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 2016

The Current Transcript for October 7, 2016

Host: Duncan McCue

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Listen to the full episode

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

This sort of top down, this is how it's going to be approach runs counter to what we've all been talking about. We are a family of individual provinces and territories. So, we're in a bit of a challenge here.

DUNCAN MCCUE: Well, every family has its arguments but the squabble between Justin Trudeau and the provinces is shaping up to be more of a feud. When the prime minister delivered his ultimatum to the provinces this week on carbon pricing, it drove some provincial ministers to walk out of a meeting in protest. And the environment isn't the only file where sunny ways are giving way to cloudy skies. We'll have that conversation in just a minute. Also today, the ugly truth about rampant abuse of foster children.

SOUNDCLIP

I was victimized as a young child in the foster care system. I didn't have a voice, I didn't care about myself as a woman, I didn’t value myself, I didn't understand.

DM: The statistics are alarming. Hundreds of youth in British Columbia’s foster care system have been the victims of sexual violence, and most of them are Indigenous girls. After a new report this week revealed the troubling state of affairs, critics are renewing their calls for reform, because clearly the so-called child safety model isn't working. In half an hour, we'll ask where we went wrong and what we should be doing differently. And what does bias in policing teach us about how the rest of us think?

SOUNDCLIP

HILLARY CLINTON: I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think unfortunately too many of us jump to conclusions about each other.

DM: While implicit bias has become a political issue in the United States, the latest science tells us everyone does have unconscious biases that affect the way they interact with others, regardless of race or gender or anything else. So with that in mind, what can we do about it? That story in an hour. I'm Duncan McCue, and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

Trudeau's 'unilateralism' raises regional tensions

Guests: Murray Mandryk, Lise Ravary, James McLeod

SOUNDCLIP

ED FAST: Well, Mr. Speaker the prime minister is running roughshod over the provinces and territories. He should listen to the Quebec environment minister who says a national carbon tax does not respect provincial jurisdictions. The prime minister promised to work with the provinces and territories, but now he's decided to go it alone and impose higher taxes on Canadian families. Whatever happened to cooperative federalism, and why are the Liberals forcing a massive tax grab on hard working Canadians?

[Sound: crowd applause]

DUNCAN MCCUE: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's plan to fight climate change has received a chilly reception so far. That was Conservative environment critic Ed Fast, speaking in question period earlier this week, raising concerns that are being echoed across the country. On Monday, the prime minister promised to impose a national minimum carbon price by 2018 if the provinces don't act first. That news caused environment ministers from Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador to walk out of a meeting with their federal counterpart. Nearly a year into the Liberal mandate, are we starting to see a new tougher side to the prime minister? Has the other shoe finally dropped on sunny ways? For their take on how Justin Trudeau is managing regional expectations in politics, I'm joined by three guests. Murray Mandryk is a columnist with the Regina Leader Post, and he's in Regina. Lise Ravary is a columnist at Le Journal de Montreal, she’s in Ottawa today. And James McLeod is a political reporter with The Telegram in St. John's, and the author of Turmoil, As Usual: Politics in Newfoundland and Labrador and the Road to the 2015 Election. He's in Toronto today. Hello to you all.

MANY VOICES: Hello. Hello. Great to be here.

DM: Lise Ravary, let me start with you. What struck you about the way that the Prime Minister made his carbon tax announcement on Monday?

LISE RAVARY: Well, I mean, we knew that something was going to, you know, happen but it just like caught everybody by surprise. First of all, the premiers were meeting in Montreal to discuss, you know, the environment and all of a sudden you’ve got the prime minister who stands up in the house and delivers quite sternly the announcement of the ceiling on the carbon tax.

DM: It did catch everyone by surprise. Why now, do you think Lise Ravary?

LISE RAVARY: Well, I guess it had to come at some point that sunny ways is multi-splendored thing. [laughs] Frankly, I don't know. You know, I really can't understand this, especially because of that meeting in Montreal going on at the same time, that was really really odd.

DM: OK, Murray Mandryk, what do you think Prime Minister Trudeau's shift in tone is signaling?

MURRAY MANDRYK: Well, I suppose it is signaling that he's very serious about this issue in a way that provinces like Saskatchewan are not, and the issue being greenhouse gas emissions. We have a huge problem out here in terms of the production of greenhouse gas per capita, we produce more largely because we have a big oil sector, but largely because our electricity comes from coal fired generation. We've tried things in this province like carbon sequestration, carbon capture and sequestration that's had modest effect, but the technology isn't there and the science data will tell you that it may never be there. They've invested 1.6 billion dollars as a province in that, but the fact of the matter is this is not the top Brad Wall’s agenda, the top of Brad Wall's agenda is the politics of oil and the economics of the oil. There is a political element to Premier Brad Wall's response to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but there's also a huge economic one.

DM: And James McLeod, let me bring you in. This government has been criticized for consulting too much and not acting. So now it's acting, how fair is it to characterize the government as unilateral in your view?

JAMES MCLEOD: Well, I think that it's, as you say, I mean, the last year has been consultation after consultation on everything, if they're going to act, I mean, they're already about a year into the mandate, it has to happen sooner or later. And I think they've got a lot of cover to do it on this. I was a little bit surprised actually when I heard that Newfoundland and Labrador walked out of this meeting, because since the change of government, I mean, you've got four Atlantic provinces with Liberal governments, every MP in Atlantic Canada is a Liberal. There's certainly a lot of coziness and the unilateralism isn't something we're seeing at that end of the country. We saw that under the previous federal government, but the sense we get more and more on something like this, if there is an issue there is a possibility to sort of pick up the phone and have a conversation.

DM: Murray Mandryk, you mentioned that this is not the issue that Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is interested in talking about, he called the government's move disrespectful, unilateral. What was your read?

MURRAY MANDRYK: Well, some of it's politics, and some of it's partisan politics, because Brad Wall is a Conservative. Small c, but really his roots are with the Progressive Conservative movement and they don't like the Liberals, they particularly don't like Justin Trudeau. They're trying to portray this is as shades of the NEP, even if it's not similar in the sense that the revenue will remain within the province. But part of it is philosophical differences that are political, Brad Wall and the Saskatchewan government are just anti-tax and they don't want to impose their own taxes in this province, which is one of the reasons why we're having the financial mess that we're in right now in Saskatchewan, post oil drop. But they certainly don't want to see a federal government impose that tax levy on them that they have to collect and redistribute in some sort of way. And their argument for this is that the very nature of having a tax on the oil industry is going to make it non-competitive with other drilling that's going on across the border in North Dakota. They actually share the same basin, it's called the Bakken plate, but it extends from southeast Saskatchewan well into North Dakota. They're saying that they have to compete with Texas and Oklahoma, and maybe that's a bit of a stretch. But the fact of the matter is our economy is no longer agrarian, it runs on the oil sector. There's a huge economic problem in Saskatchewan, and largely Brad Wall is defending that. But he's also smart enough politicians to know this plays pretty well in a province where there's still massive doubt about man made climate change. And I think right now a good portion of Brad Wall's narrative is playing into that, to some degree success, I would argue.

DM: James McLeod, mentioned that you were surprised a little bit that Newfoundland and Labrador’s environment minister walked out on the Environment Minister Catherine McKenna after the carbon tax announcement, and Catherine McKenna was trying to downplay that. How significant do you think it is that they walked out?

JAMES MCLEOD: I think the situation in Saskatchewan's a lot more significant than what's happening in Atlantic Canada. In Newfoundland and Labrador, in the days following that you very quickly saw the premier sort of walking back from the strong language and you definitely saw I think, Premier Ball is actually having a joint funding announcement this week with some federal MPs. So I mean, people are still talking, they're still shaking hands and smiling for photo ops.

DM: OK, Lise Ravary, we heard Ed Fast in that earlier clip talking about Quebec's concerns about the carbon pricing plan not respecting provincial jurisdictions. What was the reaction in Quebec, from your perspective?

LISE RAVARY: Actually, it was pretty muted. There was no, mind you we are at the end of the PQ leadership race and that's occupying everybody’s thoughts. No time for stuff like this. But, you know, Quebec already has, well, actually since 2006 people have been paying extra on their gasoline. So to, you know, bring up some money for this green fund that they call it, which currently has 1.3 billion dollars in it. And so far, the government has been really bad at how they spend it. I think that's something that people ought to look at. What do you do with that money? It's supposed to go towards green projects.

DM: Generally speaking, one year into the mandate Lise Ravary, what is the Quebec media saying about this government?

LISE RAVARY: This is really interesting, because if you are a Martian, you would just drop in Quebec, you would open the newspapers and you'd say oh my goodness, these people really hate their government, because columnists and editorialists are, you know, Justin can do very few things right in their view. But if you go outside and talk to the people, I mean, the support for Justin Trudeau is amazing. I mean, he's holding at 60 per cent. So, you know, we live in two worlds the media world and the real world, I guess.

DM: Sure. Mary Mandryk, how much, you raised that specter of the National Energy Program of 1980. Does that still haunt the Liberals in Western Canada when it comes to the discussions about carbon pricing?

MURRAY MANDRYK: Oh, absolutely. There's people out here that don't distinguish between Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau, and it'll be ever thus. In a Saskatchewan that's how deeply rooted it is. There's no Liberal base here unlike Quebec and obviously in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a very conservative province, not notwithstanding its social democratic roots with the birth of the CCF, NDP here. Federally, it's always voted Conservative in recent memory, and certainly voted Conservative strongly, even in this past election where there was a significant liberal tide across the province. So there is no natural connection to the Liberals here and a significant amount of suspicion towards Liberal government policy and plan.

DM: So Murray, Stephen Harper said the West was in, after he was first elected. Is the West out now, do you think?

MURRAY MANDRYK: We have a similar view right now to Alberta. And CBC has obviously done a lot about the disenfranchisement of Alberta and how they feel to be one of Canada’s now two solitudes. I think you can add Saskatchewan to that side of the equation, along with Alberta for the most part. And it's largely driven because we have become such an oil based province and as a province is finally coming into its own and seeing that taken away from it economically with the drop in oil prices, and seeing its growth and economic stability suddenly threatened. The last thing that I think a lot of people want to see is any tax imposed upon them. And Premier Brad Wall is a very smart politician, senses that, senses an opportunity. And combined with his natural ideology and the way he goes about things, I think he's taking advantage of the situation, seeing it as an opportunity and wanting to go there because that's where he lives, in a very conservative world where they just don't believe in taxation and don't particularly see the environment as a priority issue.

DM: OK, James McLeod, the Liberals swept Atlantic Canada in the last election. What’s that meant for the region?

JAMES MCLEOD: A lot closer relationship with the federal government, and I think that, I mean, we're a country run by politicians with competing interests and, you know, even in Atlantic Canada where everyone plays for the same team, there are going to be disagreements and there are going to be hiccups. But if the West is out, Atlantic Canada is in, in a big way. I've seen more federal ministers come through Newfoundland and Labrador in the last year than the previous seven or eight years. And like, what we saw this week with the carbon tax I think was a bit of a kick in the pants from the federal government, and it went over like that in Newfoundland and Labrador. But we are talking about this being an announcement that's happening ahead of a first ministers meeting, and that's something that didn't happen under Stephen Harper.

DM: At all.

JAMES MCLEOD: The premiers and the prime minister just did not meet. So I think that Justin Trudeau's getting graded on a bit of a curve here. I mean, if he's if he's strong arming the provinces, he's still also talking to them. And especially in Newfoundland and Labrador which was cut from the federal government in a big way under Stephen Harper. You can sort of see that improvement in communication.

DM: Lise Ravary, we’ve been talking about carbon pricing, but the federal government is also trying to get a new five year health accord with the provinces too and the health minister is hinting that funding to the provinces is going to come with some strings attached. What's the government saying to the provinces when it says that?

LISE RAVARY: Well, this is, you know, the Liberals have been very good at that. This discussion was held under Jean Chretien and possibly before. They've always wanted to say you know we have to give you the money, we know that and we know it's yours for you to spend, but there's always trying to pull something, and they're trying it again. And I think it's sad, because Stephen Harper was more on this asymmetrical federation and it looks like we're going back to Ottawa knows best.

DM: How is the approach with the health care in particular being met in Quebec?

LISE RAVARY: Not very well, although, you know, again you've got the columnists and you've got the people. And what Ottawa’s asking for is to make sure that some money goes to mental health and some of it goes to home care.

DM: Home care, yes.

LISE RAVARY: Well, it just so happens that in Quebec these two areas are severely underfunded. So I think the average voter would be very happy to see, you know, beyond constitutional debates, to see the central powers to, you know, make sure that these are covered and not left to the whims of health ministers.

DM: Murray Mandryk, the other thing that's in play here, the government's decision regarding the Energy East pipeline, that's going to upset one region of the countries, regardless of the outcome. What does Energy East mean to people in Saskatchewan?

MURRAY MANDRYK: Well, I think it means more to Brad Wall than it does to people in Saskatchewan on a daily basis. And in terms of public issues, obviously issues like health care that accounts for 40 per cent of our budget and a significant amount of space in people's minds in Saskatchewan, in terms of their own personal wellbeing is a bigger issue. But all that said, Energy East is a bit of a touchstone for Brad Wall, because he can once again articulate his arguments about how the government's not listening, the west is being left out. But it's also a fairly strong logical argument, and one in which I think I probably support his position on more so than some of the other issues, like the ones we've just been talking about on greenhouse gas emissions, because there’s a certain level of petulance in Brad Wall’s position I guess, as there is with Justin Trudeau. They share that similarity. But in terms the actual pipeline, this has been Brad Wall’s baby. He wants to move western oil to the east and he makes a logical argument, it's better to buy oil from fellow Canadians than it is from Saudis. And I think that really resonates at least here. I don't know if it resonates quite as well elsewhere, certainly with Danny Coderre and Quebec it certainly doesn't, because they have stronger environmental issues than we do. And this is a province that actually experienced a pretty bad experience with the Husky pipeline this year, where they had to shut off the water supply in three larger cities in Saskatchewan for a significant period because of it. But nevertheless Brad Wall is firmly in support of the pipeline, so far it’s been Rachel Notley horse trading on the pipeline issue related to the carbon tax. I'm sure Brad Wall will go there too if he ever acknowledges that we should have a carbon tax at all.

DM: A final question for you all. James McLeod, Justin Trudeau promised sunny ways after sweeping the election. What must he do now to deliver on his promise of cooperative federalism?

JAMES MCLEOD: Well, I think the meeting with the premiers and sort of making a show of still talking is a good start. Sunny ways is all fine and well, but the fact is that he promised some fairly ambitious stuff during that election, and after a year of sort of being in a holding pattern of consultations, you're not going to get any of that stuff done without stepping on a few toes and ruffling a few feathers. So some people are going to get irked, but as long as he can keep talking and keep those lines of communications open, I think it'll go a long way to sort of muting the criticisms.

DM: Lise Ravary, a brief comment on cooperative federalism, can Justin Trudeau pull it off?

LISE RAVARY: [laughs] Well, he's trying hard and he’s got to be commended for that. And in the end, you know, the provinces, there will always be this antagonism and, you know, the objectives of both the federal government and provincial governments are not always the same, so every prime minister has to deal with this. But the thing is, Justin Trudeau is starting with huge support across the country, so people are probably going to be rooting for him maybe more than be rooting for their provincial governments. I don't know. But it’s a very interesting position.

DM: Well, thank you. I want to thank you all for joining us today.

MANY VOICES: Very welcome. Thank you. Great being here.

DM: Murray Mandryk is a columnist with the Regina Leader Post, and he was in Regina. Lise Ravary is a columnist at Le Journal de Montreal. She was in Ottawa. James McLeod is a political reporter with The Telegram in St. John's today. Today he was in Toronto. The news is next. Then, hundreds of children in BCs foster care system have become victims of sexual abuse. In many cases, at the hands of their foster parents. We'll talk about why that model of foster care isn't working. And here are some new ideas about what would work better. I'm Duncan McCue, and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Extro]

Child advocates talk reform, following report on sexualized violence in care

Guests: Marni Brownell, Billie Schibler, Talyah Breslin

DUNCAN MCCUE: Hi, I'm Duncan Mccue and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

DM: Still to come, how much do your implicit biases influence the decisions you make? It's probably more than you realize. We'll hear about new insights into prejudices we don't even know we have and what we can do about it. But first, peering through the cracks in the foster care system.

SOUNDCLIP

Children in youth and care in British Columbia continue to struggle. And they come into care, we don't often assess their needs and understand what they're coming with. And we frequently move them into a care system where they continue to have a lot of turmoil, including as this report suggests, being targets of sexual victimization by both the adults responsible to care for them and also by peers that they may encounter in that care system.

That was Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafrond, BC’s representative for children and youth, speaking to CBC's As It Happens earlier this week. She's documented more than 200 reports of sexual violence suffered by BC foster children in the past five years. In many cases the abuse was committed by a foster parent and nearly two thirds of the victims were Indigenous girls. It's the latest in a series of failures the child protection system in Canada. From deaths of children in care, to the overrepresentation of black and Indigenous children in the system. And all of this has some critics calling not only for changes in regulation but for an overhaul in how we think about child welfare to begin with. Marni Brownell is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba. She's in our Winnipeg studio. Hello Marni.

MARNI BROWNELL: Good morning Duncan.

DM: What is your reaction to this latest report about sexualized violence experienced by children in care in BC?

MARNI BROWNELL: Well, of course I found the report disturbing but I didn't find it surprising. Our own research on children in care at the Manitoba Centre for Health Policy hasn’t looked specifically at sexualized violence, but we have looked at all sorts of health and social outcomes for children and youth who’re in care. Things like how they're doing in school. And we know that these children are a really vulnerable group of kids.

DM: What's the fundamental problem in Canada's foster care system? What issues are they pointing to?

MARNI BROWNELL: Well, you know, I think there's a number of problems. One, I think, it's a chronically overburdened system. Canada has some of the highest rates of children in care in the world. And the way our system works is that we remove children from the situation, so we remove them from the home, and that does nothing to address the family and community vulnerability towards child maltreatment. It's really a short term solution that doesn't address the needs of families and communities.

DM: What is it about our model of child welfare that leads to so many children being in care?

MARNI BROWNELL: Yeah, that's a good question. As I say I think it is that we put child safety first and foremost which, you know, doesn't sound like a bad thing, but what ends up happening is we remove kids from the situation. So we keep removing them from homes and not solving the problems in the homes and the communities in the first place.

DM: So what's the alternative way of looking at protection of children?

MARNI BROWNELL: Well, there are other places in the world that operate differently. As I say we have one of the highest rates of children in care in the world. In other places, take Sweden for example, or Australia, our rates are ten times higher than theirs, so.

DM: How many kids are we talking here in Canada?

MARNI BROWNELL: You know what, it's really difficult to get an idea of how many kids in Canada. Just because it’s provincial statistics that are taken and different provinces collect this information differently. But I can tell you in Manitoba, you know, a relatively small province, our population is somewhere around 1.2 million people and we've on any given day in Manitoba there are over 10,000 children in care.

DM: So you said that the models that they're using in Australia and some of the Scandinavian countries have much lower rates. What are they doing right that we're not doing?

MARNI BROWNELL: So rather than taking this, you know, child centered approach, they take a family welfare approach. So they focus more on enhancing parental capacity to care for kids in their own homes. So they focus on what's happening with the whole family not strictly just protecting the child. And so, this can involve really intensive in-home supports in families where there's abuse or neglect or where that’s suspected. And it also moves beyond just families experiencing problems to be more of a prevention or a public health model. And that involves ensuring that families have the resources they need to parent effectively.

