Religious violence in India

Guests: Arfa Khanum Sherwani, Natasha Badhwar

SOUNDCLIP

[Protesting noise]

MG: It's a confrontation in New Delhi yesterday, lawyers arrive at a police station to visit detained protesters, only to be roughed up by police themselves. The Indian capital is seeing the deadliest religious violence in decades. It follows protests against the country's new citizenship law, seen as discriminatory against Muslims. In clashes between Hindu and Muslim mobs, at least 34 people have died. Hundreds more have been injured. Arfa Khanum Sherwani is the senior editor of A Wire. It's India's largest independent online news site. She's in New Delhi. Hello.

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: Hi.

MG: You have been keeping a close eye on this violence as it's developed in the city since Sunday. Describe what's been happening over the last few days.

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: I think a quick backgrounder will help. It's in Delhi. Delhi is a city state. There was simply election day. It's been concluded just two weeks ago. The ruling party BJP used these protests led by essentially Muslim women to polarise the Hindu vote. And this was an extremely community election campaign. Their leaders tried to demonise, discredit the peaceful pro-constitution protests. They just dismissed it as sectarian and anti-national. They even asked the voters to vote for them in order to get rid of them, these protests. But despite all of this, you see, they miserably lost the election to a competitively, I would say, a centrist party. [Unintelligible], we know after after the elections, a local BJP leader threatened the crowd, the NTCAA protested for retaliation. They said if you don't repair this space, then we are going to come back. Even when Donald Trump was in town, the US president, Donald Trump, within 24 hours of this threat, a very well-organized Hindutva mob, a Hindu nationalist mob, they started attacking Muslim residential areas in at least five different East Delhi areas, which are essentially a Muslim concentrated. It's the fifth consecutive day. Now we have more than two dozen deaths and more than 150 people injured lying in hospital.

MG: And we've seen some of the images of these mobs beating people up. There've been attacks on mosques as well. That's correct.

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: Yes, that is right. In fact, the wire, they ran an exclusive footage. Reporter, he recorded this on his mobile phone that not just that they actually damaged the mosque. They also damaged another Mausoleum. So two places of worship, worship have been damaged. And there are several unconfirmed reports of other smaller mosques being attacked that I can only to tell you when I have confirmed reports, but we can't fully say that it is over. It is the fifth consecutive day and there are still reports of small skirmishes and attacks still going on.

MG: And there are reports as well, not just of Muslims being killed, but of Hindus that as well.

MG: The kind of organized mobs that we see of Hindus attacking Muslim residential areas. We do not see such mobs, Muslim mobs, attacking Hindu areas. But most of these people have died while Muslims have tried to save themselves. They fought back. They defended themselves. So this is mostly what I can see happening.

MG: How organized are these attacks?

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: It's actually very surprising. You know, there are a lot of reports which say that these were not, most of the attackers, were not actually local people, but they came from a neighbouring state called Uttar Pradesh, there's a place called Loni in Ghaziabad district that some of them were spotted. Like a lot of local people said that they don't really know what these attackers were. Some it was like a mixed crowd. Some of them were their neighbours who attacked them. But there are also reports of Hindu neighbours saving Muslim neighbours. Some of the Sikhs, they also gave shelter. So there are mixed reports. But I think we are yet to kind of investigate and come to a conclusion who exactly these people are. But they're certainly coming with Hindu nationalist slogans with very heavily religious slogans like gestured like [unintelligible], all of these war crimes they're doing in the name of Hinduism.

MG: What are the slogans mean?

So these slogans is like hail lord Brahma, [unintelligible]. But it was supposed to be a formal flush ship and now it has almost become a war cry. I would say a murder cry. Another slogan is [indistinct Indian speech] hail motherland India. Again, this is supposed to be a patriotic nationalist slogan, but on the contrary, it's not for the first time that this has been used against the Muslims. There is a history of these two slogans being used against the Muslim community to attack them during violent attacks since the late 1980s.

MG: We heard at the beginning od the clip of lawyers themselves being roughed up by the police or the police taking sides here, or are they responding appropriately to the violence?

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: See, that is the saddest part of this whole thing that Muslims really don't know who to trust anymore. We have even recorded footage where the police became part of the mob in attacking Muslim residential areas and attacking Muslims. We even saw police breaking CCTV cameras in order to remove any evidence of their participation in these attacks. And it's very clear that in in more than one once we saw police becoming a part of these Hindutva mob. So it's very difficult, actually, who to trust and how to really take control of this whole situation.

MG: What about the prime minister, Narendra Modi? He talked about taking control. He has finally called for peace and brotherhood, but faced a lot of criticism for not speaking out earlier. What's his reaction to all of this?

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: Yes, very surprising, actually. It took him whole 69 hours to make a tweet saying that every bit they should be should maintain peace and order. And even that tweet was without any message for the deceased, the people who died. After that, we saw a national security adviser, Ajit Doval, while he was given the charge of visiting these right affected areas. He did visit. He tried to console people. He tried to assure people. But even after his visit, there were news reports of fresh violence, fresh skirmishes. So it's a very hopeless situation at the moment where national security adviser, even after he left the same area, there were again, violent attacks. Home minister hasn't spoken. None of the people from the government that we saw who are in charge, administrators vertically in charge of police, especially the Delhi police, who should be taking the control of this entire situation.

MG: Do you worry in describing this as hopeless that the situation could flare up again? That this this could further deteriorate because of a lack of a strong government response?

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: I fear, yes. Only yesterday we saw a Delhi High Court judge saying that we can not allow a repeat of 1984, right. So in 1984, there was an a large scale anti Sikh riot which saw a couple of thousand Sikhs getting murdered in broad daylight. And that went on for a few days. He said, I'm not under the watch of this court that we will allow a repeat of 1984. And he also ordered the Delhi government to set up shelter homes. But right after that, this particular judge who passed this order was transferred out of Delhi.

MG: Transferred out of Delhi, why?

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: We don't really know. There was there were no explanation given by the government. The new judge who was to listen to a case of hate speeches that finally led to this violence, the judge said that the judge actually willingly gave a whole month to the government to apply before they could file an FIR against those people who delivered those hate speeches that finally led to this violence.

MG: So if you stand back then just briefly, what does that tell you about what's likely to happen and again, what kind of control the government has over the situation?

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: I don't know. I'm sorry. Can't really say. Its fifth consecutive day. The violence is decreasing. It is on the decline. But we can fully say that it is under control and especially people who now are- the new development is that people I know of vacating and moving away from their houses where they were living for the last several decades. So they are going to [unintelliglbe], supposed safer areas. So even that is now happening, which is really a serious matter of worry that people are leaving their homes because they feel intimidated, they feel scared for their lives, that whatever what is left now, their houses been burnt down, they are totally gutted. So at least they are dead with their lives that they can save and they are now running away.

