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 December 2, 2020

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Finally, like there was two detectives out speaking with one of them, called me back and said it could be a suicide and I said, no, it's not. Quit lying to me. Quit telling me that I spoke to the funeral director. I know of her injuries. It wasn't a suicide. He just went dead quiet and he said, you're not wrong.

MARK KELLEY: Caitlyn Bate's sister was found dead at her home in March. But Caitlyn says she had to fight for police to tell her the truth about how she died. And half an hour, some shocking stories that reveal how Canada's justice system is failing the victims of crime. Then we're dipping into a hot debate.

SOUNDCLIP

Today I'm going to share with you three different versions. The first one will be a dark chocolate hummus. Then I'm going to make a cookie dough version. And finally, we'll finish with a berries and fruity hummus.

MK: Dark chocolate, hummus, cookie dough, hummus. Say it ain't so. In an hour, we get to the bottom of what makes hummus, hummus and ask, can you and should you ever mess with chickpea perfection? Plus, it's been two years of legal marijuana, but is pot as profitable as predicted? But first, between more covid restrictions across the country of first ministers meeting and the big announcement that the first vaccine doses will be here as soon as Monday. Well, it's been a big few days and political news. Our national affairs panel is here to chew on that. Good morning. I'm Mark Kelly, in for Matt Galloway. And this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

National affairs panel on tensions over provincial health-care funding

Guests: Shachi Kurl, Hannah Thibedeau, Kelly Cryderman

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: This is just what Canadians do were there for each other from the first days of the pandemic when people delivered supplies to elderly neighbours to the summer when farmers worked hard to get food on our plates, to this winter, when people are staying home to protect the most vulnerable, Canadians have each other's backs. We're in this together and together we will defeat covid-19.

MK: Well, they're not totally together. Canada's first ministers continued a long standing tradition yesterday, fighting over money, specifically soaring health care costs. Let's dive into the details with our national affairs panel. Shachi Kurl is president of the Angus Reid Institute. She's in Vancouver from Calgary. I'm joined by Kelly Cryderman of the Globe and Mail in the CBC's Hannah Thibedeau Tebogo is in Ottawa. Good morning and thank you all for getting up so early for us this morning.

GUESTS: Good morning.

MK: We're going to get to that bunfight over money in a minute. But let's start with the big news, which, of course, is vaccines. Some Canadians will start getting injections as early as next week. Yesterday, the federal government told the premiers more about how they will be delivered. Hannah, what did we learn about the vaccine rollout?

HANNAH THIBEDEAU: Yes, this is a big day today because those 30000 doses of the Pfizer buy and tech vaccine start their shipping process. So they're going to leave from Belgium, go to Cologne, then Canada to Kentucky and to the 14 distribution points across Canada. So that's pretty exciting. And as you say, they're expected to arrive here on Monday. And I think we'll start to see those jobs in the arms on Tuesday. So most provinces have agreed that it's going to be ICU doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, long term care workers that are going to be the first ones that will get the shots. In Quebec, though, they're starting with patients in long term care homes. PEI, the same thing. So that's just a few of the vaccines that will arrive. But in December, they expect to have 125,000 Canadians vaccinated and then in January, March three million. So that's the phase one of this vaccine rollout. And then in April, that's when the general population will start to get that vaccine. But what I found interesting just quickly, Mark, yesterday, Rick Hillier, who's in charge of the Ontario rollout, has said that he expects to see 35000 to 85000 doses of the Moderna vaccine arrive in Ontario by the end of the month. And so far, Health Canada has only approved one vaccine. Moderna isn't one of them, but they're expecting the Moderna one to be approved quite soon. And he kind of gave a hint as to when that might happen.

MK: Well, let the clamouring begin, because I'm sure there will be right across the country. You know, one of the questions that was answered yesterday at the first ministers meeting is who's going to pick up the tab for this? Let's listen to what the prime minister had to say about that.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I announced to the premiers that the federal government will be covering the cost of these vaccines as well as the supplies needed to administer that. Not only will doses be free for Canadians, but provinces and territories won't have to use their funding to pay for this vaccine.

MK: Kelly Cryderman, from what you've heard, how did that go over with the premiers?

KELLEY CRYDERMAN: You know, it was a footnote, I almost I think, because I think all the premiers were expecting the federal government to pick up the bill for the vaccines. I don't I don't know if that was a big surprise to anybody. But what it did do and I noticed this when Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe started talking about it, he talked about Ottawa picking up the bill for the vaccine and how that could be kind of a template for their discussions on health care, long, long term health care moving forward. And I thought that was interesting that he talked about a bill where the federal government would pick up the whole bill being a template. And I think that speaks to the larger issue of longer term health care funding that the premiers are really pressing.

MK: Yes, and that and that seem really to be the focus of yesterday's meeting was getting the government to pay for so many more things when it comes to health care. And we're going to dig into that. Shachi, you know, I said, you know, earlier, people clamouring for the vaccine. But you've done a poll looking at the hesitancy, though, for some Canadians and actually getting the vaccine. What what more can you tell us about that?

SHACHI KURL: Well, and in fact, we're well back and sealed again on this question. And my my educated guess on this will be now that it is a reality now that we've watched delightful, charming, super elderly people in the UK speak rather rosily and cheerfully about getting their jobs, Canadians are going to be more inclined to get that vaccine as soon as possible or as soon as it's widely available to them as opposed to wanting to hang back. So I think the fact that it becomes real and not abstract means that there will be more interest in wanting to roll up our sleeves and say, yes, let's get these in the arms of long term health care workers and frontline health care workers. Let's get this in the arms of those over 80 and then let's please get this into our arms. And Mark, what's interesting about that is, is mentally, it really does represent almost a turning of the corner. People can start to see the end. But what that also means is it's also eventually going to be the end game of what has been really an unprecedented run for politicians in terms of their popularity, whether it's at the provincial level or at the federal level. Justin Trudeau has really been Cephalon around so many pandemic related things. And now I think we're going to find that there's a big difference between, you know, having Canadians back through a crisis and building back better. And this first ministers meeting is sort of a harbinger of that. Now, let's all have a big fight about the sticky and mundane aspects of how to do that.

MK: Yes, well, we have a long tradition of fighting over things at first ministers meeting, and they seem to have reinforced that yesterday. But, Hannah, I want to ask you about this, that Ontario said that getting the vaccine won't necessarily be mandatory. However, there could be limitations for people who choose not to get vaccinated, perhaps, you know, access to things like concerts or movies, public places. How are people reacting to that?