DM: Paint that picture for me though. I mean, what does that mean supporting the family?

MARNI BROWNELL: Yeah, well, it can mean, you know, at a systemic level you have lower child poverty rates in a place like Sweden, you've got longer and more generous parental leaves, you've got greater public spending on early childhood development and care. There's legislation against corporal punishment. And all of these things are ways of saying to children and families that you're of utmost importance to us.

DM: Marni Brownell, does that kind of model, you know, a family welfare model, it sounds like it's going to cost more. Does that mean we need more money and resources for child welfare?

MARNI BROWNELL: [chuckles] Yeah, that's a really good question. I think in the long run, you know, we all know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So in the long run if you take these preventive approaches they're going to pay off. But certainly at the outset it's going to take a major investment, because you can't just stop treating children as you are now. You can't just say OK all the kids in foster care, we're going to stop paying for you. So you need new money to invest in in more prevention services and support services.

DM: And I mean, will it also require retraining of social workers? I mean, right now in the system it benefits a social worker to remove a child from a home, in the sense that they don't want to be the one on the stand at an inquiry. If you were to shift to a family welfare model does it mean retraining social workers?

MARNI BROWNELL: Absolutely. You're absolutely right. That, you know, some of the high profile cases, and they've happened in every province, any social worker after those cases is going to err on the side of caution. So there is retraining. I think social workers also have to be trained to understand where the families they're dealing with are coming from, in terms of, you know, what's leading to the maltreatment, that these are issues often of poverty, inadequate housing, inadequate employment opportunities, and that kind of understanding.

DM: To bring us back to Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafrond’s report. I mean, playing devil's advocate for a moment, some of the many cases of sexual violence that foster care children had experienced were experienced in extended family situations. So I mean, is an extended family, and supporting the family, is that actually going to be a cure all?

MARNI BROWNELL: I don't think anything's going to be a cure all. I think we have to try different models and see what works. But I do think putting more efforts into the prevention side of things is going to be our best bet moving forward.

DM: If you put more effort into prevention, I mean, doesn't ultimately the priority need to be protecting the children?

MARNI BROWNELL: Yeah, but in a sense that is protecting the children. And one of the great things about prevention, we know in child maltreatment that what comes to the attention of authorities is only a fraction of what's going on, and that came out in the BC report. And so, when you take a prevention model, you're reaching way more families and you're reaching those families that may not come to the attention of authorities, but where children are at risk for maltreatment.

DM: In the bigger picture, how do we do as a country, and how to social workers on the ground do, how do we need to think differently about child protection in order for the system to actually benefit the children who are in it?

MARNI BROWNELL: Yeah, again, I think, you know, we have to think more about the root causes. And it could be that we need to totally separate the functions of protection and prevention. So there may be one arm that does the protection and a different arm that does the prevention, so that families feel safe and secure in going to an agency and saying hey look, I'm having a really hard time dealing with my kids. Right now, I think families may be reluctant to go to child and family services and admit they're having difficulties because they're afraid their children will be taken away.

DM: Well and it seems that this is almost introducing an entirely different relationship. I mean, the family welfare model seems to involve a lot more kind of alternative dispute resolution almost, in terms of trying to keep that family together.

MARNI BROWNELL: Absolutely. I think that that would be a good way to move forward.

DM: And so how can we, you know, shift the way that social workers right now are thinking about it, and we have this adversarial situation almost?

MARNI BROWNELL: Yeah, I mean, that's a really important question and one I don't have the answer for. I think probably there are, you know, we not only have models in other countries but I think there's pockets of places in Canada that are trying different models. And I think we have to start looking at those and seeing OK, what's working, and can we adapt this in communities across the country?

DM: To bring it back full circle and the last question for you, Marni Brownell. I mean, these are shocking statistics that have come up in Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafrond’s report. Do you think it's going to change anything?

MARNI BROWNELL: Will her report change anything? I think the fact that we're talking about it is important. I think we have to keep talking about it. I think we have to keep the issue on the front burner. I think we have to pay attention to people like Cindy Blackstock, who keep talking about how Indigenous children have been discriminated against. And, you know, make sure that there is equal funding across the country for providing the support that parents need.

DM: OK, well Marni Brownell, thank you so much for joining us.

MARNI BROWNELL: Thank you.

DM: Marni Brownell is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences at the University of Manitoba. She was in our Winnipeg studio. Now, many child care services across the country have already started moving away from traditional foster care. In Manitoba, the Métis Child and Family Services Authority has created a program it calls LIFE, which stands for Live-in family enhancement. Under that program, rather than removing the kids from their parents, the family is kept together and they all move in with a mentor who helps develop a safe and nurturing family environment. We spoke with a mother who in the program now. We're not using her name to protect her children's identity.

SOUNDCLIP

MOTHER: Well, I'm living with life mom. I have a four month old son and a two and a half year old. I'm learning to cook and clean, budgeting, all the things you need to learn to be on your own, and independence. It's a lot harder to learn to parent when you only see them in an office environment, you know, once or however many times a week. It was a very good chance to keep the bond with my newborn and I feel like a lot more people should be able to have the chance.

DM: We also spoke with her life mom as she calls her, the caregiver who has taken this family into her home. She's also had success with a previous family.

SOUNDCLIP

LIFE MOM: My first family, I'm proud to say, made it through the program after about 16 months and they're doing great. They're on their own and looking after themselves. So I'd like to think that I gave her enough skills to get out there and do it and succeed. They amaze me all the time. I stay in touch with them. Once they're gone, they're still my family, they’ll always be my family. Same with the ones I have now and I'm sure in 10 years I'm going to need a really big dinner table.

DM: To tell us more about making the shift to family centred programs like LIFE. I'm joined by two advocates for this new approach. Billie Schibler is the Chief Executive Officer of the Métis Child and Family Services of Manitoba. Her organization runs the LIFE program. She's in Winnipeg. And Talyah Breslin is the Director of services for child welfare at the Jewish Family and Child Services of Greater Toronto. She's in Toronto, Ontario. Hello to you both.

MANY VOICES: Good morning.

DM: Billie Schibler, let me start with you. I want to hear more about the LIFE program we just heard about. What kinds of families are considered for this program?

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Well, you know, first of all I just need to clarify that this program began in 2008 in one of our agencies. We have two agencies in Manitoba, our Métis child and family and our Michif child and family, so this is our Métis Child and Family Program, it’s one that we're hoping to expand over to the other agency. This is a program that we strongly believe in, because we know that the greatest success as Marni Brownell had indicated, would be with families that we can provide the care and the nurturing and the mentoring to the entire family unit. Separating children is creating additional trauma within that family unit that we believe in many cases is unnecessary.

DM: So how many families right now are getting this kind of help?

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Well, right now we are trying and encouraging people to come forward and see whether they are interested in becoming life parents and caregivers. We only at this point in time have three homes operating, we would like to increase that in our one agency up to 10, and we would like to replicate that in our other agency.

DM: What's holding you back from increasing it?

BILLIE SCHIBLER: I think the biggest challenge that we face with this is finding caregivers who would be interested in taking on this role and responsibility. You can hear from our other life parent that it is a wonderful gain that they see and they're encouraged by the growth that they see within those families. I think that there's concerns and there's challenges for many caregivers to come forward and say, you know, I think I can do this. If we provide intensive support and training to those caregivers, we continue on a regular basis to provide programming for the parents that are in the program, the families that are in the program. It is a very intense program. It can last from anywhere from 8 months to a year.

DM: OK, so it's a lot to take on. What are some of the examples of what a life mom does to support the children and the parents?

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Well, they take care of the daily needs of the children, along with the parents. They set the role modeling. They're mentoring the parents in their roles. And, you know, that's the day-to-day routines. It's about understanding, you know, the needs and the development of the children and being able to help parents. Many of these parents have not had positive parenting in their own life, or they've had major setbacks in their life that they now have to overcome. And so it's about working with them from where they are and just really helping them to develop and strive for becoming those parents that can work independently out in the community and contribute back to society, and be a very good strong parents.

DM: I imagine it takes a very diplomatic, you know, person to be a mentor to another parent.

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Well, you know, it does. And I think one of the points that Marni had made this morning was around the difference in the shift of philosophies that needs to occur. You know in child welfare here in Canada, we have such a large stigma that goes with any involvement with child welfare. And, you know, when we look at Sweden and we did research in this model, they normalized child welfare involvement. They recognized that parenting is one of the hardest and most difficult, you know, undertakings and that, you know, dependent on what kind of supports you have in your life and what you've been taught is how successful you can be, but that everybody will need support from time to time.

DM: Talyah Breslin, can you tell us about the program you offer at the Child Welfare Jewish Family and Child Services?

TALYAH BRESLIN: Hi. It's actually a shift that occurred in the province of Ontario for the last 10 or so years, where there was recognition of a lot of what's being spoken about. There was something known as a crisis act as a transformation agenda, where the ministry and the government of Ontario started to recognize that there was a need for programmatic policy funding, legislative changes across the province. And they started to really look at the importance of family and who surrounds a child and the child's extended network. They formalized a concept known as kinship, actually. Whereby if for whatever reason a child may not be safe or able to stay in their family, the very very first thing that a child welfare worker does now is they really start to explore a child and a family’s extended network of supports. Whether it's neighbours, friends, extended family and we really start to try to look at who else can be involved to support this family.

DM: What--

TALYAH BRESLIN: Sorry go ahead.

DM: What do you do in situations when an appropriate relative isn't available to the child to be part of this program?

TALYAH BRESLIN: Well, many agencies ourselves included, have actually hired specific workers called family finders, and they're specifically trained and skilled to keep looking and to keep digging. And, you know, they'll ask questions like for example, who a child’s grade one piano teacher might have been, and things like that, and they really start to dig. There's a belief that there really is usually always somebody there who can support a family. We’ve had a real sort of shift in the thinking, in realizing that it takes, well, like a village to raise a family and to raise a child. And I mean, there are situations that do happen where that might not be possible, and a child may have to come into the foster care system. But in that system itself there's been a huge shift in really trying to strengthen family based care and realizing that placing a child within their own community in a family setting is really what's best for children.

DM: And then how many children in care do you support right now in your program?

TALYAH BRESLIN: Right now we have about 34, 35 children in care. And that number has gone down over the last 10 years significantly at our agency, as well as across Ontario Children's Aid Societies. With this shift in thinking, with this focus around really supporting families to be stronger themselves. There's also been a shift towards prevention. It was spoken about by a number of the people this morning, the importance of prevention and really helping to support families where they are at. And whether it's putting child and youth workers into the home to help with parenting, behaviour management, whether it's, you know, sorts of financial supports, things like that. There really is a shift towards trying to strengthen families.

DM: Billie Schibler, how do you weigh, you know, the children's safety and how urgently they need protection?

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Well, you know, our LIFE program isn't designed for those very high risk families. We wouldn't put another family in jeopardy like that. I think there's criteria certainly that we need to follow in order to ensure that this is a successful program. But, you know, in Manitoba we do have as Marni had indicated, the highest number of children in care currently per capita. And there are huge social issues that are occurring here that we need to work around as a child welfare system. But the model that is being referred to of looking at family and looking at community first exists here, and we need to strengthen that. Our agencies work specifically from that model. And we believe that the greatest successes you're going to achieve in working with families and keeping children safe is through people that that child is familiar with, so that we're not retraumatizing.

DM: Talyah Breslin, in these programs how important is it for the children to keep a connection to their culture?

TALYAH BRESLIN: It's very very important. We find that it helps children to really feel a part of something bigger, something important, something significant. It's a bond they have with their family that they take with them throughout their lives.

DM: And same question to you Billie Schibler, I mean, how do you maintain cultural links. Is that part of the impetus for this? Bringing in the extended family and maintaining these cultural links.

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Absolutely. And that's behind the whole devolution of child welfare services in Manitoba that occurred, you know, 11 years ago. In 2007, when I was the former children's advocate for the province, we did a report called Strengthening Our Youth. And that looked at the outcomes of youth coming out of the child welfare system. And it was a very bleak looking outcome, and we want to see that improved. We don't want to see institutions like correctional facilities and mental health facilities filled with former children from a child welfare system. We want to see better successes and generational outcomes of healthy families. That's where we're heading and that's our goal.

DM: And so, I do want to ask you both about outcomes. Briefly, Talyah Breslin, it's been about three years since you shifted your focus to more family centred approach. What kind of results are you seeing?

TALYAH BRESLIN: We're seeing really really positive results. I mean, the other focus we've had is really recognizing as Billie was just saying, the importance of a lifelong connection that these youth need to know that there’s somebody who's got their back for the rest of their lives. And that if they're filling out a job application, they've got a person that they can put on that application that's not necessarily their social worker. And we are really really starting to see a shift in confidence. Our kids going onto post-secondary education rates are increasing. Things like that. So I actually can't say enough about it.

DM: And Billie Schibler, one word, I'm going to give you one word here, because I got to wrap up. What needs to happen across the board to really change things to this family centred approach?

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Definitely to support families. The entire family.

DM: OK, good. Well, thank you both for sharing this hopeful kind of news about this subject.

BILLIE SCHIBLER: Thank you so much.

TALYAH BRESLIN: You’re welcome, thank you.

DM: Talyah Breslin is the Director of director services for child welfare at the Jewish Family and Child Services in Greater Toronto. She was in Toronto, Ontario. Billie Schibler is the Chief Executive Officer of the Métis Child and Family Services of Manitoba. She was in Winnipeg. Coming up in our next half hour, how much do you know about your own biases? New research suggests it's less than you think. How implicit bias shapes our behaviour and what we can do to change it. I’m Duncan McCue, and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Extro]

How algorithms are targeting implicit bias

Guests: Tony Greenwald, Stephen Shea, Mary Hoerig

DUNCAN MCCUE: Hi, I'm Duncan McCue, and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

MIKE PENCE: We ought to stop seizing on these moments of tragedy. We ought to assure the public that we'll have a full and complete and transparent investigation whenever there is a loss of life because of police action. But Senator, please, you know, enough of this seeking every opportunity to demean law enforcement broadly by making the accusation of implicit bias every time tragedy occurs.

TIM KAINE: Elaine, people shouldn't be afraid to bring up issues of bias and law enforcement. And if you're afraid to have them--

MIKE PENCE: I’m not afraid to bring that up.

TIM KAINE: And if you are afraid to have the discussion, you'll never solve it.

DB: US vice presidential candidates Tim Kaine and Mike Pence went head to head Wednesday night in their first debate. You just heard them in one of their more heated exchanges when Republican Mike Pence criticized US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for saying that implicit bias affects the behaviour of police officers, as well as society at large. We all know what explicit bias is, we can recognize outright racism and prejudice when we see it. But the implicit kind, the unconscious preferences and preconceived notions we all have that affect our judgment without our realizing it, can be harder to see. But new research is trying to give us a better picture. Like a study from Yale University released this week that examined implicit biases among preschool teachers. Researchers had 135 preschool teachers watch a video of four preschoolers in a classroom. A white girl and boy and a black girl and boy. Teachers were asked to look out for challenging behaviour. None existed in the video but 42 per cent of the teachers identified the black boy as needing more attention. It's a study that falls in line with US data showing that black students are nearly four times as likely to be suspended as white students. Implicit bias isn't specific to education, it shows up across society from policing to the workplace. A working group at the University of British Columbia's Sauder School of Business is looking at methods to interrupt bias. Jennifer Berdahl is a Professor of Leadership Studies, Gender and Diversity.

SOUNDCLIP

JENNIFER BERDAHL: So they range from, you know, interrupting bias at the even recruitment stage. So playing around with the wording of job ads for example. Research has shown that saying that salary is or is not negotiable might have a big effect on whether women apply for the job. And those are like very implicit, subtle ways in which bias might be introduced into the recruitment process that normally we’re unaware of. So we're trying to figure out what are little tweaks we can make that aren't, you know, hitting people over the head with gender and diversity lectures per se, but that are just interrupting that process of bias either in the recruitment, the selection, the orientation and socialization processes, or in team meetings and promotions as well.

DM: Jennifer Berdahl is a Professor of Leadership Studies, Gender and Diversity. Tony Greenwald is a is a pioneer in studying implicit bias. He is a Social Psychologist at the University of Washington and co-author of Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. He's in Seattle.

DM: Hello Tony.

TONY GREENWALD: Good morning.

DM: What exactly are we talking about when we talk about implicit or unconscious bias?

TONY GREENWALD: We are talking in the case of race, about effects that occur automatically. And it's important to say that we should not use the word prejudice and racism, either of those words in describing this, because it is a race preference for usually for white relative to black, but it is important in behaviour, and it's called implicit because people are not aware that they have it, most people would not predict the results of the tests that shows it. But the test is now regarded as very reliable.

DM: Can you give me an example of an implicit bias?

TONY GREENWALD: Yes. An example in policing is what happens in what's called stop and frisk in various places or police stops, traffic stops, when a police officer will observe a tail light out or an expired registration and then later make a decision as to whether to stop the car, in part influenced by whether the driver is white or black. This is a very subtle process. I do not believe that the police officers who do this are intentionally discriminating. It is one of a number of sources of unintended discrimination that results in what's called disparities, which are differences in race for various ethnic and racial groups in police stops. But it's not confined to policing, and the implicit bias that police officers may have is no different from what I have and most American whites have.

DM: Well, but how does it compare to conscious, you know, overt bias? This notion of implicit bias.

TONY GREENWALD: Conscious bias, explicit bias, overt bias, is usually understood as involving hostility towards an out group and implicit bias may involve no hostility whatsoever. And it's also, a conscious bias is shown by a much smaller proportion of the population than is implicit bias.

DM: OK, so you develop the implicit association test, which has become one of the primary tools for identifying implicit bias. How does it work?

TONY GREENWALD: It works by asking people to respond to pictures and words. In the case of the race test, there are pictures of black faces and white faces that have been altered so that they actually don't look, one race doesn’t look darker than the other, but the facial features are quite apparent and it's very easy for people to classify them. And also be classified are pleasant meaning and unpleasant meaning words. So the race pictures are to be classified just by race, the words just by pleasant or as pleasant meaning. And the key aspect of the test is that you have to respond to two categories with the same hand. So in one version of the first you respond to the black faces and to the unpleasant word with one hand, and the white faces and the pleasant words with the other hand. For most people, that goes very easily, it's very easy to put together on the same hand the two categories that go well together. However, switch the task and this is always done during the test and randomly, one is done before the other. If you have to give the same response to the black faces and the pleasant words with one hand and the white faces and unpleasant words with the other, I’d go much slower. The great majority of American whites and I should say Asians also, and this is not confined to the United States of America, this is also true for Canadians. I am sure that, in fact, many Canadians have taken this test and found this out for themselves.

DM: OK. Tony Greenwald, I'd like to bring two other guests into this conversation. They both work at trying to reduce implicit bias or its effects. Stephen Shea is the Canadian managing partner of talent with EY, formerly Ernst and Young. He leads the firm's initiatives that identify implicit bias and how it affects hiring, workflow, and productivity. He's here with me in Toronto. And Mary Hoerig is the principal trainer at Fair and Impartial Policing, after serving 25 years and retiring as Deputy Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department. She now trains police forces in the US and in Canada, including in Ottawa in Winnipeg. She's in Springfield, Illinois. Welcome to you both.

STEPHEN SHEA: Thank you.

MARY HOERIG: Thank you.

DM: Mary Hoerig, have you taken any of the IAT tests that Tony is discussing?

MARY HOERIG: Yes, yes I have. I did both the black crime association test and the gender bias test.

DM: And what did you find?

MARY HOERIG: Now, you want me to give that out over radio? [laughs] One of the things we do when we do the IAT test with officers is that they don't have to disclose what their bias is. But I did find that I had very little bias as it pertains to gender, and there was a black crime association bias.

DM: Describe the experience of taking the test for me though.

MARY HOERIG: The taking the test I think, you know, there's some people that would take the test in and find it to be, oftentimes people say that it is geared towards, you know, getting you to show a bias, and I would say that that's probably true. I think that it's almost impossible, at least I've taken the test several times, to change or alter the outcome, so I think it's a very good test. I think it's certainly a personal test. But keep in mind, the people that take this test have to be motivated to seek the change based on the outcomes of the test.

DM: Stephen Shee, what about you have you ever done, Shea, sorry. Have you ever done any of Professor Greenwald's IAT tests?

STEPHEN SHEA: I didn't do the crime test, I did the other one. And it increases your self-awareness on the gender side and that type of thing, my gender experience is influenced by having three daughters. So it wasn't as maybe distinct in that sense. But it's really valuable feedback because it drives self-awareness. And I think you mentioned earlier or the doctor did it, but it's not a evil intent. It's about self-awareness when it's an unconscious bias.

DM: Can you give me some examples of how that implicit biases is playing out?

STEPHEN SHEA: You know, in our context, so in the firm EY, you know, as professional services, what we're really focused on is building high performing teams. And that's how we serve our clients, that's how we bring great solutions to our clients. You have an incredible amount of people who are highly intelligent and that's not pejorative, it's just the way we attract and retain university and Ph.D. and doctoral students. By having a bias towards a culture or whatever, some cultures are more reticent, some cultures need to be pulled out in team settings to speak their mind. If you subject that to the cultural bias of that person is shy, or that person is reticent, then you don't affect the team's performance the way you should. And that person then starts to become less included and then ultimately you lose great people. So for us, that's just an example of the bias, where you have a bias towards a quiet person as being stupid. And stupid is an exaggeration for the point. But, you know, you need to draw that out, you need to train your people to pull that out.

DM: And does that ultimately end up impacting, you know, how a person climbs up the ranks in terms of, you know, I mean in the numbers for say visible minorities for example, in senior manager and management CEO positions is extremely low in this country.

STEPHEN SHEA: Absolutely. And it starts right at the recruiting process. So you have to make sure you have a recruiting process that you eliminate as much bias as possible. And then the development, mentoring, sponsorship, the experiences they get, how that's allocated, you need to have checks and balances in the system. That's how we've designed it.

DM: Mary Hoerig, when you use this test in training with police officers, how open are the officers to accepting the results?

MARY HOERIG: I think that they're very open to it. You know, the IAT is just a small portion and actually, we don't force them to take it, they can take it on their own. The primary focus of fair and impartial policing or understanding human bias for professional policing is to really lead the officers on a journey from, you know, awareness or even knowledge of what implicit bias is and how it impacts them, how it can manifest in law enforcement, the impacts that it has as a result if it's not kept in check, and then the remedies to mitigate it. And I would say, more directly to your question, officers have been very open to it, because for the first time officers are hearing someone say you're human beings and because you're human beings you have implicit bias. It doesn't make you ill-intentioned racist officers. I like what Tony said at the beginning of the show. It's important for us to separate out race issues, as far as like talking about racism and prejudice, from implicit bias, because oftentimes these are well-intentioned people that have experiences and or preferences that lead them down this implicit bias path. So we just try to work with the officers to understand this is your brain on implicit bias, and this is how it can impact what you do every day in decision making.

DM: In your 25 years as a police officer, what kind of implicit biases did you have?

MARY HOERIG: I would say what's interesting is that when we're talking about law enforcement, is that when you come on to be a law enforcement officer, you bring certain implicit biases with you, right? So I grew up very poor, so my implicit bias for example, around people that are poor was less of an issue in my decision making, whereas I would watch other officers and I could see that socioeconomic status did play a role. Likewise, I had lots of connection with people of different cultures. I would say as I was on the job then, you start to gain certain implicit biases based on your experience. So if you're a baby cop and every day all you see is a particular group of people involved in a certain type of crime, is it possible then that that experience starts to corrupt your file to think that all people of that particular demographic are involved in that particular crime. So, you know, for example, if you are working in the prostitution area in mitigating prostitution in particular communities, and you see prostitutes in a particular colour or from a particular culture, it could start to have you see that group, that demographic a little bit differently. So the goal here, is in our training, it’s not just to address it with the officers but to address it organizationally and address it with the community and address it from a policy perspective, of how we can protect officers from going down that path.

DM: So Tony Greenwald, where does implicit bias come from?

TONY GREENWALD: Well, Mary just said that it may come from officer's experience on the job, but in fact, it comes from, that is probably true because officers do have unique experience, but--

DM: [interposing] But if in the case of if all of us have implicit bias, what is it? What's at the root cause of that?

TONY GREENWALD: Yeah, it's in the air we're breathing. The mind takes in experience and sees things paired with each other. When I was young I was exposed to cowboys and Indians. The Cowboys were always the good guys, the Indians the bad guys. Those who watch crime drama on TV will often see blacks portrayed as criminals. This is just a small part of the total experience that forms these things, and it does come from the news media also. When criminals are identified, if they're black their race will be mentioned, if they're white, their race will often be left unmentioned. So we pick these things up all the time.

DM: So Stephen Shea, if it's in the air we breathe and we're making split second decisions about people of another culture or another race, how can we change that?

STEPHEN SHEA: You know, we have a publication that we circulate to our people, and it says OK, so I'm biased, what do I do now? And the reality is is we're all biased. And the first thing is you develop awareness. So the first thing we do in our organization is through multiple channels create self-awareness. Whether it's the tests, whether it's inclusivity workshops, whether it's the whole culture of how you work in high performing teams. Once you have that, we challenge people and give them a toolkit, you know, they can choose to take it, they don't absolutely have to use it, but there's a toolkit that we have on unconscious bias. And when you have awareness, then there's specific things you can do. You consciously make decisions against that bias. So you ask other people from different cultures to be on your team. You reach out and you sponsor someone different with a different perspective, because it's not just about race. It can be the university you came from, it can be the type of degree you have, you know, chartered accountant CPAs are better than other accountants or whatever. So once you do that, you learn differently, you act differently, and you understand and acknowledge. Most people are shocked to find they have a bias and they want to do something about it. It's incumbent upon the organization, if we're going to be a great organization and we believe we are, to help them address that in a methodical way, but it takes time. You're reversing all of those experiences you had that have caused that unconscious bias. But once you're aware, it goes quickly.

DM: Tony Greenwald, what do you think? Is it possible to overcome these subconscious biases that we may not even know exist?

TONY GREENWALD: Yeah. The views that Stephen just suggested are widely held. Many believe that conscious awareness of bias is enough and good intentions are enough. In fact, there’s no scientific evidence to support a number of the assertions Stephen just made about reversing effects of bias. He did mention a toolkit, and it's actually an effective toolkits which are most important. Those are things that can actually change procedures in ways that take implicit bias out of operation, prevent it from operating. Implicit bias is something that can be faced only by preventing it from playing a role. Good intentions are not enough, trained training is not enough. To use the word reversal in regard to the implicit biases lacks any basis right now, because in fact techniques for reversing implicit biases are not known.

DM: Stephen, do you want to respond to that?

STEPHEN SHEA: Yeah, I think that that's maybe taking a small word and reacting to what I said in terms of the toolkit. All of it's about training and time and, you know, exactly what Dr. Greenwald said. So if I apologize if there was some confusion there, unconscious bias, implicit bias, if you have to have a systematic way of addressing it, and we do that, the toolkit, you know, that's an example of something we do. But, you know, you have to be aware and then you have to consciously work on it. And, you know, whether you reverse it completely or you mitigate it or the self-awareness changes, how you react and experience those people from different cultures, different degrees. So I would humbly suggest that I don't agree completely with the conclusion.

DM: Mary Hoerig, I mean, Stephen Shea is talking about implicit bias in a corporate or a management setting. The stakes are just so high with police and we've had several high profile cases of black men and boys who were shot and killed by police in the United States, in Ottawa a man named Abdirahman Abdi was killed in July, after a violent arrest by Ottawa police. How do you go about addressing implicit bias in a life and death role like that?

MARY HOERIG: Well, that's the challenge for law enforcement, because of the degree of authority that we have and the degree of harm that can occur if we get it wrong. It’s why I think law enforcement is really taking a lead in trying to understand implicit bias. And then, I agree with Tony, not trying to be bias free but to learn strategies for, you know, managing or what we call controlling implicit bias, particularly when you're making decisions and in those kinds of scenarios.

DM: So what's the strategy for a cop--

MARY HOERIG: The research actually shows that law enforcement is doing a good job in use of force and shoot don't shoot scenarios as it pertains to sort of controlling bias. There’s some new research out there that's very interesting by Lois James. But I wanted to get back to something that was mentioned before, all of the strategies that was mentioned by Steve are strategies that work for the motivated employee, they worked for motivated people, people who are keen to awareness and are emotionally intelligent enough to figure out how they need to proceed with that. I would agree with Tony in that really some of the things we should be talking about are organizational change, policy changes, so that we can look at what mostly impacts implicit bias. How can we help you manage your brain on implicit bias? And I would say for law enforcement, what makes it tricky is that the key factors for implicit bias impacting decision making is a lack of time, lack of information, lack of experience and fatigue. And if you think about law enforcement what they do, those four things happen every day. So we really have to look at the bigger picture, not just individual officers but from an organizational perspective as well.

DM: Mary Hoerig, what do you say to people that are in that training, who say I'm tired of being called a racist.

MARY HOERIG: Yeah, we tell them well, I'm not calling you a racist, I'm calling you a human being. You're a human being before you are a law enforcement officer, and because you're a human being you have implicit bias. But I know what you're saying, cops right now across the country and in Canada, because I've taught there and I’m actually going to be Peel next week. They do feel a bit castigated and besieged by the national narrative, some of which is false narrative, and so they are starting to feel like they can't win. But what we explain to them is that if you understand that bias goes both ways. There is a bias against law enforcement right now. There's a dehumanization around people not seeing law enforcement as human beings. And once we can do that contact theory both ways, people learn about police, police learn about the community. I think that is certainly a way of managing or sort of, you know, overpowering the implicit bias in that relationship.

DM: Can you tell me, Stephen Shea, what's the motivation of the companies that are getting involved with your work, in terms of trying to tackle implicit bias?

STEPHEN SHEA: You know, it's just critical to the success of the business. And I agree with Mary's comments. You know, in EY, we're dealing with, you know, it's a unique and separate organization or professional services industry is different, and every industry will be different. But at the end of the day, you need to engage your people, you need to retain your people. It's a war for talent. The best survive, the best organizations perform well in high performing teams. They have to use teaming to get diverse opinions to the floor to create solutions. So the organizations, whether it's the banking industry, whether its oil and gas industry, whether it's professional services, you need to keep the best and you need to create the best to be competitive on a global scale. And bias, that we all have, interferes with the ability of those teams to function. So that's where they're targeted at, creating opportunities for the best and the brightest, whatever those attributes may be, and mitigating any impact of bias in the selection and development process is what drives the success of the business.

DM: And Tony Greenwald, how hard is it to recognize and then manage implicit biases. You know, from schools to policing, businesses, even to, you know, ourselves, these biases that are formed over so much time.

TONY GREENWALD: Yes, it's not easy at all. And the word motivated came up a number of times. I wish motivation were enough. And one could say that well motivated employees will avoid and mitigate implicit biases. If motivation were enough, I would not be at risk of implicit bias. I have plenty of motivation, but I find that I actually have to do things in the way I read letters of recommendation and scored them when I'm judging applicants for admissions to graduate school, or I would engage in bias. There's all sorts of biases that we don't understand and we can't control just by being well motivated. So we need to actually change procedures. There's also been reference to procedures and those are the things that we should look at. Also, tracking the data. Taking very close watch on what the effects of decisions are. If that's not being done by a large organization, there’s pretty much no hope of doing anything about it.

DM: OK. Well, I want to thank all of you. This is a fascinating conversation. I wish we had more time but I'm going to wrap it up. Thanks so much for joining us all.

MARY HOERIG: Thank you Duncan.

TONY GREENWALD: Thank you.

STEPHEN SHEA: Thank you.

DM: Tony Greenwald is a social psychologist at the University of Washington and co-author of Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People. He was in Seattle. Stephen Shea is the Canadian managing partner talent with EY, formerly Ernst Young. He is here with me in studio in Toronto. Mary Hoerig is the principal trainer at Fair and Impartial Policing. She was in Springfield, Illinois. And that's our program for today. Well, yesterday was the first game of the American League Division Series, and of course the Blue Jays dominated the Texas Rangers in a 10-1 blowout. Not bad for a team that looked like it might not even make the playoffs a week ago. We're all getting in the spirit around here. Maybe you are too. So to celebrate we'll leave you with some music. You may know the song as S.O.B. by Nathaniel Rateliff & The Night Sweats. Well this here's Adam Jesin with his cover Throw Me A Pitch. I'm Duncan McCue, meegwetch, thanks for listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Song: Adam Jesin]

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

October 7, 2016 full episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode