Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2020

The Current Transcript for May 28, 2020

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

This is not a surprise. We've been hearing these stories for weeks. It's like it's top of the hand-wringing and do something. It's not rocket science. Just shut up to do it.

MATT GALLOWAY: The Ontario premier says he didn't know the extent of the nightmarish situations in seniors homes as revealed in a report by the Canadian military. The families of those in those homes, though, were anything but surprised. As those families seek answers and accountability. We'll hear what more they want. And from the long term care industry about how it got this bad. Also this morning, it has been a wild week for Donald Trump. And that's saying something. The U.S. president has all but accused a talk show host of murder and seen his tweets fact checked by Twitter. Commentator David Frum is here to talk about his new book, Trumpocalypse and What Could Happen Next. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

Hi, I'm Graylin. I'm going to share some jokes with you today.

MG: Oh, great. I love good joke.

SOUNDCLIP

What did the plate say to any other plate?

MG: That is a good question. Graylin, what did the plane say to the other plate?

SOUNDCLIP

Dinner is on me.

MG: Hehehe. At a time when we could all use some laughs. How a group of Calgary students started a joke hotline for seniors who find themselves isolated by COVID. We start, though, with a very serious standoff between Canada and China. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Canada and China’s complicated relationship

Guests: Robert Malley, Dick Fadden

MG: Meng Wanzhou will remain in Canada for now, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled yesterday that extradition proceedings to the United States will continue. The Huawei executive is charged with fraud in the United States but was arrested here in Canada in December of 2018. Two Canadians who've come to be known as the two Michaels have been detained in China since Meng's arrest. And it's seen by many as retaliation for Canada's actions. Little is known about the conditions of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor or since their arrests. But there are reports of long interrogations. Bright lights on 24 hours a day. And no access to family or lawyers. Rob Malley is the president and CEO of the International Crisis Group. That's where Michael Kovrig works. Rob Malley, good morning.

ROBERT MALLEY: Good morning to you.

MG: it was thought that if this judge in B.C. ruled in Meng Wanzhou's favour, this could open up the possibility that the two Michaels could be released. Is the ruling yesterday a disappointment for you?

ROBERT MALLEY: No, I'm not going to comment on the ruling unless that's there's a legal proceeding which should have absolutely nothing to do with Michael Korvrig's fate. As you just said, it seems more than apparent, it seems quite obvious that the reason he was arrested and detained had nothing to do with anything he had done, but everything to do with the fact that Meng had been detained on extradition charges. That is an arbitrary relationship. Michael Kovrig has nothing to do with long. The problem is now that China has linked the two cases. But there should be no such relationship. One case should have no bearing on the other. Michael has been arbitrarily detained. He should be immediately released.

MG: I guess given that link, though, that, as you say, China has created, even if you're not commenting on the case, did you have your hopes up that perhaps you could see some movement, that he could be closer to release depending on that ruling?

ROBERT MALLEY: You know what, you could speculate about how China would have reacted if it come out differently? We're not going to engage in that because we don't want to give any credence or any credibility to the fact that Michael's fate should depend in any way on unhurt. He's become a pawn in in this case, has become a pawn in the relationship between China, Canada, China and the United States. And he's a victim of that of that game that that's being waged. And China should know for its own sake, its own reputation, obviously, for the sake of Michael Kovrig. And the other Michael should not should not have been engaged in that kind of hostage diplomacy. So, you know, whether it could have come out differently if China would have acted differently, that's part of what's the problem with this case. Because Michael's fate should be judged on the bigger what he's done, h has done nothing to nothing illegal and nothing to endanger China's security. That should be the end of that story.

MG: What do you know about his condition?

ROBERT MALLEY: Well, we do know is that since- he was receiving consular visits monthly, he had had no contact with his family other than one brief phone call. But even those consular visits have stopped as a result of the pandemic. Now, the pandemic right now, China has gotten out of the restrictions, the movement restrictions that it had imposed at the beginning of COVID-19. So it's hard to understand why he's still being prevented from seeing at least embassy officials, consular officials. We would hope that that would be quickly remedied. And that is obviously we want him to be released. But at a minimum, that is conditions of detention be improved.

MG: A few weeks ago, I spoke with China's ambassador to Canada and he couldn't say whether Michael Kovrig had actually seen a doctor for COVID-19 testing. Do you have any information on that?

ROBERT MALLEY: No. I mean, we don't we're dependent on the information that the Canadian government and the Canadian embassy have. And so what they don't know, we don't know either.

MG: What happens now? The former Canadian ambassador to China, David Mulroney, has suggested that perhaps the two Michaels in the wake of this could go on trial. Is that what you think is going to happen next?

ROBERT MALLEY: I mean, you know, Michael Kovrig has not been officially charged. I think that is likely to be the next step. But, you know, I think we all know so much of this is going to be dependent on what happens between China, Canada, the United States, that it's the unfortunate truth. We would hope that China would realise that it's doing more harm to itself, its own reputations, to desire to be an even more active player on the international scene. If people who happen to be Canadian, who happen to be from any other nationality, who happen to be in China at the wrong time, could be picked up and detained arbitrarily. That's not going to be the best way either to enhance China's reputation or to encourage engagement with China. So we would hope that they would make a determination separately from whatever happens between Canada, China, the United States. But otherwise, yes, I think it will depend very much on how that those relations evolve. And we could only hope that they move in the right direction.

MG: But the general consensus is that in the wake of yesterday's ruling, and I understand for a number of reasons that you do want to talk specifically about the ruling. But the general consensus is that in the wake of the ruling, things are not going to get better for these two men, that whether it's a trial or whether China does something else as a way to retaliate against Canada, that the situation is going to escalate. And I'm just wondering for you what it's like knowing that these two men are essentially being held in limbo, that there's nothing that we could do. There's nothing really that you could do that the situation just is going to unfold as it unfolds.

ROBERT MALLEY: Well, listen, to say that everyone, that his family is concerned, that we're concerned is self evident. And that's true. And every day that goes by that he remains behind bars is is a terrible day and a tragedy for him and for his family and loved ones to say that, you know, that doesn't mean that things can still happen. There are discussions that are taking place, we know between amongst the three governments and we are in constant touch with both the US government and with the Canadian government. And we're hoping that other discussions could take place. Again, it's simply a matter of justice. The fact that Michael is behind bars is not helping China in any, in any way. It's not helping with the fate of his mom. It's not helping improve relations, China's reputation or its relations with with the rest of the world. So there's a case to be made for Michael to be released simply on that basis, on the basis of pure justice and China's interests. So we're not going to lose hope. And I know that Michael's family is not losing hope either.

MG: Just before I let you go, when all of this started, when they were scooped up by Chinese officials, could you have imagined that this would have dragged on for more than 500 days?

ROBERT MALLEY: No. To be honest, it was not the first thought, although, you know, there are other cases that have gone on for some time, but no. Given what I know we know about Michael, what he had done there, the fact that when he went to China, he always met with Chinese officials, his activities were fully transparent. It kind of seemed unthinkable that he'd be held for so long for no for no good reason. So I think we're all. Find difficulty coming to terms with that fact.

