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 2021

The Current Transcript for February 19, 2021

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

[fclip]1863693379507[fclip]

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

ERIN O'TOOLE: Genocide is currently being carried out by the People's Republic of China. We're calling on Prime Minister Trudeau to officially adopt this position. We are calling for an end to silence.

MATT GALLOWAY: A year out from the Winter Olympics in Beijing, and with increasing alarm over the treatment of China's Uyghur population, the opposition parties are turning up the heat on Justin Trudeau. In an hour, our national affairs panel is here to talk about the calls for Canada to accuse China of committing genocide. And why, thus far, the government has resisted that. Also, this morning, the government is still under pressure for a slow rollout of COVID vaccines. Globe and Mail health columnist Andre Picard will be here to assess the Public Health of Canada claim that despite delays, two-thirds of Canadians could be vaccinated by July. And later,.

MAN: Through these investments, we are planning to find five shelters, specifically for Innuit.

MATT GALLOWAY: Domestic violence is a crisis across this country. But in Canada's north, it is particularly acute. In 30 minutes, a look at the lack of supports currently available for women in the north. And some innovative solutions coming directly from the communities affected. We'll start, though, in Australia, where no news is the news on Facebook. Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. This is "The Current".

[Music: Theme]

What Facebook’s spat with Australia means for Canada

Guests: Terry Flew, Dwayne Winseck

WOMAN: I think Facebook banning news is terrible, actually. I do use Facebook, it seems to be a catch-all. And I can get all of my news in the one spot, so it will really impact me.

MAN: Yeah, I think it's crazy. I think... I'm a software developer, so I'm fascinated to see how the ban is actually affecting other sites that are getting crashed.

WOMAN#2: People will just revolt against it. Like, honestly, like, especially the younger generation, there would just be chaos.

MATT GALLOWAY: Australian Facebook users are not pleased when they woke up to a blank news feed. The social media giant blocked all news content from its platform in that country. The move in response to a dispute with the government over new legislation that would require Facebook to negotiate paying news outlets for links. Terry Flew is a professor of digital communication and culture at the University of Sydney. He's in Brisbane. Terry, hello.

TERRY FLEW: Hello, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: As you can hear, users, Facebook users, not particularly pleased with what Facebook did in Australia. What do you make of this? I mean, people have said that this is, in some ways, the nuclear option to shut down news sharing in Australia. What do you make of that?

TERRY FLEW: OK, well, I think it comes at the end of what has been a three-year process of reviewing the market power of digital platforms and its impact on news media industries and journalism in Australia. And Google as well as Facebook have been critical of the code. But this week, we saw a very important divergence in that Google announced a series of partnerships with news publishers in Australia, whereas Facebook has sought to completely extricate news from its sites, which, as your introduction indicated, has generated a massive degree of over-blocking of everything from public health sites to domestic violence sites to the website of the home page of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, 250 arts organizations. There has been much collateral damage in this.

MATT GALLOWAY: What is... I mean, I gave kind of the thumbnail sketch there. But just briefly, what's this legislation that would push Facebook to this point, to take this kind of action?

TERRY FLEW: OK, well, the legislation argues that in order to redress the unequal bargaining power between the major platforms, they particularly point to Google and Facebook and individual news publishers that there should be a process whereby a value is put on news to the sites and that there's some form of payment to the news providers that meets the costs of producing news based on those benefits derived from the availability of professionally-produced news on their sites.

MATT GALLOWAY: And so the publishers felt as though they were being denied revenue because of the presence of not just Facebook, but Google as well?

TERRY FLEW: Well, in Australia, as in many countries, there is a crisis of journalism that about 30 per cent of journalism jobs have been lost in the last five years, and over 100 titles were closed in 2020. And they feel, and the ACCC was in some agreement, that the unequal state of the digital advertising market continues to work against them. And while there is some scope to meet those costs through subscriptions, at the same time, there is an element of a frenemy relationship between the publishers and platforms. And the view was taken by both the ACCC and the government that this is reflective of unequal bargaining power between the entities.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let's talk more about that. As you say, frienemy relationship. William Easton is the managing director of Facebook for Australia and New Zealand. Take a listen to what he says about this legislation.

WILLIAM EASTON: News publishers choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their businesses and increase advertising revenue. Last year, Facebook actually generated five-point-one-billion free organic website referrals to Australian publishers, worth an estimated 407-million dollars. And, you know, from our side of things, this little misunderstanding, this relationship.

MATT GALLOWAY: Does Facebook have a point there? I mean, if it helps news outlets bring in more subscriptions and advertising dollars, should it be paying for the content that ends up often posted by those own news outlets themselves?

TERRY FLEW: Well, certainly that has opened up an alternative distribution outlet. And there are particular demographics, most notably younger demographics, who largely get their news from Facebook. I think there's need to step back somewhat from that, which is to be aware of the extent to which all organizations, not just news organizations, are increasingly dependent upon these platforms, that they constitute the infrastructure of communication. And as such, they're very vulnerable to decisions made within those organizations, which are, of course, also competing with them for advertising. I think we should be clear about that. These are not simply intermediaries. They are commercial competitors. And that that aggregation of data from multiple sources has given them very substantial market power.

MATT GALLOWAY: What is this all going to mean for Australians who use Facebook to find out the news? I mean, as you mentioned, there's collateral damage here. It's not just the news feeds that have been knocked out of this. But... but there are other... in the midst of a pandemic, other vital health pieces of information that have been knocked out as well. So what's this going to mean for those Australians who use Facebook to get news?

TERRY FLEW: The first vaccine, COVID-19 vaccine, to arrive in Australia in the coming week. And so there will be a mass-vaccination program. Now, what we're aware of is that there is a degree of vaccine hesitancy in Australia. And Facebook has long had issues around the circulation of misinformation here. And so the real risk that you have here is that in the absence of professionally-produced, editorially-curated news content of any sort on Facebook, that it will be misinformation and fake news run rampant. And it seems to me that this is the worst time for Facebook to remove all professionally-produced news content because the consequences can potentially go way beyond news businesses and Facebook that, you know, we are facing a potential infodemic here. And Facebook's behaviour has been deeply unaccountable in that regard.

MATT GALLOWAY: And so there are a lot of people who say, see, this is an example of these companies being too powerful, and there needs to be some effort taken, whether it's through regulation or other steps to rein them in. Is that a sign of that need, do you think?

TERRY FLEW: Well, one view of this is that this is a pre-emptive strike, that Australia is a relatively small market power, and that if you can demonstrate that, you can bring the Australian infosphere to its knees, that will provide a warning to other countries. And we know that Canada, for instance, is one of a number of countries considering a comparable code. And I think there is a very strong backlash to this. Whether it will matter in terms of Facebook's advertising or user base remains to be seen.

MATT GALLOWAY: And do you think it's a cautionary tale for a country like Canada?

TERRY FLEW: You know, that... that would be one interpretation. And be the first CEO of Facebook Australia has been... has been presenting that view. But I think there's... there's also an opposite reaction, which is to say, well, if a country like Australia can't introduce regulations on a company like Facebook at this stage of its evolution, it indicates that these are foreign companies that have a degree not only of market power, but political power, which undermines the democratic process. We wouldn't accept this in other industries. We wouldn't you know, banking and finance is a complex global industry. But would we accept the proposition that therefore foreign banks are not subject to regulation by national governments? Because to do so might disrupt or break the Internet or break finance, whatever? We don't, and we haven't... we haven't for some time. And I think we have seen a series of recurring scandals around platforms such as Facebook that have generated what's being described as the "techlash" and the expectation that national governments have both the obligation to their citizens and the sovereign right to bring regulation forward. That brings the degree of social responsibility and accountability to their actions.

MATT GALLOWAY: Terry, good to speak with you about this. Thank you very much.

TERRY FLEW: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Terry Flew is a professor of digital communication and culture at the University of Sydney. He was in Brisbane, Australia. Canada has condemned Facebook's decision to block new sharing on its platform in Australia. Canada's Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault says yesterday that Facebook's actions are highly irresponsible and compromised the safety of many Australian people. Meanwhile, some Canadian media companies have been pushing for compensation rules similar to those in Australia. Dwayne Winseck is a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University and director of the Canadian Media Concentration Research Project. Dwayne, good morning to you.

DWAYNE WINSECK: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: The world is watching this. Australia has described its bargaining code as world-leading. Facebook reacts strongly and deploys, as people have said, the nuclear option. Do you think that this is a cautionary tale for Canada?

DWAYNE WINSECK: I think it is. I think Terry Flew, your previous guest there, summed up some of the concerns there. I mean, we are at a time when governments around the world have been searching for a new model of Internet regulation, and Australia has kind of stepped out in front on this. And the extent to which Google and Facebook have been fighting this tooth and nail, understandably, of course, also raises some particular questions. The companies do claim that they are in favour of this new generation of Internet regulation, but any time anything concrete is put in front of them, they avert. So the Australian case provides a cautionary lesson about just how far they will go.

MATT GALLOWAY: Who here in this country has been lobbying for similar rules compared to what's going on in Australia?

DWAYNE WINSECK: Yeah, well, I think we have a couple of sources. The most important ones are the media companies themselves, and in particular the ones representing the major press groups, News Media Canada. You know, they've been on a campaign now for several years. It's had several manifestations. A few think tanks like the Public Policy Forum have swung in behind them, I would say, all with very questionable and even dubious research to back them up. But they do have the ear of the minister and policymakers, and I think they are setting the policy agenda.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let me start let me stop you there. You say that it's questionable and dubious. There was a campaign that was launched earlier this month. A number of newspapers left their front pages blank to protest the dominance of Facebook and Google in their markets. The Toronto Sun was part of that campaign. Take a listen to the editor of The Sun, Adrianne Batra.

ADRIANNE BATRA: We are up against these two big walls, and that's Google and Facebook. And the two big tech giants who are using their platforms to use our... to showcase our work. We get zero compensation for that. So while they're collecting nearly 80 per cent of the digital ad revenue that you see, because we know now, of course, that most people get their news content digitally. And as we catch up to that, we are way, far behind in terms of the playing... the playing field being level with respect to the ad revenue. And that's where we're... we're getting hammered and we're we're losing jobs because of it. And then, frankly, you know, democracy is affected when there isn't proper journalism.

MATT GALLOWAY: What is questionable and dubious about that line of thinking, Dwayne?

DWAYNE WINSECK: Well, the argument that they aren't getting compensated for the traffic that comes to their sites by way of Google and Facebook is simply untrue. The point about whether or not the relationship between them and Google and finance is fair and balanced and remuneration is adequate is a fair question. The citation to the data is quite interesting. They point to this 80 per cent figure, and that figure actually comes from my research. They cite it once in the News Media canada's "Levelling The Playing Field" report last fall, but now they use it in all their campaigns without citation. So if they're concerned about the use of news and information without proper attribution, it's a kind of an irony that they themselves are waging a campaign based on this.

MATT GALLOWAY: But I guess their point is, I mean, beyond that, that these companies have come in and eaten their lunch, that whether it's online advertising or just market dominance, that... that... that has left. We've seen it. We've seen newspapers across this country and around the world shut down. And the point that's being made is this affects the business, but it also affects democracy.

DWAYNE WINSECK: Yeah. And the relationship between journalism and democracy, I think, is fundamental. We don't have a robust and vibrant democracy without a free and robust press. So there's... there's no quarrel on that. I think the problem with the evidence here, both in Canada and in Australia, is that the plight of the news media in both countries far predates the rise of Google and Facebook to their market-dominating position. I mean, they begin to lose circulation in the late 1980s, early 1990s. Revenues kind of plateau at the end of the 1990s and stayed there. And they begin to plummet around 2006, 2007 with the legs really kicked out from underneath them with the financial crisis, which precipitates a drop in advertising. And I think this is one of the things about the Australian case is its own research for the digital platforms inquiry shows that... that advertising spending in the country today is lower than it was in 2008. And it also shows that newspaper revenue in that country started to drop in 2006. So blaming Google and Facebook for the plight of the news media, I think, is disingenuous. But the real problem here of this market dominance of the online advertising arena and what the Australian bill tries to do, I think, has many good things to commend it. Just much of the case, I think, is very questionable.

MATT GALLOWAY: We asked Facebook Canada to speak with us today. They wouldn't and couldn't make anybody available, but sent us a statement that reads, in part, "We believe there are other options to support news in Canada that will more fairly benefit publishers of all sizes and recognize the value that platforms bring to news organizations. We stand ready to collaborate on these complex issues. Have companies like Facebook got governments and the media industry in a bit of a bind? If they can't publish those news sources anymore, that creates a void in some ways. And governments don't want that. Certainly, the media companies don't want that. So is this... has it left those companies, and governments in some ways, in a bit of a squeeze?

DWAYNE WINSECK: I'm not so sure. You know, I think what we have to look at here in terms of what governments are trying to do, and I think Minister Guilbeault is actually dead right when he says, you know, the time for voluntaristic or philanthropic activities by Google or Facebook is passed. Now, what we're looking for is this kind of new era of concrete, formal regulatory requirements. And I think this is where we need to go, and the Australians are blazing the way.

MATT GALLOWAY: But they tried to do that in Australia. And now, news isn't being published on Facebook in the midst of a public health crisis.

DWAYNE WINSECK: Right, and I think this is redounded on Facebook really, really badly. And you showed that at the opening of your show. And that position is going to become untenable as other countries pursue similar measures. So maybe Facebook can do this out in Australia. But what about, and again, this is coming from Guilbeault's office. You know, what about when Canada, Germany, France, the U.K. and others do this? And this matter is up in the United States as well in a number of different areas. So that may be a short-term measure. It's not doing Facebook any any good on the public policy front or its public image, and it won't work around the world.

MATT GALLOWAY: So what could be done better here in Canada then, to ensure that public interest journalism survives? But also the end result is that... that, you know, Canadians have access to credible, trustworthy information, particularly in a crisis like we're in right now?

DWAYNE WINSECK: Yeah. So I think what we could do is we could take... we could cherry-pick the good bits from the Australian model and try to get rid of the bad bits. So take the good bits from the Australian model, I think, is first and foremost to recognize that government has a role and that we need a formalized regulatory regime. And to take the crown jewel from the Australian model, which basically is this idea that the Googles and Facebooks of the world must carry a designated range of Australian news services and that the news services themselves get a 14-day heads up notice of any major changes that the platforms are going to take that could upend their business, gives the regulator a peek behind or under the hood, Facebook and Google's algorithms so that they have an understanding of how these things work. And the whole online ad system is understood to be riven with essentially fraudulent data, upon which audiences are bought and sold. And what the Australian model would do is basically open up this whole system to a regulated audit. This would be good. And if I could, just one last thing, though. What we have to really do, though, is go beyond the Australian model, because what it basically does is it says Facebook and Google has all this model they've harvested through the surveillance capitalism business model that drives these things. And now what we should do is spread the fruits, the spoils of this surveillance capitalism model wider and give the news media companies a bigger slice of the big data pie. I think this is a really terrible idea that's at the heart of the Australian model. And instead, what we need to be talking about is minimizing the collection of data and adopting strong data and privacy protection. The Australian model doesn't do that.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dwayne, it's good to speak with you about this. Thank you very much.

DWAYNE WINSECK: Thank you, Matthew.

MATT GALLOWAY: Dwayne Winseck is a professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University in Ottawa. Your thoughts on this welcome. You can reach us through email: thecurrent@cbc.ca. Your CBC News is next. And then,.

WOMAN: There is two shelters, and they serve 9,000 people across nine different communities. Those communities, they can be up to two-and-a-half hours by plane. So the access to safety is not there for Inuit women.

MATT GALLOWAY: Inuit women face violence at a rate 14 times greater than other women in Canada. And the majority do not have safe places to go. The growing need for shelters in the north, when we return. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to "The Current" on CBC Radio One. We're back in six minutes.

[Music: Theme]

Advocates applaud funding for Inuit women impacted by violence

Guests: Rebecca Kudloo, Becky Michelin, Ginette Demers

MATT GALLOWAY: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. And you're listening to "The Current".

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: Still to come, our national affairs panel tackles Canada's fraught strategy for dealing with China. But first, setting up safe spaces for Inuit women.

[Music: Theme]

MATT GALLOWAY: They demanded change a year ago, right before the crisis of COVID-19 took hold, a group representing Inuit women was sounding alarm bells about another crisis, increased violence against women in their communities and the lack of safe spaces for those women to escape to. Now, the federal government has responded to that call, announcing it will help build five new women's shelters providing 20-million dollars in funding. Rebecca Kudloo is president of the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. She is in Baker Lake, Nunavut. Rebecca, good morning.

[silence]

MATT GALLOWAY: Rebecca, are you there?

[more silence]

MATT GALLOWAY: Rebecca? We had Rebecca, but we lost her. We'll get back to Rebecca in just a few moments on the program. One of the things we wanted to pick up on in this is just the personal stories of those women and what this has meant over the course of this journey to get these shelters built. The government's numbers show that women in the north experience a rate of violence at 14 times higher than the national average, which speaks to the urgency of this. And Rebecca Kudloo, the president of the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, is there with us now. Rebecca, good morning.

REBECCA KUDLOO: Good morning.

You had a meeting with Marc Miller, the Indigenous services minister, last year, specifically asking for this funding that has now arrived. What does it mean for Inuit women that the funding has finally been approved for these new shelters?

REBECCA KUDLOO: So after decades of advocacy work by Pauktuutit, we finally have a secure commitment for funding of emergency shelters for Innuit women, which is very good news. Pauktuutit has been advocating for more shelters for 35 years. So, actually, after the last federal election, we met with several ministers to advocate for the needs of Innuit women and children. During these meetings, we told ministers our highest priority was funding for five shelters for women and children. All the ministers told us we were... they were supportive, but we've heard this before. [chuckling] However, Minister Vandal was quite clear. He said funding for shelters with Pauktuutit is highest priority. I will work with you to get the funding. So in late January, when the Minister Miller and Minister Vandal called to tell me the announcements to be made shortly, in a few days, Baker Lake was grieving the loss of a third young person to suicide in just two months, so this announcement was very welcome, at a very difficult time.

MATT GALLOWAY: We know that violence against women happens everywhere across this country. But what makes Inuit women particularly vulnerable in these circumstances?

REBECCA KUDLOO: The rates of domestic violence for Inuit woman is 14 times the national average. Yet, we only have 70 per cent of our communities that have safe shelters for women. A lot of them closed because of lack of funding. So we've been really pushing for five shelters to be built for Inuit in Nunavut, and one in Ottawa, as a lot of women go to Ottawa, for instance, to the other cities, too, a lot of them to get away from violence. But they also encounter other problems when they get there. Mostly, they're targeted by drug dealers or sex traffickers who are... who are waiting to exploit at their highest degree of vulnerability. So. We were also thinking about women who go to urban areas or cities to escape.

MATT GALLOWAY: What is it at the root of that number that you quoted, the 14 times higher, the rates of violence being 14 times higher than for other women across the country? What's at the heart of that, do you think?

REBECCA KUDLOO: Inuit have gone through a lot in a short period of time. In my lifetime, I grew up on the land. I was born on the land. And grew up with a loving family. But residential school took me away at age nine to go to residential school. Luckily, I went to residential schools that, you know, were good. But a lot of people were abused. And in these schools, there's a long history of intergenerational violence that happened from there. And on top of that, we don't have services to provide counselling in our communities for mental health, alcohol treatment. But.. but that's something I've been working on, is to have healing programs, so these social ills are not that, you know, we want it to go lower, of course. But it's ongoing fight to get those services in the small community.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you see a change in... in how those systemic issues are being recognized? I think of the recent court case involving a young mother in Nunavut who killed her abusive husband. The judge acquitted her saying that she acted in self-defence. And this is the first time this kind of defence in such a case was... was accepted in Nunavut. And the judge also talked about the cycle of violence in the north, and said that it wouldn't end without the resources and the funding that you've been talking about. Do you see that as a significant change?

REBECCA KUDLOO: Yes, this case is a tragedy. Any time we hear a woman or a man killed in this way, it's always a tragedy for all of us, especially for the communities that they live in, because we know everybody else in the community, and it really hurts. And that's why we're.. Pauktuutit has been pushing for healing programs. I know there's a lot of issues about unresolved grief. It seems, like I said, we had three suicides in two months in Baker Lake. It seems like, you know, one on top of each other when we're trying to deal with when something else comes up. So those are things that, I think, have to be dealt with. And I strongly feel that we should have a treatment programme that is suitable for Inuit like we have in Baker Lake where we counsel all in all areas of family violence, offenders from the courts are referred, children, you know, I think that's something that has worked in my community. And we've been running for 35 years, and we thought we would run for one year. So those programs that are working have to be supported by the government to have funding available each year. Multi-year funding would be really good because there's a lot of healing to be done. And if we don't provide that, then, you know, we'll still have 14 more, you know, higher violence in the country.

MATT GALLOWAY: You've been doing this work for a long time, and I really appreciate speaking with you about the work that you've done and work still to come. Rebecca, thank you very much.

REBECCA KUDLOO: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Rebecca Kudloo is president of the Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada. She was in Baker Lake, Nunavut. As she mentioned, the government's own numbers show Inuit women experience violence at a rate 14 times higher than the national average. Becky Michelin knows all about that. And her own history has driven her to become an activist on this issue. Becky lost both parents in a murder-suicide and the Inuit community of Rigolet, Labrador. And she joins me now from Happy Valley Goose Bay. Becky, good morning to you.

BECKY MICHELIN: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: You have lived through enormous tragedy, and I know that... that not everyone would be comfortable speaking out about that. But you have. Why are you... why is it so important for you to talk about what you and your family went through?

BECKY MICHELIN: I think my biggest reason to advocate is to be a voice for my mother. She is no longer with us, so I feel like it's important to try to be her voice. And I feel the need to fight for the rights that she didn't have in place when she was murdered. And in the process, I feel like this helps me fight for other people who may be experiencing gender-based violence, and to fight for their rights and definitely to bring awareness to this very, very important topic. Also, I think sharing, you know, survivor stories of trauma such as my own can help provide to others who are affected by trauma and face gender-based violence. Throughout my advocacy, I have received an outpouring of support through speaking and advocating, in which I'm very grateful.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you remember about your mom?

BECKY MICHELIN: My mom, she was... she loved us so much. And she loved the outdoors. And I hear a lot of stories about her, you know, her humour, and just the beautiful person that she was. And she's definitely missed. And I miss feeling that unconditional love. And I miss having her with me.

MATT GALLOWAY: What do you know about the supports that were or weren't available to her when she was raising you? I mean, part of the work that you're doing, and what we were talking to Rebecca about, was the need for greater supports. Were there supports there for your mom?

BECKY MICHELIN: Not at the time when she was murdered. Unfortunately, there was no policing in the community, which meant for her and any other woman facing any need for policing, she couldn't just call for help. And they would have to fly in from another community by helicopter to get there. So, I mean, by the time the police would have arrived there, it more than likely would want to late already. And there were no shelters for her to go to. She didn't have that extra support of just being able to leave and take us and go somewhere safe.

MATT GALLOWAY: That... the police part of it, but also the advocacy for women's shelters, is something that your grandmother became a vocal advocate for in the wake of this tragedy. Do you feel in some ways as though you're following in her footsteps?

BECKY MICHELIN: I do. And I hope that someday I can be half the advocate that she is. She fought tremendously to have resources readily available for women facing an experiencing genetic gender-based violence. You know, she did fight for the women's shelter, a safe place to go for women. And she did fight for a place to be stationed in the remote communities. You know, living in the north, we have a lot of small communities where there's no police. And, you know, she really opened up the doors for important conversations to take place. So back when my mother was murdered, women's rights were, you know, much more insignificant than they are now. And it wasn't taking people seriously. And a lot of these issues were pushed under the rug. And it was something that wasn't spoken about. So my grandmother really done some important and groundbreaking work towards women's rights. She... she took all of her hurt and her energy, and she really poured it into making change for women. And, you know, with everything she has been through, I think that's very powerful.

MATT GALLOWAY: Part of the work that is being done. And this is what Rebecca was speaking about as well, is that that cycle of violence and the roots of violence, particularly in historic trauma in the north and in other communities, how do you go about trying to break that cycle and address the historic roots of it?

REBECCA KUDLOO: I think to break the cycle, you know, in communities, a holistic approach really needs to begin, it needs to take place to begin healing the communities. I think, because these issues trace back so far from intergenerational trauma, that there needs to be big plans in place. It's good that we have more resources available now, you know, with the policing and shelters in remote communities. But I think we need to have a revised plan looking into the root of the problem. For example, we have shelters available for women now, but I think there needs to be help as well for men.

MATT GALLOWAY: Tell me tell me more about that? What more do you think... I mean, what's the role of addressing this with men, do you think?

BECKY MICHELIN: So if we look at the big picture, many people who face trauma in their own lives are at higher risk for things such as substance abuse, addictions, mental health problems, and, you know, living a high-risk lifestyle. So these behaviours are exhibited initially as a coping mechanism, but those in direct contact learn to adapt to these behavioural patterns, thinking it's a normal lifestyle. And this ultimately becomes a trauma response intergenerationally. So we need to heal generations of people for this to work. And we need to unlearn all of those coping mechanisms and really deal with healing. And I think men, you know, men that have faced trauma, you know, they... they face all these, you know, high-risk lifestyles, substance abuse — i'm not saying all of them but, you know, generally speaking. And so that's something you need to heal through a long line of people.

MATT GALLOWAY: Do you see progress in this? I mean, you know, Rebecca talked about doing this work for 35 years, and has been banging on the door of government saying we need supports for decades now. And finally, it seems as though the supports are coming. In the work that you're doing, do you see things moving in the right direction?

BECKY MICHELIN: I think as of right now, the steps that are being made and with all the advocacy and people fighting for... for better for our people, you know, you do see things happening and it's definitely talked about more now, which is bringing light to this subject, which is always important work. And, you know, through advocacy and fighting for... for more resources, you slowly see it happening. And, you know, there's still so much work that needs to be done, but we are moving in the right direction.

MATT GALLOWAY: The work that you're doing is really, really important. And I'm glad that you are willing to talk about it again. Not everybody would, given what you've been through. But it's... it's really important to hear from you. Becky, thank you.

BECKY MICHELIN: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Becky Michelin is a survivor of family violence. She lives in Happy Valley Goose Bay. In the Canadian territories, one in three people lives more than 100 kilometres from a domestic violence shelter, creating what advocates call a shelter desert. The YWCA of Northwest Territories is working on a plan to bring safe houses to these remote communities. Ginette Demers is a director of Violence Against Women Shelters and services for the organization. Good morning to you.

GINETTE DEMERS: Good morning, Matt.

MATT GALLOWAY: Tell me about a safe house, and how a safe house is different from a traditional women's shelter, because there is... there are different things here?

GINETTE DEMERS: Absolutely. So we know that establishing a bonafide women's shelter is a long work in progress. It requires lots of resources. And it is also a long-term commitment in terms of building the structure, maintaining it, staffing it. And it's not always an appropriate option in some communities, particularly those that are very small. It just wouldn't be sustainable. So a safe home option is really dependent on what the community requires and how it can meet their needs? So it may be that someone opens up their home, their private home, and their family accommodates a woman and her children in a time of crisis. It could very well be a space that's dedicated to people that are in need at a... at a nursing station, for example. It could be, you know, the room that was previously occupied by a chaplain and, you know, in a small church in the community. So there are a lot of particular examples of what it could look like, but it has to be informed by what the community needs and what will be feasible for the community.

MATT GALLOWAY: I said in the introduction that there are these shelter deserts where one in three people live more than 100 kilometres away from a shelter. In the absence of the shelters, what happens?

GINETTE DEMERS: Well, generally, you know, women are isolated and continue to experience intimate partner violence, many of them will stay because there is no alternative, there is no safe place for them. And if there is, as you mentioned, it is hours away and very difficult to... to actually arrive to. We're talking about communities that sometimes don't have roads. So, you know, having to fly in or use an ice road in the winter. And it also means picking up and leaving everything that you know, your entire way of life, the responsibilities that you may have at home, your supports, your language, your culture. So leaving... leaving home is a big deal. And when you do leave and you arrive to a safe place, a bigger centre with a shelter than you encounter an entire set of challenges at that point in time and then are in a predicament of making a decision about, you know, what's... what's going to happen next? Do I go back? Do I stay and make this fresh start? And if I do, what does.. what does that mean for me and my family? And how do I go about doing that?

MATT GALLOWAY: You're in Yellowknife, which is a hub city in many ways in the north.

GINETTE DEMERS: Yup!

MATT GALLOWAY: What are you seeing there? I mean, how busy are the shelters right now? And are you seeing women coming to the shelters from across the north?

GINETTE DEMERS: Yeah, for sure. So we have five shelters here in the territory, and for the most part, they are, they're very busy. I mean, right now, as with many other facilities, we've had to scale back the number of people that we can accommodate just to ensure safety in light of the COVID pandemic. So that means we're having to turn more women away than we normally would. And as a result, we try to support women to travel and access a shelter... a neighbouring shelter. And I say neighbouring, I mean, it could be 11 hours away in some instances. So that's not ideal either, because then you're really looking at displacing families even more. And then, you know, they... they're there temporarily. A shelter is a refuge. It's intended to be a short stay. And this is what a safe home option can provide, too. It may be, in fact, an even shorter stay in some cases, you know, women need... need a safe place to land. They want respite. They want to get away from the situation, keep themselves and their kids safe. And at the same time, they really want to continue to to be with their family and stay in that relationship. So, you know, Becky talked a lot, and I think Rebecca did as well, about the need for healing for the entire family. And ultimately, I think that's going to support us in getting us at the root of the issue. We're going to stop gender-based violence, we have to look at increasing healing for the entire family. These situations really are borne out of trauma and intergenerational violence. And so the cycle will not be interrupted until we can find a more holistic way. And with the safe home option, we are embarking on... on a needs assessment, and we will be engaging with community members. And the idea is that the safe home option will be community-centred and culturally-informed. So we will be seeking allies and leadership to really support this initiative and see what the feasibility is and maintaining it after our project is complete in the next four years.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just in the last minute-and-a-bit that we have, I mean, what does that healing look like from your perspective? Becky talked about the idea of a more holistic approach to this, and Rebecca was hinting at that as well. What does that look like from the work that you're doing?

GINETTE DEMERS: Yeah, I think what it looks like is providing space, you know, whether it be a facility or on the land initiatives that really encourage people to come together and participate in traditional activities that may have been taken from them. I think it means having real honest conversations with community members and supporting one another so that restoration and healing can happen. It means maintaining language and tradition and really celebrating the differences among all of the Indigenous peoples here in the territories. There are a number of different groups. So it's about recognizing all of that and making sure that we maintain sovereignty for those individuals.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just very briefly, do you see room now for those conversations? I mean, stigma and the difficulty in approaching those tough issues can prevent those conversations from happening. Do you see the room now being developed for those conversations?

GINETTE DEMERS: I think so. You know, with the funding that's been announced for the Inuit shelters and I think, you know, the government's plans for a national strategy on gender-based violence, I think people are more receptive to it. And certainly, with more survivors speaking out today and breaking the silence, you know, the courage and the strength of those individuals is really, I think, enabling us to have honest conversations about the impact. So I think we're... we're in a better place, but there is still a lot of... a lot of growth that needs to happen, for sure.

MATT GALLOWAY: I'm glad to have had the chance to talk to you. And I thank you for the work that you're doing. Ginette, thank you.

GINETTE DEMERS: Thank you. Have a good day.

MATT GALLOWAY: And you, Ginette Demers is with the YWCA of the Northwest Territories. She was in Yellowknife. Your regional update is next. And then, a gun buyback plan and a China debate. Our national affairs panel will join us when we come back. And a conversation as well with Andre Pacard, health columnist with The Globe and Mail. Would it be possible to have two-thirds of Canadians vaccinated by summertime? We'll discuss. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to "The Current". Back in 90 seconds.

[Music: Theme]

Our national affairs panel on China, guns, and the pandemic; and health columnist Andre Picard gives a COVID-19 update

Guests: Shachi Kurl, Maura Forrest, Vassy Kapelos, Andre Picard

MATT GALLOWAY: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway, you're listening to "The Current". It is a persistent thorn in the side of this government, what to do about China's human rights record and the detention of two Canadians?

ERIN O'TOOLE: Today, Canada's Conservatives are calling on the parliament of Canada to recognize that genocide is currently being carried out by the People's Republic of China against Uyghur and other Turkic Muslims. We're calling on Prime Minister Trudeau to officially adopt this position.

MATT GALLOWAY: That is Conservative leader Erin O'Toole. Our national affairs panel is here to talk about that issue and other prickly topics. Shachi Kurl is president of the Angus Reid Institute. Maura Forrest is a political reporter with Politico Canada. Vassy Kapelos, host of "Power & Politics" on your CBC News Network. Good morning to you all.

ALL: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let's start with Canada-China relations. They have not been warm and fuzzy for a long time, very, very tense for the last little while, but certainly took a different turn this week over a new declaration denouncing arbitrary detentions. Tell us more about this and what the government is trying to do with this.

VASSY KAPELOS: Yeah, this week has really been a big week for that relationship. And in particular for, I think, the domestic politics around it. So Monday started off with Canada announcing that it was leading this coalition of 58 countries, including this one, in denouncing arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations. So translation, what's happened to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, except for at the time, the federal government would not even use the word China in its announcement or in interviews about it or in press conferences about it, which led to a whole other series of questions like, yes, this is a significant move. It's good to have multilateral support IN denouncing something like this, including from countries like the U.K. And the U.S. But at the same time, if you're not willing to try to say the word China, what does that say about the relationship more broadly?

MATT GALLOWAY: What what does it say? I mean, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor have been held for 801 days. I think it is now.

VASSY KAPELOS: Yeah. I mean, it says that the relationship is fraught with a lot of... a lot of potentially very consequential things. It says that there are... the stakes are very high. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, as you say, have been detained now for more than 800 days. We know that China sought retribution for the arrest of Meng Wanzhou through economic means as well, through trade, punishing the canola sector, for example, and pork and beef at one point. So there's a lot of things weighing on the government in the way that they're handling China or the actions that they take. But domestically, it has created a perception that their framework or their foreign policy towards that country is not well laid out, is not very clear. And so it has created an opening for the opposition on multiple fronts to poke at that. And that's where the week kind of ended, with the Conservatives introducing a motion for them to... for parliament to declare that what is happening against the Uyghur minority population in China constitutes genocide. And that motion will be voted on Monday.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let's step into tha, Maura Forrest. As we heard in that clip, Erin O'Toole says that Canada should label what's happening to the Uyghurs in China a genocide. Has also called for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games to be relocated out of Beijing. What does Erin O'Toole have to gain politically in taking that position?

MAURA FORREST: Well, I think that Vassy's right that the Conservatives and Erin O'Toole see an opportunity here. They see the Liberals trying to be very careful and trying to walk this line, first with this declaration on an arbitrary detention where they were unwilling to come out and explicitly label China. And then with Trudeau's unwillingness to declare what's happening in Xinjiang a genocide. Trudeau was asked directly about this this week and said, you know, genocide has a very specific definition. We have to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed before we use that label. So I think, you know, the Conservatives are seeing this as an area where the Liberals potentially look weak. And they, of course, want to force this issue. I think, you know, it will be very interesting on Monday when the vote on this motion comes up to see whether there are liberals, particularly Liberal backbenchers, who vote with the motion. Erin O'Toole suggested yesterday that he felt a majority of the liberal caucus agrees with him and the other opposition parties that this should be labelled genocide. But, of course, it's a very difficult position for the government. They don't want to be going out on a limb when there is not a broad international consensus that this should be labelled genocide or that the Olympics should be relocated. And so they're really forcing the Liberals into... into a corner here.

MATT GALLOWAY: Shachi, Vassy was suggesting, in some ways, this is aimed domestically. What do you want, Canadian... or what do you think Canadians want to see from the federal government on China? I mean, in relation to Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, but just more broadly, when it comes to. China's human rights record?

SHACHI KURL: So it's not just Liberal backbenchers or Liberal caucus members who may be aligned on... on a vote that the Conservatives are putting forward. It's actually Canadians largely. Because to your point, Matt, you know, we... Canadians have never had such a jaded and unhappy view of the Beijing regime as they have today. Nearly 90 per cent of Canadians say that China, the Chinese regime, cannot be trusted on human rights or rule of law. Only 14 per cent of Canadians now say they have a favourable view, not towards Chinese people, but to the Chinese regime and... and the Chinese administration. So for Erin O'Toole, this is... this is a smart domestic move. It enables him to take a piece of domestic policy that... that there is already a pre-existing amount of alignment amongst Canadians and consensus amongst Canadians on and say, hey, I'm going to do what the current government hasn't done. The challenge, of course, for the Trudeau government, as Maura and Vassy have pointed out, is there isn't a lot of room for the government to move as long as the two Micheal's aren't home. They can't really risk poking Beijing any more than... than they have, which you can argue how much have they, until really we get our citizens home into a safe situation. But I would say that all of this does represent over time, regardless of who's going to be forming the next government, a hardening towards China that we haven't really seen in Canada. And I think it is going to represent also an aligning of policy and approach towards China that's much more in line with the current White House, which is also saying, look, we're not going to be Trump, but we're also not going to be as soft or as warm towards China as perhaps the Obama administration was. You've already seen noises and statements from Joe Biden to that effect. So Canada, when it comes to China policy, I think is going to be more in line with what Washington is doing. But until we get the Micheal's home, really hard to do any kind of reset for any political party in power on China because we still need that... that leverage or that ability to have something to bargain with to get them home.

MATT GALLOWAY: Vassy, last point on this to you. I mean, Irwin Cotler, former Liberal justice minister, has said he believes... [chuckling] and, I mean, somebody who has studied genocide for a long time, says he believes this is a genocide. Wayne Easter, Liberal MP, quoted in The National Post saying Canada should, in his words, wake up and smell the roses when it comes to China, there are legal obligations and responsibilities and the legal definition, if you label something a genocide. But how difficult is this for Justin Trudeau? How split is his party?

VASSY KAPELOS: Well, look, I've been... I talked to Wayne Easter on the show last night. I've been trying to talk to as many Liberals as I can. There is... there are a lot of them who have a lot of concerns about... about China and about Canada's posture towards China and the way in which China has treated Canada for the past two years. I think Maura makes a great point. This is going to be a really interesting vote to watch on Monday, because according to both Rob Oliphant, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of foreign affairs and Minister Wayne Easter, it won't be whipped. They will be free to vote their conscience. And I think we have seen other instances in the past where there have been like a handful of Liberals who have diverted on the issue of China, ones who you normally kind of, if I could say, expect to speak out people like the Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, for example, who don't always tow the government's line. But there is sort of an increase in pressure, an increase in public awareness, thanks to, for example, even the debate about moving the Olympics, around what is happening in China, not just to Canadians, but especially with the... the accusations of genocide against the Uyghur population. And so I think to Shachi's point, there is a high level of public consciousness around this, and there is a pretty sealed-in piece of public opinion there about where China is concerned. And so that it will be interesting to see to what degree that is reflected. I can tell you very much so behind the scenes, most of the Liberals I talk to would, you know, if they were voting their conscience and not entirely worried about the blowback or the implications for the government, which they also care about very much, would be voting in favour of this motion on Monday. So I'm very, very curious to see how that unfolds.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let's see what happens on Monday. Speaking of blowback, let's talk about something else, Maura. The Liberals introduced new legislation this week, Bill C-21, a voluntary buy-back program for firearms, firearms that are banned in this country. Not a handgun ban, though, which some people had been calling about. And what the Liberals introduced was not particularly well-received. Tell me a bit more about this?

MAURA FORREST: Yeah. So I think, you know, I think they tried to sort of be careful how they designed this bill, and not to go too far in any one direction and has consequently ended up not really satisfying anybody. So, as you mentioned, a big part of this bill is this voluntary buy-back program for about 1,500 different types of what they call assault-style weapons that were banned last year. And so the idea there is the law will make it, as Liberals say, effectively impossible to use these weapons. You can't sell them. You can't fire them. You can't transport them. You can't bequeath them. And so the idea is, as Public Safety Minister Bill Blair said, this will create a large incentive for people to relinquish those weapons for fair compensation. However, it is not mandatory. And so gun control groups had been really pushing for a mandatory buy-back. And they say this is effectively a betrayal. They say it's a major concession to the gun lobby. On the other hand, gun rights groups and the Conservatives as well have taken the same position, say this is the wrong focus. This bill will target law-abiding gun owners. It will not address the... the major causes of gun violence, which they say are mostly to do with illegal smuggling of weapons. And so, you know, they say this is really just the wrong way to go. And there's, of course, there are several different elements to this bill. But there's the other major piece around a handgun ban. So the Liberals are going to allow municipalities to ban handguns, but they are not putting in place a national handgun ban, which some municipalities, some municipal leaders had been calling for. And they're also they're already running into accusations of interfering with provincial jurisdiction. In places like Alberta and Saskatchewan, they've already taken moves, the provincial governments there, have already taken moves to prevent municipalities from being able to unilaterally ban handguns. So they're running into all these different [Matt and Maura chuckle] areas of pushback already. So setting this up to be a pretty contentious piece of legislation.

MATT GALLOWAY: Pushback perhaps from inside as well, Vassy, take a listen to this. This was tweeted out by Liberal MP Pam Damoff, a clip from the National Firearms Association president, Sheldon Clare.

SHELDON CLARE: I got a call from a person today who suggested that we needed to revisit our old woodworking and metalworking skills and construct guillotines again. [a man laughs] And that would really be the best kind of committee of public safety to get that re-established. If they want to make it about public safety, that was the way this person told me. And I thought to myself, you know, the sound of this voice is not one that's Joking.

MATT GALLOWAY: Mr Clare also added the Canadians, in his words, know tyranny when they see it. And this, my friends, is tyranny. Vassy, what is all of this say about how contentious this issue is right now?

VASSY KAPELOS: OK, so I take a bit of an alternative view. I think it is contentious among people who it's always contentious among it. And nothing to take away from either of their arguments, those who think it's going too far, or those who think it's not going far enough. I think politically, though, given the greater context, and by that, I mean that most Canadians right now are pretty consumed with the pandemic and getting out of it, I'm not sure at the end of the day, and it's always difficult to predict, but this necessarily is is a major determining factor in how people vote. And I think that the Liberals might have escaped it becoming that. And again, my predictions are usually wrong. So take with a big grain of salt. [Matt laughs] I think that they may have escaped it because people are just mad enough at them on either side. Yes, it might be contentious as it goes through the House and it might not even get there, of course, because it's a minority parliament. But at the end of the day, they're able to say we did something on gun control and... nd not nothing. And while they will be criticised from either side, it might be sort of like a zero sum game. At the end of the day, they might politically emerge from it without being too battered on... On either side. Again, I think that's contextual. Like if the pandemic subsides and the election is months after the... The end, quote/unquote, or some semblance of a return to normal life, then perhaps that becomes more of a pertinent issue to those, you know, very invested groups on either side which have very salient points to make. But at this point, it just feels to me like this even this piece of legislation was a few days ago. And and already, opposition parties have moved on to other legislation that was introduced yesterday, and then even the China issue and vaccines again. So it's only been a few days and it's already not the biggest target for them.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just briefly on this, I mean, what does your polling show about Canadians attitudes to firearms legislation? I mean, is this a burning issue? It's a big country. And there are obviously different perspectives depending on where you happen to be in the country. But is this a burning issue?

SHACHI KURL: Well, this is just a massive wedge issue. So it will burn people who care intensely about it on either side. You know, we tend to focus a lot on topline results, so overall, yes, you have a majority of Canadians who say they support a handgun ban, that is civilian possession of handguns. An even greater majority, upwards of 80 per cent, say civilians should not be in possession of assault rifles. But again, you've got about one in four people in this country, Matt, who have either owned some sort of firearm at some point in their lives or currently own one. And for these individuals who own them legally, the... the process they have had to go through, the paperwork, the checks, making sure that they're storing and possessing these guns in a safe manner, that is a pretty intense process. And so they will view this type of announcement as as being absolutely crazy making. It's sticking a thumb in the softest, most aqueous part of their cornea because they're saying we're already doing everything we're supposed to be doing to legally and safely own these firearms. However, on the other side of this divide, you have parents in places like the Danforth or in Langley, BC, who are watching as their neighbourhoods are sometimes playing out to the theatre of gunplay. And it doesn't matter how law-abiding law-abiding firearms owners are, the symbolism and the sense of of safety and being told, hey, your city can ban this, your city can make it so no position possession of a handgun is ever legal is actually a comforting notion whether or not it has any impact on... on the reality on the ground. You know, gang members are not going to suddenly say, oh, OK, well, I guess because I don't have a bylaw allowing this, I'm not going to bring it in to city limits. But this is something that on both sides, you've got the parties dug in, their bases are dug in. This isn't an issue, unlike China, where Canadians are largely aligned by vote on this issue, it's not something that crosses the political divide. So it may be a sleeper issue amongst the Conservative base, because we know, for example, in places like Alberta and Saskatchewan, there is massive opposition to it. But it also may be something that... that comes and goes and and we're on to other issues in the time to come.

MATT GALLOWAY: Let's try and avoid thumbs in eyes, please, in future. [chuckling] Just quickly, in the last couple of minutes, I want to get your take, Vassy and Maura, on what was also announced yesterday, this government bill to repeal mandatory minimum penalties for some drug offences. The government saying that these have disproportionately harmed Indigenous and Black and brown offenders as well as people with addictions. Is it another example of people have said this is perhaps moving towards decriminalization, but it's not moving fast enough? Is it an example, Vassy, of the government showing that it's doing something but not enough that everybody wants? Or is there is there real meats to what David Lametti , the justice minister announced yesterday?

VASSY KAPELOS: I think there is some real meat to what was announced in so far as it does eliminate very specific mandatory minimums, some of the mandatory minimums. And it appears to be a step in the direction towards decriminalization, as you put it. But there are many steps in between. So this bill encourages police and prosecutors not to arrest for simple drug possession, not to punish with severe sentences, to use alternative measures. There's inherent problems within that because a lot of those alternative measures are not funded to the degree they need to be if they're going to be utilized fully. And the government has allotted some money, but even they admit not enough money at this point for that. The other side of it is that they're encouraged to do so. But, YOU KNOW, police and prosecutors are part of the criminal justice system that has disproportionately affected the very people, Black and Indigenous people in this country, who are supposed to be the the sort of, I guess, the target for the Liberals of making this... trying to reverse that issue. So it's... it's probably a little bit problematic in that sense. And I think logically, because there have been so many calls from public health officials, for example, across the country for decriminalization. The follow up question for me, at least, was to the minister, Minister Lametti, when is decriminalization coming? Are you open to it? And I have to say, there is a huge amount of reticence, and Shachi would probably have a really good grasp on why, from the government to go towards that step, even as far as exempting cities and provinces like BC and Vancouver, who have asked to be exempt from... from... from convicting and sort of using the criminal code for simple drug possession. They're hesitant to say that they would commit to something like that. So there's a long way to go to decriminalization. The government has not shown, really, I would say, any real enthusiasm for going down that road. But as the opioid crisis increases in this country, and it is a crisis, there's no other word to call it, I think those calls will... will become greater and louder. And they've taken, as you put it, a step in that direction. I just don't... I think there are many steps left to take.

MATT GALLOWAY: Maura, just very briefly, because we're just about at a time, how significant is this, do you think?

MAURA FORREST: Yeah, I think that Vassy/s right. I think this is sort of a compromise bill. I think that, you know, the protests last year, and the ongoing conversation around systemic racism, coupled with the opioid crisis, I think has given the Liberals some room to to do something on this. And so, you know, it is significant that they are going to be getting rid of some mandatory minimum sentences and encouraging alternatives to incarceration. But of course, this is not decriminalization. It doesn't go that far. It doesn't scrap mandatory minimums altogether. And so, you know, I think they're trying to avoid being accused of being soft on crime. And so they're trying to walk that line. And, yeah, I think this is... this is an interesting bill. But as Vassy says, it doesn't go all the way.

MATT GALLOWAY: We will come back and talk about the issue of decriminalization, because it's fascinating. It has been called for by public health officials across this country. And to Vassy's point, there is some resistance on that. We'll do that again next time. In the meantime, it's great to speak with you all this morning. Thank you very much.

ALL: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Shachi Kurl, president of the Angus Reid Institute. Maura Forrest, political reporter with Politico Canada. And Vassy Kapelos, the host of "Power & Politics" on CBC News Network. This is "The Current" on CBC Radio One. I'm Matt Galloway.

EILEEN DEVILLA: I have never been as worried about the future as I am today. Today's variant count is the tip of an iceberg. By the time the confirmed case counts are big enough to shock us, it will be too late to do anything. We will be in a third wave, as bad as anything we've been through thus far.

MATT GALLOWAY: That's Dr EileEn De Villa, Toronto's medical officer of health, sending a warning about the possible impact of COVID variants in Canada's largest city. There is concern across this country about how the variants will affect the COVID curve. André Picard is the health columnist for the Globe and Mail. Andre, good morning.

ANDRE PICARD: Good morning.

MATT GALLOWAY: It's a stark warning from Dr EileEn De Villa. Is she right to be as worried as she is, do you think?

ANDRE PICARD: I think, yeAH, she said... She said it's deceptively dangerous, the variants. So I think we should be worried. I think we have to balance that off against some good news. We can't just always be depressing. You know, the reality is cases are down by about two-thirds in Canada since early January. So there's a lot of good news. But there is this really dark cloud on the horizon of variants, and we just don't know how it'll turn out. So I think she's right to... to look to other countries and see how the third wave was, again, as she said, and much worse than the previous two. So we have to be concerned that that could happen, but it's not a foregone conclusion. So always... finding that balance is always difficult.

MATT GALLOWAY: The optimistic light at the end of the tunnel announced in the last couple of days is this idea government data came out yesterday suggesting that two-thirds of Canadians could be vaccinated by July.

MATT GALLOWAY: Given what is not happening right now, which is a widespread vaccination campaign in this country, do you think that something like that is possible?

ANDRE PICARD: Oh, there's no question it's possible. Once... you know, what we're lacking is the vaccines. We have the ability to vaccinate a lot of people. We do it every year. We can vaccinate a million people a week during the flu season without a lot of effort. So if we really put our nose to the grindstone, we could easily double that. So if we have the vaccines, we can do it. There's no real barrier to that. But the question, you know, it's just been this slow arrival of the vaccines. And that wasn't unexpected. But it really is going to ramp up. And I think the challenge is going to shift from Ottawa buying the vaccines to can the provinces deliver on all their promises to get them into people?

MATT GALLOWAY: And do you believe that the provinces are ready to do this, that the infrastructure is there so that when the vaccines arrive, you know, the switch can be flicked and way we go?

ANDRE PICARD: I think the desire is there, the ability is there. And I don't think it's as easy as flipping a switch. So there's going to be, just as we had with the... The purchase of vaccines, there's going to be hiccups. There's going to be problems. We in the media are going to jump on them. But I think overall it's going to go well. I think there's no reason we shouldn't be doing it. When we hear things, when we hear pretty concrete plans like we're going to vaccinate people in their cars at Canada's Wonderland, that's good news. It shows that there's a lot of preparation going on.

MATT GALLOWAY: We know that fewer people are dying in long-term care in Canada because of the vaccine. In the meantime, though, there's news this week about an inquiry in Quebec looking into deaths in long-term care in that province, particularly at the Herron home. What's happening with that Inquiry?

ANDRE PICARD: Well, unfortunately, that's been suspended. The owner of a home that's at the centre of this enquiry, put forward, a motion legal motion, saying they wanted it suspended because they said a public inquiry at this time would poison the jury pool. So they think that they may be facing criminal charges. So they're worried about not getting a fair trial. Now, to me, this is a preposterous argument. It's actually something that's been settled in law many years ago. I decades ago, covered the Krever inquiry. And this was a debate. It went all the way up to federal court. And the federal court said, well, of course, you can have an inquiry, even if it does result in criminal charges. Inquiries don't set criminal blame. And if you take this argument to its conclusion, its logical conclusion, it essentially means that we couldn't have any public enquiries because there's always the risk of... of criminal charges. You know, the reason we're having inquiries is because of the outrageous behaviour. So, of course, a crime may have been committed.

MATT GALLOWAY: Just in the last minute or so that we have, do you worry, and I know you have a book coming out on long-term care that we'll talk about when it's released, but do you worry that as more of us get vaccinated, as we move through this, we could forget about the death and suffering in long-term care that was so shocking to us in the earlier stages of this pandemic?

ANDRE PICARD: I think the danger is always that, that we have short memories in the public policy field, whether it's long-term care, whether it's the way we treated the homeless, we've done a lot of good things during the the pandemic. We've been forced to react to long-standing problems that we can't allow ourselves to just throw up our hands and and forget these things when we get the virus under control thanks to vaccination and other measures.

MATT GALLOWAY: Andre, we'll speak again. In the meantime, thank you very much.

ANDRE PICARD: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Andre Picard, the Global Mail's health columnist. Still with health care, we should mention Monday on the program, Rosemary Barton will be here, and she'll take a look at a surge in nursing school applications across this country in the midst of a pandemic and what that might mean for the future of nursing and care. We've heard from nurses over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic talking about burnout and talking about a number of people fleeing the profession. Could this be a change in terms of who applies to become a nurse and learns how to be involved in nursing? We'll find out Monday on the program. In the meantime, that's it for us on "The Current" for today and for this week. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. Take care and have a great weekend.

[Music: Theme]

February 19, 2021 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode