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 2024

The Current Transcript for November 29, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JACK HEMSWORTH: All stations. All stations. All stations. There are approximately four orca whales between bridges. Everybody shift into neutral.

MATT GALLOWAY: Vancouver's Falls Creek is a bustling inlet, often filled with ferries, dragon boats and other people out on the water, which is why a family of orcas gliding by this week, hunting for seals, created such a stir among sightseers. The site also delighted researchers. Coming up, what the unusual adventure by the whales into the heart of the city says about the health of the ocean. Also this morning, the CBC's Nora Young on health misinformation, the influencers peddling it on social media and beyond, and how wellness ideas that once lived out on the fringes have become mainstream. Plus...

SOUNDCLIP

BOB MCKEOWN: If you asked me when I was in kindergarten what I wanted to be when I grew up, I would have said, I want to be a reporter like my dad. But beyond that, I wanted to be an Ottawa Rough Rider. Somehow, I have arranged both.

MATT GALLOWAY: From winning a Grey Cup to tackling some of the biggest stories here and around the world, Bob McKeown has had some career. His 31-year stretch, hosting CBC's The Fifth Estate, has included everything from being punched in the face by an interviewee to being threatened with prison time for his work. As he gets set to retire, Bob McKeown is here in 30 minutes to talk about a life hunting for answers, investigating his own football-related health, and his fears for the future of investigative journalism. But we begin with the Canadian travellers told to keep quiet over their complaints with airlines. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway, and this is The Current.

[Music : Theme]

Air passengers told not to post complaints online

Guests: Tim Rodger, Dr. Gabor Lukacs, Dr. Paul Daly

MG: Well, 'tis the season for, among other things, flying, and inevitably delays, cancellations, lost luggage, and other frustrating travel mishaps. The holidays are a busy time for air travel and travel complaints. But whether or not those complaints will be addressed or even fully visible is another story. Passengers say some airlines and the Canadian Transportation Agency are silencing them. One couple from Victoria fought for compensation after their WestJet flight was cancelled. Anna Gurney and her husband told their story on Facebook, but said a WestJet lawyer asked them to take down the post. In the end, they had to sign a non-disclosure agreement in order to get their money. But before that, they talked to CBC's Go Public.

SOUNDCLIP

ANNA GURNEY: What is relevant now is to stop the airlines from doing what they're doing through their legal counsel and shutting people up, and stopping them from moving forward. That's what this is about.

MG: Tim Rodger's another WestJet customer who was asked to take down a post with details about his complaint. He's in Port Dover, Ontario. Tim, good morning.

TIM RODGER: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Go back to December. You were on a trip back from Belize. What happened?

TIM RODGER: It was at Belize airport, I checked in with WestJet. The, they weighed my bag, the porter behind the counter pulled the handle out on it, wheeled it into the back. When it came off the carousel in Toronto, the handle was still pulled out and it was mangled. And so I went to the West, immediately to the WestJet desk and complained and they gave me a piece of paper and said, 'You can file a complaint through this.' Which, which I did. It was a smart bag that I purchased. It has fingerprint ID and charging stations and things on it. And I bought it as part of an introductory special from a luggage manufacturer. It was regularly a $650 bag. But because it was an introductory sale, I only paid $500 for it just a couple of years ago. And when I went through the WestJet compensation portion online, amongst things, it asked me for a copy of the original receipt. Now, I which I had. I had contacted the manufacturer about getting the bag fixed. They said it can't be fixed. I said, 'OK, I'll buy another one.' And it was $650 because it's not on sale anymore. So, so, I also provided WestJet with a copy of the, of the receipt for the replacement, the identical bag, same colour, exact same bag, $650 along with the original receipt that they'd asked for. And WestJet came back to me and said, Well, we're happy to pay you the $500 that you paid for the bank as compensation. And I said, 'Look, that doesn't work. The legislation says that you need to replace the bag and I can't replace it for $500 at $650.'

MG: So, you went you went to the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency?

TIM RODGER: No, I ultimately did. But this was, this was just with WestJet.

MG: Right. Okay.

TIM RODGER: And I went through all the channels with them multiple times. So, I argued with the agents at WestJet and I said, I can't replace this. They said that we WestJet determines replacement value on what you paid for the bag. So I asked them, I said, 'Where in the, in your tariff does it say this?' And the lady on the phone said 'Oh, the tariffs is this long, boring legal document.' I said, 'I know, I've read it. It doesn't say in there that that's how you calculate replacement value.' And I try to use some analogies. I said if I worked for Samsonite for 40 years, the luggage manufacturer retired and they gave me $1,000 bag for free and you guys wrecked it, you're going to give me zero because I don't have a receipt for it because I paid zero for it. And I said, 'Well, if you bought a, your dad had a $25,000 car and because he's your dad, he sold it to you for $5,000 and that afternoon it got wrecked. Would you want the insurance company to pay you $5,000, because that's what you paid for it? No. You want $25,000 because that's the replacement value for that car.' And they kept saying, 'No, we're going to give you the $500.' I ended up finding an executive online and guess that his email address got through to an executive's office and his assistant, after going back and forth with arguments, I provided case law and some other things. So like, the legislation says replacement value and I said 'It's $500, not $650. That's how we figure it out. If you don't like it, [MG: Right], go to CTA. Here's the link.' So, I filed a complaint with CTA, provided the same arguments with them, and they took a couple of months. So, they ultimately agreed with me and said, 'Yes, that is the legislation. You're supposed to replace it and replacement value.' And they ordered WestJet to pay me the $650.

MG: And so, you posted that decision up on this air passenger rights Facebook group. This is the same group that Anna Gurney posted in. What happened then?

TIM RODGER: I simply put up the wording, said, 'Hey, here, I won with WestJet. Here's the short version of it.' And the people on the moderators of the page said, 'Could you post the decision itself?' which I did. Scanned it, posted it, and a couple weeks later, I got a phone call from Danny at the CTA. He was very polite and he said, 'You posted this online.' I said 'Yeah, I did.' He said, 'You're not supposed to do that. It's confidential.' I said, 'It is?' He says, 'Yeah, it says right on the document.' I said, I apologise. I didn't realise that. And I took it down, and I when I got home, I pulled up the, pulled it up and it says , yeah, it does say at the top under the date and my name and things, it says 'Confidential,' 'Dear Tim,' and carries on. So, just one word on this is Confidential. It's, I didn't even see that.

MG: The CTA, I mean, used to post these decisions in full online. Now, only some information is posted up and Transport Canada told Go Public that the CTA's new complaints resolution process will, in its words, 'Resolve disputes in a fast and fair way while protecting the privacy of Canadians.' What do you make of that?

TIM RODGER: Well, I, they can, they can protect privacy and still post the full decisions. It's called redacting. They could take my name out.

MG: Do you think you're being silenced when they say take the post down?

TIM RODGER: Absolutely. And I, what I wasn't smart enough to ask when CTA called me was 'Why is mine confidential?' All it's doing is confirming what the legislation says and how to calculate replacement and what damages would be caused by me posting this.

MG: What do you think this is about? Just finally.

TIM RODGER: It just sounds suspicious that a government agency is, it feels like they're in bed with the airline.

MG: To you, that's what's going on here.

TIM RODGER: That, that's what it feels like. Why, why else would they not want me to share this? If I shared it, if I had it shared publicly and you had the same problem, Matt, wouldn't it be easy just to say to the airline, you know, 'Here's confirmation of the legislation'? It saves going through the CTA, and taking up everybody's time and taking months of time. It costs money to do it every time somebody has to go through this. And those, those results aren't published either.

MG: Tim, good to talk to you about this. Thank you very much.