MG: Roberts, good to speak with you again. And we'll talk again, I'm sure, down the road. Thank you.

ROBERT MALLEY: Thank you very much.

MG: Rob Malley is the president and CEO of the International Crisis Group. That's where Michael Kovrig works. Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are being held in a Chinese prison at this moment. It was thought that a decision in favour of Meng Wanzhou, could provide a bit of a release valve and lower the pressure on the relationship between Canada and China. Obviously, that hasn't happened. And with the Chinese embassy in Ottawa calling Canada an accomplice in a grave political incident, it looks like there may be a more complicated road ahead for these two countries. Dick Fadden was a national security adviser to prime ministers Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. Prior to that, he served as director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Dick Fadden, good morning to you.

DICK FADDEN: Good morning.

MG: In recent days, China has said that a negative decision on this case would create - in its words - further damage to relations. What is that damage going to look like, do you think?

DICK FADDEN: Well, I think it's largely going to be a continuation of what we've seen for some time now. I think candidates found it hard to accept that China's way of dealing with international relations is not exactly the same as ours. If they don't get their way, they have a tendency of using a variety of tools to push countries in their direction. So I think economic sanctions are likely to be strengthened. I mean, you'll recall that a while ago they banned the import of beef and pork and a variety of other things. I was going to say tourism will be cut back, but that's not a problem. Now, because of the pandemic, investment in Canada will dry up. But generally speaking, our relationship is just going to continue contracting. And I would say just to be, you know, see both sides of the story, even if Ms. Meng were on a plane right now heading back towards Beijing. I don't think that our relationships with China would all of a sudden start flowering. This is a an incident of some considerable importance to Canada. But from China's perspective, Canada is not the major player here, and it's striving for greater prominence. And dominance in the world is going to continue. Whether or not we release Ms. Meng, her release would have made things slightly easier, I think in the short term, I don't believe it would have led directly to the release of the two Michaels, because they have argued forcefully that there's no relationship between the two and to release them right of what right away, I think would have made them out to be entirely dishonest, which is something they try not to do in a direct way.

MG: There's speculation that Canada has been lobbying for a seat on the U.N. Security Council, that China, in the wake of yesterday's decision, could step up to block that. Is that possible?

DICK FADDEN: I think it's within the realm of the possible. I mean, this is very irritating for China. I think we need to try and look at this a little bit from their perspective. They are the first or the second most important power on the planet. They want to be recognised as being very important. They want a certain amount of deference. And here we have Canada, you know, not the most important middle power on the planet, telling them, you know, we're not you're not going to get your way and there's nothing we can do about it. They're very irritated with us. So, yeah, I do think it's possible that amongst the, you know, not insignificant number of states in parts of the developing world, in particular, China may say this is the kind of country that Canada is. You know, they arrest people at the behest of the United States. We don't need them on the Security Council. I think it's within the realm of the possible. I mean, to be honest, I think our battle for the Security Council seat is a bit of an uphill battle in any event. But this could make it more difficult.

MG: What happens, do you think, to the two Michaels? I mean, again, is it a trial? They haven't exactly been charged yet, but this does not augur well for their future.

DICK FADDEN: No, I don't think it does. I would argue that it's almost inevitable that they will be charged. That's the next step, as I understand it, in the Chinese process. But the important thing to remember, I think about China's that the Chinese government controls every step of the way so they can be charged and left in a charge state for quite a while the prosecution decides what to do or they could be brought to trial immediately. The trial could be held quickly or slowly. They could or could not be allowed for an appeal or they could be sent, you know, to a regular jail. And I think China will look at that process from the perspective of where they will gain the most leverage, not just for from us, but from the world generally in the face of that.

MG: The Canadian foreign affairs minister, François Phillipe Champagne, put out a statement yesterday saying that Canada will, in his words, continue to pursue principled engagement with China to address our bilateral differences and cooperate in areas of mutual interest. What does that mean?

DICK FADDEN: Well, first, I think it's an entirely reasonable thing for a foreign minister to say. But I think it also doesn't recognise, to use an old expression, that it takes two to tango. And I think our desire to have a regular relationship with them or a more regular relationship is highly desirable. But that is not in China's interest right now. So I think we're going to try to the extent that we can to continue trading where it's allowed. We will we will continue to have contact on perhaps on humanitarian issues and things of that nature. But I think we have to recognise and I think that recognition is coming more and more quickly in Canada. China is not a friend. I've called them a strategic adversary. They're certainly not our enemy. But Mr. Champagne, I think, is articulating, you know, a very reasonably based hope that our relationships with China are going to improve and become normal. I don't think that's likely not because of Miss Meng, but because of China's general view of the world and. Howard wants to improve its position. To a considerable degree, I think China considers us to be entirely subservient to the United States and that it will dominate I think how they treat us.

MG: Still swirling around this is the decision coming on Huawei and 5G. The Canadian government has not deferred this, but it seems as though the decision is imminent. But there's been no sign as to when it's going to come. What is likely to happen? Do you think the candidate is going to give any approval to walk away when it comes to establishing the 5G framework?

DICK FADDEN: Well, you won't be surprised when I say that I hope not. But I think they have not unreasonably taken their time to do this, given the kind of the complex relationships with China. But I think we also have to recognise that, you know, the United States views on this. They really are very concerned about the security aspects of 5G. And I think there are more worrisome for the United States than say they might be for the United Kingdom. You know, the interoperability of our communication networks in North America is almost total. So if we opt for 5G for allowing 5G from Huawei, I think it will have security implications for the United States. And that's our closest ally. I think we have to take that into account. The other thing I think we need to consider is that the United States has recently imposed additional conditions on the use by United States companies of Huawei products. There are rumours that this is now. This may cause the United Kingdom to rethink its position. So it puts the government of Canada in a very difficult situation. And as I think I've argued before, you know, the reason that, you know, we have ministers and a prime minister and they get paid the big bucks as they have to take extraordinarily complex decision. This is a security decision. It's an economic decision. It's a political decision. And it's a relationship with the United States decision and all of us put together, I think they're going to have to decide which of these elements predominates. I think that in this particular circumstance, the national security considerations should predominate in others and maybe other circumstances, other elements.

MG: The dance is very delicate. Whether it's on Huawei, whether it's on what's happening in Hong Kong, the Chinese government has imposed this national security legislation. And just moments ago, Global Affairs Canada put out a statement along with the U.S., the U.K. and Australia expressing concern about Hong Kong and this national security law. What should Canada's response be to that? Because, again, to your point, you the context, particularly around a couple of Canadians being held, but also that larger relationship is you don't want to further enrage China. But you need to have some sort of relationship with this enormous country. So what should Canada do about Hong Kong?

DICK FADDEN: Well, I think we should make very clear our view that the situation there is is unacceptable. I think the key to our objections has to be not that we don't like what they're doing, but rather that the U.K. China agreement on the independence of China from the United Kingdom has a basis in international law. China committed to respect that and they are not doing it. So in essence, they are violating international law and we have to keep hammering away at them. But from another perspective, you know, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia. They did Hungary. The West objected in the strongest way possible. But we were unable to do anything to shift the views of the Soviet Union at the time. I think we have to be realistic about the amount of leverage the West has. And I include Canada and that, but not exclusively Canada. How much leverage we really have in respect of Hong Kong, the Chinese and international law, in fact, considers it to be part of China, though a special part of China. So we need to continue hammering away at them. We need to continue to develop strong relations with every other country on the planet that shares that view and continue to pressure them. But I don't think that we should expect that, as was the case, say, of Hungary, all of a sudden, China is going to say, well, you know, we've made a mistake and we're going to we're going to let all this go. It's not just Hong Kong. It's Taiwan where their wording, the wording on their views, theirs has become more rigid recently. You know, they've endeavoured to punish Australia because they call for a review of how China dealt with the pandemic. But I think limiting some imports of agricultural products and we're in a tough spot right now, and it's not being made easier by the fact that the United States is not practising its diplomacy in the same way that it used to or that we would like them to do. I think we're going to have to be very patient. We're going to have to be principled. And more than anything, we have to recognise that Canada alone is very limited, I think, in what it can do. We need to develop relationships, you know, what are they used to call them? I've forgotten the word. But, you know, you develop a bunch of like minded countries and you pushed together, while recognising that, as you said a moment ago, China is there. China is not going away. And in many ways, China, the current Chinese government represents a great civilisation. And somehow we have to find a way to keep talking on those areas where there's a mutual interest. We did this with the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War, although it was very difficult. And I think it's possible to do it now. It's going to require patience. And I think it's going to require an acceptance on the part of Canada and in particular Canadian business. And I say this with some reluctance that China is not going to be the market that we all thought it was going to be a few years ago. We're going to have to work on diversification and we're going to have to accept that even if we can sell to China, the circumstances that obtain there make it very, very difficult.

MG: Dick Fadden, a real pleasure to talk to you. There is a lot going on and we will come back to this, I'm sure, in future in the meantime. Thank you very much this morning.

DICK FADDEN: My pleasure.

MG: Dick Fadden and former director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. He served as national security adviser to prime ministers Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau. Any thoughts on what he said? Our welcome. You can reach us through the Web site cbc.ca/thecurrent. The news is next. And then President Trump has had some funding news for diabetics this week, but it was this comment that raised a lot of eyebrows.

SOUNDCLIP

I don't use insulin. Should I be? Huh. I never thought about it, but I know a lot of people are very, very badly affected. Right. Unbelievable.

MG: Unbelievable is one word to use. The U.S. president's critics are using others to describe his behaviour this week. David Frum, we'll have a few of his own words to share, coming up after the break. I Matt Galloway. This is The Current. We're back in six minutes. Stay with us.

As pandemic plays out, Trump sowing mischief and mistrust around re-election bid, says David Frum; Calgary teens set up joke hotline for seniors

Guest: David Frum, Jared Quinn

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, some teens in Calgary thought seniors needed some cheering up, so they started a hotline, a joke hotline that's getting attention far beyond that city. That story coming up in about 15 minutes. But first, more bizarre behaviour from south of the border.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

JOURNALIST: The second question was about your tweets, about the woman who died, who you're suggesting that Joe Scarborough was responsible.

DONALD TRUMP: A lot of people suggest that and hopefully someday people are going to find out. Certainly a very suspicious situation, very sad, very sad and very suspicious.

MG: U.S. President Donald Trump was pushing yet another conspiracy theory this week. This one involved MSNBC host Joe Scarborough. And the allegation that he was somehow involved in the death of one of his interns when he was a congressman almost 20 years ago. Joe Scarborough was not there when she died. Her death was ruled an accident. But this is just one of the many claims the president has been busy tweeting out. David Frum is one of the most high profile critics of the president. He was a speechwriter for former Republican President George W. Bush. His new book is called Trumpocalypse Restoring American Democracy. David Frum, good morning.

DAVID FRUM: Good morning.

MG: So this week, Donald Trump accused a morning talk show host of the involvement in the death of an intern. He threatened to use his office to exert control over social media sites that he says are stifling conservative voices. And he wondered if he should take insulin. Can you explain what's going on here?

DAVID FRUM: Let's focus on the first of those, the accusations against Joe Scarborough, because they show something that is deeper than what is obvious about this [unintelligible]. If you or I or anyone else would tweet an accusation, an innocent person that they had committed murder, we should prepare to lose our house on the subsequent defamation action. The president enjoys a unique privilege. Lickings defamation as there's law on this, that the president cannot be sued for defamation with things the president says in the course of official duties and communicating with the public is an official duty. So Donald Trump, when he engaged in this act, was using an existing power of the president, and wasn't doing something new, for a personal end. And then we discovered there's no there's no protection here that that, if you were to do it or I would do it, we'd be in trouble. The president's not because he has this privilege that was created as no one imagined that a president would have used this power in this way. It's an example of how again and again through the Trump years that you think you're winning because the president has been criticised, much criticised, for these words. You think the institutions are winning, you think the norms. But in fact, Donald Trump's winning. He is showing I can use this power in a way no one ever thought to use it before.

MG: If you or I made those accusations on Twitter, in addition to, you know, possibly losing your house, you certainly be given the boot from Twitter. He hasn't been I mean, his tweets are now being fact checked. And there's this exclamation mark that goes beneath some of the more outrageous claims that he makes. But he hasn't been thrown off the platform. Do you think that he should be given the boot from Twitter?

DAVID FRUM: I think it's a completely unrealistic question. And again, this goes to what Donald Trump is not. He's the president of the United States. He has enormous authority over Twitter. He's the head of the government. What he says is, by definition, the most newsworthy thing that any human being on Earth is saying. I don't know how Twitter could possibly do such a thing. And I don't think we can look to Twitter to do the job that the electoral system, the United States and the Congress have failed to do. So that's the big theme of my new book, is to look back over the past years and to assess how much damage he did and to be realistic about what can be done. Twitter cannot save you. If Congress didn't save you. If the courts aren't saving you. The Department of Justice didn’t save you. How can one private company do?

MG: This is a book that was largely written before the pandemic that we all find ourselves in. How do you think the COVID-19 crisis will shape or impact the U.S. election?

DAVID FRUM: Well, the COVID, strictly speaking, the illness part of the pandemic is having limited political effect. The vast majority of white Americans do not know anyone who has been affected by the virus. And you can see the beginning of restiveness in the parts of the country where Donald Trump has support because people do so. This has nothing to do with me. What is shaping the election is the massive economic damage. People are losing their jobs. They are losing their businesses. And that that fact is hugely consequential. The worst unemployment ever faced by president not actually to lose was Barack Obama in 2012. He had, I think, seven point seven percent unemployment, but there'd been quite a lot of job creation in the 12 months before the election. So people could hope that things are tough in November 2012, but they may be better in 2013. And he scraped by just over 51 percent of the vote. Donald Trump is going to have unemployment, probably double that of Barack Obama in November. And it's very, there just isn't time for there to be much improvement between now and then.

MG: He said, we built the greatest economy in the world and we'll do it again. Is that message likely to ring true with Americans?

DAVID FRUM: Well, ask yourself. If somebody says - even if it were true - I did something great and then I ruined it. Do you remember the great thing they did two years ago? Do you remember the destruction they've done in the past too much?

MG: Did he ruin it? I mean, was it the pandemic that ruined it?

DAVID FRUM: Well, first, he didn't build the economy. And I have this joke in the book. I say that he thought he was the rooster who took credit for the sunrise and now he's upset to be blamed for the sunset. Yes, neither exactly was strictly his fault. The rate of U.S. economic growth under Donald Trump was exactly the same as it was in the last three years of Barack Obama. You have this economic expansion that began strongly, began in 2010, accelerated in 2014, and the growth under Trump was pretty consistent with what it was in 2014,15,16. Even, and things like manufacturing. I have statistics on that in the book. The manufacturing employment did not grow any faster under Donald Trump than it'd grown under Barack Obama. And likewise, the pandemic wasn't his fault, but the response to the pandemic, that was his decision. Different countries have responded in different ways. Some have been stars. New Zealand, Australia, South Korea. Some have really flunked Brazil, Great Britain. Some have been in the middle like Canada. And the United States has been very much at the top of the scale of the worst performing countries and people noticed that.

MG: And so you would think then, as an outsider, perhaps, that the Democrats would be able to waltz in and take this with their eyes closed. How could the Democratic Party still lose this election?

DAVID FRUM: It is always possible to lose an election through your mistakes. And one of the things I want about in the book is that I think in reaction, some Democrats went through the Obama years and found him, especially in the second term, not activist enough. And a lot of anger against him built up. But because Obama was so popular amongst Democrats that anger amongst the activists could not be expressed. And so it translated itself into this general spirit of what's often called [unintelligible], a kind of personal aggression, often on social media, people who said say the wrong thing in the wrong way, even argue it, how big a deal this really is, but it feels to people on the receiving end of it. It feels like a big deal and it does a lot of damage. And you can see this with what happened with the Bernie Sanders campaign. Sanders himself is a pretty standard issue, very liberal Democrat. But his supporters were reminded many people of the behaviour of Donald Trump supporters and that if you if the Democrats were to ratify that if they would say this, you know, this election's about super liberal cultural behaviour, they could alienate a lot of the people's votes they're going to need.

MG: Do you think the party is happy with Joe Biden as the presumptive nominee?

DAVID FRUM: I think that they have coalesced around Joe Biden. And with that, the price of coalescing around him is a lot of important issues for the future are being buried right now. And they will resurface. Should Joe Biden win, the Democratic Party is a coalition of people believe that free trade is good and people who hate free trade almost as much as Donald Trump does. It's a coalition of people who are basically private sector minded and people who are very non private sector might normally those things get argued out in the Democratic primaries. This time they didn't. And so they're waiting for the future. Well, I tried to do in Trumpocalypse is show a way to a more balanced democratic American future. I have a lot of suggestions about things that can remit the social fabric of the country. But between now and then, I think you'll find the Democratic Party a pretty coherent, pretty united party. And what it doesn't say is not and what it does.

MG: Joe Biden was asked a viewer question. MSNBC is the last word. Listen to what he was asked and his response.

SOUNDCLIP

JOURNALIST: Would you be willing to commit to not pulling a President Ford and giving Donald Trump a pardon under the pretence of healing the nation? In other words, are you willing to commit to the American ideal that no one is above the law?

JOE BIDEN: Absolutely, yes. I commit.

MG: What do you think of Joe Biden's commitment? Should he is the president not offer Donald Trump a pardon for any crimes that he might have committed while he was in the office?

DAVID FRUM: Richard Nixon resigned and got out of the way and didn't battle things to the end. And he you can understand why President Ford, who had taken over who at that point did have a clean slate when presented with the problems that, you know, that's enough talking about Richard Nixon. Let's move forward. At the time, remember, also, the United States was in a crisis almost as bad as now. Gas shortages, terrible economic troubles. I don't think the question is going to be presented, because I think well before Joe Biden takes office, we're going to have a whole series of pardon scandals, Donald Trump. Should he lose and should he accept the defeat will spend the last months of his presidency parklet pardoning criminal associates. And he will test an untested question. Does the president have the power to pardon himself? That's never come up in American history. And it may come up in 2021. Would also may come up and probably Donald Trump safer way is to resign at the last minute in favour of Vice President Pence and then Vice President Pence pardon him.

MG: So you think that that's possible that Trump would resign before the election and let Pence go into the election?

DAVID FRUM: I'm not predicting it. I'm just saying that if you're Donald Trump's legal team, you would put a lot more stock in Mike Pence likelihood of a pardon than you would know Joe Biden likely would have a pardon.

MG: You also just said something if he were to lose and accept that loss. What is the possibility? This is something that not just Democrats, but some Republicans have mused about as well, that if the election does not go Donald Trump's way, he could for any number of reasons and in any number of ways say, you know, fake news, a rigged election, as he said before, and not accept the results. How likely is that?

DAVID FRUM: Well, this is what you have to pay attention to the timeline of how American elections work so that people vote on the first Tuesday in November. That vote becomes legally binding after the Electoral College meets and issues. It's a certification of the winner of the election. And that happened sometime in the middle of December. Once the Electoral College meets, once they issue their certification, then I think there's no possibility that Donald Trump can stay. I mean, even if he - the Constitution sets the date of the inauguration of the new president. It's after noon on Inauguration Day. Donald Trump just isn't president anymore - so even if he refuses to leave the White House, then you have an unwanted tendency, a squatter problem, but no one will take his orders. The nuclear codes are, you know, the guy who carries the football, the nuclear codes. He leaves and follows the new president. The danger time is the period between the people voting in November and the meat of the Electoral College in mid-December. And that's a period where a lot of mischief can happen.

MG: Do you think he's ceding this already and talking about possible voter fraud, raising concerns around mail in ballots, for example, and saying that those would be a legitimate. Do you think that he's already laying the ground for that sort of mischief, as you put it?

DAVID FRUM: Yes. If you understand how his mind works. Donald Trump is not a strategic thinker. One of his aides had a great line that I quote in the book. People think people will say that Donald Trump is playing three dimensional chess. Really? He's eating the pieces. I think what is going on with these comments about voter fraud is, in the moment, what he's doing is he's soothing his own ego. I mean, Donald Trump is a raging case of malignant narcissism. He needs to constantly be reassuring himself. And so when he gets bad polling news as he's been getting, he creates this legend, the story to explain the bad news to himself. But what he's doing as he sells this bad news, as he gets his media companies to believe it or to repeat it, as he gets his followers to believe it, he's preparing a possibility of mischief. If the vote is decisive enough, then the mischief won't work. But if this thing comes down to a few tens of thousands of ballots in a few states, as it did in 2016, the mischief might matter.

MG: Polls show that the president has consistently polled. It's something like 90 percent support amongst Republicans. And so if you if you follow that, you might wonder whether as somebody who's been a longtime player in that party. Is it fair to say that Donald Trump is more of a Republican than you or the anti Trump Republicans are? If he has that kind of support from the party, despite everything that he's done and everything that he said.

DAVID FRUM: Well, this is where fractions are a friend, as your elementary school teachers used to say. When Ronald Reagan was president, about one third of Americans identified as Republicans. Under Donald Trump, a little over one fifth of Americans identify as Republicans. So questions the mathematically inclined, which would you rather have? 85 percent of 35 percent or 95 percent of 20 percent? Donald Trump has cured his grip on the Republican Party by shrinking the party through his first two years. There's a line you often heard in watching media. They would say, never Trump isn't a political party. It's a dinner party. And sometimes people are mean enough to suggest it's a dinner party that met in my dining room. But we learnt in 2013, Democrats swept. They won one of the most famous victories, huge victory in the House of Representatives because victory for the Democrats since the Watergate election in 1974. How did they do it? Not by winning extra seats in San Francisco and Brooklyn. They already have all of those. They won the election by turning seats in conservative leaning suburbs, relying on the votes of conservative leaning people, especially women. So what seat that George H.W. Bush held in Houston from 1960, he won in 1966, and that he won in 1966 and that he held until it was held until 2018, while it was held through Watergate, that that seat was flipped. Newt Gingrich's former seat, that seat flipped on the seat on the south shore of the Potomac River. That's been Republican for 60 of the past 66 years. That seat flipped in 2018.

MG: David Frum, we will talk again before November, I'm sure, in the meantime. Thank you for this morning.

DAVID FRUM: Thank you very much.

MG: David Frum, senior editor at The Atlantic magazine. His new book is called Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy.

[Music]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio one. I'm Matt Galloway. It might sound like a made up phone number, but it's not. If you dial 1877JOYFORALL, you'll hear something like this.

SOUNDCLIP

What is Anna, an Elsa's favourite pizza? Frozen. Okay, pretty straightforward. Why didn't the skeleton cross the road? He didn't have the guts to do it. Okay. Next one we have is what occurs once and every minute, twice in every moment and never in a million years. You know, I don't quite get this one, but some of you might. So here's the answer. The letter 'M'.

MG: You see there's one 'M' in minute, two in moment. It's complicated, but not kind of funny. Sort of. Those are some of the jokes that you'll hear on the Joy for All hotline started by some students in Calgary. They wanted to let seniors know that they care. And during this pandemic, there's an opportunity for laughter as well. Jared Quinn is one of the students. He's in grade 12. Jared, good morning.

JARED QUINN: Hi. Good morning.

MG: How did you come up with the idea for a joke hotline?

JARED QUINN: Well, we came up with the idea because originally we had a volunteer opportunity with the public library here in Calgary and we thought that the phone line would kind of be the best way to bridge the technological gaps that some seniors have. And also for youth to to be able to participate in the hotline.

MG: Where did you get the jokes?

JARED QUINN: We visually found them on the Internet, public domain, or ones that we had personally known. But as times gone on, we've gotten more submissions that we've had to find our own jokes .

MG: Do you have a favourite joke so far?

JARED QUINN: The one I've heard was what did the magicians say to the fisherman, which was: pick a cod, any cod.

MG: That's not bad. There's a lot of these jokes are what we used to call dad jokes. They're kind of corny jokes.

JARED QUINN: Yes, they're very corny, but people love them. So.

MG: So what happens? You call in and you hear jokes. But what else do you hear when you call the number?

JARED QUINN: Well, you can also hear poems, stories, positive messages that people have submitted during this time. I think we've had some educational stuff, too. We had some young people provide recordings so that even some elders can learn new facts.

MG: Do you know how many calls you've received so far?

JARED QUINN: We received 21,000.

MG: Wow! 21,000. And people can leave a voicemail after they hear the joke as well, or they hear the message, right?

JARED QUINN: Yes, they can hit six number and they can leave a voicemail. And so there's been a lot of positive messages, too, on the voicemail end.

MG: Here's one of the messages that your joke hotline received on its voicemail. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

Hi. I am a 75 year old single grandma sitting at home unable to see anybody. And I just want to thank you for the sweetest thing that you came up with. I think I'll call more than once. I imagine I'll get more phone calls that way than I will for me to my own kids. I just think it's a amazing thing that you would take the time to value us oldsters. Thank you so, so much. I love you.

MG: Jared, what does it mean for you to hear that?

JARED QUINN: Oh, it's the best feeling in the world. It's amazing to me.

MG: Tell me about the feedback that you've got. What are people saying when they leave a message?

JARED QUINN: When they leave a message, it's just so much kindness, appreciation that people actually care for seniors. A lot of seniors are very used to younger generations not paying as much focus and kind of wanting to do their own thing and that they're so happy that does this service that can be provided to them.

MG: These have been such a strange few months and where we were even in March seems unimaginable compared to now. But now nobody knows where we'll be in a couple of months time. Would have these months been like for you?

JARED QUINN: They have been hectic, you know, so many opportunities fly away when a pandemic is announced and everything is shut down. But it's also been very rewarding, being able to have this project and share it with not only Canadians, but also just people in this world.

MG: It's been hard for a lot of people too. I mean, you talk about opportunities dissing, disappearing. People's jobs have gone. Loved ones have died. People are also just they're stuck at home and they can't get out and do the things that they want to do. It's spring across this country and we want to be out and hanging out with our friends. What have you kind of done to try and find some brightness in the middle of that?

JARED QUINN: I always just look for the simplest positivity, just hearing the kind that people do when it comes to buying people as close, she's especially to seniors who are in the more vulnerable position and the work that's being done to help people in this country who are homeless so that they can also feel safe during this pandemic. So I try and just to stick onto those little bits and remember that they're all very good things in this world still happening.

MG: So you're getting calls from all over the place. I mean, I'm sure initially you thought maybe this would just be in Calgary, but do you have a sense as to where people are calling from?

JARED QUINN: Yes, we actually do. A lot of it is in Canada and the USA, but we have people from Australia, the UK all over.

MG: Part of that, I think, is because you got to shout it on The Late Show with James Corden. What was that like?

JARED QUINN: It was fantastic to get a shout out from James Corden on The Late Late Show and also to have Billy Crystal provide some actual joke for us for the hotline. And so that was a very big highlight.

MG: Billy Crystal, one of the greatest comedians of all time, somehow figures out that you're doing this and then records a couple of jokes for the hotline. Jokes like this one.

SOUNDCLIP

Why did one hat say to the other? You wait here, I'll go on ahead.

MG: It's Billy Crystal. It's amazing that you would get Billy Crystal. Could you have possibly imagined that this would reach that many people?

JARED QUINN: No, I don't think we ever imagined. And when it did reach so many people and we were seeing people from all over Canada, the USA, even some people in the UK and Australia giving us feedback and saying that what we're doing is a wonderful thing and that they are so happy that this isn't their lives. We were like, wow, that's a, that's a really big thing that we're doing.

MG: So what happens now? I mean, you have to get the jokes up there on a regular basis so that people have fresh material. Is this going to continue running through and after this pandemic?

JARED QUINN: Yes, we are planning to keep it running through the summer into the next year. You can never have too much positivity in this world.

MG: Can you leave us with one more joke?

JARED QUINN: Oh, I don't know if I have another one.