HANNAH THIBEDEAU: Yeah, well, absolutely no one is saying that you're going to be forced to get the covid-19 vaccine. In fact, there's no mandatory immunisation programmes in this country right now. And you don't expect the covid immunisation to be mandatory either. But there are some employers who are desperate to reopen in a safe way. And I had a chance to speak with an employment lawyer and they're saying they're already getting calls about employers asking what are the parameters around asking employees to get vaccinated, those types of things. So an employee can't be forced to get a vaccine. But because a person could have things like allergies or a religious objection and there's that absolute right of accommodation under the human rights code. But there are some places like health care facilities, long term care homes, hospitals, they may ask the workers if they have, but they have to accommodate them if they didn't get it. And then, as you mentioned, Mark, there are also places like concert events and even Ticketmaster says requiring vaccines or tests for fans. It's going to be up to the organisers or the venues to do that. But the company is looking at ideas to allow sharing that information on the ticket to make it easier if the venues do decide these 50,000 people want to gather, well, you have to have a vaccine to get in there. And also, we're hearing that airlines are already looking at the option of a vaccine passport for international travel. So no mandatory vaccines, but definitely limitations if you don't get it.

MK: It's interesting. We've been we've been waiting so long for this notion of the vaccine to come around. And now I'm not sure how many people have actually thought about the rollout itself. Who's going to get it? When are you going to get it and what happens if you don't get it? Interesting how that debate has shifted, but but it always comes back to, you know, money. And the premiers main demand yesterday was 28 billion dollars more in federal health funding, Shachi, how did that go over? And why is this so important right now for the premiers to be pressing this issue about who is paying the health care funding now?

SHACHI KURL: Well, of course, we all know that that health care ultimately can be the ministry or the file that any provincial budget and it is a top three issue in every single province and in a lot of provinces, particularly those with older, more ageing populations, it's the number one issue. So this is vitally important and it's something that has once again floated to the forefront because, you know, we always talk about with politics of health care, people always say health care is important, but rarely do they vote on that issue. The pandemic has really shown us and exposed weaknesses, really life and death weaknesses in our system. And these will be ballot questions when that time comes. So look for the provincial politicians, most of whom are riding a wave of unprecedented approval and goodwill on part of their constituencies and in their respective provinces, with a couple of exceptions. I can't say that about Jason Kenney or Bryan Pallister at the moment, but the rest of them, they want to be able to hold on to that. And it's when you don't have pandemic and crisis management to be that the wedge that that people can sort of rally around. So you don't rally around a wedge, but it become the issue that people rally around. You'll need something else. And of course, running against Ottawa and making Parliament Hill and the prime minister the bogeyman in all of this is fairly basic politics. As you pointed out, Mark, provincial politicians love to hate Ottawa. And it looks like that's a play that they're going to run back to as this starts to be less of a rah rah moment for provincial politicians and more of a what do we do now moment.

MK: Well, and that's a wonderful Segway into somebody who knows how to do this. Well, Quebec's Premier, Francois Legault, they've been using the prime minister as a bogeyman for as long as I've been alive. Here's what he had to say about this health care funding debate yesterday.

SOUNDCLIP

Despite the premier's unanimous demand, Justin Trudeau refused to commit to substantially increase health transfer. He said that it was premature because of the covid-19 situation to have this discussion. We think that it's more important than ever with the covid-19 to discuss this major problem.

MK: Well, of course, as Shachi was saying, that, you know, pitting premiers versus the prime minister has been works well politically. Kelly, I want to talk about that when it comes to Alberta's Jason Kenney. How is this debate over funding playing in Alberta?

KELLEY CRYDERMAN: One of the things I'd like to say is I think, you know, the pandemic in a way has been a great leveller and has united the provinces in a way. It's not only about pitting the provinces against Ottawa. It's also the provinces realising there's an opportunity here to get one of their longstanding wishes completed. The federal government is talking about spending 100 billion dollars, up to 100 billion dollars, in the next three years. They the premiers want to make sure they're getting a piece of that. And I think it was interesting to me when I talked to Jason Kenney's office about this meeting. Usually, Alberta has a long list of things they would like to speak to the federal government about that have to do specifically to Alberta. And in this case, the premier's office said he's absolutely focussed on the vaccine rollout and he is focussed on the issue of the health care transfers. And I think, you know, this is one of the issues that is one of those rare issues where the provinces are very united. We're not talking about pipelines going across jurisdictions. We're not talking about interprovincial alcohol barriers. This is something where all the provinces are in a tough position due to the pandemic. And they're all actually speaking with one voice. And I think they've decided to leverage that and try to take advantage of it while they can. And while there is this promise of a huge amount of money coming out from Ottawa in the months and years ahead.

MK: But it remains a very sensitive issue. Shachi was mentioning this about how it's playing out in various provinces. But, Kelly, just want to ask you, because it was interesting, I heard this this week after announcing further restrictions in Alberta, Premier Kenney had this exchange with a reporter.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: From a health perspective, it's clear that your approach hasn't worked to date and is arguably even cost people their lives. Do you acknowledge any responsibility and apologise for the way you've handled the second wave of the pandemic?

PREMIER KENNEY: That sounds a lot more like an NDP speech than a media question, Sammy. I reject the entire premise of your question.

MK: I can feel the sensitivity. Kelly, give us some background on that.

KELLEY CRYDERMAN: Well, you know, as such, he has talked about Alberta and Saskatchewan or three. Alberta and Manitoba are kind of outliers when it comes to the pandemic bump that politicians have got in the polls. Jason Kenney has seen a steady, slow decline in his polling numbers through this pandemic. And that's happening for a lot of reasons. The bad economy to start. His government is battling with public sector unions and doctors over pay. But there's also been pushback, I think very much so, about his government's handling of the pandemic. There has been- you know, I would not call Alberta particularly politically United Place right now. And I think we're seeing that in the premier's language in in a bit of definitely a defensive posture in the way he's speaking about the pandemic he is dealing with or he has- Alberta has, according to the polling numbers, according to Angus Reid Institute polling numbers, a higher number of people, for instance, who say they will not take the vaccine. And given other polling numbers, there's an indication that that's very much a number of supporters of Jason Kenny's United Conservative Party. And when he speaks, he speaks very much on a public health level and in a very straightforward way sometimes. And sometimes he speaks in a very partisan way. It's kind of this dual track of messaging that we hear sometimes in Alberta.

MK: Hannah, what about in Ottawa for Prime Minister Trudeau? Is he still on the sort of this pandemic poll bounce is still really inflating the support for him now?

HANNAH THIBEDEAU: Oh, absolutely. Especially right now when Canadians are just so tired and frustrated of the restrictions that are surrounding them because of this pandemic. And they see light at the end of the tunnel with this vaccine. So, of course, you know, it even showed yesterday in the provinces meeting when originally it was supposed to be about health care transfer as well. Justin Trudeau, the prime minister, wanted to make sure that the pandemic was top of mind for Canadians. And you heard it in the opening with The Clash. It's like, well, the federal government is paying for 80 percent of this battle. And then you hear Quebec premier come up and say, yeah, well, we're paying for 78 percent of overall health care funding. So you could hear that battle right there to try to get it's like Canadians pay attention to us, pay attention to us. But I think for. Justin Trudeau, right now, Canadians are so breathing that sigh of relief and knowing that there is going to be some brighter days ahead as this vaccine starts to roll out. And I think we might even see the liberals take advantage of that happiness and that relief coming up in the next year and in the spring and potentially go to the polls on it. And I'm just throwing that out there.

MK: Oh, boy.

HANNAH THIBEDEAU: Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. But, you know, it's either then or it's in a year from now when they have to say to Canadians, you have to start paying back all this money that we've had to give out to keep businesses going, to keep you afloat during the pandemic. It's not always going to be handing out the money. They're going to have to pay it back at some point and an election campaign during the good times and people feeling good would be more beneficial for the liberals when opposed to that. You're at a time when you're asking Canadians to start digging in and having to pay back the billions of dollars that we are now in debt.

MK: Yes, that that light at the end of the tunnel could be a freight train barrelling towards us all. Shachi, I want to ask you about that. Just when you've looked at the national numbers, I mean, there's a real fine balancing act here as premiers. They want to take credit for the good things they're doing, but they don't want to get blamed for having to impose restrictions and the financial repercussions. How is that playing out across the country about how premiers are walking that fine line?

SHACHI KURL: Well, some are walking it, I think, more successfully than others. And it's going back to Jason Kenney and Bryan Pallister. You have a study in two premiers who I think try to walk the line longer than the rest of the premiers. You saw a lot of premiers very early on say, look, we are going to air on the side of preventing infection spread. If we have to lock down, we're locked down. If we have to do more restrictions, we will do that. And the economy, well, it won't quite grow from the heart outwards or take care of itself, but it will certainly come back as people come back healthier. To Kelly's point, Jason Kenney has spent a lot of time communicating to a base politically that has been adamantly opposed to restrictions, either because they're small business owners for whom these restrictions are basically livelihood [cutting]. And how can you not feel empathy for that? And how can you not understand that? Or because they have that strong Alberta libertarian streak and you do see that streak in places like Alberta, more so than in other parts of the country where restrictions really do equal almost a chafing of or control of personal freedom to other people are of the view that they have better right to understand what's best for them than than a public health official.

MK: Shachi, tough job, toughest job to be a politician during a pandemic. I don't doubt that. Shachi, thank you. President of Angus Reid Institute in Vancouver. Kelly Cryderman, Calgary based reporter with the Globe and Mail, Hannity Thibedeau, senior reporter in CBC's parliamentary bureau. Thanks to you all.

Months after her sister was found dead, woman says she was never told of her legal rights as a victim

Guests: Caitlyn Bates, Serrece Winter, Heidi Illingworth

MK: Hello, I'm Mark Kelly, moonlighting for Matt Galloway, and you're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MK: Still to come, hemming and hawing over hummus with people mixing in everything from beets to mint chocolate. Hummus purists are targeting those they see as chickpea chumps. That's in half an hour. But first, standing up for victim rights.

[Music: Theme]

MK: Whether or not you have ever been accused of a crime, chances are you still have a pretty good idea about what your rights are. You don't have to say anything. Anything you do say can be used as evidence and you have the right to call a lawyer. But you might not know that if you are if you or someone you love has been the victim of a crime, you also have rights. Awareness is just one of the issues the federal Victims Rights Ombudsman highlighted in her report last month reviewing the 2015 victims rights law. It was supposed to avoid re victimising people as they navigate the justice system. The report says it has failed on that promise. Caitlyn Bates is the sister of Shannon MacDougall, a nurse who was found dead in her home in Brantford, Ontario, on March 11th of this year. And Caitlin joins me now. Good morning.

CAITLYN BATES: Hi, Mark. How's it going today?

MK: It's going OK for me, but I'm wondering how it's going for you. We're very sorry about the loss of your sister.

CAITLYN BATES: Thank you. Yes, it's been quite emotional and talking about it does help, but it's been a very long, emotional road so far.

MK: Why do you want to talk about the loss of your sister?

CAITLYN BATES: I want to talk about it because I want to get the word out there what actually happened to my sister because I feel not only as her family, but a lot of other people were misinformed about this story or not even told about this story. And it needs to be heard. It's important. A woman was found dead in her home and it wasn't announced till eight months later. But that doesn't add up in anyone's mind.

MK: Tell us about Shannon and who she was.

CAITLYN BATES: Shannon was a great person. You know, she was my older sister. We are very close. We spent a lot of time together just hanging out, grabbing coffee. But she spent the majority of her life as a nurse. She worked for St. Joe's and Hamilton. She loved taking care of people. She was just overall a really great person. If you needed something, she would give it to you even if she didn't have it. She would just find a way to make sure that you were OK because she was good like that. And, you know, she had an infectious laugh. Just being around her, you would feel like you could start laughing, too. She was just overall a really great personality to be around. And, you know, I miss her every day. She was just- every time I seen her, she made me feel so happy. You know, I love my sister.

MK: And what did the police tell you initially about what had happened to your sister.

CAITLYN BATES: Initially when they came to my home March 11th, they walked in and they said, you know, we went to Shannon's home and we walked in and found her deceased. And I thought deceased. My God, what happened? You know, like I wasn't any aware of health problems or anything like this, it was so shocking. Like, I didn't think, you know, why would she be- like what went on? And they just said, you know what? We're gathering evidence and we're going to look further into it. And being, you know, the younger sister that I am, I kind of started thinking, well, maybe I could try to find information on my own. And I kept calling the detectives day after day. What happened? Can you please explain to me the truth? Because you're walking in and telling me my sister is deceased and giving me very little information doesn't help. And eventually I went to the funeral director when I was planning my sister's funeral and I thought, can I have an open casket because my family wants to see her? And they told me, no, that it probably wasn't a good idea because of the injuries she had come in with. And I saw her injuries. And then they looked at me like you weren't informed. I said I was told my sister might have killed herself.

MK: For how long then - so I'm clear here, Caitlyn - how long were you living with the suspicion that your sister had died by suicide?

CAITLYN BATES: Had been probably several weeks before I you know, I called these detectives daily. We left messages, me and my mother did. And finally, like there was two detectives I was speaking with, one of them called me back and said, well, you know, it could be a suicide. And I said, no, it's not. Quit lying to me. Quit telling me that. I spoke to the funeral director. I know of her injuries. It wasn't a suicide. He just went dead quiet and he said, you're not wrong. He finally admitted it to me because I found out myself.

MK: What was your reaction when the police finally came clean with you?

CAITLYN BATES: I was shocked. I was I was like, So you're now telling me that you had me thinking my sister was so depressed that she took her own life and maybe there was something I could have done to help her because I thought she was generally mentally, you know, struggling. And she was in a way. But that wasn't what took her life.

MK: We reached out to the Sanford police for an explanation and they told us, quote, Once the manner of death was determined to be a homicide, the MacDougall family was notified, end quote. Was that your experience, Caitlyn?

CAITLYN BATES: No, that was not my experience there. They're detectives. They're experienced and knowing when they walk into a crime scene, they can get a good idea of what happened. And the fact that they walked into my sister's home, which was from what I was heard from people that had to go clean at home with a murder scene. And they said she committed suicide. They know when they walked in there, something had gone horribly wrong. And I would have rather have been told that from the beginning than have to sit for three weeks, if not more, crying because my sister killed herself.

MK: But did the police ever explain to you why they hadn't told you from the start about the possibility that this could have been a homicide?

CAITLYN BATES: They never did explain it. They never said if it was a safety thing. They never explained any of it. They just kind of wrote it off like she could have done this to herself and the story as if they didn't want us looking further into it. But me and my family aren't going to give up that and just assume my sister took her life and that was it. And thank God we didn't give up because we did find out the truth. And there are people out there that did this to her and there does need to be justice.

MK: Now, what have you done since? I mean, once they tell you about this and a reminder that this happened in March, what has it been for you? What is what is your relationship been like with the police trying to find out more about their investigation?

CAITLYN BATES: Since the day they told us they have reached out. I mean, like it's been really hard to get in contact with them. Like we were called probably days and days and days before eventually we get a call back or sometimes we'll get a visit at our house. Well, they'll just show up, ask if we've heard any new information. They're very like, sure, they don't go into very much detail any information that we have brought to their attention and we've asked, have you guys followed up on that? They won't answer yes or no. So I just feel like there's a lot of loose ends here and they're not helping us help them.

MK: Were you ever told that you had a right to information about their investigation?

CAITLYN BATES: No, I wasn't told that at all. It wasn't until CBC The Current contacted me and told me that you have rights. And that night I went and did research for the victims bill of Rights. And I was shocked how much of that applied here. I almost felt a little stupid, I hate to say, because I felt like, wow, if I'd known this sooner, like I could have been- get more information in the beginning and like not eight months later where I feel like some of this information is not lost, you know, like it's been so long. Like I had no idea the rights I had to this investigation. This wasn't expressed to me or my famil. My mother, she had no idea that there could have been anything we could have even done. We felt helpless these last few months. We did. I'm still shocked that I even have the right to say, go get a lawyer or I have the right to go get information and evidence about this investigation.

MK: Have you ever then told the police about that, that now, you know, you have rights under the victims rights law.

CAITLYN BATES: This is certainly going to be my next step. And I want to know what information you guys have found and what evidence you have found, because they have left us so out of the loop these last few months.

MK: Now that, you know, and now looking back over these painful nine months, what do you wish you could have done differently?

CAITLYN BATES: Honestly, I wish I could have went and got the information that I needed. Like, I feel like all this information is just lost. You know, times state certain things that could have helped solve who did this to. My sister is all lost because the police decided to wait so long to, one, tell the family the truth and to tell the public the truth. The whole community, they weren't informed at all. Those people are walking around, that took a life.

MK: Cailyn, it's a heartbreaking story, but thank you for sharing it with us. I think it's important for the public to know.

CAITLYN BATES: I just really hope that the word gets out there and anyone else going through this knows that they do have options and to not feel helpless like I did, because if I had known months ago what I know now, it might be different.

MK: Caitlyn, take care. Be well with your family.

CAITLYN BATES: Thank you, Mark.

MK: Caitlyn Bates is the sister of Shannon McDougal. As we mentioned, we did reach out to the Branford Police Department for comment. They sent a statement which reads in part: Police have a team of officers dedicated to this investigation. We are confident that the decisions made by investigators to protect the integrity of the investigation were necessary. Well, Syria's winter was also unaware that a victims rights law exists in Canada. Her former boyfriend was facing charges including choking and assault, causing bodily harm. She tried to gather the courage to testify against him, but when she didn't appear in court, police showed up to arrest her. When she tried to hurt herself while in police custody, police forcibly restrained her, tying her to a chair with her mouth covered and hands and legs bound. Until recently, Serrece Winter was facing a charge for assaulting police because she allegedly kicked an officer while he attempted to restrain her. It's just a mess now. That charge has now been dropped. But Serrece Winter joins us this morning. Good morning.

SERRECE WINTER: Good morning.

MK: As we mentioned off the top, your ex boyfriend was facing 14 charges and you were the key witness in that trial. Why didn't you show up to testify that day?

SERRECE WINTER: I was afraid of him. He was dangerous. More than myself, was afraid of him. Other members of the community were afraid of them. And for whatever reason, the police seem unable to gather other supporting evidence.

MK: But you just didn't feel you had it in you to be able to show up in court that day.

SERRECE WINTER: It just wasn't safe. And I tried to express it to the crown. And in the end, nobody seemed to understand the severity of that or believe it.

MK: Tell me about that incident. When the police show up to look for you, to find you.

SERRECE WINTER: I was at home. I had just woken up shortly, realised I was caught. I tried to get a hold of the crown and the police officer who showed up told me they weren't going to arrest me. They were going to take me to meet the judge in that I had to agree to go to court for the next appearance because it had already been adjourned. But when I got there, I actually was arrested because I had told the officer that I had medication and if I was going to be in jail, I wanted to bring it with me. And he said it wasn't necessary. So we actually had an argument on the way to the precinct about him lying and not being truthful in the first place. I'm like, well, why did you lie to me? If you were going to arrest me, why didn't you allow me to gather my medication?

MK: Serrece, how did you feel, first of all, that you were being arrested in the first place?

SERRECE WINTER: I think the whole idea of arresting witnesses is disgusting, given the fact that we just watched twenty three people lose their lives during the pandemic because of domestic violence. Why do witnesses have to risk their lives to provide testimony? And why, in an age of technology and advancement, couldn't we have used other methods?

MK: Serrece, I've seen the video from the police holding cell once you were taken into custody. And at one point I hear you saying they're putting the victim in jail. You said that a couple of times to the police. Did they listen to you at all when you were telling them that?

SERRECE WINTER: No, and I was horrified. And from everything I understood about the law, this didn't make sense to me, that somebody who keeps telling you they're terrified of something that they're threatening, they keep calling the police. And the result is the best that you can do is arrest the victim and. Just arrest them, but put them in jail. And then wonder why they do not want to cooperate with your system. I refuse to call the police again if I'm assaulted. I don't know who I will call, but it will not be them.

MK: Watching that video series after they put you in a holding cell and they close the door. You're very, very distraught. You try to hurt yourself. The police come in. Seven officers are there to restrain you.

SERRECE WINTER: I'm just wondering why medical attention was never brought into the picture. Not once did the ambulance show up to assess me or did they try to reach [unintelligible]mobile crisis. They just went ahead with the way they did it. And according to their supervisor, that is policy and procedure. So I will propose if this really is policy and procedure, we should immediately change that policy and procedure. Not only did they not see me as a victim, but they didn't even see me as a human being. If you noticed, nobody offers me so much as a glass of water or anything. They didn't do anything. When I told them I had a mental illness, they mocked me. And then to boot, they end up claiming to be assaulted and trying to destroy my life.

MK: Were you told at any point in this legal process that you had rights as a victim?

SERRECE WINTER: No.

MK: Did you know that Canada has a victim's bill of rights?

SERRECE WINTER: I didn't know there was a victim bill of Rights. I knew some things that I learnt through the provincial victim support worker, but most of it I did not know. All I did know that I thought they should- like I don't understand why I'm being treated like this. I wasn't the one who committed a crime? This doesn't make any logical sense, but I didn't actually know there was a deliberate.

MK: Serrece, at any point did they acknowledge that you were the victim in this case?

SERRECE WINTER: No, it was just basically treating me like a small child who didn't do their homework.

MK: It's disturbing to watch the treatment that that you endured at the police holding cell. What effect has that that had on you, this experience?

SERRECE WINTER: I absolutely don't trust police anymore. I would not call them if I was in danger. I think that I have lost a lot of faith in Canada's justice system, and I think that the federal government should intervene and if necessary, immediately change laws to protect victims from dealing with that type of abuse from the so-called authorities.

MK: Serrece, looking back on this entire, you know, traumatising experience for you, this could have been avoided had the police not shown up to arrest you in the first place. Do you think that that--

SERRECE WINTER: That's what I really think the issue is. Why do we have witness warrants when witnesses say that they're scared? There's some validity to that. There's some proof that if you testify, your life can be in danger. So if they can't address the danger you're in, why are they trying to force you to testify? And at what point does that not make you the same as the abuser? You say you're doing it to help the victim, right, get justice, but you're putting the victim in jail. So you're not giving the victim justice. You are playing in the hands of the abuser.

MK: Serrece it's a heck of a story. Thank you so much for sharing it with us.

SERRECE WINTER: You're welcome.

MK: We reached out to the Halifax Regional Police for comment on Ceressus experience. They told us, quote: "As there is currently an ongoing process related to this matter with the police complaints commissioner, it would be inappropriate for us to speak to the specifics".

MK: Well, Heidi Illingworth is the federal ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Her recent report has 15 recommendations to close the gaps in the law from 2015. Heidi, good morning.

HEIDI ILLINGWORTH: Good morning, Mark.

MK: Let's let's start with Serrece's story. I want to be clear here. I mean, here's somebody, you know, alleging crimes against her former boyfriend. Does does that make her a victim, even though those crimes haven't been proven in court yet?

HEIDI ILLINGWORTH: Yes, it does. She's a victim because she's experienced harm. You know, she, in relation to the offence, she's come forward, she's reported harm against herself. So she is absolutely a victim of crime.

MK: So how do you explain then? I mean, clearly a traumatic case that this left a scar on her. What were her rights from the get go?

HEIDI ILLINGWORTH: Well, all victims under the Canadian victims of rape have a right to information, to participation, to protection and to seek restitution. So, very concerning listening to her and and and reading the articles about what happened to her, how she was treated and in the aftermath of what happened to her. The problem that we have in this country, though, is that the Bill of Rights requires people, requires victims to ask for information. So they have to be aware of their rights and perhaps to be able to assert them.

MK: But doesn't it also require I mean, the people who should know being the authorities here in this case, they should know. Because, you know, you hear it from Caitlin as well. When I mentioned to her, did you know there was a victims bill of rights? She says, I didn't know this. The Current had to tell me. I had to Google it. I mean, shouldn't the authorities in place be reminding these people, the victims, that they have these rights?

HEIDI ILLINGWORTH: Yes. Well, that's one of the recommendations that we've made, is that we should do the same that we do for people accused of crime in this country. We should automatically provide victims with information about their rights and about support system services that are available to support them through the criminal justice system. So that's a major gap that we have right now, is that victims are expected to know what their rights are and to ask for them at every stage, they have to assert themselves and ask for information and ask for protections and and seek restitution if everything is placed on the victim's shoulders.

MK: When you look at the landscape and we're talking about a couple of negative experiences here with these victims, but who suffers the most from the gaps that you have found in the law? Is it the marginalised or racialized communities that suffer the most?

HEIDI ILLINGWORTH: Yes, absolutely. We know that certain groups of Canadian continue to experience violence at higher rates than others. We know indigenous people, racialized people, too, as LGBTQ, QIA people and women. You know, there's certain groups of people who are disproportionately affected and victimised and they just don't want to engage with the criminal justice system out of fear and distrust and its ability to protect them. And then, of course, there's historical oppression, reason, systemic racism, language barriers, and then a lack of information about their rights as well. You know, we just have to get examples of that. People don't know, perhaps because of where they live, that there's help out there, how to reach it. And we know that so many victims and survivors are just not aware of their rights in Canada.

MK: Heidi, we spoke with Catherine Latimer. She's executive director of the John Howard Society of Canada. And she criticised this law back in 2015 when it was introduced. She read your most recent report and she wanted to add a cautionary note.

SOUNDCLIP

You'll see even in the commissioner's report, she's saying, why is it the perpetrators get a right to immediate information, right to counsel and victims don't? Well, the reason is because the state is about to unleash coercive powers against the person accused of the offence. So you're protecting the individual from the potential abuse of state powers, whereas the victim is not facing any kind of consequences vis a vis the state. They're looking for compensation. They're looking for being able to tell their story. They're looking for some sort of validation. All of these things are legitimate, but they shouldn't necessarily come at the expense which are hard won, very important principles of criminal justice.

MK: What do you think about that, Heidi, finding that that balance between, you know, the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim?

HEIDI ILLINGWORTH: Well, I would say that we know that there can be consequences for victims. Just look at Serrece's case. The authority of the state did come after her because she wasn't able to testify as she feared testifying. So instead of taking a trauma and violence informed approach to this victim, who has a history of suffering abuse and violence with her partners and giving her and surrounding her with the proper support she needs to testify and to to bring her forward, to give her protection, to testify and support her through that. What ended up happening to her? The power of the state came after her. She was arrested, detained, restrained and charged. And now she has to make complaints against the authorities that did that to her. So, yes, we're calling for better balance in the criminal justice system. We need victims to have the ability to seek recourse when their rights are violated, when they're not treated appropriately by officials. And that's a huge gap that we have right now. If we care about the proper administration of justice in Canada and we care about access to justice, that means that we have to do better for victims so that they can come forward, they can report crime and they can be supported throughout the system to give that evidence. And then we actually have a system that will work properly and hold people accountable. But if we're we just wash our hands of victims rights and say, well, we only have to tell them if they ask for information. Like, that means the system is broken, that we can't possibly achieve proper justice because we're not keeping people informed. And if they're not informed of their rights from the get go, they can't exercise all of the other rights that they've been given in the law. So there's a huge law here, a huge gap that has to be addressed.

MK: Yes. And then huge information gap as well. But but hopefully hearing these stories in our conversation will help close that information gap. Heidi, good to talk to you this morning.

HEIDI ILLINGWORTH: Thank you. Thank you so much, Mark.

MK: Heidi Illingworth is the federal ombudsman for Victims of Crime. I'm Mark Kelly. The Current is back in 90 seconds.

‘Frankenstein’ hummus mash-ups aren’t hummus, says journalist

Guests: Kareem Shaheen

MK: I'm Mark Kelley and you're listening to The Current, Kareem Shaheen wants to talk about hummus. Specifically, he wants to talk about the so-called foodies and the big brands are doing to hummus. Kareem is a long-time journalist who's worked throughout the Middle East and now lives in Montreal. He writes a column in the Middle Eastern news outlet, The National, and his latest column takes aim at what he calls - I love this - horrific Frankenstein versions of the Middle Eastern dip, mixing the classic ingredients, chickpeas and tahini with flavours that are decidedly less classic. Chocolate mint, ground turkey, pineapple. What you get where this is going. Kareem Shaheen on the line now. Good morning, Kareem.

KAREEM SHAHEEN: Good morning. Thank you for having me and for taking part in the fight.

MK: Yeah, well, it's a good fight and it's an honest fight. Let's talk about it. You know, you've been waging this battle against hybrid hummus for a while now. What got you started?

KAREEM SHAHEEN: I think it was the mint chocolate dessert hummus. It was the thing that, you know, that broke the camel's back and it created the most outrage on Twitter. And that's when I realised that there were so many other people like me who had just had enough with all the insane flavours of homeless. And as I continue to research the topic and to look out for what other flavours are out there, I also came across Marmite, hummus.

MK: Marmite.

KAREEM SHAHEEN: Which sounded absolutely vile. And so I felt like I definitely had to write something about it and to rally the troops, so to speak. And there are so many others like me on the Internet.

MK: Well, you know, I scan the Internet. I did my homework last night about this and you mentioned Marmite. I looked at some other flavours that are out there; caramelised onion, dark chocolate, Thai coconut curry, sea salt caramel, snickerdoodle hummus, red velvet cake hummus. Kareem, what in the world is going on out there?

KAREEM SHAHEEN: I feel somewhat triggered here. It's essentially what happens to a lot of other cultural products that they get, you know, exported to the West. You know, they're transmuted into all these different tastes, palates that that appeal better to Western consumers. And you lose a lot in the process. You know, you lose a lot of that traditional flair that characterises food in the Middle East. I mean, we've been making variants of different food recipes for hundreds of years, thousands of years. Sometimes. Hummus may have originated in the 13th century in Cairo and it's a modern form originated in the 18th century in Damascus. And so people have been making it for at least, you know, over 200 years. And they've perfected the recipe. It's just absolute perfection. And the reaction that I have when I see a lot of these recipes floating around on the Internet is that, you know, when you see your child doing something really wrong and you just want to fix it for them and tell them that's not how you do it.

MK: I have to declare my bias here. My wife is Lebanese. Hummus is a staple in our household, and it's near and dear to my heart. So last night, Kareem, I called my mother in law, Beatrice Yazbek. I called her in Halifax because I wanted to get her input about this and I had to break the news to her, things like snickerdoodle hummus.

KAREEM SHAHEEN: Oh no.

MK: And yet just take a listen to a little of our conversation we had last night.

SOUNDCLIP

MK: So here are some of the flavours that I've heard of: caramelised onion, dark chocolate, dessert, Thai coconut curry. What do you think of that?

BEATRICE: I think it's crazy.

MK: Why?

BEATRICE: I mean, because it's not hummus anymore. Hummus, it's made of chickpeas, tahini, lemon juice and garlic.

MK: And that's it.

BEATRICE: That's it. But the other stuff, the [unintelligible] people who didn't eat the real hummus and eat that, they think that's what is.

MK: So what's the problem with that?

BEATRICE: Because it's not the real hummus. If somebody haven't tasted the real hummus and ate the one with the chocolate, whatever, curry, whatever, they think, that's the real stuff. But it's not.

MK: Yeah. So the sea salt caramel or...

BEATRICE: Caramel?

MK: Yeah.

BEATRICE: That's not hummus, Mark. Come on.

MK: Listen, the best hummus I've ever had is from my mother in law and I've travelled to the Middle East, I've travelled to Lebanon and it can't be beat. Kareem, when you hear her talking, and I think she speaks for so many people from the Middle East who think that this is just a bastardisation of something that shouldn't be done, how do you feel about that?

KAREEM SHAHEEN: She's 100 percent right. I mean, it just isn't hummus. You know, you can't just call something it isn't, you know? I mean, hummus is a very specific recipe. Like she said, it's made of, you know, chickpeas and tahini and lemon juice and garlic and you top it with olive oil. Some people have a different variant that they, you know, eat as a main meal, which it's topped with cutlets of meat and pine nuts and a little bit of melted ghee, which is clarified butter. Those are the only two ways you eat hummus. Like it's a very straightforward ingredient. Hummus actually means chickpeas in Arabic. And so there's no such thing as white bean hummus. It's just white bean dip. There's no such thing as black bean hummus. It's just like black bean dip. You know, the chocolate hummus is just, you know, an exotic form of Nutella that's they're trying to create and sell to you as a healthy alternative to everything else. But, you know, the other element of that is that a lot of us immigrants are originalists when it comes to these food items. Part of it is that we miss being home and we try to recreate the experience of being home a little bit. And so I go through quite the extensive hunt every month to find the best form of za'atar, which is grind thyme.

MK: Yeah, I know. And I love it. But my dream isn't to some extent like life is fluid. Life is about change. And, you know, isn't this just about you're taking a staple and you're exposing it to the changing times, to changing palates, to different tastes.

MK: That's right, and I mean, a part of it is lost, though, in the process, and that's the thing that makes you a little bit sad. You know, there are two competing elements in a lot of our consumption these days. You know, one is that striving for originality and for authenticity and every experience that we have and that we go through. And on the other hand, it's that process of assimilation and adapting things that come from abroad and trying to make it into part of a culture. And I don't really have any opposition to to either one of those trends. But they do, they are clashing when it comes to hummus. We want to eat something authentic. We want to eat something that is made the way it's made abroad. But, you know, we also want to transmute it into a form that's more palatable to our fad diets and things like that, you know, to make it seem like it's healthier than the other alternative. And for most immigrants that desire, it's hard. It's hard to see someone just kind of mutilate the thing that you love the most. You know, a lot of French people are very particular about how you eat croissants and so a lot of Arabs are also very particular about exactly what you do to hummus and where the correct or the best form of za'atar is and how to eat falafel and many of these other elements of Middle Eastern food.

MK: I'm not Middle Eastern and I feel passionate about it. But you went on Twitter, I know. Give me an idea of what you've heard and feedback about this. You mentioned it like at the outset about being the great fight here, the battle. What are you hearing from people online?

KAREEM SHAHEEN: Well, you know, I'm happy to report that 95 percent or so of the people who responded to the article have been supportive and which makes me think I should set up a political party first because no issue has 95 percent approval rating. But, you know, a few people have raised concerns saying that they felt that the evolution of food is something that should happen and people should make these things their own and they should be able to. And I'm absolutely fine with that as long as they don't call it hummus. That's my primary issue with that particular element. I wouldn't eat it the way they eat it, just like I wouldn't put ketchup on a kobe steak. But it's just not hummus. You know, an apple is just an apple. It's not a lamb shank. So that's been the primary divergence in the debate there. There are some people who dislike the bastardisation of hummus because they feel it's a form of cultural appropriation. For me, the issue is primarily an issue of taste. And the issue of appropriation is one that extends into when foods from certain countries in the region, especially cultures that are at risk, you know, like Palestine, are then sort of marketed as an Israeli food. A lot of Palestinians and Arabs take issue with that because they feel that's part of a culture that is being slowly erased. And so they feel it's important that original food is sort of called what it is and we say where it comes from.

MK: Kareem, you know, I think the important thing for all of our listeners to remember on this: keep it real. And this has been a real good discussion with you. And I appreciate your time. Thanks, Kareem.

KAREEM SHAHEEN: Thank you for having me.

MK: Kareem Shaheen is a journalist and a columnist based in Montreal. Are you a Hamas purist or do you enjoy different takes on the traditional recipe? Well, send us your thoughts or recipes to cbc.ca/the current or tweet us @TheCurrentCBC.

[Music]

2 years after legalization, cannabis producers are making too much marijuana

Guests: Vanmala Subramaniam

clip]1830647875654[/clip]

MK: I'm Mark Kelly, and you're listening to The Current. In the two years that pot has been legal in Canada, the industry has seen its ups and downs. The excitement of rapid expansion and a flood of money from investors soon turned to frustration over government bureaucracy and oversupply. This week, Canopy Growth, one of the country's biggest suppliers announced it was closing five of its facilities, a loss of millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs. Tilray and Aurora made similar decisions earlier this year. On top of all this, the pandemic has made things more difficult for retailers. Vanmala Subramaniam has been watching this closely. She's a business reporter at The Logic. Good morning, Van.

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: Good morning, Mark.

MK: Great to have you on the show again. Tell us about Canopy's decision to close down these facilities. What's behind that?

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: So Canopy kind of, you know, abruptly after reporting its most recent earnings, decided that it's going to close five of its facilities, you know, somewhat smaller facilities, not its main facility in Smith Falls. And the reason for that was because they are basically sitting on too much weed on, you know, piles and piles of inventory. And they are struggling to move that inventory and convert that inventory into sales. So I think the calculation here and you know, this is obviously according to Canopy as well, was that we really need to restructure our business and reconcile supply with demand. So we are kind of gauging that we just need so few facilities to continue serving the Canadian market. And they kind of overinvested in all those facilities is the implicit message here.

MK: But here's the thing that's a disconnect for me. I look, you know, here in Toronto and it seems that I'm seeing storefront operations popping up like weeds, so to speak. So it gives me the impression that business is booming. But then what you're telling me is just the opposite. So how is it that I'm seeing the rapid expansion of stores and yet you're talking about an oversupply and a market saturation then?

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: Yes, absolutely. It's a good question. So if you look at say Ontario, which is a good gauge of the overall market, because it's the largest province of 14 million people, there have been a growth of stores there are now close to 200 stores in Ontario. I think when we spoke a year ago, there was probably only 50 to 60 stores in Ontario. So you are definitely seeing a huge increase in the number of stores and sales have been pretty good. Sales have increased in the course of three to four months, according to Statscan data, sales have increased in these stores by about 30 to 40 percent. So they are doing well. The problem is, prior to the stores getting their licences and opening, cannabis producers were cultivating at a massive rate. So they started sitting on a lot of inventory. Just to give you a sense of it, in August, according to Statscan again, the total inventory that all these licenced producers was sitting on was about four times the amount of sales. And when you break that down by type of product cannabis extracts which go into your edibles and go into vape pens, the inventory is about seven times sales. So usually in a supply chain of, say, a group like grocers or just any kind of supply chain of goods, you need about two months worth of inventory and now you have seven times the amount of sales. So you can't keep producing at this rate. And that's what the cannabis companies have been figuring out over the last year and adjusting the operations to kind of meet this demand.

MK: Well, and there are other issues that I know that the retailers are dealing with. We spoke with Sasha Soeterik, a Toronto cannabis dispensary owner, and she had to say this about the Ontario Cannabis Store, and that's the Ontario owned and operated weed wholesaler that supplies all the dispensaries.

SOUNDCLIP

OCS retail really served a purpose. You know, they gave Ontarians a legal source of cannabis from the day of legalization. And I can see why they existed. But now we're probably going to have eight hundred, maybe a thousand shops in Ontario. And I would say that it's probably sensible that those shops don't have to compete with the government for sales of cannabis.

MK: So what do we know about that this sort of push and pull between the provincial supplier and the retailers? How how's that balance working out?

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: Yes, so it's a very interesting model here because you have the Ontario Cannabis Store government run store acting as both the wholesaler, so they pick up the cannabis from the licenced producers and they sell it. They set a price and they sell it to the retailers. And you have them also directly selling to the public through OCS.

MK: And is there a big difference, though, between the price point?

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: There isn't a big difference between the price point, but I think from the point of view of the retailers, they want to be able to negotiate directly with the licenced producers to set what they think is the right price based on get rid of the middlemen.

MK: Get rid of middlemen.

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: Exactly. And that's what a lot of retailers want. And so one of the things that the Ontario government had proposed last year, which, you know, never came into fruition for possibly because the pandemic just slowed things down, bureaucracy, is that they told the retailers, listen, you can, we're going to allow you give you the green light to also start your own e-commerce site so you can if you're Nova cannabis, you can be Novacannabis.ca. People can buy from your site. And so that gives the retailers direct competition with ocs.ca. So that's one of the solutions they have proposed to the retailers. But I think from the point of view of the retailers, they're just saying, why can't you just act as the wholesaler and decide on prices and don't eat into our online business? Don't, especially in the pandemic when our stores are shut right now. Why are we competing with you to get cannabis to Canadians?

MK: Yes, and it's different business model in different provinces. And we spoke to Jim Ramadam. He's a cannabis retailer in Calgary about how his business is doing. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

Since we got our licence, business has been good. It's been steady year over year. For the most part. We've been really happy. You know, the AGLC is the body that's responsible for rolling everything out. And I really can't complain about how they've done it. They've had a hands off approach, so to speak. As long as you can get a location so the municipality approves it, they're going to basically give you a licence as long as you meet the regulations. They've put no cap on licences.

MK: So, Vanmala, when you when you look at the landscape across the country, different models in different provinces, who's got it right?

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: Well, that it's hard to see. But I will say that one of the things that helped Alberta retailers a lot is the fact that the AGLC, you know, body that gives out licences, did gave out licences very quickly. So in even prior to the pandemic, they were way ahead of Ontario in terms of number of stores. So that supply chain was very clean and it flowed really well. It went straight from the LC to the AGLC to the retailer. And, you know, they could actually make quite a bit of money at that point because they've were a lot of stores. So in in Ontario, I think the frustration with people was sitting for months on all these leases and paying into leases and not being able to open these stores because they were waiting on licences. And that kind of really set them back. So I can completely understand the frustration from the point of view of the Ontario retailers. And even now they have increased stores to about, I think by the end of the year will be about 200 stores in Ontario. But compare that with Alberta. Alberta has about 550 stores to date. So that's massive given the population.

MK: I guess it's that issue, too, about density and getting, you know, equal distribution across provinces. I mean, so many things that still need to be worked out. But it it appears the demand is there and we're still trying to get that balancing act. Quite right then. Van, to talk to you. Good to hear your voice. And I hope you're doing well.

VANMALA SUBRAMANIAM: Good to talk to you, too, Mark. Thank you so much.

MK: Vanmala Subramaniam is a business reporter at The Logic. And we did ask the Ontario Cannabis Store for comment on their model. They sent us this statement that reads in part: Stores are our partners in growing the size of the legal market, not our competition. Our pricing model is designed not to undercut stores. All stores buy cannabis from us at a fixed markdown from ocs.ca prices.

[Music]

Now, Bob Marley and the Wailers with Kaya for you on this Friday, enjoy it with the band.

SOUNDCLIP

[Song]

MK: Bob Marley to get you ready for your weekend. Well, that's our programme for today. Stay tuned to Radio One for Q. Big Freedia is a powerhouse in the world of bounce. That's a subgenre of hip hop. She's a reality TV star and an icon in the LGBTQ community. In her memoir, God Save the Queen Diva, Big Freedia writes about how a choir boy from Louisiana survived poverty and discrimination and how the club scene empowered her to be who she wanted to be here. Her conversation with Tom Power in just a moment. And we leave you with news today about a big interview that's coming up on CBC this weekend. Dr. Anthony Fauci, you know who he is. He's become the bit of a celebrity during the pandemic as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in the U.S. He's guided America through the pandemic and all the politics surrounding that. And on Wednesday, U.S. President elect Joe Biden tapped him to be his chief medical adviser. CBC's Dr. Brian Goldman had the chance to talk with Dr. Fauci. Here's part of their conversation. Hear it in full tomorrow on White Coat Black Art. That's after the 1:00 p.m. news. I'm Mark Kelley, in for Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. Have a great weekend.

SOUNDCLIP

BRIAN GOLDMAN: I want to know how you feel about the arrival of the first vaccine.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, I'm very encouraged, first of all, by the extraordinary level of efficacy. Both the two vaccines that are in play right now that are being considered by our FDA are the messenger RNA vaccines from Moderna and from Pfizer. And their efficacy of 94 to 95 percent is striking. I did not anticipate it would be that good. And even more or as important is that the efficacy against serious disease is almost 100 percent. I mean, when you compare the placebo to the vaccine group, that's extremely good news right now. We in the United States and I guess Canada has the same issue, there's a considerable degree of vaccine hesitancy and scepticism about getting vaccinated. We've got to convince as many people as possible in this country and worldwide to get vaccinated when it becomes available. Because given such a highly efficacious vaccine, if we get the overwhelming majority of the population vaccinated, we can actually get a degree of herd immunity in this country and elsewhere that could actually crush this epidemic. When you get a veil of immunity amongst the population to a high degree, the virus has no place to go and cannot spread readily. So we're hoping we get a very, very successful uptake of vaccine to a high percentage of the population.

BRIAN GOLDMAN: But as you've mentioned, there are rising rates of vaccine hesitancy. Is there anything new out there? What do you do to convince people who won't roll up their sleeves?

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI: Well, you have to try and find out the reason that they have concern and scepticism. You know, there are a hard core group of anti vaccines that no matter what you tell them, they're not going to change their mind regardless of what the vaccine is. I'm not so sure anything we can do can win them over. But I think the majority of people who are hesitant don't really have the data and don't understand things like why we were able to go so quickly. They may think that we were being a bit reckless in how fast we went from the discovery of a new virus to the point where you actually are giving vaccines to people. And we need to explain that that speed is merely a reflection of extraordinary scientific advances in vaccine platform technology. And it's not reckless speed and it doesn't compromise safety and it doesn't compromise scientific integrity.

Friday December 11, 2020 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode