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 2019

The Current Transcript for April 5, 2019

Host: Piya Chattopadhyay

Prologue:

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

RACHEL NOTELY: Pipelines, pipelines, pipelines. I've just now sent the world in two more times than Mr. Kenny did the whole time when he was a cabinet minister in Otawa.

PIYA CHATTOPADHYAY: That is Alberta NDP Leader Rachel Notley, challenging her opponent Jason Kenney, once a long time federal cabinet minister, now the leader of United Conservative Party in Alberta, during last night's provincial leaders debate. It comes in the midst of a tense election campaign in Alberta, where jobs and pipelines are top of mind. And so are character and values. We’ll delve into the campaign in just a moment. Then, Jo Cameron is your average 71-year-old woman with one notable exception…

SOUNDCLIP

JO CAMERON: All the way through childbirth, I was thinking one thing: As soon as it gets bad, as soon as I feel something, I’ll take something. But the child was born, and I still hadn’t had that feeling. It wasn’t as if there was you know a little pain. There was no pain.

PC: And it wasn't just in childbirth. In all her seven decades, Jo Cameron has never experienced pain, and I mean never. And that’s finally caught the attention of a scientist who'd like to better understand her unusual condition. In half an hour, I will speak with Joe Cameron about what many of us might consider a most lucky trait to be born with. After that, Brad West is the major of Port Qoquitlam Port Coquitlam, B.C., and just one of the residents of that province who's fed up with money laundering and the effect it's having on B.C.

SOUNDCLIP

BRAD WEST: We need people to go to jail. We need people lose assets. That's the only thing these people will understand. That's the only way you're going to be able to send a message that British Columbia is not going to be a dumping ground for the world's dirty money.

PC: The mind boggling true scale of a true Canadian problem. Money laundering, and what's being done to stamp out laundering in B.C.’a real estate transactions and beyond. Hi, I'm Piya Chattopadhyay, and this is the Friday edition of “The Current.”

Part one: Alberta

Guests: Duane Bratt, Janet Brown, Dave Cournoyer

SOUNDCLIP

JASON KENNY: This is not as they characterize it about outing gay children. That's offensive. No responsible teacher would ever reveal a child sexual orientation. That's private information. But surely we should acknowledge that there may be cases where it's in the best interests of the child, who may be bullied, who may be be suffering from mental or emotional challenges to engage the loving support of caring parent. Parents should know if a kid is being taken out of the school for field trip to a conference, for example.

MODERATOR: All right. Let’s rap up that thought. Ms. Notely, jump in.

RA: GSAs - Gay Straight Alliances save lives. Allowing kids who are part of Gay Straight Alliances to be outed puts them at risk. Mr. Kenny's caucus voted against Bill-24 when we brought it in. More over, in the last three-and-a-half, his hand-picked education minister wrote a policy proposing to make it legal to fire teachers on the basis of their own sexual orientation.

PC: A heated exchange frm last night's debate between Alberta NDP Leader Rachel Notley, and Jason Kenney, leader of the United Conservative Party. They were sparring about Mr. Kenny's plan to roll back Gay Straight Alliance legislation if he is elected. Liberal Leader David Kahn and Stephen Mandel of the Alberta Party also took part. But all eyes were on the top two contenders. Halfway through the election, most polls are indicating a substantial UCP victory. So Rachel Notley had a lot riding on her performance, as she hopes to be re-elected for a second term. It's an election that could have big consequences across our country. I'm joined by three people who are watching closely. Duane Bratt is a professor of political science at Mount Royal University in Calgary. Janet Brown is an independent pollster in Calgary, who occasionally polls for CBC. And in Edmonton, Dave Cournoyer is a political analyst, and host of the podcast “Dave-berta” Hello everyone.

ALL: Good morning.

Duane Bratt, let me begin with you, and what we just heard there. Why has this issue of Gay Straight Alliances became such a lightning rod in this campaign?

DUANE BRATT: For a number of reasons. I think the first was a statement that Jason Kerry made when he was running for the UCAP leadership, where he started talking about well, we would exempt fate-based schools, whether those were private religious schools, or possibly the Catholic board as well. And the importance of parental notification. And so the NDP, when they heard those comments, got very worried, and brought in Bill-24, which made a whole bunch of changes to the previous legislation, which required principals to immediately form a GSA under request. It ensured that all schools – public, private, religious, non-religious - had to comply with GSAs. And it would be enforced by the Department of Education. And teachers were banned from notifying parents of the child had joined. But then a couple days ago, Mark Smith, who was an MLA out of Drayton Valley, a small town about an hour outside of Edmonton, had a sermon released where he was linking homosexuality to pedophilia. Then it came out that he was an education critic for the Wild Rose Party, he wrote a memo saying homosexual teacher should be fired from all religious schools, and it put the GSAs back on that framework. There were spontaneous rallies in both Edmonton and Calgary last week in support of GSAs, after Jason Kenny rolled out his education policy.

PC: And so this was a big topic of debate last night, and it really speaks to where the two leading parties are trying to show their differences on values. Janet Brown, beyond that, what was your big takeaway from last night's debate?

JANET BROWN: Well, you're absolutely right. I mean it was the social issues that people were waiting for. I put together a panel of sort of everyday voters for CBC for this election campaign that were watching quite closely. And I had three of them in the room with me watching the debate. And that was the moment they were waiting for was to talk about sort of social issues. But really what left them at the end of the debate was just you know a sense that all the leaders sort of played to type. They didn't really hear anything new. In fact, what struck these voters most was just the strong performance of the leaders from the third parties. The strong performance from Stephen Mendel of the Alberta Party, And David Khan from the Alberta Liberal Parties. And I think they feel like the two main party leaders have been at a stalemate over these issues for like 18 months now, since Jason Kenny first united the UCP. And they just you know they saw the same arguments over the two main leaders. They see them as at a stalemate, and so they put their attention on the other leaders.

PC: Dave Cournoyer, first of all, apologies for mispronouncing your name earlier. But I wanted to talk about what you wrote about after last night's debate. You said it was - these are your words – uninspiring, and a horribly boring. Who do you think came out the strongest within that context?

DAVE COURNOYER: You know, it's hard to say. I don’t think any of the leaders did poorly. I think they all did well. I think we said Mr. Kenny and Ms. Notley, like has already been said, they stuck to their talking points. They stuck to a lot of what has already been said during the campaign, so there's no real surprise there. I do think that Mr. Mendel and Mr. Khan actually did pretty well. What I was looking for from those two leaders in this debate was for Mr. Mendel, the Alberta Party has been around for a number of years, they've nominated a full slate of candidates, they’re running a real campaign. But they don’t seem to be all they have any traction or get any traction. The most polls that we've seen have shown them anywhere between six and nine per cent province wide. What I was looking for in this debate was a point where Mr. Mandel could basically break from that, and create momentum, and differentiate himself from the two main party leaders, and basically put himself in the same playing category as the two main leaders. And I didn't really see that. I think he did well, but I don't think he really did work he needed to do for his party in this debate. Mr. Khan, I mean I think he was happy just to be there. The Liberals are a declining force in provincial politics in Alberta. This is the first election since 1986 where we don't have one Liberal MLA running for re-election. The only Liberal MLA in the legislature now, or who wasn't a legislature, former leader David Swann, is retiring. Mr. Khan is running for election in David Swann’s seat in Calgary-Mountain View. I think that for Mr. Khan, perhaps the best case scenario is that this helps him get some extra publicity, and perhaps help some on his personal election campaign in Calgary-Mountain View.

PC: Janet Brown, most polls, including yours this week, are pointing to a UCP victory. And as I said in the introduction, there is kind of two things going on amongst the populace. There are debates over economics, environment, pipelines, and jobs, and then there's these values and ethics, and where the leaders kind of stand and where the parties stand on that. Do you think anything changed after last night? Because we're about 11 days I think now from the vote?

JB: No, I honestly don't. I think that everybody was addressing the same talking points they'd been addressing throughout the campaign and before the campaign. And so when it comes to things like social issues, you know GSAs is quite a divisive issue in Alberta. I think the majority of people probably fall on Rachael Notley's side on that particular one. But Jason Kenney sort of I think showed that enough nuance in his answer that unless that's your number one top issue, he showed enough nuance that it wasn't a reason not to vote for him. And so the other thing is these are things we've been talking about as I said for 18 months now. Rachel Notley keeps trying to you know paint Jason Kenney as some horrible radical. And although voters tell us time and time again they don't find him that warm, fuzzy, or likable, it seems like we're in this unique period in Alberta history where it were so focused on the economy, we just want somebody who is also focused on the economy. And we don't feel the need to like the person that is going to be our next premier. We want to know that they're singularly focused on the economy.

PC: Duane Bratt, is that why you see the UCP now resonating now so strongly with Albertans that it's the economy, economy, economy.

DB: Well, it's the economic situation that has affected Alberta over the last four years. When you look at 130,000 job losses in that time period, and we're still mired in this, the fact that no pipeline to tidewater has been able to be built. The fact there are Rachel Notley, for some very good reasons, built a very strong coalition of industry, environmental, Indigenous groups brings with a carbon tax. But there were supposed to be up with that carbon tax, and there is no pay off. That I think the dye has been cast for a long time, especially when Jason Kenny United the two Conservative parties into one formidable force. The challenge to the NDP has had all along beyond the economy is if they did just as well as in 2015, which was their breakthrough election, they would lose handidly. They need to do much better than they did 2015 because now they're dealing with United Conservative Party.

PC: And Rachel Notely, I mean by many estimates, her performance in the debate leading to that election you know helped her a lot in securing that victory.

DB: Oh yeah, her debate performance in 2015… Janet has a chapter in a book that I just put out on the 2015 election and the NDP governance called “The Orange Chinook,” and you can see the poll numbers just diverge right after the debate. It won the election for Rachel Notley. But that's the exception. Most debates, despite the hope that we give them going in, really don't matter. 2015 did, this one I don’t think will make a difference.

PC: Dave Cournoyer, if the economy is the issue that Albertans want to hear about and are talking about, and arguably are going to cast the deciding vote about, what should Rachel Notley be doing right now in these last days of the campaign to address that issue?

DC: Well, I mean Notely has been talking about the economy. She's been making announcements about diversification. There's been a lot of petrochemical announcements at different the refineries. She's been talking about pipelines. But it is but it is clear that I mean when you're trucking with the economy, it's the old adage governments they take credit for it for good economic situations and they take they take the pain for the poor economic situations. And I think that's kind of what the case is now is there is there is a frustration in Alberta felt by a lot of people about the current economic situation, about the low price of oil, about the higher than normal unemployment rates. I mean when you look at the two political campaigns and what they've been focusing on, Mr. Kenny has been focusing on this issue. And to his credit, it has resonated with a lot of Albertans. Jobs, the economy, and pipelines - those are his three key messages. Rachel Notely on the other hand, the NDP have been focusing on character and leadership, and really trying to play that card. The differentiation between Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney, and it's clear the problem for the NDP or the challenge for the NDP is Notley’s more popular than her own party. So a lot of people like Rachel Notley, but they don't necessarily feel comfortable voting NDP.

JB: I take issue with the statement though that you know she's taking the blame for the economy. You know I think the single biggest mistake that Rachel Notley’s been making for the last couple of years is she really focuses in on the tiniest bit of positive economic news, and then she downplays the negative economic news. And the problem with that is Albertans don’t think that she's sympathetic to their plight as other folks do. I think she keeps talking about oh, you know the recession is behind us, full steam ahead, we've got job growth, everything's good, and I think that just makes Albertans feel she's tone deaf to just kind of want what people are feeling, particularly in Calgary, and outside the two major cities. They're not feeling any sort of recovery in the recession.

PC: I'm curious about this issue. You know all the parties are in favor of pipeline expansion. So Janet, how is this such a divisive issue.

JB: Well, it's not divisive at all in Alberta. I mean we’re preoccupied with jobs and the economy.

PC: But they’re tied together…

JB: Well, exactly. But Alberta sees the building a pipeline to tidewater as an essential ingredient for getting our economy back on track. And so you know there is no anti-pipeline candidate in this debate because there are so few Albertans that are anti-pipeline. So what's divisive in this election campaign is not whether we should or shouldn't have pipelines. It's how are we going to fight for pipelines? And Rachel Notley's plan so far is to try and be accommodating, to try and be cooperative with the federal government, to introduce a carbon tax. Jason Kenney on the other hand is talking about putting together a war room where we are going to counteract every negative comment we hear about Alberta and about pipelines. And so they both pro-pipelines, but they both have very different strategies for how they're going to fight for pipelines going forward.

DB: I want to jump in on this because we are dealing with the national audience here, and one of the core messages coming out of the Jason Kenny camp is the fight back strategy on behalf of the energy. And it really is fighting everybody in confederation, right? He promises a referendum on the equalization program in Alberta. He is promising to join the lawsuit against the federal carbon tax. He is threatening to shut off the flow of oil to British Columbia. He is promising to investigate environmental groups for possible violations of charitable status. So he is really promising to fight back, and these have national implications. The amount of times that he mentioned Trudeau last night, it was always the Trudeau-Notley alliance. So this is why people in the rest of the country need to be watching.

PC: And we have seen that in other provinces, right? Janet Brown, are you hearing that as you talk and listen to Albertans?

JB: Oh, absolutely. I mean you know when you really think about the character of Alberta, one of the fundamentals is a huge distrust for Ottawa. It doesn't really matter who's in power, but particularly if it's a liberal named Trudeau, then you know distrust for Ottawa goes way up. And you know it's funny when you really start to talk to people about it, when you really try to parse it out, and you ask people do you think Jason Kenney's strategy is going to be even more effective than Rachel Notley’s been? People actually don't think he's going to accomplish too much more. But there's kind of this sense of if we're not going to get that pipeline, we're going to go down fighting. And you know I think Albertans are just… I think this is the last time I was on “The Current” like you know when you're feeling uncertain it's a very human emotion to go back to what's familiar to you. It may not be the most effective coping strategy, but it's a very human coping strategy. And this is what Albertans feel like they want to do right now. They want to go back to what is familiar. And what's familiar is having a premier fighting with a prime minister.

PC: Dave, where are you on this one in terms of the national context?

DC: I think the difference between Mr. Kenney and some of the other Conservative premiers who've been battling with the federal government over issues like the carbon taxes even though Mr. Kenny is running for provincial office in this election, I think he's just sees himself very much as a national politician. He spent 17 or 18 years in Ottawa as a Federal Cabinet minister and an opposition critic. And I think that if he's elected premier on April 16^th, I think we'll see Mr Kenny you know you'll be the premier of Alberta, but he'll very much try to position himself as a national figure in these types of battles over equalization. He wants to hold the referendum over equalization. Over these battles over pipelines. And become very involved in the carbon tax debate going into the federal election in October.

I'm glad you brought up the federal election because I want to ask about that. Duane Bratt, if Kenny does win, he's got you know people in other provinces, leaders notably in Saskatchewan and Ontario, who are bringing up the same issues that are against the federal Liberals. What do you see happening in the coming months depending on what happens in Alberta leading up to the federal election?

DB: So I've been going back to that infamous Maclean’s Magazine cover piece of the resistance. Kenny is the leader of that resistance. I would put forward that Jason Kenny is the most powerful Conservative politician in this country, and he's now even premier yet. I think he's more important than Doug Ford. I think Doug Ford is following a lot of Kenny as opposed to the other way around. Kenny is more connected right across the country. Kenny is leading this force here, and leading this charge. When the federal carbon tax rolled itself out, not in Alberta, but rolled itself out in other provinces, Kenny also had a press conference at a gas station, and he says he plans on defeating Justin Trudeau in October. So it's not just the lawsuit. They're going to be actively campaigning against Trudeau. And that's why I wonder if Trudeau does hold on, and is victorious, how quickly does the federal Conservative Party start knocking on the door of Jason Kenny?

PC: Janet Brown, how do you see that? is Jason Kenny the leader against the federal government right now?

JB: Yeah, I think very much.

JB: I mean you see all the problems that Trudeau's having with SNC-Lavalin, and Trudeau’s really taken a hit to his reputation over the stuff, particularly in a place Alberta. But Andrew Scheer is not really benefiting by that, right? And I think even in Alberta, I hear people ask all the time you know is Andrew Scheer the guy? Is he the right guy to lead the federal Conservatives? And so I think a lot of Albertans will be looking to Jason Kenney you know not just to be the voice of Alberta, but to be the voice of conservatism at a national level.

PC: And I should just say, we will see what happens on April 16^th, and who comes out victorious. Thank you to all three of you for your analysis this morning. appreciate it.

ALL: Thank you.

PC: Dave Cournoyer is a political analyst and host of the podcast Dave-berta. He is in Edmonton. Duane Bratt is a professor of political science at Mount Royal University. And Janet Brown is an independent pollster and political commentator. They are in Calgary. Albertan's head to the polls on April 16th.

Part two: No pain woman

Guests: Jo Cameron, Hance Clarke

PC: Hi, I’m Piya Chattopadhyay, and you're listening to the Friday edition of “The Current.”

[Music: Theme]

PC: Still to come: Ritzy real estate, fast cars, and casinos. I'm not talking about the ingredients for a weekend to remember, but some of them places that dirty money gets laundered in Canada, and especially in British Columbia. New reports about money laundering in that province reveal that scale involved is even more than previously imagined. With new rules around real estate coming into place, I will speak with B.C.’s Attorney-General David Eby in half an hour. But first, the woman who feels no pain.

SOUNDCLIP

HOMER SIMPSON: Oww, my legs. This is the worst pain ever!

PC: Okay, let's hope you never experience a ski accident quite like Homer Simpson did. But it is hard to go through life without stubbing a toe, having a toothache, or stepping on a piece of Lego, and feeling the consequences. We all know pain, unless you are Jo Cameron. The 71-year-old woman, who once said eating a scotch bonnet chili pepper left her with a pleasant glow, is the subject of a new paper in the British Journal of anaesthesia. The researchers believe a gene mutation is responsible for Jo's life free of pain, and hope that the discovery could one day lead to new pain interventions. Jo Cameron joins me from Inverness, Scotland. Hi.

JO CAMERON: Hello there. Hi.

PC: Jo, I want to start with an example. And the example I want to start with is one that has been described to be the most painful experience a human can undergo, and that is childbirth. Can you briefly describe to me what childbirth felt like for you?

JC: Well, it is rather strange actually, because I had my first child quite late. I was in my 30s. And my second when I was in my 40s. And most of my friends had had babies before obviously, and I was told take everything it's going every pain killer you know you can get because it's going to be excruciating. So I went into childbirth in my head saying the moment I feel pain, I'm having something. But I went into childbirth, and I felt stretching feelings in my body, and the child moving as you obviously expect. But at no point did I feel pain. So all the way through childbirth, I was thinking as soon as it gets bad, as soon as I feel something, I'll take something. But the child was born, and I still hadn’t had that feeling where I have to have painkillers. It wasn't that there was this little pain - there was no pain- but in my head, I was prepared to have something because everyone told me that's what I should do. But I didn't have to.

PC: Women around the world are saying Lucky you.

JC: Well, as a joke, not a joke, but honestly, I've always said you know I would love to have been one of those Victorian ladies who had baby after baby.

PC: OK, so you had two children, you had no pain meds, no epidurals, and you felt no pain?

JC: nope, nothing at all.

PC: Okay. At the time of the births of your children, did you know why it wasn't painful for you?

JC: No, and no one questioned it because I think the maternity places were so busy you know that somebody who didn't ask for anything just made it easier for them. And nobody queried it, and I didn't query it. I just thought well maybe just for me it's it wasn't as bad as everybody else. I remember saying to my friends afterwards it's not as bad as you think. I just felt I did feel stretching. I mean I explained it that you know, as children, sometimes you put two fingers each side of your mouth, and you pull your mouth apart, and you feel stretching. It was a bit like that. I have feelings. My nerve endings work, but not pain. I don’t have pain.

PC: It's not just pain you've gone your life without feeling. You also don't feel or have anxiety as well, is that right?

JC: I know I don’t. You see I am very happy. I’m an absolutely ridiculously happy person. I dont feel anxiety, no. I had things happen in life for a few seconds you know you stop and you think. But I just go practical when things happen. I’m a very practical person.

PC: Again, people around the world are saying you’re very lucky.

JC: Well, you see I think from what I’ve read since I knew what was wrong with me, pain can cause stress, and stress can cause pain. Well, if I don’t have pain, I don’t have stress. So there’s nothing in me to make me feel pain. There is nothing in me to make me feel stress. That's just me, but I accept the fact that's just me.

PC: You know I've called you lucky twice, and I want to know do you feel lucky to not be able to experience pain or have anxiety?

JC: Well, I'm lucky in that way, and I just thought growing up, I just thought I must be very healthy, but very clumsy, because I used to have bumps and cuts on me, and hadn't realized. I'd get undressed, and find I’d hurt myself, but no pain. So I just thought it must be very healthy. But looking back now in retrospect, I’m damaging myself all the time my family now since I've known, my family are watching me like a hawk because I am getting older now. And the older I get, my skin is not going to regenerate as well because my skin regenerates very quickly. That's another thing it does. When I do cut or burn myself, the scars it heals very quickly. But you know I must be doing damage to my body. And obviously, pain is there to warn you of something, and I don’t have the warning, you know? So I'm lucky in many ways, but I've got to be very careful because it can be dangerous.

PC: So are you like that person like I can turn on the stove or hot burner at your house, and say Jo, put your hand on that, and you wouldn't be able to feel it?

JC: Well, I have ranges that are quite big – the size of a dinner plate - and I cook on that. And frequently I lift one lid, and I'm working on the other one, and I put my arm down onto the hotplate, and don’t realize until I start smelling flesh burning. And I’m vegan, so there isn't much flesh to burn. The only flesh burnt in my house is me, but that happens quite frequently. I hand hotspots to people, and they go ooooooo you know without realizing it, sorry.

PC: You weren’t quote/unquote discovered by the medical establishment until you were in your 60s - not so, so long ago, and you were experiencing hip problems. What made you realize something was wrong with your hips?

JC: Well, my daughter, she's very observant. And she just said one day you're walking peculiarly, you don’t walk away you normally do. And I hadn't realized it. And I noticed that every now and again, my left hip would go click. And when it went click, there’d be a little dip on that side. It was getting slightly more frequent. My husband said you better go and see the GP about this. I went to see him, and he said it sounds as if you've got arthritis and an arthritic hip. How much how much pain are you in? And I said well, I don’t have any pain at all. There's no point in me referring you further because the first thing they will ask is how much pain are you in? And if you're not in pain, they will send you home again. And I just kept going back you know every so often. And I'm not blaming them because they deal with people who are in excruciating pain, so they have to prioritize who gets the operation. And this went on for a couple of years. And eventually, I think were just fed up with me turning up. They did take an X-ray. And when they took the X-ray, they found my hip was in a really bad state.

PC: And then from there, another problem was discovered. And this one happened with your hand. How did it finally click for doctors that theres something about this patient - this woman - that is different?

JC: Well, I had my hip operation, and that was okay. When I was in the ward sort of recovering from my hip operation, the consultant came round with some students. And while he was talking to me, one of the students said have you seen her hand and how badly deformed it is? And my right hand, my thumb is called a hidden thumb. My thumb was just stuck to the palm of my hand, and that was an arthritic thing. But I just put up with it. I just adapted to it. And the consult looked and said my goodness me. That'll have to be done. And they decided to operate fairly quickly. Whilst I was in the area just before you go into the theatre, where they’re checking everything, the anaesthetist was with me, and we were just chatting. And for something to say, he said it might not look a very big operation, but it’s a very painful operation, so you’re going to need painkillers afterwards. And I just flippantly said no, I won’t. And he looked a bit askance at me. I said I bet you I don’t need painkillers. And because we had this banter, a bit of banter, after the operation, so late in the evening, he came round to the ward because normally the anaesthetist has done his job then. Unless there's something wrong, they don’t come and see you again. He came round, and he looked at me, and said I have just checked up you haven't even taken paracetamol have you? And I said no, I told you I wouldn’t. And he looked at me and said this is extremely strange. Do you mind if I check your medical records? And from that, he checked my medical records and found you know back childbirths and all the other things. And he came back and talked, and said half of his time is spent working with people with chronic pain, and he was part of a project - a research project. Would I mind going down to London and become part of his project, and that’s how it started. It was only a bit of a joke. I hadn’t had the banter, maybe he wouldn't have checked up.

PC: Once they began studying you, what did they find, Jo?

JC: Well, they found that I've got something called the far gene, which many people have. And I don’t know all the medical things, so I can’t tell you everything. But It's something to do with suppressing pain, and we all have something called anandamide in our body, and that's why everyone can cope with pain up to a certain point. This is a pain inhibitor. Well, they found I'd got seven times more of this pain inhibitor than anybody else, so therefore they looked at that. And it's also called the happy gene, which explains why I am incredibly happy. But then they also found a gene deletion, which they hadn't found anywhere else, which they think is what makes me different. You know some people can feel just small amounts of pain, but not no pain at all. But this deletion is the thing that makes it different.

PC: Right. So when any of us got to a medical professional about a pain we’re having, they often use you know the pain scale - like one to 10, how bad is your pain? Yours is zero.

JC: Zero, yes, same with stress. They did a stress one on me as well, and it zero on that one too.

PC: So you have something quite rare. Do you know how where the mutations that you have are?

JC: Well, so far, there supposed to be a man in Columbia, but it hasn't been verified. But they think it's the same. But apparently, probably just two of us at the moment. But since I went public, and there was a reason for me going public, it was for this reason: 80 people worldwide have come forward to think they are the same. So testing's going to start on these 80 people. And there must be I don’t honestly believe I am the only person in the world. I think I am the only person who has been found you know discovered. it can’t just be me. I don’t believe that.

PC: Who knows! We’ll find out soon I guess now that you’ve come forward. Let me ask you this, Jo. You know you gone on about your life. And as you said, you know I used to bump and bruise myself as a kid and have injuries. You know I can put my hand on a stove and burn myself. It's one thing for you to say hmm, I don’t feel anything. It is quite extraordinary that the people around you wouldn’t say like wow, that is weird, Jo! Like why do you think these extraordinary qualities you have went relatively unnoticed by the people around you?

JC: Well, I dont know. I think maybe one of the reasons is I’m very happy-go-lucky, I’m a very happy person. I never sort of say oh, I've done this, I've done that. And also the other thing is my father, I’m certain that my father was the same. And so people used to say to me you're just like your father. You know there was someone else in the family, but by the age of eight, I fell over when I was rollerskating and broke my arm. And I didn't know I'd broken my arm. I didn't tell anyone I'd done these things. And it was only about two to two days later, she suddenly looked at my arm and said It's a funny colour, and it looks peculiar, we’ll take you to the doctors. So it is only in extremes that it was noticed. I really can't tell you why anyone didn't think it was odd, but maybe as I say, I didn't talk about it. I do something and keep quiet.

PC: when we go about the royal and you know say I broke my arm and people go oh, that must have been painful. I am wondering from your perspective, Jo, since you can’t experience the physical feeling of pain, do you understand pain in the abstract? I’m sure you can empathize with your friends or family who feel pain or anxiety, but what is your sort of understanding of pain?

JC: Well, you only have to look at the face of someone in pain, and you see pictures, or you go into a hospital and see people sitting waiting rooms, and their faces are screwed up. You can see the tension. I worked with people with severe and profound physical and learning difficulties, and I worked with people who you could tell by the look and the way they flinched when you touch them. I don’t know what the pain is, but something made them screw their faces up and really in agony. So I can appreciate that because I have worked alongside people like it. But I think it helped me in a sense my deletion because not feeling stress, I can work with people like that without being stressed myself. Therefore, I’m not tense myself when I reproach people, I’m relaxed. And I’m sure that must help people who are tense to have someone who is relaxed working with them, rather than someone who’s trying to hide the fact that they are tense. Your body language shows. If you say something, but your body language tells you something else, its easily picked up, isnt it, I think.

PC: Are there drawbacks for you personal feeling no pain or anxiety - things you miss out on? It’s such a human experience, right?

JC: Yeah, it is, yeah. I don’t think I do because I’ve had an extremely happy life. But you can only live the life you’ve got. It’s my body, me, and I can only experience what I have. And I don’t know what I miss. I mean someone said to me once you know why didn’t you question when you were young that you didn’t have pain. Well, I said, first of all, you look at someone who's crying or upset, and you don't think to yourself I wish I had that. Why don't I have that? So if you think about it, I’ve missed all that stress. But at the same time, now I look back, I have damaged myself quite considerably over the years. But when I talk about it and say I've done these things, then for a second I think that's sad. But then straightaway I'm happy again. I think aren’t I lucky? Lucky me.

PC: Has your husband and others you surround yourself with become more hyper I don't know protective of you since you've been discovered because now we all know what's likely going on with you?

JC: Yes, my daughter. My husband looks after me the whole time, he'll say watch, Jo, and be careful doing this. And my daughter especially, you know she's constantly protective. Of me, which I think is quite funny. I really do.

PC: The reason you've come forward and been public about this is because you think there are others like you in the world, and there is some suggestion that there are. And that we can study more of you. What do you hope, Jo, that people will learn from your experience?

JC: Well, from the experience I’ve had. It doesn't matter how old you are. I mean they didn't start out testing on me in me until I was in my sixties. And I think people tend to think after a certain age maybe a body isn't any use to anybody, but it doesn't matter. I'm 71, and I'm carrying on into the next stage of this. And I’ll carry on doing this until you know they don’t need me anymore. So age doesn't inhibit people coming forward to help others with this thing. And also, by going public, there’s always a struggle for people doing research to get funding. And I think this has helped them get their funding because it's become a known thing now. And I really hope that someone like me - there must be some of them out of this 80. And maybe there are people in these 80 people who've come forward who aren't like me with the gene thing, but there might be another reason they don’t feel pain. There are lots of pathways these eight 80 people can help. So am just praying there are more people. Because its gene therapy they want to work on, so the more people with the gene deletion I’ve got, the more chance of them finding a way of helping people.

PC: JO Cameron, thank you for your time. It’s been super interesting speaking with you. I appreciate you.

JC: No problem. Thank you then.

PC: Bye-bye

JC: Bye-bye.

PC: Jo Cameron is the patient at the center of a new study in the British Journal of Anaesthesia. And because of the gene mutation, she has never felt pain. We reached her in Inverness, Scotland. Not surprisingly, a case such as Jo Cameron's piques the interest of Doctor, scientists, and researchers, including Dr. Hance Clarke. He is the Director of Pain Services, and the Medical Director of the Pain Research Unit at the Toronto General Hospital. Dr. Hance Clarke joins me in our Toronto studio. Hello and welcome.

HANCE CLARKE: Absolutely a pleasure to be here, Piya.

PC: What stands out for you when you hear Jo Cameron’s story.

HC: So the first thing is I am impressed that Jo Cameron is actually still alive at 71 years old. You know pain really serves as a protective mechanism for us as we move through our daily lives. And to be alive 71 years without the ability to sense pain is quite unique.

PC: Meaning you think that because she can’t sense it, that she would have hurt herself and it may have had severe consequences?

HC: Absolutely, absolutely.

PC: She went more then I think was 60 years right before doctors noticed that she was different. As you heard her say, I went to the doctor because I had this click in my hip. It didn’t clue win for people for a long time that maybe this is someone who just doesn’t feel pain. Why do you think that is?

HC: You know pain is one of the most common complaints of any medical condition. And so you know regardless of whether you’re dealing with her or her osteoarthritis, you know any human being with her hip would have been an anti-inflammatory, they may have been on an opioid, they would have been scheduled for their you know hip replacement surgery. And then after that, probably still continue on some pain medications for a while. And so without the complaint, it’s tough to actually land in front of a physician. You come in to get your symptoms fixed. If you have no symptoms, you just don’t end up in a scenario where you’re seeking information about something.

PC: I think a lot of people, and you know Jo and I talked about this, would think a life without pain, especially people who are debilitating chronic pain, that a life without it would be pretty sweet. As a pain expert, what do you think?

HC: I think that there are millions of Canadians right now that would you know do almost anything to be in that scenario of feeling pain. You know pain affects one in five Canadians - 20 per cent of the population has a chronic pain condition that they deal with on a daily basis. And so you know it is one of those areas where when we find unique individuals like Jo, we are now set up for a potential you know new pharmacogenetic tool you know ten or fifteen years from now as we start to understand you know what this far enzyme actually does. And so actually there is a there's a researcher in Toronto who actually studies this. And so I've been speaking to her a little bit. If we can find some of these folks, we'd love to do some work.

PC: When we talk about pain, you know you go to the doctor, and they say what are you on the pain threshold – zero to ten? And it's quite subjective. What I think is a six and what you think is six can be very different. What kinds of tests are there that specialist do to determine pain levels? Like to put them on some kind of spectrum that is you know medically and scientifically sound?

HC: Yeah, that's a great question. And so you know part of my pain research unit, we have an instrument called the Medoc threshold analyzer. And what it does is it actually measures your pain thresholds from a hot perspective, a cold perspective, and a mechanical perspective. And so you know as somebody like you if you head up a thermal to about 38 degrees and say ouch. Someone like Jo, you'd get to 45-50 degrees, and they'd start to smell their skin burn before you know they actually respond. So there are other tests where you can have people immerse their arms in a really cold ice bath. You and I would probably last 20 seconds. Someone like Jo could last two minutes. And someone with pain lasts eight seconds. And so that's the tape of you know disparity that you see when we talk about pain sensitivity.

PC: So it’s not just subjective.

HC: Oh absolutely, yes.

PC: As you heard with Jo, it's not just pain that she doesn't feel, it's anxiety too. She doesn't get the adrenaline rush, all of those things. And so explain to me more what the connection between pain and anxiety is?

HC: Oh, it's very intertwined. And you know I think you know I've been on here speaking a couple of times talking about our transitional pain program, and weaning patients off their opioids after surgery. And we know that highly anxious individuals have a very hard time dealing with pain - they coexist. Depression coexists with pain, and so she's got the happy gene they call it. Well, that relates to that again these circulating levels of you know of fatty acids that clearly enable that type of response.

PC: What does Jo give us in terms of the real world implications of further research into this genetic mutation that Jo Cameron has?

HC: So she's now helped us identify the exact micro deletion. She gives us the promise to find others like her. Look, we hear there's people now coming forward. As we start to identify more, then we're looking 15 to 17 years away from now, where we have those pharmacogenetic drugs or targets to help manipulate. And ultimately, we hope that we can help reverse some of these things in terms of patients that are living with pain, and that would be a really massive win.

PC: We live in the times where we know we have an opioid crisis, and many Canadians and others are highly medicated for their pain. The paper comes out at a time when there is a debate over pain treatment, are we over prescribing, should we be prescribing, particularly when it comes to opioids. How important is it for us to develop new treatments for pain, given where we find ourselves societally right now with opioids?

HC: You know that's a fantastic question. You know in the past five to 10 years, we've really been stuck at finding novel drugs to help us in the pain world. And so you know finding someone like this, it really excites the pain world, it excites the research world, and it excites us in terms of looking to what is next, and how can we actually start to re-engage with novel drugs, novel therapeutics? And to be blunt, we need more and novel therapeutics to help patients with pain.

PC: So the avenues of research into new kinds of pain medication, but beyond that, pain management, pain treatment, they exist. What looks promising now?

HC: Well, again, we’re Canada, we’re leading the world in terms of cannabis and cannabinoid-based medicines. Clearly, there's a huge R and D move in that direction. We’re building UHN Centre of Excellence for Cannabis Research at the moment actually. I think that is clearly front and centre. But again, finding other you know pathways whether it's the known pathways such as our serotonin receptors or Trippe V1 receptors in the dorsal Horyn in the spinal cord, those are also very important pathways that people are researching actively right now.

PC: Dr. Clarke, thank you.

HC: It's been a pleasure.

PC: Dr. Hance Clarke is the Director of Pain Services and the Medical Director of the Pain Research Unit at Toronto General Hospital. He was not part of the British Journal of Anesthesia paper on Jo Cameron. Dr. Clarke was in our Toronto studio. If you missed some or all of my conversation with Jo Cameron, you can hear it by going to our website: www.cbc.ca/thecurrent. And you can stream it from there, or you can download our podcast. Coming up, it’s B.C.’s not so secret, very little problem: Money laundering on a mind-boggling scale. You'll hear new rules coming in to help clean up the mess. That's coming up. I’m Piya Chattopadhyay, you're listening to the Friday edition of “The Current.” We’re back in just moments.

Part three: B.C. Crime

Guests: David Eby, Christine Duhaime, Chris Walker

PC: Hi again I'm Piya Chattopadhyay, and you're listening to the Friday edition of “The Current.”

SOUNDCLIP

[Sound: Slots, Baby!]

REPORTER: The loud, flashy world of B.C. casinos. Open 24/7; packed almost every hour of every day. Thousands of dollars changing every minute. Occasionally, among all cash, the proceeds of crime. Now we've finally obtained these 3,000 pages of documents, inside revelations about money laundering. So we launched our own undercover investigation.

PC: That is from a 2008 CBC report on money laundering in British Columbia. Nearly 11 years on, it seems little has changed. Criminals are using casinos, real estate, and luxury cars to clean up the proceeds of crime. New reports show that the scale of the problem is even bigger than previously thought. And this week, B.C. introduced new legislation aimed at stemming the flow of dirty money - billions of it through these casinos and real estate market. The new laws come on the heels of a pledge from Ottawa to create a multi-agency task force to tackle the problem. But will it all be enough? David Eby is the Attorney-General for British Columbia, and we have reached him in Victoria. Hello.

DAVID EBY: Hello, Piya.

PC: We're going to get to those new rules in just a minute, but first, you have just received two new reports on money laundering in your province. So just how bad or big of a problem is it in British Columbia?

ED: Well, that is really the million dollar, or maybe even the billion dollar, question here in British Columbia. What we hear regularly from law enforcement is it's very difficult to put a final number on how big the problem is we face. But many of your listeners will be familiar with some of the challenges we faced in British Columbia and the profile of them. People walking hundreds of thousands of dollars in twenty dollar bills and casinos on a regular basis. And the fact that there appear to be little to no law enforcement response. And when there was, the prosecution ultimately collapsing against a very large money service business that allegedly was laundering in excess of 200 million dollars a year. We've seen International reports that say that the problem at one money service business in British Columbia this was information provided by the federal government to an international watchdog agency was a billion dollars a year. And we also understand that the RCMP did an intelligence report of some kind they still haven't released to us a real estate in the west side of the city of Vancouver in a single year where they allege that about a billion dollars in real estate transactions in one year were tainted by the proceeds of crime, so big numbers and a significant issue for us here.

PC: Where is this money coming from?

DE: So the initial work that was done on the casino project identified a number of streams of money. One of them was illegal drug sales, including the sale of fentanyl. We have a very significant fentanyl problem here in British Columbia leading to a significant number of overdoses and deaths. In addition, money from cash-based businesses attempting to evade taxes, as well as other types of grey market or black market activity, including the sale of cannabis through non-government stores and these kinds of things. So there is a lot of money generated through drug sales in British Columbia. And we've also heard now that international cartels, including Mexican cartels and Asian organized crime, are using British Columbia, particularly Metro Vancouver as a hub for their international money laundering activities.

PC: How is all this cash moving around? Like actually physically moving around?

DE: Well, we've seen everything from people moving it in suitcases, duffel bags, and a very Canadian example in a hockey bag, vehicles. It’s bulky, awkward dealing with cash, so this is an issue that criminals try to do refining, which is to turn a low value bills into higher value bills, which are easier to move around, or turn them into checks. You talked about the two reports we've requested. We've got international experts that are working to assist us in identifying loopholes and ways the money is actually moving through our system, including luxury cars, real estate, all kinds of unusual allegations. recently had a Federal Finance Committee, there was an allegation that people were using a fisheries licences and fishing quota. So there were some pretty imaginative, whack-a-mole- type problems that we face. You go after one and it moves somewhere else.

PC: Okay, I can appreciate that there are more obscure or you know more cloaked ways to money launder. But you said people are walking around with hockey bags full of bills. I mean isn't it a bit obvious it seems to me if you're walking around in a casino with a giant hockey bag that is a red flag.

DE: Yeah, well I mean that was the stunning part to me when I took over responsibility for gaming in the province, and the regulator came to me and said we believe were up for international money laundering. And they showed me video of people moving money around in these bags and briefcases. I was like well how is this legal? How is this possible that we haven’t simply said at a minimum you can’t bring cash into casinos like that? So first thing we did is we changed the rule to say you can’t bring that kind of bulk cash into casinos. The second is after I was off to Ottawa to plead with the federal government to increase resources around enforcement because the forms were being filled oujt by people who were bringing the cash in. You have to fill a form that says here's who I am. Here’s what my profession is. Here's where I live. And yeah, I’m bringing in $200,000 in $20s into the casino. But it didn't seem like anything happened after that. And so I've been to Cintrack. I've met with the RCMP. I've met with all kinds of folks, and we've done reports. And it was in this most recent budget that the federal government has announced that they're going to be increasing some resources. And I've been assured by the minister that some of these… a significant portion will be coming to British Columbia. Long overdue, not just our law enforcement, but also on the Revenue Canada side because I can’t imagine that people are paying taxes on the stuff.

PC: This is a Canadian problem. It is also a big, big problem for British Columbia itself. How did B.C. become such an attractive place to launder money?

DE: Well, there's a geopolitical reality in what became known as the Vancouver model of money laundering. This is a model taught by an Australian professor to anti money laundering professionals in Australia. And the Vancouver model was based on the fact that there are currency controls in China that prevent Chinese citizens from taking more than fifty thousand dollars out of China. And so when wealthy individuals from China come to visit British Columbia, and we have obviously very close connections with China and with Chinese expats here going way back in British Columbia. People want to access their money, and there were these sort of arrangements of convenience that arose between criminals who wanted to move cash and people showing up here had money. But it was in China. They needed to get cash in, so they would transfer money into accounts controlled by the criminals back in China. And they would receive money here in British Columbia that they could use in Canada. The government spent a lot of time and money trying to attract wealthy individuals from around the world to come to Canada, and including to British Columbia. But then they didn't provide these individuals with any legitimate way to get their money out of their home countries. And so these arrangements arose, and that has been one very significant factors in why Metro Vancouver in particular has been such a hotbed for this.

PC: So if I'm hearing you correctly, you know you said criminal organizations are benefiting in all of this. Who else is benefiting then?

DE: Well, there is there's a lot of evidence to suggest that the real estate market upswing in significant part, not small part, has been influenced by, especially the luxury end of the real estate, market has been influenced by proceeds of crime. There's a lot of suggestion that the fact that Metro Vancouver is the North American capital for luxury cars has been influenced by the fact that we are a money laundering hub. So there is a lot of evidence to suggest that a couple of the reasons for which Vancouver is known, namely luxury cars and real estate, may be due in no small part to the fact that we are an international hub for money laundering. And that has to stop.

PC: Ok, so let’s first tackle this part on the real estate question, where are the gaps, the loopholes, in the real estate sector that are being exploited by alleged money lenders?

DE: So a group called Transparency International Canela did a survey of the 100 most expensive residential properties in Vancouver, and what they found was that for almost half of them, there was no way to know actually on them. They were run by offshore trusts, international companies. Up until a law that is in front of the legislature right now passes, there is no obligation on anyone to disclose who actually owns property. so we have students and housewives buying property. We have numbered companies where the only directors are lawyers, and so solicitor/client privilege protects the actual honour from being disclosed. We’re passing a law that will require people to disclose who the real person is who owns the property. This would be an assistance to law enforcement and to tax authorities, as well as you're trying to figure out what's happening in a real estate market. Journalists have been a big force in unveiling what's been happening here in B.C. So there's no question that people will lie, that they will put up owners that aren’t the actual owners and so on. But we also have a new mechanism in place in relation to a speculation tax that connects people's social insurance numbers to properties that they own, which will enable tax investigations and so on where someone is buying a property with no apparent source of income, which is the big problem that we have. We have people buying million dollar homes with poverty level incomes here. We have neighbourhoods where Statistics Canada says they have very low incomes, and yet, all of the homes are million dollar homes. It makes absolutely no sense. And so we're very hopeful that these mechanisms sources tax authority for law enforcement to start to identify those red flags. Of course, there have to actually be officials doing that work. And that's why we need the federal government involved.

PC: Okay, I'm glad you brought up the federal government because there is meant to be oversight in Canada. It is built into our federal money laundering laws. Explain to me from where you said you know where the gaps are there? Why has that not been effective?

DE: Well, part of the problem is, unfortunately, that the main watchdog for money laundering it's called Fintrac it's a federal agency. They collect all these forms. Anytime you do a large cash transaction in a casino or a bank or so one, you have to fill up this form, it gets shipped off to Fintrac. It's been like a giant warehouse that just collects these millions and millions of forms from across Canada. And then as far as I can tell, they just sit there. I mean there doesn't appear to have been any ability for Fintrac to effectively share information with, for example, the provincial government, Revenue Canada, law enforcement in a way that generates investigations, prosecutions, and convictions. And so all this information was collected. What it did was it created the impression for people that there was work being done, that there was oversight, when in fact there was none.

PC: The problem is that they could identify when money laundering was happening. There was just the communication and the transfer of that information to get anyone to do anything about it is where the problem is?

DE: Yeah, the most the most extreme example is somebody walking literally one-point-two million dollars in cash in a single transaction into a casino, and filling out a Finetrac form, and mailing it into Finetrac, having it sent in. And Fintrac checking to make sure that everything’s filled out properly, but then there's no conviction. And so we really need to start closing that loop between collecting the information and actually using it and actually going after criminals.

PC: Ottawa pledged in this year's budget to create this multi-agency task force to fight money laundering. Given the scope of the problem, some which seems so glaringly obvious in everyone's faces by the way you explain it, why you think it's taken the federal government so long to start working on a coordinated response to this?

DE: That's one of the questions that I asked Peter German, who is a former senior RCMP officer doing this report for us that just arrived on my desk. It’s one of the questions that I asked him and his team is what is the problem? Where are the gaps in enforcement? What is the reality on the ground? And so when we release that report to the public, it will have some insight about what the issues have been. I think that there are issues in relation of the Criminal Code, for example, the need to prove that somebody had knowledge that the money they're bringing to a casino or a bank, for example, was actually generated from a specific crime. And there is a proposal to change the Criminal Code to just say look, if you're reckless about where the money came from that is a criminal offence. So that's one thing that can happen that could make a significant difference. But there is I mean there is a lot of work that needs to be done here. And I think we're turning a corner with the federal government with the budget announcements recently. But I can’t explain the gap in all these years, and I'm hopeful that the German report will offer it.

PC: Most Canadians - the vast, vast majority - are not involved in money laundering. How is all of this affecting them?

DE: Well, there is a growing sense in Metro Vancouver, South Vancouver Island in particular, that people who work hard, pay taxes, and contribute to the community are at a significant disadvantage. They're at a disadvantage to people who were cheating, who are avoiding their taxes, who are laundering money. That they can afford to buy a house because they're competing with people who don't pay taxes, who are breaking the law, and flaunting the law. And that is corrosive to sort of a spirit of community. It's corrosive to a bunch of values that we have in Canada and in British Columbia. And so we really need to address it, including issues of confidence in the justice system, and so there is a great deal of urgency in addressing that. And that sense of unfairness that people rightly feel about what's been going on here. And in addition to that, we have over a thousand opioid-related overdose deaths every year here in British Columbia. And the people who are profiting from that are buying luxury condos, and that's unacceptable.

PC: Minister Eby, we'll have to leave it there. Thank you for joining us.

DE: Thanks for having me.

PC: David Eby is the Attorney-General of British Columbia. He's in Victoria. And as he mentioned, last week, he met with Bill Blair, Canada's Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction. Before that meeting, Minister Blair spoke with the CBC, and was asked why it took the federal government so long to step in to help address the issues B.C. is facing? Here’s some of what Bill Blair had to say.

SOUNDCLIP

BILL BLAIR: We recognize the vulnerability, and we recognize the impact that it can have on the integrity of our financial institutions on such things as the real estate sector, the casino operations, and on a number of impacts it has a direct impact on the quality of Canadians lives. And so were acting to make sure that the RCMP, for example, have the resources they need to conduct proper investigations. And that prosecutors also have the tools they need to be successful in those prosecutions. And in acknowledgement of the challenge that law enforcement and provinces have faced in the sharing of intelligence information, we're setting up a number of different and very important new elements, including a new action coordination enforcement sector. That’ll significantly improve, in my opinion, the sharing of intelligence information, and the evidence that will make us more successful in dealing with this issue.

PC: That has Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction Minister Bill Blair, speaking with the CBC in Vancouver last week. So for more on how we got here, and whether measures introduced by government will be enough to stem money laundering in this country, we're joined by two guests. Christine Duhaime is a financial crime lawyer based in Vancouver. But today, she's here with me in our Toronto studio. And Chris Walker is the president of About Business Crime Solutions. It is a company that helps organizations reach financial regulation compliance. He's in Ottawa. Hi to both of you.

CHRISTINE DUHAIME: Hi, Piya.

CHRIS WALKER: Good morning.

PC: Chris walker, when you look at the mess that B.C. is in today, where do you point the finger?

CW: Well, two things really here, it was the source of money laundering takes place in the first place. And that was very nicely described by the minister. There's probably other ways which we're not aware of yet. Criminals in organized criminal groups are very creative. They're just as smart as the law enforcement and regulatory people that are trying to keep up with them. So that's one side of the thing. The other side of the thing I think, and one of the major problems to lead to what's going on right now, is a lack of endorsement by the various reporting sectors in British Columbia to comply with the regulations. They’re pretty simple if you really put them down on paper, and they’re just pushing back, left, right, and centre.

PC: So Christine Duhaime, from a legal perspective, what do you see when you look at the federal legislation today?

CD: So the federal legislation is not drafted in a way that makes it easy for an employee of a reporting entity, for example, a realtor, for example, a casino employee on the floor for them to understand what's required. So I think you know the first time I looked at the legislation 10 years ago, it says things like in the proscribed circumstances, prescribed times, you'll do the prescribed things as the prescribed person. So that's difficult to just comprehend if or someone trying to understand the legislation. So I think just the first step is let a redraft and put this in plain language, so that that the vast majority of the people that are reporting are the ones that have to understand it so that they understand what it is they need to do.

PC: Chris Walker, you know we heard from David Eby, B.C.’s Attorney general that the real estate and gaming sectors have been particularly resistant. Do you see that changing with the new legislation that the B.C. government has introduced?

CW: I think with the casinos, we’ll begin to see a change with that. But with the real estate industry, I am really concerned that it's going to take a fundamental paradigm shift in their thinking to be able to be co-operative and what's going on. And it's awful to think that Fintrac has it’s capabilities and it’s going to have to use those kind of things to get people to step up to the mark and do what they have to do. I think it's going to be a real hard way for them to roll in order to manage this actually.

PC: Christine Duhaime, what do you think about the new legislation that the B.C. government has introduced?

CD: I’m supportive of it. So what is going to do is it's going to reveal who owns real estate in British Columbia. And right now, a lot of real estate is held, as David explained, in trusts and even numbered companies. And so for someone like me in private practice who does asset recovery let's say for you know a Bank of China or something, it's really difficult to do a recovery. And so we've had cases where somebody is wanted in China on a wanted list, and we have identified them and located them, and we suspect you know these are the 20 mansions they owner of Vancouver. And yet, bam, it's behind a trust. And so justice is frustrated, and you can't really do very much from a legal perspective. So I think this opens up the fact that we now know who owns real estate and where.

PC: Currently, before the legislation comes in and gets moving so to speak, when you see a red flag, what do you do?

CD: So that's a law enforcement gap, and it's a gap between the civil litigation side that I do and the criminal side that I don’t do. But it's an example of where, and I think even the Chinese government says this, is look, we have people that are wanted in our country for whatever reason - have moved a lot of money out of Vancouver that we know of or into Vancouver rather. And have violated all the currency control measures, which is a criminal offence in China. So there are many things let's say, and then they’re on these wanted list provincially. We know who they are, but there's nowhere for someone like me in private practice to go and say you know I have a prospect of claiming that I'm working on for X client. This is how much money is missing, and you know this person is on a wanted list in China. Can I get some assistance? So there's a gap there in kind of collaboration even between civil forfeiture on the private side and what the government is able to do. So you know just knowing who owns a piece of property would help in the recovery process.

PC: This is not just a B.C. problem?

CD: It’s a Canada problem. And it's not just on real estate. David didn't get into it, but the other problem that British Columbia faces is we seem to be one of the world’s capital places where people like to come and set up companies, again, because we don’t require that you reveal who the shareholders are. So again, there is a non-transparent whole regime you mine corporate identity in British Columbia as well.

PC: Chris Walker, you heard Bill Blair in that clip talking about ensuring that prosecutors have the tools they need to be successful. Ottawa is putting in just shy of sixty-nine million dollars – it’s sixty-eight-point-nine - over the next five years towards trying to achieve that goal. Given what Christine has just told us, is it enough?

CW: It’s better. It’s adding to it. I think the big issue here is the fact that law enforcement and ultimately justice is only as good as the intelligence information you receive on the activities that on. Fintrac, first and foremost, is a financial intelligence unit. They produce thousands of disclosures every year as to information about what's going on, who's doing what, examples, they feed it to police departments, law enforcement agencies everywhere to assist them in proceedings. So Fintrac is doing a job with respect to that. Then taking that information and following the process is up to the law enforcement. I think what's going to happen and what Christine and what the new legislation and changes are going to be is going to be another assist for it. It’s going to be another step to help us get forward. But there is much more to generate that information in the first place. You can't charge someone if you don't have the information based on what that charge is.

PC: Is where you see the gap still, Christine?

CD: Yeah, and people talk about Fintrac a lot. And a lot of blame is Fintrac, Fintrac. But Fintrac’s job is just to receive information and then you know to dispense it to law enforcement. So they do do their job in that respect, and I think where there might be some more resources given to Fintrac, and maybe some more direction you know sometimes they just work in silos. For a number of years when I was working in private practice, they were you know very focused and casinos. And you know what happened there, but then they switched to banks, and now they're back into casinos, and now into real estate. You know so a siloed approach sometimes you know isn't the best because then we leave things off to the side. But I think if we just had from a Firac perspective you know the across the board for all reporting sectors equally with review in an equal he helped them to become better with better education and better guidance. I think that would be a really positive step for Fintrac.

PC: So the amount is sixty-eight-point-nine million dollars that the feds are putting in, Chris Walker. It is comparably to the amount of money that is being laundered, a pittance. Is the money going to be the solution here.?

CW: Well, it's one of the efforts to towards a solution. The assistance with that is going to make things clearer, more appropriate to direct resources going forward. There is a lot more resources that are announced in budget 2019, which also includes the whole tax evasion money that's going to CRA and controls and those particular areas. So that's a money laundering area just as much as any other areas where criminal acts are involved. And I think it's going to help definitely. Is it enough? It’s never enough. Absolutely not. It's never enough. But I think it's a good way to enhance what is being done, and more changes are going to happen. If I could add, we also need more people, and I’m going to give a bit of credit, I call him a rockstar from my colleagues here, and that’s David Eby. Because he spoke up, he's leading the push from B.C. in particular, but also across Canada, for saying hey people, we've got to start addressing this in different ways. And we can't keep allowing it to happen, so that's really important for us.

PC: Christine Duhaime, just briefly, what else needs to happen to us to get a real handle on this problem?

CD: So we don’t talk about modern technology, and I don’t know why we don’t, But David Eby mentioned fentanyl. And fentanyl is coming through organized crime from Mexico, its coming from China, and being paid for with Bitcoin. And you know Bitcoin a blockchain Canada is one of the first places where it grew. And you know we'd be we'd be naive to think that the criminal element didn't also grow in Canada at that point. So we are a world leader in digital currencies actually on the criminal side, particularly in Vancouver where it got its first legs after ground. And so when I hear fentanyl, I know it's coming through with payments of Bitcoin. I don’t know why we can’t be a world leader on that you know on a money laundering front of that as well. And I'd love to see some resources put into us looking at that to tackle laundering.

PC: Okay, we'll leave it there. Thank you to both of you.

CD: Thank you.

CW: Thank you.

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

April 5, 2019 Transcript

More Stories Like This