MG: We'll have to call in. I'll just call into the hotline and I'll be surprised by what I get. Jared, thank you.

JARED QUINN: Thank you so much.

MG: It's great to talk to you. Congratulations. Gerard Quinn is a high school student in Calgary. If you need a bit of a laugh during this pandemic, you can call his joke hotline 1 877 JOYFORALL the number for 1 877 JOYFORALL. Coming up in 90 seconds, it's one thing to cheer seniors up with a joke. Advocates are calling for some pretty serious changes, though, to long term care, starting with making that whole system public. Is that possible? We'll find out after the break. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current on CBC Radio One.

Should for-profit model of long-term care be replaced?

Guests: Henry Tomaszewski, Donna Duncan, Paul Arbec, Pat Armstrong

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current reports out of the long term care homes in Quebec, in Ontario this week have been devastating; not enough staff, improper use of equipment, basic care not being provided. More than 80 percent of all the COVID deaths in Canada have been linked to long term care facilities. And this is people calling for change. There are many advocates from the union that represents those workers to political parties who have called on the government to make all homes publicly funded, eliminate the private stream entirely. They points to recent reports saying the people are dying in Ontario's for-profit long term care homes at a significantly higher rate than those run as non-profits. Henry Tomaszewski, whose mother, Maria and his Aunt Mary died after contracting COVID-19. They lived in the Eatonville Care Centre in Toronto. That is a private facility. Henry, good morning to you.

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: Good morning, Matt.

MG: I'm sorry about the loss of your mother and your aunt.

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

MG: How would you describe the care that they were getting at Eatonville?

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: In the beginning, again, my mom was there for a long time. So in 14 years, so it was it was pretty good. But in the last two, three years, I've definitely noticed a big decline in the quality of care that they're providing.

MG: What did you notice in terms of that change?

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: Everything from the staffing. They used to have a PSWs that were assigned and they would be her regular PSW on the day shift or evening shift. And they'd get familiar with- my mom would get familiar with them and they would get familiar with the needs and wants of my mom. And then towards the last few years, they were cutting PSW's shifts. I noticed that she would be getting. PSW's coming in quite often and, you know, many times she'd be calling and, you know, in tears, even sometimes saying, you know, hey, I've had somebody new, again, come take care of me today. They didn't know what I needed. It was difficult. They didn't know they didn't know how to clean me, bathe me or get me dressed in the morning. So it made it a little bit cumbersome and uncomfortable for them as well.

MG: It's really hard to hear, I can imagine, as a son.

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: And not to mention even, you know, sometimes they're lacking supplies. So my mom would usually at 2:30 in the afternoon, the laundry cart would come up with supplies for the evening. And, you know, my mom would go rush out and grab a couple of things that the PSW would need for that evening, you know anything from towels, face cloths or, you know, even a gown to sleep in just because sometimes when they came around the time to put her to bed and get her ready, they were missing and they didn't have enough adequate supplies.

MG: So she'd need to stash that herself so that they would have a towel or she would have a sleeping gown later.

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: Not always, but yes. Yes, quite often, you know, and she put it in her dresser and quite often, you know, and then eventually other PSWs found out that, you know, she had a little bit of a stash or one or two extra so that, you know, they'd come in and even take her stuff. So, there was there was a lot there that decline of, you know, even the quality of food. I remember she was telling me, I'd ask, you know, what did you eat for lunch or for dinner? When I came in visit in the evening and you know, she said, oh, no, it was no good. It wasn't you know, it was wasn't properly cooked or just, you know, not tasting anyway. And this was all within the last couple of years were declined.

MG: Well, in this kind of care is really expensive. I mean, and I apologise for asking, but how much were you paying for your mother's care?

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: Again, it was it was dependent upon the income, but it was still well over fourteen, fifteen hundred dollars. And then it was subsidised by the government.

MG: That's per month?

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: Correct.

MG: And what I mean you end up trusting the people who are there caring for your mom. What did you expect her to be provided with for that amount of money.

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: Well, again, at least the some basic level of care, right, where you know that and if she'd be asked to help them turn her over in the evening or whatever, she was paralysed or she couldn't even turn to turn herself in. You know, there are times where the call bell was disconnected or, you know, or PSW would come in and, you know, start yelling at her and saying, you know, just go to sleep. Why are you bothering me? You know, like I just turned you an hour or two ago and, you know, things like that shouldn't have occurred and shouldn't be occurring now to anybody. I don't know. I remember once the PSW just recently in the last few months came up to me and said, you know, Henry, I feel so bad. They've they added an extra three or four people to my group for me to care for. And now I can't, you know, devote all the time that I need to your mother. And, you know, my mom was in a wheelchair trying to follow her and ask her a question. And she said, you know, I'm sorry, I can't help you right now. I have to go, you know, tend to this other resident here. And so, it was so unfavorable for PSWs as well. Some of them or a lot of them were trying their best and doing the best they could. But just there they were limited to the amount of time that they could devote to each of the residents and they were overworked.

MG: It just breaks your heart in hearing this.

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: It really does. Yes.

MG: I really appreciate you talking to us. And again, I'm so sorry for your loss. You've been through a lot, but it's important to hear your story. Henry, thank you.

HENRY TOMASZEWSKI: Thank you. I'm happy that the truth is actually going out, getting out, and hopefully some positive change will come from this.

MG: Take care of yourself. Thank you. Henry Tomaszewski, Trotsky's mother and aunt, died of COVID-19. They both lived at the Eatonville Care Centre in Toronto. We did reach out to the management of the Edenvale Care Centre. We didn't hear back from them. The Ontario Long-Term Care Association represents 70 percent of long term care homes for the province of Ontario, including all the for profit homes. Donna Duncan is the CEO of Ontario Long Term Care Association. Donna. Good morning to you.

DONNA DUNCAN: Good morning, Matt.

MG: You been listening? What's your response to hearing what happened to Henry and his family?

DONNA DUNCAN: You know, Matt, this is just go. This entire pandemic is somewhat unimaginable. My heart goes out to him and his family for his loss, you know, and I think it's tragic that it has taken this and to Mr. Tomaszewski point, about how do we get some good to come out of this because we've certainly been trying to shine a light on some significant structural problems and systemic problems in long term care for a very, very long time, including in January, calling on our legislature to see the perfect storm that was about to hit Long-Term Care. And sadly, it did.

MG: There's research from the Ontario Health Coalition that shows that for-profit homes have had a higher fatality rate during this pandemic. Why are more people dying at significantly higher rates and for-profit long term care?

DONNA DUNCAN: You know, actually, Matt, if you look at our data - and we represent non-profit and charitable municipal homes as well - And as we look at where the incidents really are, it it's a confluence of things where ownership isn't the issue. The issue is old homes with four bed rooms, three and four bedrooms with shared washrooms, critical stopping shortages that increase exponentially to crisis point as soon as you get an outbreak in a home, the timing of these outbreaks and certainly the five to six homes that the government has that moved in with the military and others to support an outbreak before the action plan that the government put in place, which prioritised PPE, personal protective equipment, the masks, gowns and gloves and also prioritised testing in the homes. And then where you are geographically in terms of hot spots for social spreading it and other things like that. You know, I have to say, though, that the action plan has worked. We're seeing an impact on that.

MG: What action plan?

DONNA DUNCAN: So The government of Ontario introduced an action plan on April 15th to shore up long term care homes. As we started this in the beginning, the focus as it was around the world, the initial focus was on hospital surge. And how do we build out a plan to ensure that there's enough space in hospitals and that the hospitals have their resources for a mass influx of patients with critical COVI-19 needs. You know, I sit here and I think where would long term care be in Ontario if we'd had that surge and we didn't have the benefit.

MG: But the reality, though, is that, again, the attention is being put right now on those for-profit homes. The for-profit homes answer to shareholders. They are for-profit by definition. How do they answer to the shareholders without risking the health and safety of staff and residents? Because this is, it's a moneymaking operation.

DONNA DUNCAN: These are very complex issues in terms of the structures of those homes and certainly those in larger operations that have multiple business streams in large part national, they actually have invested a lot. And we've certainly been seeing a lot of investment from them in helping and supporting other homes across the province and across the country in that building infrastructure and supporting them, especially with helping them with [unintelligible] and other infection prevention, control, training and support, as well as procuring personal protective equipment for the benefit of all homes across Canada.

MG: But how do these homes balance making money with ensuring that the residents get the care that they need?

DONNA DUNCAN: You know, that's a great question. And the reality is not, especially in Ontario very highly regulated, the funding models are highly, highly prescriptive. The way that the Ontario funding model actually works is that you cannot profit from care. And these homes are entirely accountable to the government of Ontario on how they use funds, how they spend their money, how they spend the copays that Mr. Tomaszewski is talking about.

MG: But what we're also what we're also hearing and it's not just from the Canadian military that blew the whistle on these five homes, but we're hearing, Lynn, we've heard this from personal support workers, from family members who say that because these are for-profit entities, corners are cut and that results in fewer staff, that results in shortages in equipment. And that's what's been laid out in this report that is getting such attention here and across the country. How do we square that with the for profit model?

DONNA DUNCAN: You know, Matt, I think we've got to focus on what is the problem we're actually trying to solve here. And as we look at the crisis and te state of long term care in Ontario, in Canada, there are issues that are quite honestly consistent regardless of ownership. As I look at small non-profit homes struggling with critical staffing shortages, we are actually in a staffing crisis for the entire sector and across the country before this started, ownership was not a factor in that. When we look at the age and stage of our buildings, ownership- you know, we haven't been able to have a government of Ontario actually get a workable capital renewal programme off the ground for decades. That has nothing to do with ownership, Matt. I think we've got to keep focussed on. What are the real problems that we have to do right now. We are at the beginning of his pandemic, Matt, we are not at the end. We need to come together not divide based on ownership. We actually need to unite right now because we know we're heading into a second wave of this. We're looking at 18 to 24 months of a pandemic.

MG: And so, just before I let you go. When you hear those calls coming from the union that represents the workers in those long term care homes from opposition parties to eliminate the for profit stream. Just very briefly, what's your reaction to that, Mike?

DONNA DUNCAN: My reaction to those calls is let's work together with a union. Let's work together with government levels of government. Let's come together as partners. Let's address the issues that really matter that are critical right now. And let's not get distracted. Let's focus on the underlying issues that we need to address in order to protect our seniors and our staff and get them back to get our stuff back to work and make sure everybody's safe as we get through this pandemic.

MG: Donna Duncan is really good to speak with you. This is important. I appreciate it. Thank you.

DONNA DUNCAN: Thanks, Matt.

MG: Donna Duncan, the CEO of the Canadian Long-Term Care Association. The outbreaks we're seeing in long term care homes and the concerns that come along with those outbreaks are, of course, not limited to Ontario. Paul Arbec is the president of RBC Health Group. It owns 16 private care centres in Quebec. Paul, good morning to you.

PAUL ARBEC: Good morning.

MG: What do you see as the benefits of having for-profit, long term care in the system that we have now?

PAUL ARBEC: Much like Mrs. Duncan mentioned. I don't think the problems with the pandemic or the problems before or pre pandemic unnecessarily due to the status of the model per say.

MG: Why then are people dying at significantly higher rates in for-profit long term care compared to not for-profit?

PAUL ARBEC: Well, I think in Ontario, my big answer to that question would be that the private model is probably 70, 75 percent of the nursing homes are private. So I think it's normal that we see a higher death toll more prevalent in the private residents. But it's really a systemic problem. Like Mrs. Duncan mentioned. It's that it's something that's been around for a long time. For many years, we've been cutting since the early 1990s. Just recently in Quebec, the government has begun to reinvest in long term care. But unfortunately, the employees just aren't there or the interest isn't there because of the salary level.

MG: How does the for profit - you talked about, the employees and this is a key part of this - how does the for-profit model affect staffing rates in those homes?

PAUL ARBEC: Well, in theory, a for-profit model shouldn't have more or less people on the floors, because once you have a contract, whether it be with a local health authority, what we call the [unintelligible] or the integrated health centres in Quebec, when we have a contract as a private promoter, the clinical side is very clear. What we have to offer in terms of ratios, in terms of professional staff versus non-professional staff. These are all elements that are very, very clearly defined in the contract. And much, again, like Ms. Duncan mentioned, that portion of the contract is absolutely closed. It's not open to discussion to make a dollar on the on the care. We can't cut a nurse to make more profit. It's not an option in the model.

MG: Can you cut on things like cleaning to make a profit or to save money?

PAUL ARBEC: Definitely. The side that we're allowed to make profit on is laundry, cleaning, kitchen, the management of the real estate. So the construction of the building, the price we pay for the property, maintaining the building. But once again, as a private promoter, we have absolutely no interest to present to our clients or to our partner a building that's poorly maintained, poorly cleaned. Ultimately, if we have poor food services, we're going to pay the price for it. And eventually, that's one of the aspects of the private is we have to maintain a level of quality of care. Otherwise, the government or our partner will look elsewhere as much as clients.

MG: Is that realistic, though? I mean, there's backlogs across the system. We know there's not just in Ontario and Quebec, but elsewhere as well. Is it realistic that a government would look elsewhere?

PAUL ARBEC: It's a very good question. It's a very good question. It's a bit of a madness [unintelligible], as we would say in French. You know, we're damned if we do. We're damned if we don't. But right now, I don't think there's any difference if you look at private or public their eyes. In Quebec, there's there's public establishments that offer an excellent level of care as much as there is in the private industry as well. But the opposite is also true, unfortunately. Different regions- and one of the main problems is all of the cuts that have been that we've experienced in the last 25 to 30 years. That's one thing. The second thing is that the government, up until now, I think now there's been the whistle has been blown and we've finally gotten the light shed on the long term nursing care sector that that is warranted for a long time. The problem is the government, unfortunately, negotiated the prices so low also that is we had no choice to not cut corners, but to try and be as efficient as possible. And when I say that, I mean, even in the public institutions across the province in Quebec, I'm speaking solely on in Quebec, not one building is financed at the same level that that's a problem. I mean, when we go by [unintelligible] where at least the industry is somewhat regulated, but it's not regulated at all in long term nursing care. You have in Quebec, what we call the per diem, the price per resident per day. That price varies from 150 dollars to 350 dollars. So how can you maintain the same quality when there's 200 dollars difference for patient per day.

MG: @e just have a couple of seconds left. The veil, in many ways, has been pulled back on what's happening in long term care because of these reports coming out of Ontario and Quebec. And family members are horrified, I think, by what they're hearing, what what's going on in the homes where their families might be. Just in in a couple of seconds. What would you say to those family members?

PAUL ARBEC: I would say that I have a lot of compassion. I have a lot of empathy for those families because as a manager of this long term care industry, I see a lot of situations as well. I think we're going in the right direction. The perfect storm has hit and it shed the proper light on an industry that was forgotten and that was neglected. And I'd say there is light at the end of the tunnel. We're dealing with the government. We're dealing with our associations. I think we're definitely finally going in the right direction. But I'd say it's just most unfortunate that the elected officials in the past, for the past 25 years didn't make the move that was necessary before this hit.

MG: Your voice is really important to hear as part of this. I really appreciate your time this morning, Paul. Thank you.

PAUL ARBEC: Thank you.

MG: Paul Arbec is the president of Arbec Health Group. It owns a number of long term care homes, 16 private care centres in Quebec. Pat Armstrong has been listening in. She's a distinguished research professor in sociology at York University. Leading expert on long term care in Canada. Pat, good morning to you.

PAT ARMSTRONG: Good morning.

MG: What do you make of this argument that this isn't about for-profit or not for-profit? That this is about systemic failures? When we're talking about long term care?

PAT ARMSTRONG: Oh, well, I think that is about systemic failures. But I also think it's about ownership. We should, first of all, be clear that there are government owned homes, whether that's municipal or otherwise, in Canada. There are not for-profit homes that may be run by the Catholic Church or the Italian community. And there are for-profit homes and the highest death rates in across Ontario and Quebec have been in for-profit homes. And I think those data are clear. But the issue is longstanding. We have research over years and years and years of trends towards lower staffing levels. More transfers to hospitals, more bed ulcers, more part time staff, much higher turnover in staff in the for profits and not for profits. Of course, it's a pattern. And there are some government owned homes that that aren't very good and some for profits that are. But these are patterns, which is what we do with all the research, you know, we say of a 65 percent chance of having cancer. We can do something...

MG: Families pay a lot of money for these facilities. It can be upwards of 10,000 dollars a month in some cases. How much of that money goes to actual care?

PAT ARMSTRONG: Well, the money that the individuals pay is usually called an accommodation fee. And across Canada, those fees are quite controlled. And they are supposed to be set at a rate that anyone who is eligible for an old age pension can pay them because and for that, you get some extra subsidy to do it. So and the rates can vary in terms of private versus semi private or ward rooms in terms of those charges. So the rate those rates are controlled. But one of the things that the advocates for seniors has just said in her report, that came out before the pandemic actually, is that she said that this kind of reporting we just heard from then two people speaking for the for-profits is we don't have any way of verifying the data. We don't have anywhere way of verifying that the staffing was actually what they said and that those people were actually on the floor providing direct nursing care. We don't know what proportion of them are agency staff. And in terms of other kinds of facilities outside the for-profits, we don't know how many of those services are for-profit. So many of the not for-profits have contracted out food services, dietary services, cleaning services that are themselves for profit, meaning that you'll have a whole different bunch of employers within the place. We've had a lot of talk about workers moving from place to place. That includes people who are in dietary cleaning and laundry services. And if you're going to coordinate and provide teamwork and some consistent care, that's really hard to do when you have all of these different in place. And we even see some for-profit managerial companies managing the not for-profit. So there's been a real blurring of ownership. I think it's clearly a factor. Is it the only factor? No. We haven't had any minimum staffing levels. We just heard from Quebec a suggestion that we do, but we don't have anything like a four point one hours of care that was established over a decade ago was an absolute minimum in terms of direct nursing care of people who are actually there. We have in Ontario, the only real requirement is that you have one [unintelligible] on staff at all times.

MG: We just have a couple of minutes left. Is now the opportunity or is that even possible to move away from a for profit model, which is what in the wake of these reports, particularly the report coming out of Ontario and the appalling conditions in those five homes? People are saying enough of the for profit you need to move towards a not for profit system. Is that possible?

PAT ARMSTRONG: I certainly think it should be on the table. And I think we should say if there is more funding, as we just heard calls for, that that funding has to be go as set directly for care. And there has to be verified proof that that's where it's going and not to shareholders. You didn't get any real response to your question about where did the profit come from?

MG: Cleaning was one thing, but that was really the only mission there.

PAT ARMSTRONG: Think of pandemics. Is that where you want to save your money on cleaning the place? And, you know, food is one of the other things duty and identified in these military reports. It's essential to care. It's essential to survival. And if that's where you're cutting back, you have problems.

MG: Is this the moment for change?

PAT ARMSTRONG: I sure hope so.

MG: Well, you and everybody else. But is it?

PAT ARMSTRONG: Well, it it's interesting to me. I'm getting hundreds of e-mails from people saying, what can I do? How can I make this change? And I've just finished reading [unintelligible] autobiography when she talks about how we got the Canada Health Act because there was widespread public support. I think right now there is widespread public demand to do something and to do something systemic. As the Web Lauffer report said, we have to recognise this systemic issues and one of them is the place of profit in care.

MG: Pat, it's great to talk to you. And I think we will talk again as this issue continues to develop. Thank you.

PAT ARMSTRONG: Thank you for covering this.

MG: Pat Armstrong's distinguished research professor in sociology at York University, leading expert on Canada's long term care. We did request interviews with Daniel McCann, Quebec's minister of health and social services. She was not available. We also renewed our requests for the premier of Ontario, Doug Ford, and Ontario's minister of long term care, Marylee Fullerton, and the minister of health, Christine Elliott. Once again, they all declined our requests, but we will continue to ask for them to speak with us and with you. That is The Current for today. Coming up next on your CBC Radio one, it's Q. Tom Powers, the host. Hello, Tom.

TOM POWER: Matt, I got your request and I said, yes.

MG: You know, if the radio thing doesn't work out for you, we were talking with a young man in Calgary who's got a 1 800 or eight seven number where you can just call for jokes so you could just be on the other end. Hello, it's Tom Power. And here's a joke.

TOM POWER: A, what I think you mean is when the radio thing doesn't work out for you, and B, we had some of these folks on the television show The Body at Television, Sunday night, they're pretty amazing people.

MG: Do you have a joke in 10 seconds or less?

TOM POWER: Skelton walks into a bar, orders a beer and a mop.

MG: Tom Powers is the host of Q On a Dime.

TOM POWER: Nothing to it, Buddy.

MG: Thank you very much. Have a good show.

TOM POWER: See you. See you. See you.

MG: Q coming up next on CBC Radio one. That's it for The Current. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. Take good care. We'll talk to you tomorrow.

Thursday May 28, 2020 Full Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode