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 © CBC 2020

The Current Transcript for July 22, 2020

Host: Robyn Bresnahan

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: As I apologize for, I should have recused myself because of the connection with my family, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the public service recommended that organization.

ROBYN BRESNAHAN: Justin Trudeau has said he's sorry, but he's still taking a lot of heat from opposition MPs over the wee charity contract. In half an hour, our national affairs panel weighs in on what a third ethics investigation involving the prime minister means for this government. Then.

SOUNDCLIP

[Clip from A League of Their Own]

RB: Well, there may be no crying in baseball, but now there's no spitting either. Professional baseball is back this week, but players will need to curb some age old habits for the sake of COVID. Plus, the finale of the CBC Podcast, Uncover: Sharmini. But we begin with British Columbia's two public health emergencies. Good morning. I'm Robyn Bresnahan and this is The Current.

[Music: theme]

Back To Top »

After her son died of an overdose, this woman wants to fight opioid crisis with urgency of COVID-19

Guests: Kathleen Radu, Judy Darcy

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I just think that these are two separate things. We have an insidious virus that affects anyone at any time and we have an opioid crisis that involves people using drugs. Those are choices initially and then they become dependencies.

RB: British Columbia's Premier John Horgan has been clear that he sees the two public health emergencies facing his province as separate issues. But while the province's response to COVID-19 has been widely praised, the opioid epidemic is reaching new heights. In the first half of this year, 728 people in the province have died from illicit drug overdoses. That's a record high and a staggering number when stacked against the 189 COVID-19 deaths in that province. Kathleen Radu lost her son, Morgan Goodridge, to an overdose last month. She is in Victoria. Kathleen, hello.

KATHLEEN RADU: Hi there, Robyn.

RB: First of all, I'm so, so sorry for your loss. I know this is all still so new for your family. How are you doing?

KATHLEEN RADU: Well, you know, every day is different. Obviously, we're still in a lot of shock and disbelief. This is really devastated our family. And, you know, I never thought in a million years I'd be talking about the death of my son. The pain is still pretty raw and I'm still pretty foggy. So, but I know how important and how timely this is to to be able to share some of Morgan's story.

RB: Can you tell us about Morgan? I mean, what kind of kid was he while he was growing up?

KATHLEEN RADU: You bet. Well, he absolutely loved life. He was a kind of kid who lit up the room when he came into it. Wore his heart on his sleeve. Very kind and thoughtful. Loved sports. Loved music. Was, you know, always looking for the next thing to do and have a lot of hopes and dreams for his life. And he was one of those kids that could make a friend no matter where he went. He's just really charismatic.

RB: Kathleen, when did you first know that he was struggling with addiction?

KATHLEEN RADU: Morgan struggled. He had struggled since he was probably about 15-years-old. It's when we've kind of gone back to the time when he started struggling. Most of it was just, you know, like most kids do, trying things out. You know, parties with school and then later into, you know, when he was 18 and 19, we knew that he was doing some party drugs, which we, you know, spoke about and had open communication about it. But it wasn't really until two years ago, in June of 2018, when we realised that he had crossed over from party drugs into some pretty heavy trucks and his drug of choice was heroin. And when that happened, then we realized and he knew that he was spiralling at that point. He chose recovery, which we were really grateful for.

RB: Did you try to talk to him about it?

KATHLEEN RADU: Yeah, we we spoke very openly about it. We had lots of long conversations about it with him. But again, you know, there's a lot of shame around addiction. And so for Morgan, you know, he would brush it off like it was no big deal. But unfortunately, he had a very scary almost end of his life experience in that August of 2018, which put him in the trauma unit at the hospital due to a septic toxic shock that he received and he almost died. So we really thought that that was the bottom. You know, for him, that that was really a wake up call.

RB: Tell me about the last time that you saw your son.

KATHLEEN RADU: Well, it was my birthday. Morgan was born the day before my birthday. So he had just celebrated his 26th birthday. And it was really hard for him because he really wanted to come home, but because he was in the second stage, housing was together we can in Vancouver and because of COVID, they weren't able to travel. They had quite a few regulations around the house for the safety of all of the people that were in the house. So my daughter and I decided to go over for my birthday on the 8th. You know, it was the best day ever. He had been five months clean. Lots of hopes and dreams. He had just bought his first car, was starting a new job and was really, really hopeful about the future. And we went for lunch and went thrift store shopping, which was one of our favourite things to do. And he just had that look in his eye that, you know, he really felt like he you know, we know that relapse is part of recovery. And every single time he chose relapse. And every day he showed up with courage to be better. And we did see that it was a very tangible progress that we could see in him.

RB: What happened?

KATHLEEN RADU: Well, you know, I wish I had all the answers, Robyn. He was when I spoke to him every day after that, we had breakfast on the morning of the 10th of June. Gave me a big hug. He was excited. He'd gotten a new camera for his birthday. So he was taking pictures. So he would be calling us and telling us about some of the pictures. The night before he passed away, he called both me and his dad and we had a great conversation about some of the night pictures he was taking. And the next morning, he got up and was working on his car and came in and made a coffee and at some point during that morning, he took a toxic dose of fentanyl and was found in his bed. He didn't know it was toxic. Obviously, he was dipping his toe in. And from what we've heard from his house supervisor, it was very small amount, but it was a lethal amount. You know, so many different reasons why people relapse, but a relapse should not have to be death. It just shouldn't. You know, Morgan didn't have to die that day and as a mom, you know, to get that call. Yeah. I'll never forget that day for as long as I live. And having to tell his brother and his sister that, you know, we don't ever get him back. And that didn't need to be the outcome, you know.

RB: But what do you say that it didn't need, like it didn't need to happen?

KATHLEEN RADU: If he had had a safe supply, if there was less stigma and shame and judgement around addiction, we know that this is a disease. We know that people that struggle with substance use disorder. You know, it's not a choice.

RB: Of course, all of this is taking place during this pandemic. This really unprecedented time, which I can imagine only complicates things even more. But seeing the response that governments have taken during COVID-19, I understand that you wish that that same kind of urgency, the same kind of resources would apply to things like addiction.

KATHLEEN RADU: Yeah. Just as shocked and in disbelief I have about the death of Morgan, I'm just as shocked and in disbelief about where we are. I mean, we've had little progress. You know, we had a public health emergency response to the rise of overdose deaths in 2016. Obviously, in 2018, our family got a crash course in addiction and substance use disorder. And we learnt very quickly what was available and what resources were there. And, you know, in 2019, five hundred and forty three deaths. And in the first six months of 2020, we're already at 728 from overdose. We've seen that both the federal and provincial government almost took immediate action. You know, with financial support for people, for businesses, for communities, which was needed to flatten the curve. You know, how many more kids, young adults need to die? It's shocking to me that we're still talking about this and I really believe that we need, we need action like immediate action. We need to be flipping that. This isn't even about a curve. This is about flipping this totally on its head.

RB: And when you talk about action, Kathleen, I mean, can you give us some particular examples? What would you like to see the government do?

KATHLEEN RADU: I would like to see the government quickly step in and take immediate action around safe supply. No more pilot projects. Obviously, decriminalization of drugs is really, really important. It has to fall under the Health Act. There has to be support for families. We have a COVID update every week. Why are we not having a illicit drug overdose? Give us the numbers. Have Bonnie Henry, tell us the numbers and BC's been leading the way with COVID. Why aren't we leading the way with us? Because this is not just a problem in B.C..

RB: Kathleen, how often do you still think about your son?

KATHLEEN RADU: Every minute. I have his picture right in front of me, and he gives me strength, you know, to speak about this because he had so much hope for his life and its future. And he truly believed that he could, he could beat this. And, you know, I truly believe he could, but disease is so fierce. It's so fierce. I refer to it as just insanity. It's pure insanity. Yeah, I think about him every minute of every day and I will for the rest of my life.

RB: I am so, so sorry for your loss. Thank you.

KATHLEEN RADU: Thank you. Thanks Robyn.

RB: Take care of yourself. Byebye.

KATHLEEN RADU: I will. Thanks.

RB: That was Kathleen Radu. Her son Morgan died of an overdose in June. We reached her in Victoria. Judy Darcy is the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions for British Columbia. She's also in Victoria. Good morning.

JUDY DARCY: Good morning, Robyn.

RB: You sound shaken up.

JUDY DARCY: It's very, very difficult to listen to Kathleen tell the story. I cannot imagine what it is like to lose a child at all and in this very, very tragic way. And I salute her courage in speaking up in order to make changes.

RB: Well, where's the political will? Because you heard her say that governments, including yours, should be treating opioid addiction and overdoses with the same urgency as the response that we've had to COVID-19. I mean, what's your reaction to that?

JUDY DARCY: We have not let up for one moment since we took office. You know, the overdose death toll began to spike in 2012 and it continued to go up for several years. We took office in 2017. The death toll continues to go up the next year and then as a result of aggressive, aggressive action, the B.C. Centre for Disease Control estimates that 6000 deaths were averted and the death toll began to come down. Not nearly enough.

RB: No, because you've just hit record numbers in May and June of this year.

JUDY DARCY: Absolutely. We have absolutely. And the coroner has been crystal clear that the reason for the spike in deaths is because COVID-19 hit. And I hate, I hesitate to call it a perfect storm because there's nothing perfect about it, but we have the drug supply interrupted. And that means, the coroner says there are more toxic drugs on the street than ever, ever before in our history. That's the number one thing that's killing people. But also, during COVID-19 unintended consequences, people are living in more isolated ways. More people that are using substances, alcohol and drugs. So it's a combination of factors. But the primary one is COVID-19. And that's why we moved within two weeks of the pandemic being declared to increase access to safe prescription medications to the poison drug supply. Because I agree absolutely with Kathleen. We need to separate people from that poisoned drug supply.

RB: But as you heard Kathleen say, I mean, this has been a state of emergency in B.C. since 2016. This is four years later in 2020, although the COVID-19 crisis and pandemic is relatively new, why have there not been moves for safe supply sooner and for decriminalization? Although it is a federal jurisdiction, but why are there still pilot projects going on rather than actual action?

JUDY DARCY: Well, on the safe prescription medications, we actually have several thousand more people on medications like suboxone and methadone. They're called opioid agonist therapy, which are a treatment. We ramped that up very, very quickly. Several thousand more people are now on those prescription medications and because the Controlled Substances Act is a federal piece of legislation, it does mean that until there were some exemptions that the federal government level, we were restricted in how much we could push out safe prescription meds. But we took the opportunity as soon as they declared exemptions under the federal Controlled Substances Act to get safe prescription meds out there. So if people were addicted to opioids, hydromorphone. So we now have 1300 more people in B.C. on prescription hydromorphone. And we are working with doctors and nurse practitioners and pharmacists and using every means we possibly can in order to get more safe prescription meds in the hands of people who are struggling with addiction because it is a central part of the answer. And at the same time, we're working to build a better system of of addictions care with more treatment and recovery beds, with more access to outreach teams that go and connect with people. Because we've learnt four out of five people who overdosed have had a previous, who died of overdose, had a previous connection with the health care system, and then the system lost track of them. So we don't want that to happen again. We want to stay connected to them. We put new teams in place in order to make sure that that happens. So we heard we have not taken our foot off the pedal for one moment and we won't.

RB: Minister, you heard Kathleen Radu call for two things when she's looking for political action. Decriminalization was one, but the other one that I want to focus on now is this call for safe supply. And many public health experts agree. I want you to take a listen to a Mark Hayden. He's from UBC's School of Population and Public Health. Here's what he had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: COVID affects everybody and the addiction concerns affects people that are often targeted, marginalized, but there isn't an immediate solution, but there is a solution to the overdose crisis. And the solution to the overdose crisis is safe supply. In fact it's more expensive to not respond appropriately. It constantly soaks up our first responder dollars and it doesn't have to. If we responded with a clean public health approach, it would be much less expensive to us as a society.

RB: Minister, he's saying it's more expensive to not respond appropriately. What do you say to that?

JUDY DARCY: No question it is. And this is not a matter of cost. This is a matter of, it remains a controlled substance and we are pushing the envelope in British Columbia with these safe prescription guidelines. Access to safe prescription medication.

RB: But what does that mean pushing the envelope? Because the numbers are going up.

JUDY DARCY: What it means is pushing the envelope is no one else in the country has brought in guidelines like this. No one else in the country is working with doctors and nurse practitioners and pharmacists in order to make it easier for people to access these safe prescription medications. We want to see those numbers who are on hydromorphone, for example. We'd like to see those go up drastically. But we have. We have a system still that calls for you need a prescription in order to get these safe medications. That means doctors. That means nurse practitioners. And that means pharmacists. And so we are working very closely with them to expand access because we need this to be available right across the province. We've seen significant uptake in Vancouver and in some of the urban centres. We need to increase the uptake right across the province because people are dying in urban and rural and remote communities. They're also dying in in in. Tragically high numbers in indigenous communities, which is why we are working in really close partnership with indigenous people. Not not everybody is starting in the same place. We need to meet people where they're at. And if people are ready to have safe prescription medications, we want those to be available to them if they're ready for a treatment bed. We want that to be available to them. It's not one simple solution.

RB: So what is the timeline? What is the timeline for a safe supply then?

JUDY DARCY: We've already begun. It's about ramping it up even further. It's about working with the federal government in order to get the gain, greater exemptions and more flexibility under the Controlled Substances Act. And it is also about the federal government heeding the call of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and heeding the call of our premier that we need to stop criminalizing people who are struggling with an addiction. This is not a moral issue. This should not be a criminal issue. It's a health issue and we need to treat it that way.

RB: Some people might hear that, Minister, sorry to interrupt. Some people might hear that as passing the buck to the federal government.

JUDY DARCY: We are, we can have every morning focused on one thing and one thing alone. And that is how we can save more lives, how we can connect more people to treatment, how we can connect more people to safe prescription medications in order to save their lives and in order to help them to rebuild their lives and have a pathway to hope. We want the federal government to join us as partners in this and I would also appeal to everyone who's listening from British Columbia across the country, everyone as an individual also has a role to play in this. Government needs to lead. Absolutely. But in the same way that we took care of each other to keep each other safe during COVID-19, we need to reach out to people that we know are struggling with addiction and who have courageous conversations with them. Don't push them away. Don't stigmatize them. That will force them to use drugs alone and die alone very often. And we all have a major, major role to play in bringing down the walls of silence so that people can get the help and the support that they need.

RB: Minister, I appreciate your time. Many thanks.

JUDY DARCY: Thank you so much.

RB: Judy Darcy is BC's Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. The CBC News is next. Then.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: I made a mistake in not recusing myself immediately from the discussions given our family's history and I'm sincerely sorry about not having done that.

RB: Justin Trudeau has apologized for his part in the WE controversy, but the opposition isn't letting him off the hook. Our national affairs panel weighs in on a testy question period yesterday and where a third ethics investigation leaves this prime minister. I'm Robyn Bresnahan and you're listening to The Current.

[Music]

Back To Top »

Our national affairs panel looks at Trudeau’s apology and pattern of Liberal scandals

Guests: Kady O’Malley, Marieke Walsh

RB: Hello. I'm Robyn Bresnahan and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

RB: Still to come, why a ban on spitting in Major League Baseball is proving tough to swallow. But first, Justin Trudeau's WE problem.

[Music: theme]

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: Honourable leader of the opposition. It's so gross and disgusting that this prime minister keeps using the pandemic as an excuse for his corruption. The very first act that this prime minister did when the pandemic was try to give himself on precedented power and eliminate the role of the opposition in parliament. And now we know why, Mr. Speaker. Because when they're pushing $300 billion worth of deficit out the door, they will stop and take the time to reward their friends. That is the essence of this Liberal Party under this Liberal prime minister. I don't even have a question, Mr. Speaker. It's just disgusting.

RB: Conservative leader Andrew Scheer was one of the many opposition MPs who came out swinging during a special summer question period in the House of Commons yesterday. It was the prime minister's first appearance since we learnt that members of his family have been paid more than $300,000 to speak at WE Charity events. He is now facing an ethics investigation, his third as prime minister, for his role in awarding WE a now cancelled contract to administer student grants. Our national affairs panel joins us now to discuss what this could mean for the Trudeau government. Kady O'Malley is a freelance parliamentary correspondent who writes for iPolitics. And Marieke Walsh is a political reporter in the Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau. Good morning to you both.

KADY O'MALLEY: Good morning.

MARIEKE WALSH: Good morning.

RB: Marieke, let's start with you. For those who were on summer brain right now, just remind us what exactly the ethics commissioner is trying to determine.

MARIEKE WALSH: So the ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, is currently investigating both the prime minister and the finance minister to determine whether or not they breached the Conflict of Interest Act in the case of the prime minister. This is his third investigation. And the issue really comes down to questions around whether they further the private interests of people they know outside of government, whether they failed to avoid a conflict of interest and whether they were in a conflict of interest.

RB: Marieke, how do you see this cases as different from past ethics investigations faced by this prime minister?

MARIEKE WALSH: I think there's a few things going on with this one. I think the number of investigations changes how Canadians perceive this ethics investigation. The fact that it's three raises questions from the opposition about whether there's a pattern. But I also think that in some ways, the reason why this is an issue that is troubling for the liberals is because it's so much more an understandable issue than previous ones. So the last one we knew about was the SNC-Lavalin affair. You know, that's one thing about prosecution agreements and prosecutorial independence. This one, I think, is more straightforward for Canadians to grasp, it's about the fact that the prime minister's family members financially benefited from the WE Charity and then the government awarded WE Charity a massive contract in a pandemic when many charities are struggling.

RB: Pretty feisty session at the House Commons yesterday. Kady, what did we hear from the prime minister in response to yesterday's questions from the opposition benches?

KADY O'MALLEY: Well, actually, not much new in terms of his answer. The liberals have clearly decided that. Now, that's what's interesting here is I do think this is sort of a pattern, again, for this liberal government. They underestimated the level of interest and momentum and, frankly, outrage that was going to persist or was going to be created, first of all, by announcing that WE Charity with a partner, then with all of the dribs and drabs of news and details of the connexion between the prime minister's family and then the finance minister's family and this organisation, they once again completely underestimated that this was going to be a problem. So it was fairly late in the process, really, when the prime minister came out and said, you know what, I was I should have recuse myself. I was wrong not to do so. And I apologise. Had he done that on day one, we probably or he you know, if he'd actually recused himself, he probably wouldn't be facing such an issue. But as far as that goes, they're definitely now taking the stance that while, you know, while the programme was a while, all the top of the best of intentions that the government and the prime minister and the finance minister clearly made a mistake here, and they gosh, they really hope Canadians will forgive them.

RB: Well, the opposition clearly not satisfied by the prime minister's apology there. Kady, what else do they want to see happen now?

KADY O'MALLEY: Well, they've got, we've got at last have two committee investigations, and there will probably be a third by the end of the day to get. The Ethics Committee is back today and debating whether or not they should launch their own investigation into how you manage conflict of interest issues surrounding government expenditure. So obviously, you know, front and centre in the many questions about the deal agreement with WE Charity, they also would like and they keep pushing the prime minister to agree to provide open access to documents related to this decision and to waive cabinet confidence. What's interesting is, is yesterday we heard from the clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Sugar, who indicated you really seem to be suggesting that, hey, yet we're willing to hand over this correspondence. We're willing to give you what you need a b, the impression that I think he he was trying to give and which may be accurate, was we've got nothing to hide here. There was no funny business going on. So feel free to rifle through our inboxes. And I think that that's whether or not that will satisfy what we're hearing from the opposition in terms of the specific demands or what they want remains to be seen. Also, as more information comes out, there may be more targeted requests as far as as opposed to just a fishing expedition saying give us all your cabinet documents saying, OK, we want the specific notes from this meeting or we want the Zoom recording from this discussion between different officials. So I think it's going to get interesting as those committees, the various committees start to delve into the details.

RB: Mariekae, you have a story today in the Globe and Mail about WE Charity sending the finance minister's office a pitch for the program. Just walk us through why the timing of that is significant.

MARIEKE WALSH: That's right. Well, one of the big questions in this whole controversy is what happened and when? Because the government, of course, announced this first publicly from the prime minister's house on April 22nd, or the prime minister, I should say, announced it. And from there, there has been all these questions that have filled out over the course of the next two months, primarily in the last two weeks. But the question is what happened before that April 22nd announcement? And in the last week, we've learnt a lot more about the interactions between WE Charity and government before the announcement. And the opposition says that raises questions about whether the deck was stacked as how the NDP put it for the WE Charity to get this contract, which was worth as much as forty three point five million dollars for the charity, and which was a programme that was around nine hundred million dollars or could be as high as nine hundred million dollars. And what we reported this morning is that WE Charity sent pitches to at least three ministers offices that we know of on April 9th. That was, the charity says, completely separate from this idea of paying students, their students for their volunteer service. But what we also learnt from the finance minister's office and what we reported this morning is that his office received a second pitch from the wheat charity. The day before the prime minister made the announcement about the programme that did include having student service as part of the programme, it still included what they call a social entrepreneurship element. And we don't have the details of what exactly was in that programme. But you can see that the proposal from Lee appears to have evolved from its initial pitch to something that at least appeared to reflect part of what the government finally announced. And then, of course, what the government awarded WE to administer.

RB: And Marieke, I suppose that's important because the Liberal government has said that it outsourced the work to WE on the advice of the public service. But this information, as the opposition has been seeking to determine, they're wondering whether the idea originated with Liberal ministers. So does this new information, does that give us a clearer answer?

MARIEKE WALSH: It gives out an element of an answer. I think it certainly does not tell us the whole picture of what it all means. And what I find interesting is that WE Charity, in its statement to the Globe and Mail yesterday, made very clear that they are looking forward to their co-founders own committee testimony next week where they say they will be setting the record straight on what did happen. For example, they say that the proposal that was sent to the finance minister's office on April 21st, again the day before the prime minister announced it publicly was about was asked for by the public service. And so the bottom line is, are there were there discussions between we and how did. What role did WE play in the development of this programme? And how meaningful was any investigation or search by the public service for another organisation that could manage this programme? And of course, it is important to remember this was the height of a pandemic. This was in mid April, which is really hard to think about and remember right now. But that was a time when things were not yet opening up, when the curve was not flattening. And so there was certainly much more, I think, concern and worry about where we would be right now. What opportunities there would be for students. And that's how the civil service explains the speed with which they tried to act.

RB: Kady, I'm curious about something that you said earlier, that the Liberals underestimated the outrage over this controversy. I mean, you know, the opposition has been quick to say, oh, echoes of the Gomery enquiry. This is an example of the Liberals rewarding their friends all over again. Same playbook over and over. I mean, how could the liberals underestimate this?

KADY O'MALLEY: It defies belief. You're absolutely right. This is as far as Liberal scandals go, basically going back decades. This is very much on brand. This tends to be exactly what they've been accused of doing over and over and over again, which is why even if and I mean, there is a timeline, a possible timeline here where everything was actually done by the book where there was no inappropriate interference, where they suggested did come from the public service, where all the ethical lines, while with the exception, the recusal were followed. However, even if that were the case, given those optics and given the fact that this prime minister has faced questions before with the particularly I'm thinking more with the Aga. Khan scandal, and that was also an ethics investigation. And that also sort of hinged on this notion that he doesn't seem as though he always sees the potential for conflict in his room. In what? In his dealings with friends. And in this case, with his his family's ties to an organisation. So as you know, as we've both said, it is kind of a pattern, which is why it defies belief that they wouldn't have realised there was a problem here, that there that it's as though they thought they were going to roll this out. It was just going to be one big, good, good news announcement. I think what's also really worth noting is there are actually three issues here. First of all, there's the question of the ties to the prime minister's family and WE Charity and why is there a conflict there? Setting that aside, if you leave that aside entirely, there's the question of, OK, was WE Carity actually the organization that should have been brought in. Given some of the suggestions that have been made about their level of financial solvency, about their management, should there have been more due diligence if the conservatives kept saying in committee yesterday with the review of it as a potential partner. And then thirdly, there's actually the least politically sexy question, which is was this a good idea in the first place? Did it make any sense to put together this particular kind of grant? Would it not have perhaps been easier to separate aid for students from aid to charities and not try to blend them together in a mishmash? Because, I mean as CBC reported there are a lot of questions over whether or not it was a particularly fair offer to have students working for organisations for what would be less than minimum wage. So there are kind of three issues that the liberals and the government have to deal with. Right now, they're kind of trapped between the first two. But I think the third question is also completely legitimate. Even if the programme was well-intentioned and all the rules were followed. There's still a big question mark over whether it was a good idea.

RB: Marieke, at what point does this start hurting the Liberals, the true blue supporters who would, oh sorry, I guess the true red supporters who would be voting for the Liberals. I mean, at what point do they say, you know what? I've had enough. I'm going to change allegiances here.

MARIEKE WALSH: You know, when the true red supporters as as you mentioned, change allegiance is I can't call that one. The liberals do have a solid base of supporters. But we have already seen that some of their support and they were at a very high level of support during the pandemic has taken a hit. We've seen that in polls from adequate data and from the Angus Reid Institute, that we see that in terms of public opinion, there has been an impact on the prime minister and the liberals. And, you know, whether it last and the impact it ultimately has on the future election, hopes of the prime minister I think are just too early to say right now. There are so many different elements at play, not just as Katie mentioned, with all these questions around the programme and what exactly happened, which we'll find out in due course through these investigations. But also this is all happening in a pandemic. There's a lot of other things going on. And so does this quickly fall by the wayside if we see a second wave or when do the opposition parties decide to pull the plug on this government? What happens if the conservative leadership raised all of those different elements factor into the ultimate impact this will have on the liberals? And I think it's too soon to say. But certainly, I think if you're looking at this from a Crisis Communications and Issues management side, as a liberal, I would be wondering, does this end up influencing the overall view of the liberals? Because this has become something that has been a bit of a pattern for them.

RB: We've talked about the official opposition response, heard Andrew Scheer at the top there. But Kady, let's take a listen to what the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh had to say about all this yesterday.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: The pattern of behaviour here is very clear. And this is an example that the more we dig, the more the evidence comes to light, that there are some deep, deep concerns about the entire scheme, that this was never about helping students. Deep concerns about conflict of interest, about inappropriate activities, and the fact that the government encouraged the organization to pay students less than minimum wage. It's wrong for the government to use its power to help its friends instead of helping people.

RB: Kady, what's the NDP strategy here in terms of how they're framing this story?

KADY O'MALLEY: So this is a really interesting quirk to the way that the two parties are responding. You're right. With the NDP, they're doing, I think, a fairly good job of just reframing it only slightly to highlight what has been a longstanding New Democrat complaint throughout the pandemic and even before that, which is that the liberals aren't focussing on the most vulnerable they've been. The new Democrats have been calling for more support for students all along here, not in this particular four about which they were wild, but from the beginning. But the notion that students, that seniors, that persons living with disabilities, that the vulnerable communities really need help right now and that they're not getting it from the government, which is focussed on corporations. And in this case, the argument can be made that while it was more about helping their friends and that's Jagmeet Singh is trying to put forward. What's interesting is that it as as we headed to sort of a possible pre-election period, that position the new Democrats to present themselves as it is. It has long been a position of the new Democrats that the liberals steal their ideas and govern from the left and campaign from the left. But govern on the right. They'll use the response to the pandemic as evidence. That's still the case. And if voters really want a progressive agenda, their only choice is to vote for the Democrats and not the liberals, because the liberals simply won't live up to it in office. And that is, to be fair, that it's been a fairly consistent message from the New Democrats for about a decade now. It hasn't worked yet, but this could be the time.

RB: Just one more story before you go. In our last minute, last night's CBC had a piece about Governor-General Julie Payette and allegations that she has created a toxic work environment at Rideau Hall. Multiple sources say she has verbally harassed employees, staffers have quit, people have been crying in their cars. Kady, what reaction are you hearing about this today?

KADY O'MALLEY: The story, people are really impressed with the story and the depth and the intensity. It's fair to say that it's not a huge surprise simply because the rumours that Rideau Hall was frankly becoming an increasingly unpleasant place to work have been in play up pretty much since the current double Governor-General took over. There was also, I believe it was a post media investigation last year that went into the details of some similar allegations and sort of complaint. So the notion that this is that the atmosphere there is unpleasant, which, of course, we should note is being, you know, heartily denied by it, by Rideau Hall in a statement, that notion is not really a surprise to anyone in Ottawa. I think everyone's just kind of watching to see did this actually trigger? Well, first of all, can it get any play in the House of Commons with all the WE Charity stories going on? And secondly, are you going to see a push from the opposition parties to maybe consider whether or not it's time to think about perhaps having someone new in that job? So those are key things that have to be watching for when the House meets today.

RB: Good to talk to you both this morning. Thanks so much for your time.

KADY O'MALLEY: Thanks very much.

MARIEKE WALSH: Thank you so much.

RB: That was Kady O'Malley, freelance parliamentary correspondent who writes for iPolitics. And Marieke Walsh is a reporter for the Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau.

Back To Top »

Spitting is part of baseball tradition and will be tough to quit, historian says

Guests: Indy Neidell

RB: My name is Robyn Bresnahan and you are listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: The spitball has been cussed and discussed by baseball people over the years. How do you throw it?

VOICE 2: Go to my hat. Load it up. Down. Now here it is loaded up on the ball. It's loaded up.

RB: What exactly is loaded up on that ball is the pitcher's saliva. While the spitball has not been allowed for years with Major League Baseball coming back tomorrow, it is not the only loogie getting tossed. All spitting is officially out. The new rule has come into effect due to concerns over COVID-19. But the ban might be hard to swallow for the sport of sunflower seeds, peanut shells and chewing tobacco. Indy Neidell is a baseball historian and is on the line now. Hi, Indy.

INDY NEIDELL: Hi.

RB: Tell us how spitting, first of all, like how did it become such a big part of baseball?

INDY NEIDELL: Well, I mean, it goes back, you know, in the 1800s, you had a lot more people using things like chewing tobacco than they used today. You didn't have, like pre-rolled cigarettes. You had to buy tobacco loose and you couldn't afford a lot of it. It was a lot easier just to have chewing tobacco. And then, of course, when Elmer Strickland and Jack Chesparo and Ed Walsh began experimenting and having success with throwing the spitball because the moisture on one little tiny point, part of the ball messes up the weight of the ball. So it drops and dips in all kinds of unpredictable ways. That exploded and for the next 15 years, until it was banned in 1920, you saw all kinds of things being used to produce spit. They wouldn't just use tobacco, although there were a lot of pitchers who did not even use tobacco outside of games using tobacco during games, which meant to give them given them all kinds of nicotine buzzes and stuff. But Slippery Elm, anything you could put in your mouth to create spit for the almighty spitball was used. I mean, it's just and it's still even after the tobacco stuff, even having chewing gum and stuff, it is so traditional in baseball. And baseball is an incredibly conservative game over the years about tradition.

RB: And of course, this is not baseball's first global pandemic. How did the sport handle the flu outbreak in 1918?

INDY NEIDELL: Well, you know, it's funny because the spitballs balls, well, all pitches that involve defacing the ball, scuffing, signed balls, spitballs. They were all banned in 1920. And this was still during the Spanish flu, although I've never seen any evidence that the two are related, because there were they were also trying to keep the balls cleaner during the games, particularly after the deaths of Cleveland star shortstop Ray Chapman when he got hit in the head with a pitch ball in August 1920 and died. So that was, you know, that was a big wakeup call. But if you look you can find pictures of like minor league teams in 1918 and 19 playing wearing masks. Obviously, we knew that the flu was contagious— the Spanish flu was contagious person to person. The flu, the actual virus itself wasn't isolated until like 12 years after, like 1931. So we didn't actually know the specific virus. But you knew social distancing. You knew that you could wear a mask. But, of course, just at the end of the First World War and the next six or seven months when all of the soldiers were returning home to the various nations, you could not help but have hundreds of thousands of people packed together. But baseball responded to the flu basically the same way it response to everything. You just slowly adapt, usually a little bit slower than the rest of the world does, because it is a kind of traditional institution. But well spitballs were banned and it would be kind of cool if it had something to do with the Spanish flu, but again, I've never seen any evidence that suggests that.

RB: Well, when the current spitting ban was announced, many players did have something to say about it. Just take a listen to Justin Turner. He is with the L.A. Dodgers.

INDY NEIDELL: Yeah.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It's just almost second nature. Spitting for a baseball player is like blinking. It's going to be a tough habit to break. It's not even just spitting on the ground. You know, a lot of us have routines and habits, you know, you spit a little bit in you glove, before a pitch. It's got to be a conscious effort from everyone and, you know, we're going to have to do out best.

RB: How do you think the baseball players will handle the ban on spitting? As you heard there, he was saying there's so many routines and habits.

INDY NEIDELL: Well, he's right, it's going to require a big conscious effort because, you know, I've watched games all my life. There's always been spitting involved. I mean, even spitting on the umpire, which you get fined for big time anyway, but still, if they're going to enforce it with with fines or with even suspensions, then I think pretty darn quickly it will take effect. Although I can see the first few games, people are going to be really uncomfortable consciously thinking about not spitting until it becomes more second nature.

RB: I was reading a piece that said baseball is the only American sport where people actually snack in the middle of playing. I mean, it sounds like the sunflower seeds and tobacco, they're going to be banned to spit now. I mean, what do you think is going to happen? Are they still going to chew on those sunflower seeds and just swallow them?

INDY NEIDELL: Oh, that's a tough one about seeds and things like that. I mean, people are still going to be chewing on things in the dugout. But I think it's going to be things that you can entirely swallow and not have to leave a piece of behind. Raisins I guess? I don't know.

RB: Well, there's a new brand for baseball. There you go. Raisins in baseball. Who knew.

INDY NEIDELL: Rasins and baseball — alright.

RB: Indy, it was great to talk to you this morning. Thanks so much.

INDY NEIDELL: Yeah, thanks for letting me come on. Thanks.

RB: That was Indy Neidell. He's a baseball historian and we reached him this morning in Munich, Germany. Well, coming up in 90 seconds, we will have the conclusion of the CBC Podcast, Uncover: Sharmini. We've been listening to it throughout the programs. This summer, we are bringing you some of the best of CBC Podcasts and today is the last instalment in Uncover: Sharmini. So stay tuned for that. I'm Robyn Bresnahan, and you have been listening to The Current.

[Music]

Back To Top »

Uncover: Sharmini – Episode 7 (Bonus)

RB: I'm Robyn Bresnahan and you're listening to The Current. This summer, we're bringing you some of the best of CBC Podcasts. And today we continue with the final instalment of Uncover: Sharmini. On June 12th, 1999, 15-year-old Sharmini Anandavel left her family's Toronto apartment around 9:00 a.m. She never returned. In the past six episodes, host Michelle Shephard introduced us to Sharmini's family, her friends and the main suspect in her death, Stanley Tippett. After this podcast originally aired in 2019, Michelle and her team heard from two people who said they had more information about what could have happened to Sharmini. Today, you'll hear from those people in a bonus and final episode of Uncover: Sharmini.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Hello.

JOE: Hi.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Hi Joe?

JOE: Yes.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: How are you?

JOE: I'm not bad. A little tired. Long day. You know.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: I was really intrigued to get your e-mail today. Thank you for reaching out. So why don't we just start at the beginning? You believe you saw her that day, so June 12th, 1999?

VOICE 1: Sharmini left home that morning to go to work. We have not been able to find that job she was going to.

SHARMINI'S FATHER: Oh, please. Please atleast, please. We'll give whatever we'll give. Please release my daughter if somebody abducted or keep in some other place. Please release my daughter. Please I beg you.

VOICE 2: The narrative that was developing was that she left home in the morning to go to a job at North York Wreck. But her friends were saying, no, no, she was going to work as an undercover drug operative for four Stanley Tippett.

VOICE 3: I'm prepared to assume Stanley is telling the truth and I think everyone should.

STANLEY TIPPETT: I wasn't charged. You know, I have nothing to do with Sharmini.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Sharmini's killing was the first big homicide I covered back in 1999 when I was a young crime reporter at the Toronto Star. I never forgot Sharmini or her family. And I never forgot the suspect in the case either, Stanley Tippett. Tippett was later convicted of three crimes: for criminally harassing two women and the sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl. He's in jail now indefinitely as a dangerous offender. We started this podcast hoping we'd find something new, something that would lead us to Sharmini's killer. We spent a lot of time going through the evidence in her case, including examining allegations against Tippett and looking into his convictions. And we talked extensively with Matt Crone, a retired Toronto homicide detective. He spent years trying to build a case against Tippett. Sharmini's death still haunts him.

MATT CRONE: When I retired, I found myself apologizing to the Anandavel family that we never solved this. We never resolved this issue for them. So I think they deserve resolution for this, which they haven't had, which nobody's given them. So that would probably mean more to me than anything more you could do to Stanley Tippett.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: But the evidence was circumstantial. There was nothing concrete to tie Tippett to Sharmini on the day she disappeared. Crone brought his case to prosecutors anyway, but there wasn't enough for charges. After our podcast launched, two people contacted me. Joe Becker was the first. I was really intrigued to get your e-mail today. Thank you for reaching out.

JOE BECKER: Yeah, well, this story on the news last night galvanized me and pushed me into action on this.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: OK. So why don't we just start at the beginning. You believe you saw her that day, so June 12th, 1999.

JOE BECKER: I was driving down James Street and I stopped at the light at Lawrence. I was the first car. So I stopped at the red light and a bunch of people started walking across the road towards you know my vehicle, right? They were crossing the road.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: And just to be clear, we're going back now to 20 years ago. This is what you saw that day?

JOE BECKER: That day. And I was just looking at the people crossing in front of me, you know, and I saw Sharmini, who I recognized immediately when I saw her picture on the news reports later. I saw a man walking across the road towards, you know right not towards me, but right in front of me. And I was looking at the guy a bit because he caught my eye. He looked kind of weird, but I noticed the mouth and his eyes were like really too far apart. And kind of down on the corners a bit, if that makes any sense. I was wondering, how can just killing time in my head, waiting for the light change, how come they're two together. Like he looks like he should have a maybe a care worker or something taking him for a walk. And then when I looked at her, she was, she's much too young. She can't be a caretaker. And then the light changed and I drove away.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Do you remember anything else about him or maybe her, what she was wearing or anything?

JOE BECKER: If I, if I can say anything, I think she was wearing a white top and I mean it could have been like a knit top.And him he just looked normal, except for his facial features.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Right. I know I'm asking you to remember something 20 years ago, but.

JOE BECKER: Yes, I want to impress upon you, Michelle, but I know that I saw her that day at that time. And I've known it for the past 20 years.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Joe says he's certain he saw Sharmini and Tippett that day. Tippett has a condition that's known as Treacher Collins Syndrome, which affects the bone development in his face. So he's quite distinctive. And that was always a big hole in the case that police had against Tippett. As far as we know, no one has ever come forward to say that they saw them together the day Sharmini went missing. Now, Joe did see news reports about Sharmini in 1999, in the days after her disappearance. He says he recognized her right away as the girl he saw crossing the street that Saturday in June, but he didn't call police.

JOE BECKER: No, I didn't call the police. I was at a different place in my life at that time and the only thing I could think of is like I can't get involved with whatever this is.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Joe's life was just complicated back then. Essentially, the way he described it to me is that he says he didn't have it in him to get involved in a major police investigation. He was recently married and deeply involved with a former girlfriend who had multiple sclerosis and not much longer to live. He was on his way to visit that friend at the hospital the day he believes he saw Tippett and Sharmini.

JOE BECKER: And that's where I was going at the time. So the thing was with the whole situation with my wife and this girl who I was very devoted to, I just was stretched pretty thin and I couldn't think I would allow anything else to come into my life because my time was taken up 100 percent.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Just as a reminder. Sharmini went missing on Saturday, June 12th, 1999. She left her apartment on Don Mills Road around 9:00 a.m. on her way to a job that didn't exist. Police believe that that offer of a fake job was a way for someone to lure her out of the apartment. Matt Crone, the retired homicide detective, believes the person who offered that job was Tippett and the job he offered was for some type of undercover police operation.

MATT CRONE: The interesting thing was that he picked a job which in reality would have a certain amount of secrecy attached to it. So I'm going to give you this job as a police operative where we are going to take you, give you all the equipment you need, a radio and pad and paper binoculars and we're going to put you in a place and you're going to look for drug dealing. And when you see it, you call me on your radio and I'll swoop in with my team and arrest the drug dealers. But because it is this secret police investigation, you can't talk to anybody about it and you can't even tell your parents about it. So there's a certain crooked genius to that.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Sharmini did tell at least two friends that she was doing undercover work. And after she went missing, police found this bogus job application in her room for a place called the Metro Search Unit. Tippett was an obvious suspect because he knew Sharmini and he had lived one floor below her family's apartment and he did actually have a history of impersonating police officers. I interviewed Tippett extensively back in 1999 and again during six hours of jailhouse interviews for this podcast. He emphatically denies that he saw Sharmini the day she disappeared or had any involvement in her death. He says that police, they just had tunnel vision and they were targeting only him. While Joe didn't contact police 20 years ago. He says he did tell some family and friends about what he saw, including his wife. Rose, do you remember him talking about this case and Sharmini?

ROSE: Way back when, I'll say he mentioned it because it's sort of an unusual thing for someone else to say and he brought it up last year and he felt like he should have done something, you know, get it off his chest. And I think Joe's kind of relieved that he's done that.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: But now, after 20 years, there are details missing. Joe says he saw Sharmini on a Saturday and it was just before news broke of her disappearance. But he can no longer say with 100 percent certainty that it was Saturday, June 12th.

JOE BECKER: Whenever I happened to be watching television and when this was broadcast, it happened then. Was it the next day or the next week? It was fairly quickly afterwards, but I can't say exactly how many days or anything like that.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: He can no longer be sure of the exact time either, although he believes it was morning or early afternoon. He also vaguely recalls that she was wearing a white knit top, but her family told police she was wearing a blue top with white stripes. And Joe says he saw them at an intersection more than 20 kilometres from Sharmini's apartment or the park where her remains were found. The second person who got in touch was Charlie D'Souza. He found me on Twitter and asked that I give him a call.

[Phone connects]

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: Hello.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Hi, Charlie. It's Michelle Shephard calling you.

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: Hi Michelle, how are you?

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: I'm good. How are you doing? Charlie told me he saw Sharmini and Tippett together in the East Don Parkland when he was jogging. That's the park where Sharmini's buried remains were found in October 1999, four months after she went missing. Charlie is a 64-year-old Toronto Transit Commission employee. He worked as a ticket collector in Toronto subway system and is now just a couple months away from retirement. Unlike Joe, Charlie hasn't spent years bothered by the fact that he didn't report what he saw to police. In fact, he says he didn't even know what he saw until now. He wrote it down in a letter that he read to me.

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: OK. A photograph of Stanley Tippett was published in September 2019. I recognized him as the man I saw in the East Don River Park 20 years ago. He was talking to Sharmini. This incident locked in my brain and I could never remember it. I'm ready to take a lie detector test and any kind of test to tell you that I'm telling you the truth.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Charlie says a newspaper report about our podcast and a picture of Tippett triggered this long buried memory of seeing them together in the park when he was jogging. Once the memory came back, he said it was vivid.

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: His facec was always embedded in my brain. I was running that day in the park. I ran past them. I turnedt to my left, I saw him standing and Sharmini sitting on a boulder, a rock. He was standing five yards away from her.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Now, when I heard this, I was thinking, well, you're likely thinking now. Really? Come on. I can barely remember last month, let alone a tiny detail while jogging in 1999. But Charlie is so convinced. So we arranged to meet him in person and asked him to take us to the place where he believes he saw Sharmini and Tippett.

[Eerie music]

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: We meet Charlie at the Leslie Street Station where he works and walk outside along a very busy Bayview Avenue. He's walking pretty quickly. He still has the gate of a runner with just a slight limp from a sore knee.

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: So we're going east right now, crossing the street.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: And this is the East Donlands Park. I always get the name wrong. It's the East Don Parkland. It's huge. A beautiful urban oasis north of Toronto with kilometres of trails following the Don River. Charlie used to jog here sometimes during his lunch break.

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: 15 to 20 minutes. I ran about 15 minutes that day. 15 to 20 minutes. I felt fresh, it was hot. I know it was hot. And maybe I'm from India, that's why. I'm used to it.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Charlie says he knows the exact spot where he saw them. That he can distinctly remember the boulder Sharmini was sitting on. He's taking us to an area that's actually not far from where her remains were buried. Charlie sees the boulder he recognizes and stops.

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: This is the place where she sat down and God, I wish I could do something. I won't lie to you.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: I'm sorry. You OK?

CHARLIE D'SOUZA: Yeah I'm okay. It's just the feeling came to me again, right. And if I had known, I would have put up a tough fight. At that time, I would have given him a tough fight, no matter what. If I only knew that, OK, her life is in danger or something. I could have done something. I could have helped her. I would have, I could have, I should have, but that's too late to say all that. She's gone now.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Charlie knows people are unlikely to believe him. And he says he's not worried about that, about his reputation. He just really wanted to get this off his chest and he hopes he can help. He contacted police and they did record a video statement at Toronto Police headquarters. I was curious to know if this was common to recall something so seemingly insignificant so many years later. So I reached out to Morgan Barense. She's an assistant psychology professor at the University of Toronto and she founded what's called the Memory and Perception Lab, which researches just what it is in the brain that enables us to think and remember. It's kind of a very specific question that I have for this podcast we've been working on and we look into a cold case from 20 years ago that. I walk her quickly through what Charlie told us. He believes that what he saw. But is that possible?

MORGAN BARENSE: I mean nothing is impossible. There are lots of memories that are lurking and we won't know that they exist unless they come to the surface. They're brought to the surface by some really rich cues, but there's no reason, I would think, to store a completely banal memory of having been jogging in vivid detail 20 years ago and the face of the individual who was with the victim.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Morgan asked me how Charlie's memory was triggered, and I told her it was from seeing a picture of Tippett in the newspaper, which identified him as a suspect in Sharmini's homicide.

MORGAN BARENSE: So I could absolutely imagine a scenario by which he saw this image and maybe hearing about this story queued a memory of having gone in the park, so that memory is activated and then he merged it with the image of the picture of a man.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: I also tell her that Tippett's appearance is distinctive due to his Treacher Collin Syndrome and people tend to remember seeing him. If they were together, maybe they looked like an unlikely pair. That's what Joe Becker said made him take such a close look.

MORGAN BARENSE: That would change things a bit. And again, I'm not saying that it's not possible that this, that he did, that he did recall this memory or that he did see what he says that he said. I'm just saying that it's a more likely explanation that his memory was reconstructed with the information that was right in front of him, seeing the image of the suspect and then with the best of intentions, integrated that into, you know, what he recalls, which is a vivid memory for seeing the suspect with the victim.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Morgan says that's how our memories work sometimes. They get sort of updated. So what you remember may not be exactly how it was, especially after 20 years. You think that's what you saw and maybe you did, but it's impossible to know for sure.

MORGAN BARENSE: I have no reason to believe that he does not have this memory, I just think that it is unlikely that that memory is a perfect depiction of what he says it is that would stand up in court.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: So let's go back to Joe Becker, who says he saw Sharmini and Tippett at the intersection. Joe contacted Toronto's homicide squad the same night he reached out to me. We've been talking for a while before they did call him back and asked that he come to police headquarters. So he did, arriving at 11 a.m. on a weekday to give his statement. I called to see how it went and he says he was brushed off. The detective who met him said he wasn't ready to take the statement or he didn't know the case file very well. Joe, to put it politely, was not pleased. He lives in King City, about an hour outside of Toronto and came into town specifically for this interview. So I reached out to Detective Sergeant Stacey Gallant, head of the Cold Case unit. He sent an e-mail disputing Joe's account, saying his detective was fully prepared, but Joe was in, "no state to talk to police. Mr. Becker, upon arrival, was not in any condition to be formally interviewed due to his physical state believed to be from alcohol consumption." He wrote. I relayed this to Joe. Now, he was really mad. He vehemently denies the implication. He told me he doesn't even drink.

[Sound of door opening]

MATT CRONE: Hey sir.

JOE BECKER: Hi, how are you.

MATT CRONE: Matt Crone.

JOE BECKER: Yes.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: We decided to go see Joe in person. And Matt he wanted to come too. He was disappointed that Joe was brushed off when he tried to give a statement to police. You got quite the buzz cut.

JOE BECKER: Yeah, I got sick of the Santa Claus jokes.

MATT CRONE: Do you have a table we could sit at?

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Yeah, we set it up in here.

MATT CRONE: Joe, could you spell your last name for me?

JOE BECKER: B-E-C-K-E-R.

MATT CRONE: I just want to kind of go over the the why we're here today and what we hope to achieve. And as a result of the podcast from the CBC on the Sharmini Anandavel case, you reached out to Michelle with some information and then in an effort to contact the police who had some frustration with that. So as a result of that, what we thought we would do is we'd undertake an interview now just to sort of get your information, get an accurate record of your information. But I want you to and I know Michelle's probably already explained this, but I'm retired. I have no official connection with the case. I have a big unofficial connection with the case and what I'd like to do with the fruits of today's interview is send that to the police. So if we put it in a format that they're familiar with, that might be more helpful. So you're all good with that?

JOE BECKER: Sure.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Matt asked Joe a series of questions. Where he thinks he saw Sharmini and Tippett, what they were wearing, what was going on in his life at the time.

MATT CRONE: And you recall what had taken you down to Jane and Lawrence?

JOE BECKER: I was down there on a regular basis.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Joe's answers were pretty much exactly what he had previously told me. I'm just curious from Matt, like what's your next step if you were talking to your colleagues about this and putting Joe on the stand?

MATT CRONE: Well, the difficulty is the timing of it, based on the passage of time. It's difficult to make it any better than it is. And you seem like a credible guy. And if I was a defence lawyer, I wouldn't have a lot of questions for you. I would just put on a memory expert and say, walk us through this.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Because Joe is not certain of the exact date when he believes he saw them, his testimony would carry less weight. Tippett did not deny knowing Sharmini.

MATT CRONE: Like if he were to say oh I didn't know her, I'd never seen her before. Oh, wait a minute. We have a witness who saw them together. Then it becomes much more significant. But don't get me wrong. I really appreciate you talking to me today and telling us this. It's just that the probative value of your evidence is diminished just with the time.

JOE BECKER: Sure.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: Can we just quickly address what happened at police headquarters in terms of the, he said, he said of what happened and Joe remains kind of upset about that. Did you find out?

MATT CRONE: I don't blame him.I can't. I can't. I wasn't offered any explanation and I don't know what to say about that other than offer you my apologies that you shouldn't have been treated that way.

MICHELLE SHEPHARD: When Joe and Charlie reached out, we were optimistic. If our investigation prompted two possible witnesses to come forward, well, that's one of the reasons why we did this podcast to uncover the truth. But dissecting their testimony really brings home the reality of how hard it is to investigate historic cases. We asked Tippett if he would speak with us again. He declined. Police tell us now that they're reviewing this new information to see if it impacts the case, determining if it's credible and if it would stand up in court. Is there enough to ask prosecutors to take another look? We'll continue to follow up. And if you want to reach us, please write to uncover@cbc.ca.

[Music]

RB: That is the finale of the CBC Podcast, Uncover: Sharmini. That's our program for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q with Tom Power. Before we go, earlier we heard about how Major League Baseball is adapting to COVID-19 ahead of tomorrow's opening day. But the pandemic is not the only thing influencing America's favourite pastime.

SOUNDCLIP

[American national anthem plays as players take a knee]

RB: On Monday, during a pre-season game between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's, members of the Giants took a knee during the national anthem. Major League Baseball is one of the first leagues to come back in the midst of global protests against police brutality. Reaction to the protest has been mostly positive. The Giants and the league itself shared the video widely. These signs of support are far from the reception Bruce Maxwell received in 2017, when he became the first baseball player to take a knee. This is what he had to say this week about the change.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: I felt joy honestly. That was probably my primary emotion to feel joy that the message and the purpose of the kneeling is being spread amongst our sport. It's night and day, different experience, different response in this day and age. But it's good to see.

RB: Well, one person who was not particularly joyful about the protest was Donald Trump. Yesterday, he tweeted, "Looking forward to live sports. But anytime I witness a player kneeling during the national anthem, a sign of great disrespect for our country and our flag, the game is over for me." Well San Francisco didn't want to stop at making just one statement of change. Also this week, the Giants' Alyssa Nakken made history as the first female coach in Major League Baseball history. So even though we can't yet go to a ballpark for peanuts, Cracker Jacks and a cold one, it looks like baseball is still making waves even without the spectators. I'm Robyn Bresnahan. Thanks so much for listening to The Current.

[Music: theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

July 22, 2020 episode transcript

More Stories Like This