TIM RODGER: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Tim Rodger filed a complaint, as you heard, against WestJet with the Canadian Transportation Agency, and won. He is in Port Dover, Ontario.

MG: Gabor Lukacs is the founder of that Facebook group, Air Passenger Rights, the same group that Anna Gurney and Tim Rodger posted in. Gabor, good morning to you.

GABOR LUKACS: Good morning, Matt.

MG: What concerns you the most about these tactics from the Canadian Transportation Agency and from WestJet telling people who have filed a complaint and been successful and then posted online about it that they need to take those posts down?

GABOR LUKACS: I'm concerned about passengers' freedom of expression, and about the right of passengers to share information with each other to ensure that they get ultimately the rights that do not provide for them. [Inaudible]

MG: You said that you worry that this is unconstitutional for them to do that.

GABOR LUKACS: That's right. When it comes to the Canadian Transportation Agency, this is a violation of Section 2B of the charter, which guarantees freedom of expression. The government cannot come and tell without authority to citizens what they can or cannot talk about publicly.

MG: In a statement, WestJet told us confidentiality of outcomes is fundamental to ensuring that both parties can transparently explore both the unique circumstances and the unique solutions which might be available and lead to common ground. What do you make of that?

GABOR LUKACS: In the case of the Gurneys, they had absolutely no obligation to sign an NDA, a non-disclosure agreement. What was it, the saying, holds no water. You may or may not want to agree to engage in confidential discussions with an opposing party in a dispute. However, you don't have to, and there's no way they can compel you to confidentiality. A person cannot unilaterally imposed on you confidentiality just by putting confidentiality on the letter they sent.

MG: So, just because, just because it said confidential on the letter to Tim Rodger and they posted it up online. To your point, you don't believe that binds that individual to, to keep quiet.

GABOR LUKACS: In the case of Tim, it's different. He went to the Canadian Transportation Agency, which was a mistake. Under the so-called 'new procedure,' there is a provision in the law itself that some information provi--, received in that adjudication process is supposed to be kept confidential. However, we believe that that is unconstitutional and sooner or later, courts would strike it down as unconstitutional. In the case of [inaudible] and the Gurneys, there is no law whatsoever that requires them to keep those, those things that, those discussions they had with the airline confidential. The only thing that you need to remember is that when you engage in settlement discussions, you cannot use that as evidence in court. So, if WestJet offers you $1,000 in compensation and a settlement offer, they cannot tell the judge, 'Hey, look, I was offered this $1,000 and therefore, I must be owing that amount.' That is called settlement privilege. But you can tell it to your friends, you can put it on Facebook wherever you want, just not to the judge.

MG: What do you make of the fact that this government agency is monitoring your Facebook page?

GABOR LUKACS: That is absolutely scary. It reminds me of the darkest dictatorships. It's methods that you would expect to be used in different regimes by the KGB, by the Stasi, not in a free and democratic country.

MG: That seems to me, to suggest that it's the KGB and the Stasi, East German police that would be doing this, the CTA official told Go Public, 'This is just something we do as part of our regular business to ensure the integrity of our process and respect for the law.'

GABOR LUKACS: I am not buying it. There are important things that where you do have to monitor your social media. If you're looking for terrorists, you're looking for crime. These are peaceful Canadians who are exercising their freedom of expression and trying to suppress expression should not be taken lightly at all. Back in 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal confirmed that the leading transportation agency's decision at that time had to be public, has to be live, and exhibits had to be shared with me, which at that time, this is not a new fight. The airlines have been trying and making transportation changes on behalf of airlines have been trying to withhold documents who told information about complaints against the airlines for a very long time. In 2015, they lost in federal Court of Appeal. And so, this new legislation is new process. It is an attempt to revive and redo what they already lost then.

MG: If you take one of these airlines to the complaints process and you win, why does it matter that you can't post, you know, discussion about what happened to you on social media? Why, why does it matter that they're asking you to be quiet if you've won in the first place?

GABOR LUKACS: One reason is that other passengers should know how you won. They should know what the law is. Case law has very significant importance in our legal system because if a case was decided in a particular way, in one case, the law should be consistent. And this on the same facts, they should have the same outcome. Also, you have to bear in mind, as we are talking about a few large airlines that handle many thousands of complaints every year, if not tens of thousands. So, on the one hand, the airlines have all the information about how complaints are being handled, and they can do statistical analysis on it. They can adjust their strategy in subsequent cases based on how cases turn out. Passengers should have the same access to the same information, the same tools to succeed with their complaints.

MG: These decisions used to be made public. When did that change and why did that change, do you think?

GABOR LUKACS: That change happened in 2023 in the, in the Budget Implementation Act. We warned the government, and we warned lawmakers that this will raise freedom of expression issue, this would be unconstitutional, and they just overlooked it, even though we have been very, very vocal about it and we're not the only ones being vocal. So, this is just part of the Canadian transportation issue. This is new and very troubling. Dispute resolution process. It doesn't add anything to efficiency. It merely helps the airlines, as they've said, to, to cover up their own shabby corporate conduct.

MG: There is this. Informally, it's called a Passenger Bill of Rights that exists right now in this country. And a CTA spokesperson told us that it has a backlog of nearly 80,500 unresolved complaints. But thanks to a new complaints resolution process, it has doubled the number of complaints resolved this year compared to last year. If you go on to that site, though, I mean, for people who might have complaints, in some cases, you can't even figure out where you are in the queue because there are so many complaints perhaps in front of you. What do you make of how that dispute resolution process broadly is working?

GABOR LUKACS: The dispute resolution process is a failure because the problem was not with the process, but with enforcement and the clarity of the laws. According to our calculation, even if they kept the current rate, what they call effective just to clear that 80,000 backlog, it will take them five years to do so. Typically, many companies are not being looked for 18 to 24 months from the time you file it. So, the root of the problem is twofold. First, the rules are not what they should be. Canada should follow the European Union's gold standard, which have very simple and straightforward rules.

[cross-talk]

MG: Even in the United States now, there's this kind of no hassle refunds process in the U.S., right?

GABOR LUKACS: That's a different issue. It doesn't provide for lump sum compensation, which is the main, main conflict. And the main thing is that in the European Union, it takes only five minutes to determine whether you are owed compensation because you need to look only at public information. Was there volcanic eruption? Anything else which is truly extraordinary if no money has to be paid? Well, in Canada, decision making process requires looking at information which is in the airlines' exclusive control and requires voluminous hundreds, if not thousands of pages of documents to review just for a couple of hundred dollars' sake, which is which makes no sense. That's problem number one. Problem number two is that the federal government is sabotaging the will of Parliament when it comes to enforcing the APBR. Recently, just last year, Parliament increased the amount of maximum fines that airlines can be fined $250,000 per passenger per incident. But the government Canadian Transportation Agency, has not implemented those funds into regulations for [inaudible] and we're the year and the if not also, revised their capacity prediction regulations which Parliament has been urging. They had a consultation last August, but that said, they are not providing a timeline for when that would happen. So, we have rules that are built in a way that are very difficult to enforce to begin with and the Federal Government is not using the powers Parliament gave them to enforce the law. So, of course our allies find it more profitable to not pay and stonewall passengers. That's what needs to change. And then, we will see complaint numbers go down.

MG: Gabor, thank you very much.

GABOR LUKACS: Thank you very much for having me.

MG: Gabor Lukacs is the president and founder of the non-profit advocacy organisation Air Passenger Rights. We did request an interview with the Minister of Transport, Anita Anand. She was not available to speak with us this morning. Paul Daly is a research chair in the Administrative Law and Governance Program at the University of Ottawa. Paul, good morning to you.

PAUL DALY: Good morning, Matt.

MG: You have said that this is inherently unfair when it comes to confidentiality. You talked about that before those rules from the Canadian Transportation Agency even took effect. Why do you mean, why do you think that this is inherently unfair?

PAUL DALY: Well, I think your first guest, Tim, who would make a very good lawyer, by the way, if you ask me, gave a very good example. I mean, he was talking about the issue about replacement value of luggage. And he was saying, well, if this is public, then other passengers would be able to rely on my case to make their case if their luggage got damaged. And he's right. And the fact that these decisions are kept confidential, that means that the airlines have access to dozens, if not hundreds of decisions, and they can rely on these before the Transportation Agency. Whereas your average passenger just simply doesn't have the same access, which means that the playing field is tilted in favour of the airlines in the adjudication process.

MG: Is that why this matters? Why, again, in your words, that open justice should be kind of the default principle here?

PAUL DALY: Well, I think there are two things. I mean, Mr., Dr. Lukacs mentioned the Section 2B of the Charter and freedom of expression, and that's another important principle here. The open court principle means that any Canadian can walk into any courthouse anywhere in Canada any day of the week and attend a trial or go to the registry and see court documents. It's all open. And one of the reasons it's open is to promote our freedom of expression so that we can talk about and debate at the watercooler, at the kitchen table, in Parliament and elsewhere, we can debate and discuss what's going on, what the meaning of replacement value is for, for luggage, things like that. And being able to, to talk about these things is the lifeblood of our democracy. And the open justice principle underpins that.

MG: People often talk about these things on social media. Are you surprised that the Canadian Transportation Agency would be trawling through social media posts, contacting people about removing them if they talked about the settlement that they got?

PAUL DALY: Well, I suppose the Transportation Agency finds itself in a slightly tough spot. I think the legislation says that they may keep these decisions confidential. They seem to have a policy of really, a blanket policy of making sure that these decisions are confidential, which I think is problematic. But once you've committed to that sort of policy, well, then it does kind of follow that you would be trawling through social media and making sure that decisions aren't leaking out, even though I don't think it's a good look for the agency or for Canada, that government regulators are telling people what they can and can't say on social media.

MG: The CTA told us that it publishes all the information about decisions that is legally allowed on its website. Is your sense that that's accurate?

PAUL DALY: The legislation says that you have to publish basic information with the plane number, passenger, that the fact that there was a claim, things like that. Very basic information has to be published, but not the details of the claim and not the details of the legal analysis that the agency might undertake to say, 'Well, yes, this person is entitled to compensation, this other person is not entitled to compensation.' Now, after that, the legislation says the agency may, if a passenger or an airline asks, keep a decision confidential. I don't think the passengers are asking for these to be confidential. Doesn't sound like Tim. Your first guest, was asking for his decision to be kept confidential. So presumably, it's the airlines and it seems to be that CTA is exercising what looks like a discretion. It looks like it has a choice, but it seems to be exercising it systematically in favour of confidentiality and non-publication. Just a few seconds left.

MG: This is, as I said at the beginning of our conversation, the beginning of the busy travel season. What recourse does the public have?

PAUL DALY: Well, I think there are good websites out there run by Dr. Lukacs, in particular, which allow, give people good information about what their, their rights and obligations are and about the remedies they can have before the, the agency or before small claims court, which in many instances might be, ironically, a more efficient way. We usually set up administrative agencies to be quicker and more efficient than the courts, but in this instance, it may be that justice is served more quickly in the small claims court, but really people should be, get as much information as they can before making decisions about what remedies to seek and, you know, cross their fingers that flights arrive on time and their luggage comes with them all in one piece.

MG: And best of luck with that. Paul, good to talk to you. Thank you very much.

PAUL DALY: Thanks a lot.

MG: Paul Daly, Research Chair in Administrative Law and Governance at the University of Ottawa. Your thoughts on this [Music: Theme fading in], and perhaps your stories of how difficult it's been to get compensation if things have gone sideways in your travels. Email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. Coming up after the news, an exit interview with the great Bob McKeown. That's in six minutes here on The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Bob McKeown retires after 53 years

Guest: Bob McKeown

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. The list of awards and accolades is impressive enough. Multiple Emmys, Gemini's, Michener Awards, prestigious citations for decades of excellence in journalism, and the latest handed out just a few weeks ago, the Order of Canada.

SOUNDCLIP

ORDER OF CANADA ANNOUNCER: Bob McKeown is one of our most respected voices in journalism. This eminent correspondent in the US was renowned for his award-winning coverage of historic events, including the Gulf War and the World Trade Centre attacks. Since returning to Canada, the CBC, the Fifth Estate co-host, has presented countless in-depth investigations. Your Excellency, Mr. McKeown.

MG: Well, that hardware doesn't entirely speak to the essence of Bob McKeown, though. He is a giant of Canadian journalism, literally. He's six-foot-two, which is fitting for a football player with the Ottawa Rough Riders in the 1970s, where he also won a Grey Cup and was an all-star offensive lineman. After 53 years, though, as a journalist, Bob McKeown is retiring and we are delighted to have him with us in studio. Bob, good morning.

BOB MCKEOWN: I should point out that six-foot-two is not a giant in Canadian football.

MG: It's a giant in journalism, though. [BOB MCKEOWN: Figuratively speaking.] Congratulations on a great career. Did we say congratulations when it comes to retirement? This is an interesting thing.

BOB MCKEOWN: Well, I've been, I've been struggling with that, Matt. I don't know. I mean, I'm very appreciative of those people who have, but I'm not sure where it goes after that. So, I sort of say thank you for your kind words. I'll let you know what, what I go to next.

MG: How did this all start for you? I mentioned you're playing football and then broadcasting is part of this as well. Right? You had, you had a spot on CBC Radio at the time.

BOB MCKEOWN: Yes. If you asked me when I was in kindergarten at Broadview Avenue Public School in Ottawa, what I wanted to be when I grew up, I would have said, 'I want to be a reporter like my dad.' My father was a parliamentary reporter for the Montreal Star. He did radio programs for the CBC. He made documentary films for the Film Board. So many of the things that I've ended up doing, he did first. [MG: Yeah.] But beyond that, I wanted to be an Ottawa Rough Rider. You know, it was, 1A and 1B. So, somehow I have arranged both.

MG: It's neat to think. I mean, when you were playing, it was a sports column that you're doing on CBC Radio. Is that right?

BOB MCKEOWN: I, I signed an ACTRA contract, a freelance contract for three appearances on their afternoon radio show. [cross-talk]

MG: All in a day.

BOB MCKEOWN: All in a day, which exists to this day. [MG: Yeah]. It was for anything, but sports commentary is how they rationalised it. I preferred the anything angle, to be honest. I wanted an in to CBC Radio, and that was my, that was my entree.

MG: Having had that in, The Fifth Estate launches in 1975. How do you go from playing sports and being a commentator and more on CBC Radio to being an investigative journalist?

BOB MCKEOWN: I became the substitute host for CBO Morning, the Morning Show and Daybreak in Montreal. The morning show. And that, of course, led just to all kinds of places. At the time when I joined the Fifth Estate, I did a weekly hour-long television show in Quebec called Quebec Report, which was The Fifth Estate of Quebec for all intents and purposes. So, I was trying to prove my worth in other ways than pontificating about the Montreal Canadiens.

MG: We heard in that citation for the Order of Canada that you have had this career that has been here, but it's also been in the United States. You had a big move down to the United States to work for CBS News. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yup.] And covered some huge stories when you were down there. There is a moment that I think a lot of people who have followed your career and even people who haven't will remember from 1991. Have a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

BOB MCKEOWN ARCHIVAL CLIP: Connie, we're following the allied convoy into Kuwait. We're a number of miles inside the southern border now along the main road heading north to Kuwait City. The allies that we were following were somewhat behind the American invasion for us yesterday. They're the, mostly Saudi troops. They came through about noon, early afternoon Sunday. We followed them overnight during the dark. And as the sun came up today, we see that where we are now, we're surrounded by armoured vehicles. There are also men scouring the desert for mines and they go off periodically.