MG: Arfa, it's good to speak with you about this. Thank you.

ARFA KHANUM SHERWANI: Thank you very much.

MG: Bye bye. Arfa Khanum Sherwani is a senior editor of India's largest independent online news site, The Wire. Natasha Badhwar is a writer and filmmaker who works for the Campaign Against Hate Crimes in India. She's also in New Delhi. Natasha. Good morning to you.

NATASHA BADHWAR: Hi.

MG: What have you made of what you've seen on the streets of your city over the last few days?

NATASHA BADHWAR: What I have seen on the streets of my city is devastating, gut-wrenching heartbreaking. It's a kind of community violence that we had hoped we would never have to see in the city again. We had not imagined we would see so close to the centre of the force in a country like India. But here we are.

MG: What is it, the root of what you've seen, do you think? What's causing this unrest?

NATASHA BADHWAR: So the background of the unrest is the CAA Act, the Citizenship Amendment Act that's been passed by the parliament, which ostensibly is an act that allows refugees from neighbouring countries to get citizenship in India. But it is an act that leaves many neighbouring countries that specifically leaves out any Muslims who may be suffering from religious persecution. And then coupled with the national population register and the National Register of Citizens to new, a list that the government is going to make. The citizens of India have recognized that what this government has been introducing are grossly discriminating acts and that they have anti-constitutional. The secular social fabric of this country is threatened. So for the last two months, since the middle of December, there have been citizens protest going on across the country in many cities, and all of these have been peaceful. There was a backlash by the state in small towns in December. But that fast. And now we're seeing the fresh violence in the capital city, which is basically a Right-Wing Hindu fundamentalists, they were taunting peaceful protesters, then became and attacked them. And now we have an anti-Muslim violence on the streets of Delhi. So close to the chief minister and the prime minister's homes and offices. And it's it's really tragic and very, very hopeless for us to watch this kind of violence take place, with the administration not stepping in at all.

MG: When you see what's happening, what are some of the most haunting things that come to mind that you have seen in terms of the level of violence we've seen? Some of the images and some of the footage, but from your perspective, what stands out?

NATASHA BADHWAR: You know, to be honest, what is most devastating is the fact that one saw it coming. That we knew when the hate speech started on Saturday that this would lead to violence. When people, you know, came out on the street and spoke against the community, threatened them, we knew that there was likely to be violence the next day. So it could have been avoided if the administration had stepped in at any point. It could have been avoided. But if we are watching the unfolding of a riot in front of our eyes and you're not being able to stop it, and now we have, you know, young men who are dead. We have livelihoods that have been destroyed. We have an entire marketplace that has been burnt. Homes. People. About 20, that people are likely to be displaced or affected by this massive, huge number.

MG: We asked the Indian government representatives here in Canada, the high commission, for an interview or a comment. And they sent us a statement that read in part: Police and other agencies are working on the ground to ensure peace and normalcy. The prime minister, Narendra Modi, has made himself an appeal "peace and harmony are central to our ethos. I appeal to my sisters and brothers in Delhi to maintain peace and brotherhood at all times". What do you make of the response from the Indian government and of the prime minister in particular?

NATASHA BADHWAR: I so wish I so wish that they had done something to maintain peace. What is the point of empty words? So as civil society organizations and I'm fond of, you know, a large grou; volunteers who are doing the feet's work of trying to provide rescue and relief facilities to people who are trapped in areas where violence is taking place. And, oh, you know, we have had three three sleepless nights the last three nights when SOS calls are coming from people who were there saying that there are injured people in hospitals in the affected area and at home in the affected area, or that there are mobs coming towards their home chanting slogans and they want somebody to get them out. And we have not been able to activate the police. We have not been able to send in the ambulance. So the police isn't doing anything. To not allow ambulances. I mean, it you know, even in wartime, safe passage is made for ambulances and for the injured to be taken out. But still, they are in the capital city. We, you know, because of technology, we have a video of somebody who needs to be rescued. We know exactly where that person is on a GPS. And yet we cannot cross a distance of five kilometres to be able to get that person out. But there have been such needless such needless deaths, needless, you know, escalation of violence. It's the government a unitive given the statement [unintelligible]. But if it if they had implemented any of the parts that they have, they would not have allowed this to happen. And, you know, the Delhi government has just been elected to board. It's not even a month old.

MG: In the absence of that help from the government, what are you doing? Tell me about the organization that you're working with to try and provide relief, as you say.

NATASHA BADHWAR: Yeah, so I'm sort of an organization of a campaign called the [unintelligible], but I know thankfully we've actually been together now for two years. For the last two years, we've been focussing on providing health, legal health and psychosocial care to victims and families of victims of lynch crimes, which have gone up in the last few years. So I say thankfully, because we've been working in this area when this kind of crisis unfolded, we found that people already together, that we already had the resources and the tools to be able to respond. And not only is our own camp, you know, the people in our own campaigns responding. Many other organizations that have looked in, you know, the civil society organizations that work in other areas have come together to respond to the emergency.

MG: What do you think is at stake for your country if this violence continues?

NATASHA BADHWAR: All this violence has to stop. And literally civil society- it's a challenge to civil society. All all of us are invoking Gandhian values. We are talking about how this is a country that, you know, to the principles of non-violence and civil disobedience was able to overturn colonial rule, was able to send the British back. So 70 years later, you are not going to allow our own government to divide and rule in the same country. So what is at stake really is essentially the idea of India. The idea of a society that we fought for where we not only have independence from the outside rule, but we also have freedom and independence for each individual in this country, to practice a religion, they want to wear the identity they want to have the right to the peace, livelihood, happiness.

MG: I appreciate you speaking with us about this. And be safe on the streets. Thank you.

NATASHA BADHWAR: Thank you.

MATT GALLOWAY: Natasha Badhwar is a writer and filmmaker in New Delhi who works with the Campaign Against Hate Crimes. This is The Current on CBC Radio One. My name's Matt Galloway. While I have a minute, wanted to tell you about something that's coming up tomorrow on the program. Jean Vanier was a man who was widely admired, his name even suggested for sainthood. Jean Vanier's the founder of L'Arche Communities Housing People with Disabilities in Dignity. The people in those communities, though, are now struggling with how to reconcile Jean Vanier's humanity with a man who abused women. An independent investigation released by L'Arche revealed that John Vanua sexually abused at least six women between 1970 and 2005. John Guido has dedicated most of his adult life to L'Arche living and working with people with disabilities.

