complainants

Guests: Elaine Craig, Dr. Lori Haskell, Breese Davies

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: Hello, I'm Anna Maria Tremonti, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: Still to come, lawyer Julian Falconer has been working for years to try to change the way police handle people in crisis. Last week marked a milestone in that campaign. He represented the mother and sister of Sammy Yatim, the eighteen year old who was killed by Toronto police officer James Forcillo. That trial wrapped up last week with an attempted murder conviction. Julian Falconer is my guest in half an hour. But first, questioning the questioners.

[Music: Theme]

AMT: The sexual assault trial of former CBC radio host Jian Ghomeshi resumes today, and the courtroom testimony so far has been front page news across the country. Mr Ghomeshiâ€™s defence lawyer Marie Henein has a reputation for tough cross-examination, and her dogged focus on seeming inconsistencies in one of the complainantâ€™s testimonies this week has given rise to conversations outside the courtroom; conversations about how complainants are treated on the stand during sexual assault trials. We spoke earlier with Anne Kingston, a senior writer for Maclean's magazine who has been following the trial from inside the courtroom. These are her thoughts on the defence strategy so far, and a controversial defence technique known as whacking.

SOUNDCLIP

Whacking is legal slang for an approach used in sexual assault trials. It is cross-examination on what the complainant was wearing, whether she or he immediately reported the incident, how they processed the trauma, whether the complainant spoke to a psychiatrist, the socioeconomic status, drug, alcohol use, lifestyle, marital status, that sort of thing. Very personal questions that should have been outlawed by rape shield provisions that have come into the criminal code over the last generation. Look at an example from the Jian Ghomeshi trial. Basically, what you saw was his defence lawyer; she talked about things like the status of the witnessâ€™s marriage, whether she was separated, that she was floundering in her career, that she was more smitten with Mr Ghomeshi than Mr Ghomeshi was with her. Things that seem pretty extraneous, but just poked holes in issues that should have nothing to do with the charges at hand.

AMT: Thatâ€™s Maclean's writer Anne Kingston. We're going to continue the conversation about the tactics used by criminal defence lawyers in sex assault trials, including the controversial strategy known as "whacking." It's something my first guest has studied in depth; something she says is both potentially harmful, and much too prevalent. Elaine Craig is an Assistant Professor at the Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University. She joins us from Halifax, hello.

ELAINE CRAIG: Hi there.

AMT: Well, we heard that description of whacking, how prevalent is it?

ELAINE CRAIG: Well unfortunately, I think it's quite prevalent. You know, despite the assertion that seems to be being made recently by members of the defence bar in response to the Ghomeshi proceeding, you know, that it's a myth. They would say that defence lawyers routinely bully abuse, attack complainants during cross-examination. Certainly, not all lawyers do engage in these strategies, but lots do. If you look at trial transcripts, if you look at how trial judges describe these cross examinations in many recent cases, you know, cases in the last year alone, it's clear that their contention is simply wrong. There are many examples of cases in the last couple of years in which the trial judge describes the defence lawyers cross-examination of the complainant using words like aggressive, unnecessarily repetitive, rude, no holds barred bullying, painful, brutal, right. I have read trial transcripts from cases in the last few years in which the cross-examination is horrifying and callous. I have done interviews with defence lawyers who tell me that they understand their job to be to attack -- those are their words, not mine -- the complainant. So it's very prevalent.

AMT: Why do why do defence lawyers do it?

ELAINE CRAIG: That's a complicated question. I think that, to some extent, it's done because there's a perception that it's effective. To some extent, in some cases, it may be effective. And to some extent, it's probably also a reflection of a particular culture among defence lawyers that almost reifies this aggressive, intimidating, junkyard dog type courtroom conduct.

AMT: Now, the Supreme Court has given guidance on certain areas in sexual assault trials. Is there no guidance from the Supreme Court on so-called whacking?

ELAINE CRAIG: Sure, the Supreme Court has, as long as 20 years ago, said that that whacking the complainant using questions that are grounded in rape myths or stereotypes is both offside the law, laws like the rape shield provisions, and other laws that protect complainants. Itâ€™s both offside the law and it's unethical for lawyers to engage in that type of conduct. There's no constitutional right held by accused to have a defence that mounts these kinds of strategies.

AMT: At the same time, what do you say to defence lawyers who argue they can't serve their clients without being vigorous or aggressive, in any criminal trial?

ELAINE CRAIG: Well, I certainly think that defence lawyers should be vigorous and defending their clients in every type of criminal proceeding, including clients who are accused of sexual offenses. However, a vigorous defence is not synonymous with the types of strategies that I'm describing. It isn't inevitable that defence lawyers do this. It's not necessary, nor is it acceptable for them to be unnecessarily rude to complainants. To use humiliating questions about irrelevant personal details, let alone to try to circumvent laws that have been put in place to try and prevent these types of tactics.

AMT: So, just to clarify, you're talking about tactics that you don't see in other kinds of criminal trials with witnesses?

ELAINE CRAIG: Absolutely, I don't think we see the same types of stereotypes trotted out. I don't think, you know, certainly it's the job of a defence lawyer to attack the credibility of an opposing witness, but the types of strategies that they use and the gender-based questions that are that are deployed in sexual assault cases don't show up in other types of criminal proceedings. Other than, perhaps, domestic violence cases.

AMT: But that's kind of related.

ELAINE CRAIG: Sure.

AMT: So how is whacking seen in the legal community? How big is the debate?

ELAINE CRAIG: I think the debate is significant. I mean, I think there's a diversity of perspectives among defence lawyers. I am troubled by the narrative that's being deployed recently, suggesting that it's a myth that this type of conduct occurs. So that alone suggests that the debate is intense, in the sense that you've got people like me and colleagues of mine, like David Tanovich, suggesting that this is far too prevalent, and you have defence lawyers saying this doesn't happen anymore. Sure that used to happen, but it isn't occurring anymore. So there's a factual debate about whether or not this is even happening before we even get into the complexities around what the limits should be on defence council. So the debate is intense.

AMT: And if there's going to be a limit on defence counsel, who puts that limit on them?

ELAINE CRAIG: Well, some of those limits of been placed on them through law. So there are there are, you know, Canada has very progressive law reform when it comes to the rules of evidence around the use of prior sexual history, the definition of consent to sexual touching. So, some of those limits are placed by law, and some of them are placed on lawyers by their professional codes of conduct, which I would argue ethically obligate them not to trade in stereotypes. In the same way that we would expect them not to deploy racist stereotypes in criminal proceedings, we ought to expect them, as a matter of their ethical requirements to the profession, to not engage in these strategies in sexual assault proceedings.

AMT: Okay, I'm almost out of time, but the change you want to see is related to that, then?

ELAINE CRAIG: That would be one change. I think the other important one would be providing complainants with better support. So, for example, things like state funded legal representation. Sexual assaults are different in a variety of ways from other types of criminal offenses, and so the supports that are necessary to make it a more humane process are different.

AMT: Oh, because if someone's testifying, an alleged victim is testifying, they don't necessarily have legal representation.

ELAINE CRAIG: No, in most cases they don't now. You know, the Ghomeshi trial might be unique in that sense. Those complainants, some of them seem to have legal representation, but more typically, complainants don't. And so theyâ€™re woefully underprepared for trial, they're not familiar with the procedures. And so, given the nature of these types of trials, it's problematic that they're not adequately prepared and represented.

AMT: Elaine Craig, we have to leave it there. Thank you for your time.

ELAINE CRAIG: My pleasure.

AMT: Elaine Craig, Assistant Professor at the Schulich School of Law, Dalhousie University. She joined us from Halifax. Well, gaps in memories and recollections may offer defence lawyers opportunities to pounce, but according to psychologists, those memory lapses may not be a sign of deception. Maybe less of that, and more of a result of trauma. Dr. Lori Haskell, is a clinical psychologist in private practice. She's an Assistant Professor in psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and she trains lawyers and police on the neurobiology of trauma. She joins me in our studio, hello.

DR. LORI HASKELL: Good morning.

AMT: What do you learning about how the brain stores information during and after a violent event?

DR. LORI HASKELL: Yes. So, the first circuitry in the brain is the most studied circuitry in neuroscience. And so, in neuroscience of memory, there's a profound research basis in it now, so we know that the brain changes, and we know that attention changes, when a person is under threat or in a fearful situation. And so, this changes and alters how memory is encoded.

AMT: Okay, and so if you look at inconsistencies in looking at when a witness is on the stand, why would someone forget small details after experiencing something traumatic like a sexual assault?

DR. LORI HASKELL: That's an excellent question. So, during a sexual assault, a person's brain has what's called a bottom-up attention. They're focusing on what's necessary for survival. So neurochemicals are flooding their brain, they're focusing on what's in front of them, what's the biggest threat. So those neurochemicals actually deactivate the left hemisphere the brain, the Broca's area, where we actually encode normal memories, explicit memories. So instead, only central details are encoded and they're in sensory fragments in the right hemisphere the brain through the amygdala. So what a person will remember, and people will talk, I can't get that smell out of my head, or I keep seeing his face when his look changed, or I remember when he first grabbed my throat, or hearing the door click. So, those sensory fragments are burned and encoded in their brain deeply, and the perceptual field narrows. So the peripheral details, they werenâ€™t necessary for survival, so they're not encoded the same way. And so those things aren't taken in. So, the person is as overcome with these central details, and later on, when they try to start creating a narrative, those details arenâ€™t accurate. They're not recalled with great detail.

AMT: So, peripheral details would be like what?

DR. LORI HASKELL: The colour of the room, was there music in the background, even maybe what he was wearing. Because they're going to be focused on made his eyes, his face, what he's doing with his hands. And they often go into what's called a freeze response. And when someone goes into a freeze, they can't really move. Their brain stem inhibits movement and their ability to speak. So they're in a frozen state temporarily. And usually what they're doing is trying to think of how am I going to survive this moment.

AMT: Okay. There's something you call tonic immobility. What is that?

DR. LORI HASKELL: So, tonic immobility is even more extreme than freeze. And this is when someone goes into a paralysis. So, the nervous system sees that they're under such threat that they are flooded with neurochemicals, the parasympathetic and the sympathetic systems both are activated, and the person can't move, can't talk. And they're just in this terrified state.

AMT: So after a traumatic event, how to details come back to us?

DR. LORI HASKELL: So they often are, you know, frequently in the person. They can't get them out of their head. The problem is people, when they're interviewing victims, aren't focusing on the central details. So the central details are what happened in your body? What do you remember thinking? When did you feel a shift in your experience? What is the image you can't get out of your head? Instead, people are interviewed in a linear narrative. And they can't give a linear narrative, because it's in sensory fragments. So eventually, through going into therapy, or having time to process, they'll tell the story, maybe from, in its completion. But that takes a long time for the brain to process it. I mean, people can see it if they're in a car accident. They don't tell a coherent narrative about a car accident. They'll talk with the moment they knew they were going to crash, or the sounds of the glass shattering, or the sounds of their brake. And that that's what will dominate them for days and hours after the event.

AMT: Why might someone try to fill in the blanks, if they can't recall a detail?

DR. LORI HASKELL: I we all want to create meaningful narratives. And so people say, well, what happened? Most people focus on, well, what were you doing, what happened, where were you, did you fight, did you scream? So, people want to make sense of it, so they try to create that story. And they're not lying, some of those details are vague, but they're there. But, you know, what they don't ask them enough of is what was going on with you? Theyâ€™re going to remember their reflexes, and they're going remember central encoded details.

AMT: You work with, you train police and lawyers on this specific issue.

DR. LORI HASKELL: Yes. Exactly.

AMT: There are some sort of, then, preconceived notions about how we're supposed to remember things.

DR. LORI HASKELL: Exactly.

AMT: Both in the public and for professionals, then.

DR. LORI HASKELL: Absolutely.

AMT: And so, people think this is what the brain should be attending to, instead of what is a brain capable of attending to. So we have all this neuroscience saying, there's all these changes in the brain, and yet, we allow victims to be on the stand, being asked all kinds of detailed questions about peripheral information, which is not relevant.

AMT: So, should these errors in memory be used to prove an alleged victim isâ€¦?

DR. LORI HASKELL: No, there's, I mean, if we changed the focus of neuroscience, changed how police interview victims, changed how crown attorneys understood and led evidence, and how judges could assess credibility, this would get rid of a lot of the myths about what people are supposed to remember, what they're supposed to be able to talk about, and the kinds of actions they should have been able to take. Still, the question of did they fight, did they scream. Weâ€™re not conditioned to fight. Weâ€™re conditioned to freeze, and then try to flee. And we can see this in all kinds of other scenarios, but it's the first things people suggest around someone who's sexually assaulted.

DR. LORI HASKELL: And so, how would a lawyer prove a case without using those peripheral details?

DR. LORI HASKELL: Focusing more on understanding the neuropsychophysiology of what someone experiences. Someone who had a consensual sexual experience wouldn't talk about going into a trance state or feeling frozen. A prosecutor in the States who specializes in this said, yes, well, what were you doing while this was going on? And the victim said, I was lying, counting the holes in the ceiling tile. And he said, do you know how many holes were in the ceiling tile? She said, 36. He had someone go and take pictures of the ceiling tile, there was 36 holes.

AMT: So that would prove that she was in the state she said she was in.

DR. LORI HASKELL: Who would do that during a consensual sexual experience? Exactly, so if they would pay attention to what the victim is actually experiencing and doing, if they dissociate, they want remember a spot on the wall or something in the person's apartment. Something might stand out for them in the car. And that could be corroborative evidence, if those kinds of details were paid attention to.

AMT: Fascinating. Thank you for coming in.

DR. LORI HASKELL: Thank you very much.

AMT: Dr. Lori Haskell is a clinical psychologist in private practice. She's an Assistant Professor in psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and she trains lawyers and police on the neurobiology of trauma. Well, let's bring the perspective in of a criminal defence lawyer. Breese Davies practices law in Toronto, sheâ€™s a vice-president of the Criminal Lawyer's Association. This week, she published an op-ed in The Toronto Star about what she describes as some of the myths about bullying that complainants faced on the stand. We have reached Breese Davies in Bracebridge, Ontario, hello.

BREESE DAVIES: Hello.

AMT: Well, first of all, what do you think of what my last guest just had to say, that that our understanding of how the brain remembers is not reflected in how people are cross-examined, and even how police ask questions?

BREESE DAVIES: Well, I think we are coming to understand a lot more about how human memories are created, how theyâ€™re saved, and how they're retrieved. And that actually is something that lawyers and judges understand. Can we do better? I think, absolutely, we can do better, but it's not the case that inconsistencies on peripheral issues are the things that decide cases in sex assault cases. Because judges understand that inconsistency, or the inability to remember peripheral details, have significant less value when assessing someoneâ€™s credibility. They really are looking at the overall narrative, the overall consistency and reliability of evidence. So I think we can certainly do better in that area, but it's not something that we don't understand, or we aren't addressing in the criminal system.

AMT: Okay, well, I want to ask you about whacking. First of all, how do you define it?

BREESE DAVIES: Well, I'm not entirely sure what whacking is. I don't think I've ever done it, and I don't think many defence lawyers do. But I agree with your first guest, Professor Craig, that defence counsel should not engage in bullying or abusive cross examinations and should not be permitted to cross-examine complainants about irrelevant issues. And there are lots of people who are in place to ensure that that doesn't happen. Judges control the process, crowns can object to questions that are asked, and on the whole, in my experience, those sorts of questions are not routine. Now, let me say, that's not to say that the person who is being questioned doesn't experience cross-examination as difficult challenging or upsetting. Those are two different things. Asking difficult, probing questions is the job of defence counsel. We should do that in a respectful, relevant way, and in my experience, that's what defence counsel do. We're professionals, we have rules that bind us, we have obligations to the court and to the system, and we respect them.

AMT: And how do you respond to the fact that my first guest said that she has looked at the cross examinations in this country on sexual assault cases in the last several years, and she says some of them are horrifying and callous?

BREESE DAVIES: Look, will defence lawyers cross the line from time to time? Yes. Crowns cross the line from time to time in cases, as well, and we have courts of appeal that deal with those sorts of things. In my experience, though, judges are very quick to shut down cross-examinations that are not relevant, that are not appropriate, that are not designed to get at factual matters that are central to the case. And that's the job of the judges, and it's the job of the crowns to do it. So will there be an occasion where a defence lawyer goes one step too far? Of course, it's a human system. But in my experience, those are not common. The cases that I've done, I haven't seen that, and quite frankly, it's not effective to do it, and defence lawyers understand that.

AMT: So in your view, what is the most effective way to get the truth while questioning a complainant?

BREESE DAVIES: The best way is to look at inconsistencies in the central issues in the case. In, you know, what the complainant has said on various occasions about the core issues in the case. And judges understand that, too, that's what they're looking for, as well. And to focus on the facts in the case, and I agree that we should not be, we shouldn't be using stereotypes, weâ€™re not permitted to do that, the Supreme Court of Canada has said we're not allowed to do that. So if you look at the facts of a case, and you look at what a complainant has or hasn't done, or has or hasn't said about the central issues in the case, that's how we test whether a judge can rely on what they said happened. And remember these cases, unfortunately, are about intimate experiences, generally between two people. So, there are no other people that we can look to confirm elements of the story or not, because these things happen, generally speaking, in private. So you have to look at the consistency, the credibility, the reliability of what they said.

AMT: It's interesting though, because our last guest said that there should be more questions on sort of the, what were you thinking, what was your state of mind, as opposed to peripheral fact or the actual linear discussion of what happened.

BREESE DAVIES: And I think that's true. And I think if you look at cases that are prosecuted, the focus is on the central issue of what you were thinking, and what you were communicating with your actions and your words, and what you were doing, and what people were doing. That is the focus, because the issue in many of these cases are, you know, did the events happen as the complainant described, was there consent or not, was the consent communicated? So all of those things are relevant, and are front and central in sexual assault cases, and judges understand the complexity of those issues.

AMT: And just before I let you go, briefly, we see a very public trial right now. How does that affect trials going forward with potential complainants?

BREESE DAVIES: Well I don't know that this case is going to have any particular impact on the law as we practice it. I think weâ€™re seeing an example of a case where there are facts that suggest that there are issues in respect of, at least the one complainant that we've seen, her credibility and reliability. We haven't seen any complaints about any sort of aggressive, abusive, rude behaviour on the part of defence counsel, and I think what we're seeing is a professional approach to a difficult case, which is what happens day in day out in Canadian courts by defence counsel across the country.

AMT: Breese Davies, thanks for your views on this.

BREESE DAVIES: Thank you.

AMT: Breese Davies, criminal lawyer in Toronto and vice-president of the Criminal Lawyer's Association. She spoke to us from Bracebridge, Ontario. Stay with us, in our next half hour we're still talking law. Implications of a high-profile criminal trial with lawyer Julian Falconer, who provided civil representation to the mother and sisters of Sammy Yatim, the 18-year-old killed by a Toronto police officer, weâ€™ll look at that. We'll talk to Julian Falconer and Piya Chattopadhyay is waiting in the wings to go through your tweets, your posts, your e-mails. This is The Current.

Back To Top Â»

Sammy Yatim family lawyer on his fight for police accountability

Guests: Piya Chattopadhyay, Julian Falconer

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

[Music: rhythmic clapping and drum beats]

VOICE 1: They're using it every day. They're going to find one or two or three bottles.

VOICE 2: There is going to be people coming into our walk-ins and seeking out other sources to supplement the over-the-counter codeine which they are no longer able to access.

VOICE 3: My family just died, so difficult to lose our parents.

VOICE 4: My brother belongs in his community, so I need resources to support him so that I am not the only vehicle to do that.

VOICE 5: Dear champions, the tournament begins with a test a skill.

VOICE 5: When things get hard, in my darkest hours, by chance and by choice, Harry Potter has always been there for me.

ANNA MARIA TREMONTI: A taste of The Week That Was and still is on The Current and our Friday host, Piya Chattopadhyay joins me in studio to see what everyone had to say about it. Hi Piya.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Hello, you have a prop.

AMT: I'm doing show-and-tell on the radio. I have this kid's book. I was in a bookstore the other day and there's a kids' book. It is called Hillary Rodham Clinton: Some Girls are Born to Lead. It is the story of Hillary Clinton you know, for kids with little pictures of her growing up with her hand up in class and then, it's like extraordinary in an election yearâ€”

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Yeah.

AMT: Theyâ€™re going to the kids and itâ€™s a woman who has written a children's book, she writes other children's booksâ€”

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Never too early to get engaged in politics and learn about the people that represent us all, no matter how old you are.

AMT: And just one more thing about books, earlier this week Eric Weiner was talking about his book, The Geography of Genius, and one of the places he went was Calcutta and there is, you may know this, a genius by the name of Chattopadhyayâ€”

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY:[laughs]There are many geniuses named Chattopadhyay.

AMT:[laughs] Well, actually Iâ€™m just finishing his earlier book, The Geography of Bliss, which is him travelling around the world finding the happiest, or the most blissful places. Itâ€™s really good. But check the index, Chattopadhyayâ€”

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY:[laughs] But it's not about me, right?

AMT:[laughs] It is about you, but let's get to it. Letâ€™s start with a story we heard on Monday. Helen Ries lives with her brother Paul Knoll in Ottawa. Paul has Down Syndrome. Last year after their mother died, it changed both their lives completely. Helen has become Paul's primary caregiver. She told us about some of the restrictions that frustrate her and limit the care of adults with intellectual disabilities.

SOUNDCLIP

HELEN RIES: Paul can only receive $6,000 above and beyond his ODSP payments, soâ€”

AMT: ODSP Ontario.

HELEN RIES: Disability Support Program. So, $6,000 does not give you a lot of freedom, and what I love about that is they call it a gift. I think that's just such a slap in the face. It's not a gift, it's a contribution to support somebody living a smidgen above the poverty line.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Helen Ries' voice connected with many listeners. Penny Gill of Dundas, Ontario, tells us that her son is 32-years-old, has autism and lives at home. She set up a cooking school for adults with autism which is now in its 14th year. And Penny writes:

Reading:

One thing that would improve the range and quality of programs would be to take the money away from service organizations and give it directly to families to use in programs that best serve their needs, or to have the freedom to set up new programs that do so. It would make services more responsive, and it would avoid the "dead wood" syndrome of simply doing things the way they have always been done.

AMT: Brian Tychie is the parent of a severely disabled child who is 19- years old. He writes from Ottawa.

Reading:

My child is still attending school every day, but this will end at age 21. At that point, we will be solely responsible for our child's care and daily activities. The suggestion that one of the best things we can do is surround ourselves with a network of supportive relatives and friends doesn't work for me. I recently retired in order to be able to care for my child. We managed to hire a caregiver one evening a week, but asking a friend or relative to do this care is unthinkable.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Sofia Ioannou's son Sam is 28-years old. He is autistic and non-verbal, and lives at home. Sofia writes to us from Verdun, Quebec and says:

Reading:

We are currently looking at alternative housing models whereby Sam, and three or four others, can live in their own home with caregivers and staffing levels that meet their needs. Finances are always the problem. Will the Quebec government, that funds care-homes, consider different funding models? The bottom line is that if we don't fight and work towards this type of model it won't happen.

AMT: Thank you for those letters, a lot of people writing in to tell us their stories. Obviously, this is a big issue. Let's move on to something else.

SOUNDCLIP

JORDAN CHARLES: Every community pharmacy is going to have their own story of battling with people who are over using this. They're using it every day. Every day, they're going in buying one or two or three bottles, and they're hopping between pharmacies and we've got no way of tracking it.

AMT: That was Winnipeg pharmacist, Jordan Charles speaking about Manitoba's battle with codeine. As of Monday, Manitoba has a new policy on the drug. Codeine is now only available with a prescription and new regulations will also make it possible for pharmacists to track its use. Codeine is a highly addictive pain killer which is available over the counter in the rest of the country. Last Friday we heard some concerns about the impact of Manitoba's new policy on codeine. Here is Dr. Ginette Poulin, the Medical Director of the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba.

SOUNDCLIP

GINETTE POULIN: We need to anticipate that there is going to be people coming into our walk-ins, our emergency departments, either in withdrawal, seeking out other sources to supplement the over-the- counter codeine, which they are no longer able to access, or certainly experiencing secondary effects from other opiates that they have chosen to use in place of the codeine they no longer have access to.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: April Boultbee lives in Toronto and wrote in to share her experience and she says:

Reading:

I was one of those people buying and abusing codeine. It started with prescription Oxycodone after knee surgery. Once I stopped going to the doctor for physio and prescriptions, I tried quitting. Unsuccessfully. So, I started buying Tylenol Ones from pharmacies. In my experience, pharmacists rarely ask anything other than 'have you used this beforeâ€™? I started buying bottles of 50, then 100, then 200 pills. I'm 80 days clean today, but it's taken me a year of trying to quit to get here.

AMT: On Facebook, Mikhail Rodsky had this to say:

Reading:

Banning Tylenol One and generics seems like a dumb idea. Some people who can't get a prescription for some reason, will simply look elsewhere, ie the street, and end up using more powerful opiates.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: And on Twitter, Mark Still tweeted:

Reading:

The long term indifference of the entire medical community is the real problem and Sean Ryan tweeted: It's just going to increase doctor wait times because people will have to see them to get a bottle of cough syrup.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: I should just point out in Manitoba, the rules are now, you can get a prescription for codeine from your doctor but you can also get it from a pharmacist.

AMT: Okay, good to point out. Thank you. Moving on. Two weeks ago, just before the attempted murder conviction in the death of 18-year old Sammy Yatim, we talked about the number of people in mental crisis shot by police in Canada and the Sammy Yatim case was key to that discussion.

SOUNDCLIP

[sirens wailing. Three shots fired]

AMT: That's from the video recording of the last moments in Sammy Yatimâ€™s life. He was shot dead by a Toronto Police officer on a summer evening in 2013. When video of that shooting went up on YouTube, it changed everything. There were public protests and inquiries into police behavior. Last week a jury found Toronto police officer, James Forcillo, guilty of attempted murder in the case. Julian Falconer is the lawyer who gave civil representation to Sammy Yatimâ€™s mother and sister during that trial. Here's some of what he had to say on the day the verdict came down.

SOUNDCLIP

JULIAN FALCONER: Now, in my view, today should be a shameful day. We should all be ashamed that it took all of this to get focus on what they're doing. Will it cause them to change? Nothing has so far. I feel I've said it before, I feel like a gerbil on a wheel in a cage for 25 years acting on these cases. Time after time, what I see is needless deaths for people who are mentally ill, for people who are emotionally disturbed occur, and weâ€™re told the same thing every time: I have to use my gun to end the threat. Shooting someone like a dog in a street who can't even pronounce or know where they are, or what their name is, makes no sense.

AMT: Well, for Julian Falconer, the jury's guilty verdict vindicated his long campaign to change police behavior and how they deal with people in crisis. Julian Falconer joins us from our studio in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Hello.

JULIAN FALCONER: Good morning.

AMT: You know, even on a day seen as a victory for those trying to hold police to account, you sounded pretty frustrated in that clip.

JULIAN FALCONER: Well, there is frustration. It's a long list of tragedies and very little action by way of reform of the Toronto Police, or police in general when it comes to dealing with emotionally disturbed persons.

AMT: Now, Toronto police officer James Forcillo was found guilty of attempted murder but Sammy Yatim is dead. How significant is that verdict?

JULIAN FORCILLO: It represents the first time a jury has returned a guilty verdict in respect of a police officerâ€™s use of lethal force. I think it's a game changer, there's no doubt about it. Why? Because traditionally, frankly, when a police officer goes on trial for the use of lethal force, so far, up until this case, it's pretty well been a pass for the officer. Itâ€™s been a form of immunity. They were literally guaranteed an acquittal. I can simply tell you among those of us who do this work, it has just been seen as incredibly difficult no matter what the circumstances are, to find a jury that would be willing to convict a police officer who has used unjustified force.

AMT: So your involvement in the case of Sammy Yatim is not the first time you have tried to hold police accountable for using unreasonable lethal force. Why did this case succeed in getting a conviction when others did not?

JULIAN FALCONER: Well, I have actually, along with the co-author Meaghan Daniel, written a chapter about what we consider as somewhat of an awakening of public conscience in terms of police accountability. I think when you look at the Robert Dziekanski case out in Vancouver, the man who died in the airport, the G-20 realities--wwhen you look at the different cases or police excesses in recent years, a huge difference has been the availability of video evidence. What it means is, the public now has an opportunity to weigh a police account against objective pictorial evidence. And guess what? It comes as no surprise that in some cases, not all, but in some cases, the police account doesn't stand up very well against what anyone can assess themselves. The Forcillo case is a perfect example, huge problems in accepting his evidence as to the threat Sammy Yatim posed once he was on the ground. Huge problems with that evidence, obviously, that's why the conviction.

AMT: And you use the case of Robert Dziekanski in 2007 with the RCMP officers. This story did change when the video came out.

JULIAN FALCONER: And this isâ€”

AMT:-- the trajectory of what happened that night.

JULIAN FALCONER: That's right. The theme that has been sort of constantly put out there by police, is the use of force is justified because the person represented a threat and as the force becomes more serious, of course the threat they have to depict is more serious and so, an officer gets on the stand and tells a story about just how dangerous this person was and sometimes that's true, of course. Other times it's grossly exaggerated in order to justify what the officer has done. I think that's what happened, in my opinion, in the Yatim matter and then I think in Dziekanski, youâ€™ll recall the officer trying to demonstrate how a stapler was a threat. I mean, it comes down to this: this extraordinary emphasis to the exclusion of all on officer safety generates these, what I call skewed balances, where the sanctity of life of the subject of the investigation becomes a distant second to the remotest risk against the officer. And really, that's what the new report by Justice Iacobucci was addressing. He's trying to correct what is a skewed balance.

AMT: Well, let's talk about that because it was 2014, Justice Frank Iacobucci 84, 85 recommendations in a report called Police Encounters with People in Crisis. What was he getting at in that report?

JULIAN FALCONER: I mean, there are 84 recommendations and I consider it state of the art in terms of prescribing a new approach to the use of lethal force. And what's interesting about it is, he recognizes this emphasis on officer safety virtually to the exclusion of protection of the sanctity of life of the subjects. And so, he makes recommendations on the culture, on the police culture, on hiring practices. He makes recommendations on the full coverage of mobile crisis teams and I want to emphasize this, and this is the gerbil on the wheel issue that I feel like since my involvement in these cases back to 1992. So, 23 years, 24 years at it. In the Lester Donaldson shooting, you know we've been talking about the importance of teaming up a police officer with a health professional and having people out there in these mobile crisis teams that are skilled in de-escalation. When they approach an incident, they don't approach it with the use of force options and terminating threats if someone doesn't respond to police commands. They approach it from a de-escalation point of view, something that I agree your average officer in the street is not going to be able to do. That 24/7 coverage is recommended again in the Iacobucci Report. But again, the police are resistant to it.

AMT: So, Lester Donaldson all those years ago, remind us of that. Who was he?

JULIAN FALCONER: Lester Donaldson was a man of Jamaican descent, who was in crisis in his house. Myrtle Donaldson might sound familiar to people, ultimately his widow. He was shot and killed in the late eighties in his home. David Deviney was a police officer who pulled the trigger. He ultimately went to trial, was acquitted. The scene of him lighting a cigar outside the courthouse following his acquittal is something that haunts us all. There was ultimately an inquest in that case. I represented the Urban Alliance in Race Relations, and we posited a different theory of how that shooting happened, used ballistic evidence to prove the theory and the bottom line to it all is there were these individuals facing off against a mentally ill man they knew had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, they'd been to the home before. Yet again, failure to de-escalate, inability to understand what it means, and the talk of these mobile crisis teams 23 years ago and here we are flash forward to 2016. They still are dodging, bobbing, and weaving when it comes to simply telling it like it is in terms of their refusal to implement the Iacobucci recommendations.

AMT: Was that the first case you got involved in like this?

JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah, in 1992, I think I'd been a lawyer for three years.

AMT: It changed your sort of trajectory as a lawyer, did it?

JULIAN FALCONER: Yeah. I would say that, supported by a very smart team of lawyers, I've had the honour of representing too many families in respective deaths too many times. And whether we're talking Edmond Yu, Wayne Williams, Junior Manon, Manish Odhavji, on and on, Levi Shaeffer, Doug Minty, I mean, these are all difficult cases where you just ask yourself: if you keep seeing the same thing every time, when is there going to be a serious change in direction? And to me, the answer to that is this Iacobucci Report. What we need to see happen, is it needs to be taken out of the hands of the Toronto Police Service. They have proven, with their website in the claim that they're implementing 94 percent of the recommendations, though they are nowhere near, that is nothing but spin doctoring. When you pull the curtain back, you see that what they call implementation, they put the words, well actually we're taking an alternative approach to X or we're looking at Y from a different point of view. And it languishes. It languishes behind this kind of spin doctoring.

AMT: Give us a sense of how often the use of lethal force by police officers becomes the subject of an investigation?

JULIAN FALCONER: I don't have statistics on hand. The Special Investigations Unit, which is the civilian body that they bring in whenever a police officer causes serious bodily harm or causes death, the SIU investigates and they were in, I would have guessed, 50 to hundreds, and more of cases.

AMT: Across the country?

JULIAN FALCONER: No, that's the province because SIU only works in Ontario. While the statistics are always helpful, Iâ€™d encourage a different way of thinking about this. The use of lethal force by a police officer isn't a numbers issue, as in how many times does it happen. It happens to be a jarring, traumatic event obviously for the family of the person who's lost, frankly for the police officer in most cases. It is for society as well, because you have someone licensed to use this force and they kill someone. Sometimes, obviously, it's justified. We have to be reasonable about this. But no matter whether it's justified or not, it's traumatic. Now that trauma increases. That is, the shock increases when you find out that that person was someone who was delusional, didn't know where they were, what their name was, as examples and they are being expected to respond to police commands. And the officer explains, that since they didn't respond to a command, he was forced to use deadly force. The absolute absurdity of that proposition, that a person who's in crisis could respond to commands the way a person who was of sound mind could, that makes the case for why something is seriously wrong. I only say this, it's not a numbers issue as much as a real concern by society when we see our officials using guns to kill people, or using restraints that kill people.

AMT: Okay, so let me ask you then because you make the point that there are times when it may be justified and that there is emotional fallout even for the officer who might do the shooting, but clearly there is a resistance to change. Where's it coming from? Is it coming from police leadership? Where does that come from?

JULIAN FALCONER: I guess their resistance to change comes from this officer safety at all costs approach. It is driven into the officers from day one and it's consonant with the police officer culture of sticking together. Any time an officer is in trouble, and I'm not talking about the incident, I'm talking about being held accountable, it is put out there as either youâ€™re for the police or you're against them. I think we need to rethink how this is done. There are many good police officers and there are limited examples of bad policing, but the problem is that good officers are not allowed, or made to feel safe, to distance themselves from bad policing. So, consistently, organizations such as the Toronto Police Union casts this as, if you're questioning the actions of for example, Officer Forcillo, then you must be against police. In my mind, we have to change that kind of thinking. The public needs to join good police officers in making bad policing accountable no matter where it is. But right now, it's that constant blind setting up of that, what I would call, those two solitudes: against police or for police, that's the problem.

AMT: Okay, and in the wake of this verdict, do you think police officers will be held to account in a different way across Canada?

JULIAN FALCONER: Yes, by the public but no, not by their leaders. Each province has a ministry that is in charge of policing. In Ontario, it's the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. MCS has to step up. That Ministry needs to ask the important question about the Iacobucci Report, that ministry needs to audit for themselves, that's their function, to audit Police Services. Test the claims that the Iacobucci Report has been implemented, and when they discover these recommendations havenâ€™t been implemented, require implementation. I don't mean do it blindly. It's not a political exercise, this is an oversight exercise, but it's long overdue.

AMT: Okay, Julian Falconer, thanks for your time today.

JULIAN FALCONER: Pleasure.

AMT: Lawyer Julian Falconer represented Sammy Yatimâ€™s mother and sister. He was in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: All right, let's move on to a story we had here on The Current on Tuesday. Our documentary, All was Well, featured seven Harry Potter super-fans talking about how the series has influenced, and continues to influence their generation.

SOUNDCLIP

[Harry Potter theme music]

VOICE 1: Everything I do is influenced by Harry Potter.

VOICE 2: Itâ€™s become who we are.

VOICE 3: I feel like I've grown up with these characters. They're part of my identity almost.

VOICE 2: Harry Potter, to me, means happiness.

VOICE 1: There is never a point when I'm not reading Harry Potter and I don't think it's ever going away for me. Even talking about this, Iâ€™m getting shivers.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Well, we certainly heard from a lot of Harry Potter fans, both those who were Harry's age when they got hooked, and other as well, including this multi-generational story. Andrea Butcher-Milne wrote about how her family's love of Harry Potter passed through three generations. Her father introduced her to the series, and she passed the books on to her daughter, who was 11-years old at the time. She wrote:

Reading:

My father thought J.K. Rowling was brilliant and had captured the essence of the different types of characters at private schools. He passed away a month after the last book in the series was published. I remember running the book over to him so that he could have one last good read. And he did.

AMT: We also asked, if Harry Potter wasn't your thing, what books influenced you most as a child? Kerstin Bjarbo from Deep River, Ontario, tweeted:

Reading:

With me it was Pippi Longstocking, invincible, in disregard of all authority!

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Bob Young from Guelph, Ontario, emailed about his love of the Hardy Boys:

Reading:

That series is far from great literature, and it represents a white-bread America when white bread was in fashion. However, it opened up the world, the magic of fiction for me.

@zfranking tweeted, for me in order, The House at Pooh Corner; Huckleberry Finn; Great Expectations; Dostoyevsky; Camus.

AMT: Heavy duty reading for a six-year old. Whatâ€™s yours?

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: Well for me, if I think back, like when I was about eight, nine, it was Beverly Cleary books, the Ramona series, Judy Blume tales, The Fourth Grade Nothing, Super Fudge. Those were mine.

AMT: I was the Oz Series because there was a series with Wizard of Oz. And I learned, â€œEverything you seek is within youâ€, and I learned witches rock.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: We continue to learn.

[End of show music]

AMT: And, now it's time to give credit where credit is due. The Week That Was on The Current was produced by Idella Sturino, Shannon Higgins, Howard Goldenthal, Ines Colabrese, Julian Uzielle, Pacinthe Mattar, Sujata Berry, Liz Hoath, Marc Apollonio, Catherine Kalbfleisch, Taylor Simmons, Kinsey Clarke, John Chipman, Marino Greco, and Karin Marley. Special thanks to CBC Saskatoon's Dan Zakreski and Heather Loughran, CBC Ottawa's Hallie Cotnam, as well as our network producers Michael O'Halloran in Calgary, Mary Lynk in Halifax, Suzanne Dufresne in Winnipeg, Susan McKenzie in Montreal, and Matthew Kupfer in Ottawa. The Current's writer is Peter Mitton. Our web producer is Lisa Ayuso. Our technicians are Carole Ito and Jennifer Rowley. Our senior documentary editor is Joan Webber. Our senior producers are Richard Goddard in Toronto and Cathy Simon in Vancouver. The executive producer of The Current is Kathleen Goldhar.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: And the host of The Current is Anna Maria Tremonti. If you want to tell us anything about what you hear on The Current, please get in touch with us you can find out all the ways to do so by going to our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. That is our program for today.

AMT: we leave you with a bit more of my conversation with RIM co-founder Jim Balsillie. I spoke with him earlier about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and his opposition to that trade deal. You can find that interview on our website cbc.ca/thecurrent. Before he left, I also asked him about the iPhone and his thoughts on how Team Blackberry reacted to its arrival on the smartphone scene, something he doesn't often open up about. I'm Anna Maria Tremonti. Piya is here tomorrow,thanks for listening to The Current.

JIM BALSILLIE: When you're a public company, and you're a CEO, you have to remember there's what you say externally and what you say and do internally. And we were given confidence, I was given confidence that we are on a path and we're committed to it. But, we were urgently creating a response to that and a set of new technologies to respond to that. They didn't work out, but we were very aware of the competitor threat so that is the way the technology game goes. You're the disrupter and you can be disrupted, you can be disrupting one era and then you get disrupted the next and RIM got disrupted.

AMT: And I have a clip to that because I'm kind of interested in that process. The clip I'm going to play for you is with Jackie McNish and Sean Silcoff because they of course, wrote the book Losing the Signal: The Untold Story Behind the Extraordinary Rise and Spectacular Fall of Blackberry. I want you to hear what Jacquie McNish said to how RIM reacted to the iPhone.

SOUNDCLIP

JACQUIE MCNISH: They were so distracted that I think they only realized when the sales number started coming in about 2009 and 2010, I mean the iPhone was a phone that was known as the â€œJesusâ€ phone. And they were just at that point, they became followers. And they became confused. And I think that when they didn't know how to respond after Storm had failed. They understood they didn't have the direction that they once had, the confidence they once had.

AMT: She's referring to the Blackberry Storm, RIM's answer to the iPhone. Is that fair?

JIM BALSILLIE: Yeah. Yeah, the Storm was devastating. The Storm had 100 percent the first, I think, million we shipped and we got fired as a supplier by our largest customer in the world. So, we had a response. We took it seriously and it was devastating. But we were responding, we took it very seriously, we responded fulsomely with a new hardware strategy and it failed technically in the market and it put us on our heels.

[Music]

Back To Top Â»

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

Feb. 4, 2016 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This