MG: What's going on there?

BOB MCKEOWN: We were, as I as I tried to explain in the procession that was going along the side, the coast of the Persian Gulf, heading into Kuwait as American and allied troops rousted the Iraqis from where they had been for a number of months at that point.

MG: This is the Gulf War?

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah, the first...

MG: The first Gulf War.

BOB MCKEOWN: Gulf War. And well, I'll just take a step back. When I, when I was at Yale, I had a friend whose name was Art Kaminsky, and that name became well known in television circles because Art became the agent to the stars, to the news stars. Name a news figure from that day.

MG: And Art represented.

BOB MCKEOWN: Art, Art represented them. Art was a pal of mine. So, when I realised that I might want to look to the south and a little farther afield in my career, I called him up and we had a meeting and the next week, I got an invitation to go and talk to the people at CBS News in New York. So, that was the entree there. At that point, I had just finished a project, a freelance project with my wife that we were doing for the United Nations. And it took us to Kuwait and Yemen and Saudi Arabia and many of the locations that I would have to go to if I were going to cover the Persian Gulf War. [MG: Yeah.] So, I went to the people at CBS who didn't really know me, but I went to them and said, 'I've been in that area for a number of weeks recently. I know the topography, I know the, I know the geography. And I also have done at this point, months and months, if not years, of live broadcast. And they went away. They huddled for a while. This was immediately after Bob Simon had disappeared. Bob Simon, the great CBS war correspondent who was captured in the workup to the Persian Gulf War. And they needed somebody to take his place. So, I had position. Knowing it or not, I had positioned myself exactly to be asked by them to go back to where Bob Simon disappeared, and retrace his steps.

MG: I mean, the positioning we just heard it in that clip as well. You were in the right place at the right time. The story goes that, that they cut away CBS, cut away to some other reporter and then, the Pentagon and the White House get on the phone and say, put him back on so we know what's going on?

BOB MCKEOWN: I wasn't there when the phone call came in.

MG: Somebody else got the phone call.

BOB MCKEOWN: I was in the Gulf. But I am told that that happened, yes.

MG: Why did you come back to Canada? I mean, that's... People, the United States is a huge market. Those, and you're down there working at that level. They're superstars in the broadcasting firmament. Why did you come back here?

BOB MCKEOWN: When Sheilagh, my wife and I, decided to go off the bat and just take a chance, it was as a sort of a family adventure. It was just something that we didn't think we should turn down, but we thought it might happen, you know, sooner than later, that we'd want to come back home. And we were, we had bought a house up in Quebec in the Gatineau Park near Ottawa, and we wanted to go. We bought that house to go and live in it. The plan always was to go back home, and so that I could work for the CBC because that was my journalistic home as well.

MG: But it's also coming home is a big thing. I mean, it really matters to be back home.

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah, and I appreciate the question. I've heard it in recent days from a number of people, and it always takes me back. Because I know that in these circles, news magazine circles, The Fifth Estate has a real position of eminence and always has. The fact that I came from there was a huge credo for me in the eyes of almost everybody at CBS and NBC with whom I worked.

MG: So why wouldn't you come back, right?

BOB MCKEOWN: Exactly.

MG: Yeah. I mean, one of the reasons why the Fifth has that reputation is because of the stories it tells, but also the fearlessness with which those stories are told, and the way that you would go to get the story, perhaps from people who are not interested in telling you the story. One of the things that you do very well is what is known as an unscheduled interview. This is not booked in someone's diary. It is when you approach somebody who is perhaps unsuspecting, maybe a bad guy. Cameras are rolling. You roll up and you just start asking questions. The person might try to get away. The person might be walking away. The person might be saying, 'Absolutely not. I'm not talking to you.' And you keep talking. Here's an example of that.

SOUNDCLIP

BOB MCKEOWN ARCHIVAL CLIP 2: Is that him? Hi, I'm Bob McKeown from CBC News. We're very much hoping you'll sit down and talk to us.

GRAHAM JAMES: Not a chance.

Talk to you about your life in Mexico. About your pardon. About, what? Theo Fleury and other players. There are hundreds of sexual assaults for which you have not been tried. Would you care to comment on any of that, sir?

GRAHAM JAMES: No, I wouldn't. I'm impressed that you found me, but not that I've been hiding.

BOB MCKEOWN: How long have you been here?

GRAHAM JAMES: I work here.

MG: We're very much hoping to talk to you. Absolutely not. Describe what's going on in that clip.

BOB MCKEOWN: We had gone to Guadalajara, Mexico. We were doing a story about Graham James, whose name is well-known.

MG: Former hockey coach who, who was charged and accused of sexual assault.

BOB MCKEOWN: And convicted. Who was a coach in Alberta and Manitoba. Graham James travelled with players named Theo Fleury and Sheldon Kennedy. Both became NHL'ers. Theo was a star, a superstar in the NHL. So, we wanted to talk to Graham James. He did not want to talk to us. And we, we found that he had been pardoned in Canada and had gone off to Mexico. So, we went to Guadalajara and we had an idea where he might be, but it took us about a week or two actually to, to pinpoint it. We were outside his hotel room every day. And then, all, you heard it, 'Is that him?' is the question, which is very often asked and really welcome question When you've been waiting a couple of weeks for somebody. He was, in fact, coming back from the laundromat. He had been away for a while and he had taken his linens to get washed.

MG: You have one chance at an interview like that. It's not like you can, can get a do-over. How do you, how do you prep for something like that, knowing that you're going to roll up on this person and ask them the question that people, the audience is wanting you to ask?

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah, the question's the easy part. Because we've been immersed in this story for months at that point. So, we knew what we wanted to ask him. The, and the first thing is always, will you talk to us? We also knew he didn't want to talk to us. So, the problem becomes, how far do we go to try to get him to talk to us?

MG: How much more can you get out of him and how much? How long can this go on?

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah. In any event, Mr. James was very polite, which, you know, that's, that's really sometimes a surprise, but always welcome in these things. This is, you know, the currency of the realm in investigative journalism is often the spontaneous interaction. That's what I call them. People who haven't done as many may call them jumps.

MG: Door stopping.

BOB MCKEOWN: Ambushes. I think that sets entirely the wrong tone on both sides of the equation. You know, you certainly don't want somebody thinking of it as an ambush when they're the ambushee.

MG: You're coming up to ask questions.

BOB MCKEOWN: Yes. And I see no reason why we can't be absolutely polite and levelheaded and frank about what we want to hear from them because it's their story even more than it's our story.

MG: What is it about hockey that, that interests you? I mean, you've done a number of stories, and The Fifth has done a number of stories in terms of wrongdoing in, in our national pastime. What is it about that that intrigues you?

BOB MCKEOWN: First and foremost, Matt, it was that no one else had done it, really, when we started a number of years ago. It was Canada's national sport. Every Canadian kid in some way, shape or form is, is exposed to this. Yet there are so many who don't have their coaches or their administrators who are protecting their interests.

MG: Let me ask you about Peter Nygard, which is an incredible story, partially because this is an investigation that goes on for something like 10 years, but also the stakes of this investigation are really high. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah.] Right? He took you to court. And again, the stakes and the implications of this were, were very personal. Tell me a little bit about, about Nygaard and what it was about that investigation. He's, he's, for people who don't know, this former fashion mogul convicted of sexual assault. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yup.] Why was that so important, that work so important to you at The Fifth?

BOB MCKEOWN: Because he was emblematic of a category of people, establishment figures who have used their wealth. And they're always wealthy, and they're always men to get their way, to, to prevail over usually young women who they want to take advantage of.

MG: But as I mentioned, the stakes personally were high because he went after you for libel. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yup.] And this is criminal libel. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yes.] And so if, if that had, if his efforts to prove that had hadn't been found successful. I mean, it's not like you'd get a slap on the wrist or get a fine. You could have gone to jail.

BOB MCKEOWN: Yes. In fact, I explicitly would have gone to prison. Prison, not jail. [BOB MCKEOWN: Prison.] And yes, and we knew that.

MG: So in the face of that, why would you continue your investigation? You could say, 'You know what? I'm not going to prison. This is not worth it.'

BOB MCKEOWN: Because the authorities weren't. We started this investigation and Nygard is still behind bars, as you and I, not too far from where we're sitting right now, in the Metro Detention Centre. He wasn't being pursued by the authorities in Manitoba at that point, which was the germane issue because that's where he was, and where these offences had allegedly taken place. The peop--, the authorities in Manitoba had us charged through criminal liable for about a decade for reporting what we believe and what we're certain Peter Nygaard did for, for telling his story on the air. We were pursued by the Manitoba authorities for 10 years. Eventually, finally, they came to reason and withdrew the charges. And Mr. Nygard has been behind bars ever since.

MG: Is that, that search for accountability? I mean, you've mentioned that a few different times when it came to hockey when it comes to this. We'll talk in a moment about football. Is that, is that the thing that has driven you through this work, looking for that sense of accountability?

BOB MCKEOWN: It's certainly one of them. We've got a motto that we, we put on the, on the logo for our 50th anniversary, and it's 50 years and covering the truth. So, part of it is revealing. But yes, absolutely. My old colleague, Eric Malin, who was the best journalist of this sort ever in Canada. His motto was 'Afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted,' [MG: Yeah] which wasn't his. He didn't conceive of that. But it, it was the way he did his job for the Fifth Estate.

MG: And that's something that you've inherited?

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah. [MG: Yeah.] He, he sort of considered me to be his little brother. And I took that as high praise.

MG: I mentioned football. I have a card in front of me. Look at this. It's a Bob McKeown trading card of you with a handsome moustache. Look at that.

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah, yeah, it's definitely a...

MG: Soup strainer there.

BOB MCKEOWN: It is definitely a collector's item.

MG: You, in addition to playing football, were part of a documentary from 2016 called A Story from the Field. Have a listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

BOB MCKEOWN ARCHIVAL CLIP 3: This is one of the most difficult Fifth Estate stories I've ever had to tell because I'm part of it. For five years here at Lansdowne Park, I played for the Ottawa Rough Riders. So, I'm a member of that generation of Canadian Football League players. Now, in the shadow of the condition called CTE, which links blows to the head, which we all got plenty of in the CFL and dementia in later life. So in a way, this is my story, too.

MG: You and I have spoken about this on the air in past [BOB MCKEOWN: We have]. You have been very critical of the CFL, the Canadian Football League and leadership within the CFL. When it comes to what you say is a lack of support for players who deal with the effects of concussions in linking the hits to the head, to CTE, chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Why is it that you I mean, you said in that in that little clip there that this is in many ways, you know, the most difficult, one of the most difficult stories you've had to tell. Why is this something that you have pursued with such vigour?

BOB MCKEOWN: Well, in part, Matt, because so many of my team-mates have obviously suffered from it and a number of them have died from it. In fact, in that, in that Fifth Estate documentary, we open it with the publicity shots, like not unlike the one you've got of me in front of you, except everybody's dead in them. And that hasn't, hasn't been addressed. It, I. [MG: Still.] Yeah, still. Now, I don't, I don't want to blame the soon to be ex-commissioner of the CFL, Randy Ambrosie, because, you know, it's a, it's a huge undertaking to, to try to in some way safeguard the future that the cerebral future of hundreds of Canadian Football League players. But if you're the commissioner of the Canadian Football League, that's your job. And precious little has been done by Randy Ambrosie or anybody, frankly, to, to do that. Now, in the NFL, you can point to things that they have done, but at the cost of probably literally billions of dollars.

MG: I was going to say at the pointy end of many lawsuits. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah.] You yourself decided, and you wrote about this for CBC and we talked about this, decided to donate your brain to concussion research. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah.] Is that in part why you wanted to do that? Because you feel like there are answers that need to be found?

BOB MCKEOWN: Yes, absolutely. And if I'm asking, maybe even demanding that the CFL take this more seriously. Of course, they should expect the same thing, or more or less the same thing from me. Now, I want to use the brain as long as I...

[cross-talk]

BOB MCKEOWN: As long as it's useful.

MG: Hopefully that donation will not be imminent.

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah, exactly. But I want to. And my retirement may be a good opportunity to do this. I want to make this better known than I have already, if that's possible.

MG: Do you worry about the future of the work that you have done for so long? The future of investigative journalism? We see there are news deserts. There are. It feels like it's happening on a, on a weekly, daily basis where people are laid off in this industry. Programs are closed. [BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah.] Those who are trying like you to find those answers find themselves looking for new employment. Do you do you worry about the future of, of investigative journalism?

BOB MCKEOWN: Of course. And that, I think, is, I hope, is part of what this documentary, 50 Years of Uncovering the Truth, will uncover.

MG: Because it's expensive work and it's hard work and it takes time, and...

BOB MCKEOWN: Yup. But it's the gold standard of investigative journalism. You know, I don't see how you can call yourself an investigative journalist or even a journalist and not do that kind of work, not point out what's going to happen if we keep going down the road we are.

MG: What's next for you? What are you going to do now?

BOB MCKEOWN: That's, that's a rude question.

MG: It's the question a lot of people want to know. They've seen you on television for years.

BOB MCKEOWN: I'm one of the people who want to know the answer to that question. Right now, I can tell you it will fall into one of or three categories. One, a book, of course. Two, I have a film that I made 30 years ago that became sort of the quintessential documentary film about the National Hockey League, and it's called The Boys on the Bus. Followed Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier and the 1987 Oilers to their Stanley Cup that year. And since COVID, when there were a number of documentaries that started to get traction. And one of them was Last Dance, which was a documentary about Michael Jordan and the Bulls. Since then, I have had amazing response from people who want to partner with me to make a series out of The Boys on The Bus. So, that sounds like much more fun than writing a book, frankly.

MG: Or putting your feet up and relaxing.

BOB MCKEOWN: Yeah, but. Number three, my wife Sheilagh, who is literally the first person I met on my first day at the Fifth Estate and to whom I've been married for 40 years, deserves way more of my time than I have been able to give her, having this schedule. So, I'm going to have to consult with her before I answer your questions.

MG: So, the story that. This is how we'll end, is the story about Sheilagh, is that on your first day at the Fifth Estate, you were told by one of the hosts at the time, Adrienne Clarkson. Her advice was, don't date the staff. You did not follow that advice.

BOB MCKEOWN: I'd already met Sheilagh. If you've met Sheilagh, you'll know what I mean. She, she was a member of the staff, an associate producer at the Fifth Estate. Our families had known each other. My, my dad, as a journalist, had done a magazine article on her dad, who was the youngest MP ever in Canadian history at the time. And we had a number of other ties, mutual friends. So once I got to know her, it was clear that our, our futures were entwined.

MG: You don't seem like the retiring type, but you deserve to be able to put your feet up and do whatever you want after a career like this. I've always enjoyed our conversations and I look forward. When that book comes out, we will have you back. In the meantime, Bob, thank you very much for this.

BOB MCKEOWN: And thank you, Matt.

MG: Final story Bob McKeown is part of is called the Fifth Estate, 50 Years of Truth. It airs tonight at 9 p.m. on CBC Television and CBC Gem. And it's also on the Fifth Estate's YouTube channel. Well, coming up after your regional update, it is not unusual for a mother to take her children for something good to eat at Vancouver's Granville Island. It is, however, extremely rare if the mother is an orca.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It was just as shocking for me as it was for the people on my boat. Three dorsal fins [Music: Theme fading in] just slowly approaching, and at first, I was a bit confused of what they were. And then, it began to breach. And then, I realised that they were killer whales.

MG: A family of four orcas wowed those aboard a passenger ferry in Vancouver's False Creek. We'll hear why scientists were also excited by the sight of those whales in the harbour. And the CBC's Nora Young with her investigation into how medical misinformation is spreading online. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. We're back in a minute and a half. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

And medical misinformation online

Guests: Nora Young, Andrew Trites

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE 1: This is the detox kit that we're doing on our toddler for parasite and heavy metal cleansing. This is a zeolite detox kit, and we've also incorporated the fall back mineral.

VOICE 2: I got to tell you, I have a dealer for my milk. Drink raw milk. And people get so mad at me.

VOICE 3: Raw cow milk?

VOICE 2: What are your thoughts on that?

REPORTER: I drink raw cream in my coffee every morning. Our schools have thought, think that drinking raw milk is better because when once you process it and everything, that's when it, the dairy becomes harder to tolerate.

MG: You know, there is a seemingly bottomless well of social media influencers sharing health advice, false claims of natural miracle cure products, flood many of our feeds on TikTok and Instagram. Influencers are pushing snake oil to reverse baldness medications like the horse drug ivermectin to cure cancer. It's not easy parsing out reliable health information from the sea of online myths and disinformation, and this has researchers and professionals in the health world concerned. Nora Young is with the CBC's Visual Investigations Unit. She's been looking into this. Nora, good morning.

NORA YOUNG: Good morning, Matt.

MG: We know there is a lot of misinformation online when it comes to health care. People who will try and tell you something, people who will tell you that this thing will, will make you a better person or not taking that will, will also make you a better person. What are you looking into exactly here?

NORA YOUNG: Yeah, it's not a new thing, right? I learned this week that the word quack goes back to the 1600s [MG: Oh, wow] and is definitely not new in social media. But what's interesting to me is that we're learning more about the way misleading health information spreads in online information environments. And that has lots to tell us about the spread of misinformation more broadly, but obviously with some more pressing health concerns when it comes to health information.

MG: Who is doing the spreading of misinformation?

NORA YOUNG: Well, one of the ways it's spreading is through so-called kind of wellness lifestyle influencers. So, health and beauty tips, natural living, that kind of thing. And this is where we see a lot of natural cures and treatments. Castor oil seems to be a particular favourite these days. And you know, Matt, I'm pretty crunchy granola myself, I have to say. But it's true. [MG: Do tell.] But just so you know, just because something is natural doesn't mean it's effective or even safe, for that matter. And you certainly, of course, also see what we might call bro influencers as well, like who promote supplements and hair growth or, you know, wearing these kind of metal amulets against electromagnetic frequencies, that kind of thing.

MG: If you listen to a lot of podcasts, you will hear perhaps in, advertisements for some of these products.

NORA YOUNG: Indeed.

MG: On some of those bro podcasts and beyond, how much money is being made?

NORA YOUNG: I mean, it's hard to say specifically within the health niche, but the influencer industry as a whole in 2024 is estimated to be $24 billion U.S. And I'm fascinated by the slippery slope from content to the marketing of dubious products. So, influencers who present content in one area, you know, fitness, organic gardening, fashion, natural beauty. And then, it gets interspersed with more problematic information tied to sales. Now, I talked to Rachel Moran about this. She's Senior Research Scientist at the Centre for an Informed Public at the University of Washington, and the lead author on a study earlier this year about the connection between influencers, vaccine opposition content, and product sales. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL MORAN: We've seen a lot of misinformation. Spreaders use multilevel marketing products, particularly within the alternative wellness space, to kind of monetise some of this anti-vaccine messaging or, you know, we're seeing increasingly monetisation of the content itself, whether that's through a Substack or a Patreon. So, you know, if you, if you like what I'm sharing and you think that I'm kind of a healthy person who has good information to share, then you can follow me on this platform where you can subscribe for a few dollars a month, and they can earn money that way.

NORA YOUNG: So, people getting to, to leave the specific social media platform to where they're being sold, so-called 'natural alternatives to vaccination' or just in direct support for the content creator. And of course, there's no way to know for sure whether these influencers are true believers in these products or they're cynically marketing them or maybe somewhere in between.

MG: Do we know whether those accounts and those influencers, are they targeting specific audiences with us?

NORA YOUNG: I mean, you can find influencers targeting all kinds of different groups since targeting is what works so well online. But Rachel and her colleagues were focussed on gendered content. So, like, women's fashion, back to the land, homesteader, evangelical maternal content. So, this targeting of the natural of home life and specifically in Rachel and her colleagues' study, being a good mom.

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL MORAN: There's a, this prominent theme of motherhood, you know, a mother or a decision maker within your family. You're wanting to make the best choice, especially the best health choices for your family. And so, a lot of the women who are sharing this kind of information are doing just that, just trying to be informed. But unfortunately, along the way, have started sort of sharing information that isn't grounded in sort of medical fact.

NORA YOUNG: I mean, anyone could be misinformed about health, right? But in terms of how information spreads, there's a sense of health decision making is not just like a rational choice, but is bound up with a sense of who you are as a person, right? Like, it seems to be a distinctive quality of the way this circulates via influencers. It's like a fascinating dynamic of how the spread of information intertwines with, like, social and political identity.

MG: Many of these influencers are not medical professionals. How are they able to convince somebody to buy into what it is that they're selling?

NORA YOUNG: Yeah. I mean, one point that's clear from Rachel's study is that this marketing is effective because influencers build a community around them that relates to their content, right? That's why we follow influencers. So, there's this trust relationship there. And, of course, that's just the currency of social media. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL MORAN: People who do research in these spaces often talk about this idea of a parasocial relationship that we build with the people that we follow online. And that's this one-sided interaction, you know, where we get to know this person because we follow their every day. We see what they eat for breakfast. We know their children because they share pictures of them on their, on their online accounts. And that forms this relationship of trust that is not necessarily based in any sort of traditional markers of credibility, whether that's professionalism or, you know, having a degree in something or being an expert in a specific space, but more tied to that kind of personality trust that you're like, 'I like this person. I think that they're healthy, they look good, and so I'm going to trust them when they share this information,' whether or not it's not necessarily the information itself is credible.

NORA YOUNG: They look good, Matt. [MG: They look good.] Yeah. So, there's the trust. But often, there's also a grain of truth in many kinds of myths and disinformation. And in an information environment where there's so much contradictory content. I mean, trust is a powerful thing, right?

MG: So, beyond what's coming from the influencers, what do we know about other ways that people are being fed this misinformation and what, what impact that would have on their health?

NORA YOUNG: I mean, people just increasingly get their information online, obviously, and more specifically from social media. But the thing is, when it comes to health misinformation, you don't even have to specifically seek it out, like, by following particular influencers. Like, the logic of digital advertising means you're going to be exposed to targeted ads, including the potential for misinformation. And a disturbing example is with so-called alternative cancer treatments. Marco Zenone is a post-doctoral researcher at the University of British Columbia, and he researches how people with cancer are exposed to misinformation and problematic advertising online, including for unproven alternative treatments or private clinics. And the stakes are high. Listen to this.

SOUNDCLIP

MARCO ZENONE: So, when somebody gets a diagnosis of cancer, naturally they're going to go on Facebook, Instagram, these platforms to look for support, trying to find community online. But unfortunately, what happens is a lot of, a lot of the time, some of these more unsavoury entities use the targeted ad features that Meta has to deliver these ads to patients with cancer for the various tailored and persuasive health messages. And one of the really scary things about this is that there's supposed to be enforcement systems that, you know, kind of stop these harmful miracle cure claims, but they seem to be getting through not working that well.

NORA YOUNG: Now, I asked Marco about Meta in particular, but as he notes, this extends to many online platforms because of the nature of online advertising, right? Like, we've all had that experience of targeted ads following us around online wherever we go. Digital advertising works based on the pattern of our behaviour, but what's simply annoying for us most of the time here can obviously be serious consequences in the case of health information.

SOUNDCLIP

MARCO ZENONE: Kind of worst situation that can happen is if somebody sees these ads and they have a curative cancer, and they forego conventional care for these kind of unproven, scientifically unsupported treatments. We know alternative cancer treatment and the evidence says this is just definitive. Like, there's no, no two ways about it that it's associated with earlier time to death if used without conventional cancer treatment. But it's also financially very hard on a lot of people. Some of the clinics we study, it cost $60,000 USD for a three week stay for very simple, you know, kind of vitamins and different kinds of natural supplements.

MG: It's so interesting. I was going to say, part of this is about the environment that we're in, right? Social media environment, the way that we get information. Beyond that, though, what else is going on here? Why is this happening now?

NORA YOUNG: Yeah, I mean, part of it is certainly just the speed of communication, as you say, and the way social media and digital advertising makes that extremely hyper targeted advertising possible. But, you know, I guess you could ask a question about ideology, right? Like, we could say that at least that false and misleading health information is going to spread well. Where it dovetails with ideologically driven concerns...

MG: Is that what this is about, about pushing some sort of ideological point of view?

NORA YOUNG: Well, I don't know. It's a question of whether it's pushing it, but at least we can say it conveniently works out that way. Like, for instance, misinformation is spreading online now that Ivermectin is an effective treatment for cancer. Like, you'll recall that Ivermectin was touted as COVID treatment. So, it fits into a broader political discourse. Like, some of these influencers claim the government is suppressing it because it's a cheap and widely available medication. Now, before we go any further, Matt, let me be clear: Ivermectin is unproven as a cancer treatment. There's no clinical evidence to support it. But as is so often the case with misinformation, broadly, there is that grain of truth. But full information really matters. Here's Marco again.

SOUNDCLIP

MARCO ZENONE: Ivermectin is being studied for cancer right now, but it's not close to being used as a treatment for cancer. And it's very different for somebody to say, I'm studying ivermectin to see if it's something that can possibly help cancer patients in the future versus somebody saying, 'Hey, go use it right now.' And unfortunately, we see a lot of people spreading misinformation. You know, Ivermectin has become kind of associated with, you know, anti, anti-pharma, anti-kind of conventional treatment, anti-science in a lot of ways.

NORA YOUNG: So just to be clear, Matt, I got a statement from the director of Princess Margaret Cancer Care in Toronto, the leading cancer hospital. Noting that while ivermectin has shown in preclinical studies to have activity against cancer cells, no studies have yet shown effectiveness or safety in patients. And it goes on to say any claims to the contrary are false and given the possibilities of toxicity and adverse interaction with anti-cancer therapies known to be effective, patients are strongly advised not to take this or any other unproven therapy lacking clinical evidence.

MG: This isn't just way out on the fringes of society anymore. You think of, of the influence of someone like Robert F Kennedy Jr, who is an anti-vaccine activist, very popular in those sort of alternative health circles. He could very well be the next US Secretary of Health and Human Services. He will have a lot of influence over the medical system in the United States. What impact, from your perspective, would someone like him have?

NORA YOUNG: Yeah, I mean, we've certainly seen misinformation go from social media to mainstream politics already in the U.S. presidential campaign. But this is different because as you note, you know, he may play an important role in the health care system. We've had a bit of a preview of that this week. You may know that Kennedy has said that he drinks raw, which is to say unpasteurised milk and has supported its sale. Raw milk has also been promoted by the kinds of wellness influencers we were talking about earlier, is controversial because pasteurisation kills harmful bacteria and viruses. Now, this week, we've seen bird flu virus detected in raw milk for sale in California, where it's legal to sell in retail stores. So, there's a direct connection there.

MG: For patients, they're getting influenced and they are buying that influence and taking perhaps some of those supplements or doing what the influencers might say. If you are a legitimate health care practitioner or you work in the health care system, how are they, those, those people in that system, dealing with the patients who have been, have been swayed by what they're hearing or what they're seeing?

NORA YOUNG: Yeah, I mean, I think it's super challenging because of what we were talking about before when it's not just a question of like, hey, should I evaluate raw, or should I eat raw milk or not, is connected to this idea of 'I'm a member of a community that shares these values, right?' That makes it very difficult to, to talk to people about misinformation. One promising technique that Marco mentioned to me, and that I've seen used in the mental health care space is spreading good information in exactly those spaces like Instagram, YouTube, TikTok. So, you see people who are medical professionals, who are influencers in their own way in these spaces, using the methods of communication that work very effectively in those spaces.

MG: Go where people actually are. [NORA YOUNG: Exactly]. And do what perhaps the influencers are doing. How do you begin to regulate an industry like this, whether it's, it's the advertisers in the clinics that might be promoting this information or the individual influencers that Rachel was talking to?

NORA YOUNG: Yeah, I mean, Marco made the point that a lot of these alternative therapy clinics and ads for therapy are located in other countries. So, that poses a regulatory challenge in of itself. In Canada, the law against misrepresentation and advertising also applies to influencers, or at least are supposed to. But one point worth mentioning from Rachel's work is that a lot of it was posted in stories, the Instagram stories that disappear after 24 hours. So, there's some real kind of Whac-A-Mole challenges in actually tracking down this stuff in the first place.

MG: Well, what about those platforms, then? I mean, and it's not just social media. Again, it's what people are listening to in addition to what people who are watching. Are there ways to, to minimise the spread of that misinformation online or educate people about, about the risks of, of what those accounts and ads are saying? I mean, how do you, how do you find accountability in the venue where that information is?

NORA YOUNG: Yeah, I mean, this gets at the heart of a lot of the debate about regulating platforms. I mean, platforms do regulate content, for example, around hate speech or around pornography. We saw a push towards regulating content regarding COVID misinformation during the pandemic. But there's also been a lot of pushback on that, especially recently from politicians, from free expression, activists, from purveyors of misinformation, but also, you know, from the platforms themselves.

MG: This is fascinating. It's a story of our times. Nora, thank you very much.

NORA YOUNG: My pleasure, Matt. Thank you.

MG: Norah Young is with the CBC's Visual Investigations Unit.

[Upbeat music]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

JACK HEMSWORTH: All stations. All stations. All stations. There are approximately four orca whales between bridges. Everybody's shifting to neutral.

MG: Captain Jack Hemsworth works full-time for Vancouver's False Creek Ferries. He's only ever seen whales twice on the job. Sunday was one of those times. A mother orca and her three offspring swam past his boat just off Granville Island, leaving him and his passengers awestruck.

SOUNDCLIP

[People marvelling at the sights of an orca]

MG: It has been five years since orcas were last seen in the area. Andrew Trites is the director of the University of British Columbia's Marine Mammal Research Unit. Andrew, good morning.

ANDREW TRITES: Good morning.

MG: This is really cool.

ANDREW TRITES: Certainly is.

MG: What was your reaction when you found out about this?

ANDREW TRITES: I was quite impressed because this is a group of whales that has been seen elsewhere in its range up in southeast Alaska, down in the Juan De Fuca Strait, but never in this close to Vancouver and certainly not coming literally to downtown Vancouver.

MG: I mean, you heard the excitement on the boat. I was on one of those ferries just a couple of weeks ago. I can't imagine what it would have been like if killer whales had just bobbed past me. They were, people were saying that they were in stealth mode. What were they doing there?

ANDREW TRITES: Well, they were cruising in literally like ghosts. It was one of these classic calm days. And from the video, you see these four pointed dorsal fins just breaking up through the surface, gliding in. And they were there on the hunt. It was mum. And she's 26 years old. She's got a teenager, 14 years old and two juveniles, an 11-year-old and six-year-old. And she was bringing them in literally for an afternoon snack. She was there looking for food in and around Granville Island.

MG: So, what does it tell you that these whales would go right into the heart of the city? This is a busy waterway. There's a lot that goes on there in False Creek. What does it tell you that they would be there?

ANDREW TRITES: Well, a couple of things. First off, it's a sign that the Salish Sea has been in the process of recovering since the 1970s when the hunting and culling of seals was stopped. And since then, we've seen an increase in numbers of harbour seals, increases in Steller sea lions and California sea lions. And these are the primary prey items of this ecotype of killer whales. They're known as transient killer whales, or these killer whales. And they have specialised diets. In this case, these are the true meat eaters of the ocean, and they only eat other marine mammals.

MG: So, this is good news that they would be there then. I mean, not so much, not so much for the seals. But, but otherwise.

ANDREW TRITES: Yeah, exactly. It's a sign that, you know, when I first arrived in British Columbia in the 1980s, it was really rare to ever see a seal. Today, if I walk along the beaches. I will find one every single time. It's a sign that the system has changed, as we've seen recovery of marine mammals. But the other thing that's happened is that in the beginning, the seals would all hang out literally in just a few spots. And as the killer whales caught on to them, the seals have changed their behaviours and they're now moving further away. They're hiding out in the back areas into rivers. Some even have been to lakes, and so their distribution has changed. And then as a result, the killer whales, too, have to change their hunting modes and they're poking around the inlets, the backwater areas. And one of those spots happens to be False Creek.

MG: Tell me more about the recovery of the Salish Sea. I mean, again, we talk a lot about oceans and the health of oceans. Not all of it, I would say a bunch of it is not particularly good news when we talk to the health of the oceans. What's happening here that's good?

ANDREW TRITES: Well, the marine mammals are our top predators and they depend on a healthy food base underneath them to support them. And I'd say in this case here, over time, the ecosystem is coming back and it is rebalancing itself. We're seeing this rewilding of our oceans. And it's a sign, as I look at it as is, things are getting better. But at the same time, as things are getting better, the oceans are under increased pressure. We're seeing higher rates of contamination getting into their food supply, to their tissues. We've got problems with underwater noise and vessels. There's increased risk of ship strikes. But I would say, you know, part for example, these killer whales coming into Vancouver, it's this reminder that we have to do more to protect what we have. For me, when I look at the Salish Sea, it's, it's our Serengeti. We're living here right next to some of the most amazing wildlife. We have humpback whales. They were gone for a century because the whalers took every last one. They're back now. And we can now see humpback whales here breaching. We no longer have to go to Mexico or to Hawaii. It's right here.

MG: We have a hand in all of this, in the good and the bad.

ANDREW TRITES: That's right. And at the same time, as things are changing, we have to sort of accept the fact that it's no longer the same system. It's back the way nature intended it, intended it to be. But it's not necessarily the way that people remember it having been. And it is a question of us adapting to, to the wildlife that's here now.

MG: Let me ask you a bit more about these whales that came into, as you said, almost downtown Vancouver. What do we know about this family of orcas?

ANDREW TRITES: Well, we, with the killer whales, we can take photographs of them. And each of them has a uniquely shaped dorsal fin. They've got nics and scratches. They have a saddle patch, the sort of white greyish area at the base of the dorsal fin. They have these white eye patches, and they're as unique as their fingerprints. As a result, it's been possible to put together catalogues that are literally family albums and we can relate them, at least in terms of the maternal lineages. And in this case, the, the offspring typically stay with their mothers. In some cases, some of them may stay their entire lives. Now, this is a group of whales that are specialised in eating just other marine mammals. We have other ecotypes here that specialise in eating only fish. But this is a group here. Their total population numbers about 350 animals. We know that about 70 per cent of them come here to the Salish Sea every year, and their range takes them as far south as California and as far north as southeast Alaska. So, they have an incredibly long range where they have to hunt and they're constant working these inside waters.

MG: When you track their travels, what are you hoping to learn?

ANDREW TRITES: Well, part of it is just trying to establish their, their life cycle, their life habit. But also, there's a lot of concern about protecting areas that are critically important to them. And as we look at the entire range, I think the Salish Sea is inside waters between Vancouver Island and British Columbia and Washington State. It's probably the most important area for them. We have the world's highest density of harbour seals, and it is a primary feeding spot for them. So, this literally is the superstore for killer whales.

MG: Are you at all concerned? I mean, I said False Creek is, and anyone who's been there knows it's a pretty busy place. There's a lot that's going on there. And we heard Captain Jack telling other people who might be driving ferries to shift into neutral and keep an eye out. But given how busy that waterway is, are you at all concerned when the whales pop up there?

ANDREW TRITES: I'm not too concerned, in part because killer whales are the largest of the dolphin family and they have adapted to move in and around vessels. Some of them will even come in and ride them. The prop wakes of boats if they're going at higher speeds. They're fairly savvy about being in and around boats. But at the same time, they do get hit by boats. They can get cut by the propellers. And so, it is a question of people becoming aware that, that these, these killers, they can pop up out of nowhere. And I know from having tried to follow some of them when we [inaudible] in our own research boats, you can lose them just as fast.

MG: Are you surprised that they were, they were seen? I mean, do they think, if they're on, you know, looking for lunch, they could not spend a lot of time on the surface, presumably?

ANDREW TRITES: You're exactly right. They don't spend too much time. But at the same time, they do have to breathe. They do break the surface, but it's very easy to miss them entirely. No doubt there are many people walking along the seawall that afternoon with their heads on, in their phones or headsets on their ears, totally oblivious to the fact that right next to them were these most incredible animals.

MG: You have that sense of wonder still, despite the fact that this is in part your job, that you've seen enough of these, but you still, you still have that sense of wonder about them.

ANDREW TRITES: Yeah, no, you're right. It's like, it never gets old. And I don't know whether or not it's just the, the, how unexpected when you do encounter them. They just appear. And then, they go down and they're gone again. So, no, I still have this. Every time, just like the first time. And I could feel the excitement people had on that boat, and I would have been with them also just feeling this joy at having experienced something so magical.

MG: Lucky them. Andrew, thank you very much for this.

ANDREW TRITES: It's my pleasure. Thank you.

MG: Andrew Trites is the Director of the University of British Columbia's Marine Mammal Research Unit and a professor at the Institute for Oceans and Fisheries. That is The Current for this Friday, the 29th of November. December is on the doorstep. Yikes. Q is up next on CBC Radio One to honour the surprise appearance of the mother orca and her offspring in False Creek. This is the Vancouver band, Said The Whale and Lucky, which is how those people on the boat should feel. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend, and we'll see you on Monday.

[Music: Lucky by Said The Whale]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Friday, November 29, 2024 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This