SOUNDCLIP

You know, it's not in time when we should be shocked by abuse of power and harm caused by people in positions like Vanier had. You know, we've heard so many now before. And it's so disheartening, though, when it's a person you believed in and you didn't see, you know, there was no evidence in my whole journey at L'Arche that something like this could have been happening. So it was just kind of breaks down all of the understanding we've had. And you have to start then asking questions and thinking, what is it that's true still at L'Arche. This behaviour is horrible. Those women suffered terribly and I can't even imagine what they went through, especially with all the people praising Vanier that they were there. Their journey must have been a particularly difficult suffering. And I'm so grateful that they've come forward and that they're getting support today. It's hard to reconcile and I don't think we can that this could have happened and that we weren't aware and that these individuals were harmed.

MG: You can hear that conversation about Jean Vanier and the future of L'Arche tomorrow on The Current. CBC News is next. And then it's been almost four years since people in Canada have had access to medical assistance in dying. That hasn't ended the debate, though, over who should be allowed to use that tool. New rules are in the works. David Lametti, the minister of justice, is my guest coming up after the break. That's in about six minutes time. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current. Stay with us.

Should medical assistance in death be accessible for people with mental illness? Experts weigh in

Guests: Udo Schuklenk, Georgia Vrakas, David Lametti

MG: Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the tuba might not be the most noticed instrument in the orchestra, but it certainly took a front row seat in the life of Richard Antoine White. He went from living in abandoned buildings as a kid to principal tuba in an orchestra. His incredible story coming up in half an hour. But first, changes are coming to MAID.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

Today, we have tabled new legislation that modifies the federal framework on medical assistance in dying first and foremost. We have widened the eligibility to access medical assistance in dying.

MG: Widened the eligibility. That is how Justice Minister David Lametti described the proposed changes earlier this week. The medical assistance in dying law has been controversial since it came into effect almost four years ago now in response to a Quebec court ruling that found parts of the law unconstitutional. The government wants to remove the requirement that a person is death be reasonably foreseeable. It also proposes to allow the procedure in some cases to those who have lost the capacity to offer final consent after having obtained the right to an assisted death while they were still able to do that. And it wants to continue to exclude medically assisted death for people whose only underlying condition is a mental illness, at least until a larger review is expected to start by June. That is a stipulation that is dividing experts. Udo Schuklenk is the Ontario Research Chair in bioethics at Queen's University. He also chaired the Royal Society of Canada International Expert Panel on End of Life Decision Making. Udo, good morning.

UDO SCHUKLENK: Good morning. How are you?

MG: I'm well, what do you think of this bill? Specifically the exclusion of people suffering solely from mental illness, from receiving medical assistance in dying?

UDO SCHUKLENK: I think honestly, it is as unconstitutional as the current legislation that they are trying to fix, and the reason for this is that the Supreme Court judgment is very clear. Essentially, it boils down to two things. Patients individual assessment of quality of life and respectful, patient self-determination. Now, you're kind of an argument about the question of whether all patients with mental health issues have just isn't a capacity. And the answer is no. And if it was the case that all patients, all mental health patients don't have capacity, then you would be right to exclude all of them. The problem for government is that this just is not the case. There will be many such patients who are perfectly capable of making decisions both about their quality of life and about the question of where they want to continue it. And this is where they run into difficulties, because then there's no difference between those patients and patients with what they call physical illnesses.

MG: One of the criteria for receiving medical assistance in dying is that a person have - and this is in in the official legislation - a grievous and irredeemable medical condition. Help me understand why you believe that mental illness would fall under that umbrella.

UDO SCHUKLENK: Well, when you look at the irremediable, what it really boils down to is the question of whether at the time of decision making, there's anything that can be done for such patients. And I don't know whether your listeners know this. I wrote an editorial in The Globe and Mail on this issue a couple of days ago. And I got lots of messages from patients with mental health issues, some of which are in their 40s now. They been in in medical care therapies, drug treatments, whatever, for decades. Nothing works for them. And that's clearly what counts as irremediable in the same way that somebody can have a chronic illness, chronic physical illness that would be irremediable in the sense of there's nothing we can do about it right now. But you cannot argue that these patients must wait for 20 or 30 years until their physical lifespan ends in the hope that something might come about. It must really mean at the time of decision making, nothing can be done about it. And that is certainly applicable to some such patients.

MG: If it's that straightforward, why would the government exclude mental illness from this new bill?

UDO SCHUKLENK: I got to be honest. I looked at the arguments that they presented and none of them are sound. Every single one of the arguments that they listed like stigma, discrimination, suffering, incoherence, all of that would also be applicable to physical, to patients with what they call physical illnesses. So my suspicion is really it's more the politics and the optics of it would. What do you mean the optics out?

MG: What do you mean the optics out?

UDO SCHUKLENK: Well, the optics is the idea is, you know, it would look really bad. We have to protect vulnerable patients with mental health issues and who wouldn't want to do that? So you can see that there might be a political price to pay if they actually followed through on what really the Supreme Court judgment requires of them. And this is why there have been. I mean, let's face it, this government has been kicking this can down the road for the last five years and they are planning basically doing it for another five years when that reviews over [unintelligible] somebody else's problem. That's what's happening here.

MG: We're going to hear from the minister responsible, David Lametti, the attorney general and the justice minister, in just a few moments time. There are other jurisdictions that allow, as you mentioned, people with mental illness to seek a medically assisted death. Netherlands and Belgium among them. How does it work there?

UDO SCHUKLENK: Well, the first thing, the first thing to say is that they have, of course, a fair number of patients. I might add, by the way, something that your viewers, your listeners might find interesting. The German Supreme Court issued a similar judgment of the Canadian Supreme Court just 48 hours ago, and they are very clear that mental health is not an exclusion criteria. How they do this in those countries is really they are super careful in terms of capacity assessments. Can they be certain that the decision that a patient is making is coherent? So the government right now proposes for people with physical illnesses, for instance, if they have to wait for 90 days. That's a very reasonable thing. And you could do exactly the same thing, of course, for somebody with a mental health issues. So you want to make sure that they understand what the consequences of their actions are, what their options are. All of that. And then you let people wait for a while to make sure that this is not a spur of the moment thing. And the same basically would be done with regard to mental health patients.

MG: And that could apply here, he believes.

UDO SCHUKLENK: Of course.

MG: Georgia Vrakas has been listening in as psychologist, professor at the University of Quebec a Trois Riviere. She's also a member of the Expert Advisory Group on Medical Assistance in Dying. Georgia, good morning to you.

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Good morning.

MG: What is your take on the government's decision to exclude mental illness from its proposed changes to me?

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Well, as a person who also has lived experience with mental illness, having been living with depression for the past 20 years, I was extremely relieved when I listened in on the press conference and I saw the proposed changes, especially, well, the part about excluding mental illness.

MG: Relieved why?

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Relieved for the simple reason that I I don't believe that we can decide, not decide, but we can actually evaluate the aspects of mental illness that supposed to be incurable or irremediable. The thing is, a recovery is a personal and individual and fluctuating process. So I can take my own experiences of last year where I was in severe mental distress with severe depression for eight months. So I definitely did not, there was times where I really just wanted the suffering to end. And I seriously thought about it. And here I am right now speaking to you after having gone through having access to the services that I needed.

MG: And we're thankful for that, that you're here.

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Thank you.

MG: I just wonder, given that and given what you're saying, what would happen, do you think? What are you concerned about if people who their sole medical condition was mental illness? What would happen if they were included in having access to medically assisted dying?

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Well, that we would include people in MAID that would have eventually either had their suffering alleviated or been in the recovery process. So it may be today or maybe in the next 90 days, I will feel like, okay, my life is not worth living. But several months later, with the several various access to treatments - and time you have to consider time, has an effect. And it's more than that. It's more than just saying waiting it out and access to services. It's just that we don't know enough about mental illness and there's not enough fundamental research on how what exactly goes on to know how things will evolve through time.

MG: Uda Schuklenk does what you're hearing from Georgia give you pause?

UDO SCHUKLENK: Well, well, it doesn't. I mean, I sympathise. And for what it's worth, I have experience with refractory depression in my family, with family members for decades. So I know exactly what it means. Really, I do. The fundamental question here remains who should make that sort of decision? And I'm going back to the Supreme Court judgment, individual decision of closure of life is the patient's decision. It's about patient self-determination. This is what it boils down to when you look at the scientific evidence and literally anybody can do this. Go to Google Scholar and look at the evidence of clinical research on refractory depression, like refractory depression, in particular, the failure rates on patients. Literally everything has been tried. And we are talking about electro stimulation of brain. Just talking about psychotherapy. We're talking about drug trials for decades. All and everything has failed for them. So what I find difficult is for any government to say we really do not know enough because actually we do know all of that.

MG: Georgia, how do you respond to that, Georgia? Because there is this issue of whether treatment resistant means untreatable. Uda says that this is in many ways about individual choice and that it's up to the person to determine whether the condition that they're in is grievous enough to look for medically assisted death.

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Well, for me, there's two things. There's yes, you can have a mental illness that's severe. Because now we're talking about psychopathology, mental illness, but we're not talking about mental health, positive mental health. A person can have a severe mental illness. But we as professionals, mental health professionals, our job is to help not only alleviate the suffering, but develop the capacity to develop their positive mental health.

MG: And so if they aren't able to enjoy a good quality of life, where would that leave them?

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Well, like I said, that is part of our job to help them do this. And at the same time, we're talking about this as being an individual choice. When a person like is in the throes of depression or a psychotic episode or a bipolar disorder, you can't necessarily make an informed choice. And I know obviously we can say no, but we can wait till the person gets better and is able to consent. But then again, that's the thing. The question is, when you're going through the the hardest parts, you're in that position - and I also speak from experience, but also from my clients - is that you cannot. It is very difficult to see beyond. I am a burden to society. I'm a burden to my family and I don't want to live.

MG: The daylight isn't is invisible.

GEORGIA VRAKAS: And there's another important aspect, too, where I wanted to mention is why are we only talking about this as if it's an individual choice only. It is not only an individual issue. It is a societal issue. By the choice, and if you allow me to elaborate a little bit on that.

MG: Just briefly.

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Briefly, is that we haven't put mental illness or mental health as priorities in the different provinces. I can speak for Quebec because I can't speak for the rest. But we have cut programs on mental health promotion and prevention. So there's and we're not working on the social determinants of mental health.

MG: Udo, just very briefly, is that in many ways what's at the heart of this as while expanding access to mental health treatment and support?

UDO SCHUKLENK: The long and short of it is no. This is desirable. I think Georgia is absolutely right about that. But really, we have scientific evidence that suggests that with the best possible care, there's a significant number of patients whom everything fails. And we should not pretend otherwise because we [unintelligible] patients when we talk about it in those terms.

MG: We want to hear from the minister responsible for this right now. I appreciate both of you joining us to talk about this this morning. Thank you.

GEORGIA VRAKAS: Thank you.

MG: Udo Schuklenk is the Ontario Research Chair in bioethics at Queen's University, Georgia Vrakas is a psychologist and professor at the University of Quebec a Trois Rivieres. David Lametti is Canada's justice minister and he joins us now. Minister, good morning to you.

DAVID LAMETTI: Good morning.

MG: You've been listening to this conversation. Clearly very strong opinions on both sides of this question. Why did the government decide to exclude people suffering solely from mental illness from this bill?

DAVID LAMETTI: Well, I think I think you heard a great deal why we first of all, we had a very short timeframe to respond to the Quebec Superior Court decision. The larger study has always been planned as a part of the legislation in 2016. So that was always to begin in June 2020. Mental illness, mature minors and advanced requests were always going to be part of that deeper dive. And that's still the case. What we're trying to do here was respond to the Quebec Superior Court decision, enlarge the criteria to meet that decision, and then see if there were any other points of consensus.

MG: Udo Schuklenk says you're kicking the can down the road.

DAVID LAMETTI: No, it's always been part of an evolution that we had envisaged back in 2016. We so we've done what we've done now. What we heard we did intensive roundtable discussions across Canada. We had a large online consultation as well. What we heard with respect to mental health was precisely what you heard right now, which is no consensus, a deep, deep seated, I think, reticence, particularly on the part of health care practitioners. With respect to eligibility in and of itself and also from a policy perspective, a real challenge in in terms of designing a system where perhaps mental illness could be — as the sole criteria, or as the sole condition — could be a basis for requesting MAID. But we would have to design that. We just didn't have time to do that right now.

MG: Do you believe that psychological suffering can be as unbearable as physical pain?

DAVID LAMETTI: Oh, absolutely. And you know, we're learning more about mental health. As a government, we're investing more in mental health.

MG: But if you believe that, why then would mental health, as a sole concern, not be qualified for for MAID?

DAVID LAMETTI: Well, it's that's always been part of the of the deeper dive that was going to begin in June 2020. And it still is this time around, we had a short timeframe to deal with the Quebec Superior Court decision on something else. We've done that, I think. I think I think we've had a good spot there as a step in this evolution and as the medical profession, as society begins to understand the parameters of mental illness better, we can we can move forward with that larger study and then make changes.

MG: How much of this is also about what Georgia raised, the issue of stigma, that if you expand that legislation to include people with mental illness, it could send the wrong message, that those lives aren't worth saving or that they can't be helped?

DAVID LAMETTI: Well, I think we're being very careful not to stigmatise anybody, but in this particular discussion, not to stigmatise anybody with a mental illness. We're trying to be sensitive in what we're doing to all sides of this. We're trying to better understand mental illness and then we're trying to, we will try to frame the policy response. It is again, I can't I have to go back to the consultations that we had. You know, the Canadian Medical Health Association, others are all very happy that we have not included mental illness as the sole criterion for MAID in this particular step. They have told us again and again that that they aren't ready for it and they're not sure that they're not sure that their patients were ready either. There may be a time when we are and again, there's very little in what Dr. Schuklenk said that I disagree with in terms of substance. It, you know, it's it's very well-reasoned, well-articulate and understand that.

MG: So this is about time more than more than about the argument.

DAVID LAMETTI: I think that's absolutely right.

MG: There are other questions if you take that part of it aside, there are other still questions around and confusion around who qualifies for MAID. The current law only people with a natural death that's reasonably foreseeable could receive MAID. The proposed changes would remove that. What exactly would that mean? Who would now be eligible who wasn't beforehand?

DAVID LAMETTI: Well, what we've changed the reasonable foreseeability of natural death criterion as an eligibility criterion and made it into a channelling criterion. So all of those people would still be at eligible.

MG: What does that mean?

DAVID LAMETTI: That means. That that we still have that regime for, frankly, most people, most people who have had access to MAID thus far. People suffering from terminal cancer, for example, and and wanted to better control the end of their lives. And I think that still exists. What we've done is we've opened it up to people whose reasonably foreseeable natural death isn't imminent or even close. And so there is a different track, if you will, longer assessment period, not much longer, 90 days - some some places have six months - a 90 day assessment period. And what we're trying to do there is ensure that the doctor patient relationship, that nurse practitioner patient relationship is such that certain things are discussed, certain conditions, certain treatments are discussed and evaluated. And then at that point, the person can decide, okay, I've thought about everything. My doctors discussed everything with me. I still want to go through with it.

MG: Does a person have to have a terminal illness to be eligible or just a serious and untreatable condition?

DAVID LAMETTI: Now, in that second stream, a serious and untreatable condition.

MG: We had a conversation when the consultations began with somebody whose mother had chosen MAID, but her condition had deteriorated rapidly. She essentially had to pass a test before she was allowed to die. This created enormous stress among the family. And the family is very critical about the conditions that were around what was a very difficult moment at the best of times. Would the amendments that are in place now prevent that sort of stress?

DAVID LAMETTI: We believe so. We have in the in end of life stream, if you will, so that the stream that we already had, we've eased a couple of the conditions that were that were problematic. There was a 10 day reflection period that, again, experts across Canada, people, MAID providers and family members who said, look, all this does is it causes suffering. People not taking their pain medication, for example, in order to be able to make that that final decision. Also, two independent witnesses for many older people who don't have families anymore, that was actually becoming a barrier. And finally, what we've done is we've, I think, inspired by the Audrey Parker case in Halifax. We have eliminated what - we haven't eliminated, but that the need for final consent. We have allowed a patient to say, look, if I lose my capacity to have made on this day, the doctor can go ahead with it.

MG: Which is Audrey Parker essentially had to choose an earlier point of death because she was worried that she would have lost capacity.

DAVID LAMETTI: That's correct. And a lot of Canadians were touched by that. I think we have, I hope, eliminated anyone from having to go through what Audrey Parker went through.

MG: When these consultations began, the Web site was overwhelmed. And again, there are accusations that the government has kicked this down the road, that it hasn't taken the decisions is as directly and as decisively as perhaps it could. Why is it so difficult to get this right, do you think?

DAVID LAMETTI: We're evolving as Canadian society is evolving. And so there's a greater even as compared to 2016, there's a greater acceptance of made in the medical community, for example. It's now it's now part of the of the sort of treatment options that that end if end of life practitioners have in their tool kit, and I think I think that we're at a point four years later that we weren't at in 2016. And I think we're evolving. So we're trying to push and be pulled by Canadian society as we as we move along and conversation with them.

MG: And do you think that those who are at the centre of this, those patients and their families. Is it fair to ask them for patients?

DAVID LAMETTI: Well, look, I think they are at the centre of our reflection. There's absolutely no question that this is a very difficult time, our personal experiences with dying, with death and dying have motivated all of us. I think we're moving it forward reasonably quickly. Remember that the June 2020 review was part of the process. This additional step was added by the Quebec Superior Court, if you will. We have not only taken that on, but we've added Audrey Parker's amendment. We've loosened some of the other things. We've actually gone further than we had to at this step. And we're taking the we're taking the parliamentary review quite seriously.

MG: David Lametti, I appreciate you speaking with us this morning. Thank you.

DAVID LAMETTI: Thank you.

MG: David Lametti is the federal minister of justice and the attorney general. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. We'd love to hear from you. You can reach us through the Web site cbc.ca/thecurrent click on the contact link. Coming up in our next half hour.

SOUNDCLIP

I had learned to read music on a cassette tape. Boo. Stopped the tape. When you have mastered B-flat, moved to C. Boo Boo. So that's how I learned to play tuba.

That's an unusual way to learn how to play the tuba. But when you're homeless and bathing in fountains, sometimes it's the only way. That story coming up in 90 seconds. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

How music pulled Richard Antoine White out of homelessness to tuba stardom

Guests: Richard Antoine White, Chris Lee, Tina Fedeski

MG: Hi, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current.

[Music]

MG: That is the mighty tuba, as played by Richard Antoine White. He is the principal tuba player with the New Mexico Philharmonic Orchestra and a music professor at the University of New Mexico.

[Music]

MG: He calls the tuba the underdog of the orchestra, and it's a role that he can really identify with given his own life story. White grew up in Baltimore, the son of an alcoholic mother. He was often homeless and in a documentary about his life called Raw Tuba, he returns to the local park that he went to as a child.

SOUNDCLIP

And this water fountain has got to be just as old as me because it's where I would drink and bathe if I needed to. And I can barely reach this. I would be like this. Step on is and the water. Oh, still works. [Laughs] Wow. I would do this. It still works. Man. That's emotional. That was bathroom, man.

MG: His bathroom in a public park. That childhood did not define the rest of his life. And that is where the tuba comes back into this story. Richard Antoine White came to Ottawa this week to speak at a screening of that documentary about him. It was hosted by the National Arts Centre Orchestra. Richard, good morning.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Good morning.

MG: What is it about that moment in that documentary at the old water fountain that was so emotional for you?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: I think I had suppressed a lot of my past in-- the film directors actually had some credibility issues because I was so young. They were like, at four, how do you remember all this? Like, I don't know. But maybe if you drive around this neighbourhood, I'll just tell you to stop if I recognise something. So I recognise the park, we get out the car and went to the water fountain. And what really broke me now is I realise how small I had to be. I could not reach the spout. So I would have to climb the water fountain to reach the spot. And then unfortunately, when I got to the top to the spout, I couldn't reach the pedal. So in that moment, I realized, oh, man, that's why I ended up in the fountain, because I couldn't reach the war, couldn't reach the pedals. So I just said, to heck with it, I'm going in. And all those emotions came back in. I was flooded with memories of a past that I had forgotten.

MG: What do you remember about - as you mentioned, you're four years old. So there's a lot of things you don't remember. But what do you remember about life then?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Every day was about having fun, finding my mom and finding something to eat. I often shared a story of-- I learned the technique of chewing food and then putting it under my tongue because I didn't know when I would eat again. What I remembered most is that I was unaware of what I had and didn't had. It was just me and mom and all I cared about every day was being a kid and finding mom.

MG: What do you mean finding mom?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Well, my mom had her issues with alcoholism. So I would have to search the neighbourhoods, the local park, the hangout spots and find her. And some nights I was unsuccessful, so I would crawl into an abandoned house or wherever I could find shelter. Sometimes even just under a tree on a piece of cardboard.

What do you remember about your mom?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: ahh. Wow. Now I remember and I hold dear to my heart that she was actually a hero. It must have took a tremendous amount of courage and embarrassment for her to give me up. She realized that she couldn't provide for me. So she made one of the hardest choices, anyone with a kid out there understand, and gave me up so that I could have an opportunity to have a better life.

MG: Tell me about the family that you ended up in. Because this is a huge part of your life taking a different path.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: It's extraordinary. When I first got there, all I knew I was angry at them because they took me away from my mom. I just want to be with my mom. I had all kinds of issues. I didn't know what a bed was for. I built a makeshift tent one day and my adopted dad, Richard McClain, freaked out. He's like: 'I think he can't breathe. He built some breathing device', he said. Laura. Richard, he just sleeping. Because I would take a bath. They would put pyjamas on. I didn't know what pyjamas where. I'd put my dirty clothes on and sleep on the floor because that's what I was used to.

MG: What did music mean to you? I mean, how were you first introduced to music?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: You know, a group of people came to my elementary school fourth grade with a whole bunch of instruments. I nudged my friend Dante, who plays trumpet, and I said, hey, man, we should pick trumpet. I got three vowels. It can't be hard. Boy, was I wrong. So I picked trumpet and I was going to repeat fourth grade. They thought I was too big to fail again. And so my parents had the brilliant idea to take the trumpet. And they just told me, if you want this trumpet back, you could turn things around. I've never failed since.

MG: That's the trumpet. How did you end up at the tuba?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: I was number 18 in Falstaff Middle School. I was not happy because even after number 18, there were still about eight more trumpets to go. I looked back and saw a sousaphone. Is it? What is that? I want to play that because it was only one. The rest is history. I played tuba there and I got football injury. I broke my hip. So I was like, well, I guess football is over. Showed up to the Baltimore School for the Arts. A day after auditions. The director just happened to be there and he looked me in the face and said: 'what are you doing here? Auditions were yesterday' and I said: 'but I'm here now'. He thought that was the boldest thing ever.

MG: The story that's told in this film is amazing because as you said, the auditions had already passed. You just kind of waltz in and think that you can audition for this prestigious art school.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: I did. I don't know, a one in the million. I don't know how that happened, but I did.

MG: Why did they take you?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: He said there were something there. He said, you know, we went upstairs and said, 'do you know what note this is?' I was like, 'yeah, that's this'. And he said, 'Yeah, but what is the called?' I said, 'this' and pushed down on the first vowel. He said, 'wait a minute, you can't read music'. I had learned to read music on a cassette tape. Boop. Stop the tape. When you have mastered B-flat, move to C. Boop boop! So that's how I learned to play tuba in a practice room. He heard something special about me or maybe he saw a will, talked to the other brass faculty and I was admitted into the School for the Arts. Out of every 600, they may accept 35 kids.

MG: What is it about the tuba that you loved even when you started playing it? What was it about that instrument that kept you there?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: No one notices the tuba. You know, in all across the world we see homeless people or children in need and we just go about our business. The tube is much like that. Everyone thinks that it's umpah umpah. I'm just like Tubby, the tuba man. I just want to play the melody. I want to show people that the tuba can do what every instrument can do. So I think I actually relate to the tuba and I'm drawn to it because I think it's a phenomenal instrument. It's just getting started.

MG: And that's why you see it as like an underdog kind of instrument. It's because it's tucked away and people don't notice it, but it's in many ways a core part of of the orchestra. And it has a great sound, too. I mean, you can't avoid, you can't ignore the sound of the tuba.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Oh, so glad you said that. You just made me smile. That's awesome.

MG: So you're sitting in the studio next to a pal of yours, Chris Lee. He is the principal tuba player for the National Arts Centre Orchestra in Ottawa. Chris, good morning to you.

CHRIS LEE: Good morning.

MG: How did you meet Richard?

CHRIS LEE: Richard and I met in my first week doing my master's at Indiana University. And we quickly became friends, close friends.

MG: How does that happen? I mean, what was it that drew you to him?

CHRIS LEE: Well, we had the same goals. So and they were very unique and intense, ambitious goals. So we would push each other. We became quite competitive and tuba and basketball, video games, everything. And it was sort of a family. He's like my brother. So it's very competitive. But with a lot of love.

MG: Competitive. How? I mean, what are you competing for?

CHRIS LEE: Well, what we do is it's very difficult goal to accomplish to get into an orchestra playing tuba. Like when I-- my first job in Canada was in Winnipeg Symphony. And when I won that audition, it was the first tuba position that was open in 13 years in Canada. So they're sort of like generational positions are very difficult to come by. And we both knew that what we were doing was a super, super long shot to accomplish. So we just-- it is like training for the Olympics. We would wake up super early and we would train for orchestral tuba additions.

MG: The tuba Olympics.

CHRIS LEE: That's right.

MG: And that would drive that sense of competition. It didn't split you apart. It drove you forward together.

CHRIS LEE: Yes, it didn't split apart at all. We were training for a bigger goal.

MG: Richard Well, what was it in those early days? What was it that made that friendship click or at the very least even, you know, brought you together, do you think?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: I think, like he said, we had an extraordinary goal. But what made it click is that we were generally honest when we weren't on a level of excellence. We told each other. That's not, that's okay. Or you play really well, but you don't own it. We both signed up for an orchestral rep class where when the teacher tried to punish us one day, they said you're going to play every day, we were like, fantastic.

MG: Take a different punishment.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: We were thrilled about it. He's like what? Well, how about you play right now? Yes, absolutely.

[Laughter].

MG: So, Chris, tell me about your early days with this instrument. You went to a school in Toronto that had some high profile mentors.

CHRIS LEE: I didn't choose the tuba. My music teacher, Mr. Burns, put me on tuba. But there was an instant click and I would take the tuba home and walk it. There's a big hill going up to one on. And I would walk down the hill with the tuba and take the Hoisington bus with my tuba, every day. And I would just practice in the basement of my house. And I can't even explain it because I have students and I don't know. Like, they're not motivated to practice. And I never needed someone to tell me to practice. I just was motivated. I loved it from the beginning. And yes, we had the Canadian brass were coming in and I developed a relationship with Chuck Donlon Bach from when I was in Grade seven. And I just had incredible role models. So fortunate to have that. An incredible place where music was happening in public schools in Toronto.

MG: Which is something to cherish and celebrate when music programs are often the first thing that's on the chopping.

CHRIS LEE: Yes. It hasn't unfortunately, it hasn't. It hasn't stayed that way in Toronto.

MG: Richard, you and Chris, in your grad school and your music program there were among only, what, five black students?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: About that, yes.

MG: Did that bring you together? Yes.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: This question is asked a lot. You know, and diversity inclusion is a hot topic across the country. And I was talking to Chris just yesterday and I said, you know what we have tell people is there's a difference between being included and feeling like you belong. So seeing Chris and other people that look like myself made me feel more like I belonged. We didn't feel like we had to explain ourselves to each other. And there was this instant understanding that, hey, we have to make this work. There is no backup plan.

MG: In that world, did you feel given, again, questions around diversity and inclusion, did you feel like you fit in or did you feel like an outsider in that world? Richard.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: I never felt discriminated against at Indiana, but I felt more at home when people looked like me because in that time frame, see, there were also, I think, two other undergrads. They're so amazingly they had four African-Americans in the studio at the same time and it was ground breaking in that time.

MG: Chris, what about you? How did you interpret that idea of feeling included versus just belonging?

CHRIS LEE: It's a complicated issue. It's hard to sum up. Certainly moving to Indiana, it's a bigger issue than where I grew up.

MG: In downtown Toronto.

CHRIS LEE: Yes, in downtown trend is more diverse. In my first week in Indiana, there was a huge issue with the Martinsville High School hockey team having - sorry, basketball team, high school basketball team. Like these kids, you know, we're drawn KKK on their sneakers. So that was sort of my introduction to like the culture there that that this was still an issue.

MG: How did you process that?

CHRIS LEE: It was difficult. It was difficult. Moving to Indiana was difficult. And so spending time with the black students there was nice, for sure. And they were all super cool. Like, first of all, they're all like big time high achiever people, people that have very ambitious goals and are hard workers. But then there's another layer, what Richard's talking about, where you don't have to talk about certain issues. You don't have to explain them. And so, like Richard didn't have to talk about that he had this hard background, like, I know he has a hard background. Okay. But we got to play tuba today.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Like no one knew. Now, when they hear about the movie, they're like, how did I not know this.

MG: Really? They didn't know at the time.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: I didn't want it to be my identity. I just want to be a good tuba player.

MG: How how do you feel now about the fact that in some ways it's part of your identity, that a story like this is out and that people see it as shaping who you are right now?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: My message is the same. I think the world is full of problems. And I think 99 percent of them could be solved if we were just kind to one another. I'm glad people were kind to me. I'm glad I had mentors and educators. You know, I was asked on the CBS special is what do you think is your greatest accomplishment? And I weepingly replied, The fact that I get to go to work every day and teach and make a difference in a kid's life, because that's what someone did for me.

MG: You're doing that now. I mean, part of the work you're doing an Ottawa, this program which offers instruments and support to kids from hard backgrounds, from disadvantaged backgrounds who might not otherwise get a crack to play with someone like you.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: I'm so excited. I could feel the energy here in Ottawa. Are you guys there planting seeds and just get ready. These kids are going to see opportunities that they wouldn't otherwise normally see. See people that look like them on your classical stages. And boy, Canada's about to grow in a fantastic way.

MG: Do you see yourself now? I mean, this is a loaded phrase often, but do you see yourself as a role model?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: My biggest goal is to show people whether they have an advantage or disadvantage that they can do it. I think sometimes in life you have to be your own hero. And I just want to give people empowerment to do so.

MG: Be your own hero.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Yes.

MG: That's amazing. Chris, you talked about being a teacher and with students and stuff. Chris, do you see yourself in that position to be able to help shape the next generation?

CHRIS LEE: Oh, absolutely. It's this the cycle or the circle. I've had so many incredible mentors and I see that it's part of the responsibility as a musician is to give back. So I love spending time with kids.

MG: Richard, that moment in the music class can be really stressful when you have to pick an instrument. And there are some instruments that are more popular than others. I say this as a former trumpet player. A lot of people wanted to play the trumpet. People might have looked at the tuba and thought, I don't know, what would you say to somebody? What's the pitch for the tuba?

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Oh, man. The tuba can do what every other instrument can do. Give tuba the tuba a chance to play the melody. Really I think if you have an imagination and you imagine that instrument being beautiful, you should go for it. And there should not be any discriminatory issues based on size, gender or anything. If it's the instrument that you hear in your mind and heart, choose it. And the tuba is not a bad one to choose.

MG: Well said, gentlemen. It's a lovely film and a real pleasure to talk to you both. Thank you.

CHRIS LEE: Thank you all.

RICHARD ANTOINE WHITE: Thank you.

MG: Richard Antoine White is principal tubist with the New Mexico Philharmonic. His life is the subject of a new short documentary called Raw Tuba. Chris Lee is principal tuba for the National Arts Centre Orchestra in Ottawa. As Richard mentioned, his time in Ottawa included an event with kids. They're involved in a program called OrKidstra. It offers free instruments and music lessons to hundreds of children in the Ottawa area.

SOUNDCLIP

[Music]

MATEO: My name is Mateo.

JULIAN: My name's Julian.

RAQUEL: My name's Raquel.

MATEO: The program has given me many things. Music has inspired me and motivated me in my studies. And now I've met like composers and I've fell in love with composers and their music. I love music and I'll always continue music and I'll always remember Orkidstra in my heart.

RAQUEL: I picked up the clarinet and I was lucky to do that. I felt like it was like family, you know. I think OrKidstra really developed like my social skills because I've always been more to myself and now I'm more social.

JULIAN: I was a little kid. I was in need of a passion. That's what my mom said. I discovered the saxophone at school and that evolved into me playing the euphonium. It's my favourite thing like on planet Earth.

MATEO: Play music. We basically grow as a family. So we kind of like share. We share it together. And if something's like I feel like we're like, welcome for them to make them feel comfortable. We'll help them.

[Music]

RAQUEL: Like music unites us. It doesn't matter like your race or your ethnicity. When we play, it's like family.

[Music]

MG: Tina Fedeski is the co-founder of OrKidstra, Tina, good morning.

TINA FEDESKI: Good morning.

MG: I love hearing the kids say that the euphonium is his favourite thing on planet Earth. That's really cool. What did it mean for the kids to be playing for an audience that included these high profile musicians? That must have been a real thrill for them.

TINA FEDESKI: How it was such a thrill. They were really excited to prepare for it. We've worked hard to get them ready. And they were, they performed so well. You could see the gleam of pride in the entire group. And then watching the film and listening to Richard was completely awe inspiring. They were just blown away. We got a little post on our Facebook from one little eight year old guy who came to watch the film and the whole event and he wrote on Facebook: I'm so inspired.

MG: That's amazing. That's exactly what you want. Richard talked about how you're planting seeds. Tell me more about your program. What are you doing with these kids?

TINA FEDESKI: Well, we began in 2007 with a passionate belief in the transformative effect of music, of making music together. And so we brick began with 27 kids and now we're serving over 800 kids ages five to 18 from 62 linguistic and cultural backgrounds. And we passionately believe that if you put an instrument in the hands of a child, they can find their voice and they can have so much fun learning and making music with their friends. And all during this time, they're learning incredible, invaluable life skills such as the importance of commitment, hard work, kindness and compassion. And those skills are transferable to absolutely every other area of their lives.

MG: What's the model that this is based on?

TINA FEDESKI: It's inspired by El Sistema, which was a program that began in Venezuela 45 years ago now. And it was a huge social development program that proved to the world. Now that music can be a social agent of change and it has affected so many other people to stop it, as is veterans by programs throughout the world. So music is really taking on a new role.

MG: Where are the children that are part of your program? Where are they coming from? What's their background?

TINA FEDESKI: Their backgrounds are very varied, of course. We have a number of, I would say, a lot of new Canadians as some who have arrived more recently, some refugees than we have a lot of people, too, who just have never had the opportunity to have the chance to play an instrument. It is not so available now, particularly in the public schools. And it's out of reach for so many because it's expensive to learn an instrument privately. It's very expensive. And so we wanted to bridge that gap and put an instrument into the hands of the kids for them to find, is this for me? And it's you know, it's not for everyone but some kids. Oh, my God. They come alive. They find their voice and they stay with us for years and years. We've been going, as I said, since 2007. We still have kids coming in and playing with us and mentoring and teaching other younger kids who began in 2007 and they graduated from university now.

MG: How do you get them to see themselves in music that perhaps they have no connection to or that they've never even heard before in classical and orchestral music?

TINA FEDESKI: Well, I think the biggest in the biggest way of introducing it is I think it's much harder at the beginning when we started because we didn't have anything to show them of other kids. We wanted the, you know, the little kids to look up at the bigger kids and say, I want to do do that, I want something like that. And that's what we've created now because we've been going so long. And so the older kids are playing such phenomenal music and a variety of music, not just classical. We have using the orchestral instruments, but we're playing a variety of music from classical to folk to jazz and, well, a lot. A lot of world music. We've commissioned a lot of pieces. So the kids get super excited when they can see what the possibilities are, when they see and hear these older guys doing it, they just want to do it.

MG: So what is it like when they get it, when all of a sudden you can see that the light goes on?

TINA FEDESKI: It's magic. You know, their eyes just pop and they're so excited and they want to share what they've learned. That's one of the most heartwarming things for me - I'll share a quote from the founder of El Sistema in Venezuela. And he said, A child who only knows five notes can help a child who only knows two. And so that's what we really foster, is that helpfulness, that kindness. And it's when the child finds they've got something to give when it really takes hold.

MG: Part of this is also about seeing themselves in that position. I mean, a bit like what Richard and Chris were talking about, that if you see musicians who are at this elite level and they also happen to look like the people who are there, the kids that there are people of colour that mean something.

TINA FEDESKI: It does. It does. And I've often said that it's music that brings the kids to us and the families to us. But it's our family that keeps them with us for years and years. It's that tremendous sense of belonging. And as as Richard said earlier, it's a huge difference between being included rather than having that sense of true belonging, because music just transcends differences. And you're just a family and we celebrate our differences through music.

MG: How have you seen that, and just briefly, in the kids that you're working with, there's this orchestra that's coming out quite soon. Just tell me the story.

TINA FEDESKI: We ll, we've heard about this orchestra called Chineke. It was coming to Ottawa in at the end of April, April 27, I believe. And it's made up of non-white players, which is very unusual and very inspiring. And we're really looking forward to working with them. And I told the kids about this opportunity, and one of the girls just started to cry. And she said, oh, my God, it's going to be so inspiring. Seeing musicians playing this music on my instruments, she plays the oboe, that look like me.

MG: You're doing great work, Tina. It's great to talk to you about it.

TINA FEDESKI: Thank you so much.

MG: Tina Fedeski is the CEO and artistic director of an auto all based program that's called OrKidstra. That is the current for today, from music to film. Coming up on Q, Albert Shin, great young director, has a new movie out. It's called Disappearance of Clifton Hill. You'll hear all about it when he speaks with Tom Power coming up in a few moments time on CBC Radio One. How could we leave this program without more of the tuba? You don't feature the tuba on the current every day. We'll put it back in the spotlight, because this is a place that you might not actually expect to find the tuba. You know, the Flight of the Bumblebee famous piece of music featured violins originally than flutes and clarinets taking a turn at the fast fingering goes at a million miles an hour. The tuba felt left out of that, as it should. So here's the Canadian brass with The Light of the Tuba Bee. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. And we'll talk to you tomorrow.

The Current Transcript for February 27, 2020

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

Religious violence in India

Should medical assistance in death be accessible for people with mental illness? Experts weigh in

How music pulled Richard Antoine White out of homelessness to tuba stardom

Thursday February 27, 2020 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode