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 2023

The Current Transcript for February 28, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

Prologue

SOUNDCLIP

VINCENT LAM: In my view, there's no better place to explore our lives than through fiction that we can really understand the human characteristics and the human dimensions of these problems.

MATT GALLOWAY: Vincent Lam is an award winning novelist. He's also a doctor specializing in addictions, and in his new novel, "On the Ravine", he takes a look at the opioid crisis and two doctors with very different approaches to that crisis. In 30 minutes, Vincent Lam joins us to talk about blurring the line between fact and fiction and why he is uncomfortable with the concept of a safe supply of illicit drugs. Also, this morning, the rain in Spain is not falling mainly on the plain or anywhere else right now. Europe is in the grips of an historic drought. Coming up, dry canals, empty rivers and a continent making contingency plans. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: We're making the decision that for government employees, for government equipment, it is better to not have them access TikTok.

MG: The federal government has banned TikTok on all of its mobile devices effective today, not because this app is an addictive time waster, but because of privacy concerns. In an hour, whether fears around data theft could spell the end for the wildly popular Chinese app. We start, though, with calls to shut down the Roxham Road border crossing and why that may be more complicated than it sounds. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Calls to shut down the Roxham Road border crossing

Guests: Lovejoyce Amavi, Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Warda Shazadi Meighen

MG: Roxham Road has become a focal point in Canada as part of the global refugee crisis. Each year, thousands of asylum seekers cross into Quebec from the United States. But calls to shut down the irregular border crossing are growing. The conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, the Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec premier Francois Legault, are among those saying Roxham Road must be closed. We will hear from the Bloc Québécois immigration critic in just a moment. But first, Lovejoyce Amavi crossed Roxham Road in 2017. His book, "Je n'ai Choisi de Partir". "I Didn't Choose to Leave" describes that experience. Lovejoyce, good morning.

LOVEJOYCE AMAVI: Good morning, Mr. Galloway. Thank you for the opportunity.

MG: Thank you for being here. Why did you leave your home country of Togo?

LA: I left my country in 2017 because of political prosecution.

MG: And why did you ultimately end up coming to Canada?

LA: I was trying to seek for asylum in the United States. And I had learned at that time that many Asians were crossing a border on the [inaudible] Canada called Roxham Road. I made a little research about a topic to know how it was going because this road led to a French speaking place of Canada, Quebec. So, it was easier for me to integrate and start working right away.

MG: How did you learn about Roxham Road? You said that you'd heard about it. How did you learn that there was this crossing that could help you get into Canada?

LA: I had a friend in Canada and told me about many people coming from Roxham Road and staying at a stadium, Olympic stadium at Montreal, and that's how I heard about it.

MG: And what was it like when you, when you crossed there? What was that experience like?

LA: It was an emotionally difficult experience for me because we didn't know where we were going. If you came to the Roxham Road at that time, you'd get arrested by the police and you didn't know when you would be free again. And there was no [inaudible] at the border at this time. So, we stayed outside in the customs building for 10 days. But today, I can say it was one of the best experience of my life. At that time, it was very painful to tell my family that I was going through that road, one way road because there was no turning back.

MG: How long did you have to wait until you got refugee status? You crossed in 2017?

LA: Yeah, I crossed in 2017. And in November 2018, I was accepted by asylum. Application was accepted in November 2018.

MG: And did you feel when you crossed that you, that it was easy for you to become part of life in Quebec?

LA: I came from a French speaking country, so it's easier to find a job and start working. It was not easier because I think at that time it took too long for us because you don't have any status at that time. You're trying to work, but you don't know how you can be free again and travel outside of Canada. But that's fine because here is a peaceful country and was very involved in many community activities.

MG: But the fact that you could speak French really helped you when you arrived there?

LA: Yeah. Yeah.

MG: And so, what do you make of the fact that there are a number of politicians, including the premier of Quebec, who say that Roxham Road, that that closing needs to be shut down?

LA: I think it's not a good idea because closing the Roxham Road will not stop migration to Canada right now. And because Roxham Road is like, one entry point in Canada for asylum seekers if you close it, there will be several other Roxham Roads along the border. We will have many other points of entry. We can't control it and we can't manage it. It's not safe for anyone.

MG: The issue, though, just finally is that the Premier has talked about this and others as well, is that the provinces, schools and hospitals, social service organizations are overwhelmed by the number of people who are coming through. And so, given that, what do you think should happen to those who are, like yourself who are crossing at Roxham Road?

LA: It's a real problem in Quebec right now because all those people stay in Quebec. But if you distribute the asylum seeker who come through Roxham Road into the other provinces of Canada, some of them are English speaking people. Right. So, if we distribute them, I think that this will help to relieve pressure on Quebec.

MG: So, you believe people should be spread out throughout the province and throughout the country?

LA: Yeah, and into the regions. We have many manpower problem in the regions. We have many work to do there. We have schools and hospitals to take care of those people.

MG: You said that it was one of the best experiences of your life, one of the best things that happened to you crossing that road.

LA: Yeah, because it saved my life from Togo's government. But also, I found a new place. I'm involved in many activities here. I wrote a book about it and I think, I don't regret it. I'm just waiting for my children to join me. And it takes so long, also.

MG: Lovejoyce, I'm glad to talk to you. Thank you very much.

LA: Thank you, Mr. Galloway.

MG: Lovejoyce Amavi crossed into Canada at Roxham Road in 2017. We reached in this morning in Longueuil, Quebec. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe is the Bloc Québécois' immigration and human rights critic. Alexis, good morning to you.

ALEXIS BRUNELLE DUCEPPE: Good morning.

MG: What does your party want the federal government to do when it comes to the border crossing at Roxham Road?

ABD: Well, we have a simple position, but it remains complex. We are asking for the suspension of the safe third country agreement as the Liberals, the federal government can do it because of the Article 10 inside of this, this agreement. And if we do that, Roxham Road will not exist anymore since the asylum seekers will be able to cross the border at every regular border crossing. So, all around, all along the Canadian borders, we have 117 frontier post. And for us it will be the best. And this proposition is supported by organizations who advocate for migrants and asylum seekers. And is, this proposition is supported by immigration lawyers. So, I think we are on the good spot. We cannot just do proposition like Pierre Poilievre did, which was irresponsible. Of course, populists just saying that we have to close Roxham Road without saying how.

MG: Just to be clear, the Federal Government has been talking about the safe third country agreement for years now and there does not seem to be any movement from the United States to try to address that. You believe that this country's government can unilaterally suspend that agreement?

ABD: Of course, it's in the agreement with the Article 10. So, when Justin Trudeau is telling us and you know, all the minister in the House when I raised that issue, they are always telling us that they are renegotiating the agreement. But the U.S. Ambassador himself told us last week that there is no negotiation. And that's a fact for me because if you have serious negotiation, let's say for example, a free trade agreement negotiation, you have to mandate negotiator, you have to build, you know, a calendar of meeting. You have to give you objective and goals of a negotiation. You have to do briefing notes before and after negotiations. So right now, all we have is Justin Trudeau saying that he's going to talk to Joe Biden about it in one month. This is not serious negotiation.

MG: The U.S. will. [interrupted]

ABD: Lack the seriousness.

MG: The U.S. ambassador has also said changing the agreement would do very little to address irregular migration.

ABD: Well, if you, if you want to, no that's not true.

MG: It is true, it's what it's what he said to CBC last week, that's what the ambassador saying.

ABD: Yeah, I'm saying that if you suspend the agreement, people instead of going by Roxham will be able to go everywhere along the frontier at the regular post frontier. So, it's a big change since Roxham Road is known everywhere. As far as Africa or everywhere on the planet, all this volume, when the word will spread, all the volume of people, of human beings, who wants to seek a better life and a better future for themselves, they will be able to be shared out along the frontier like that. We won't have all those community organizations right now in Quebec who are, sorry [inaudible] sometimes, but they are at the end of the road. You know, they are, they are tired, they are exhausted because they don't have the resources anymore. And it's a, I mean, for those migrants who are waiting, asylum seekers who are waiting 12 to 14 months to get the federal work permit, so they have to stay on health care and all they want to do is working. And now the situation is that people from NGOs and community organizations on the ground, they cannot do their work anymore. So, I mean, the other provinces have to be part of the solution. It means to help, you know, the reception of the asylum seekers everywhere along the borders and it will be the first step. And then if you really want to have serious negotiation with the Americans, you've got the tools to do it? You've got Article 10 to suspend the agreement guaranteeing you that if you suspend the agreement tomorrow, they will be running at the negotiation table. That's for sure.

MG: Your party put out a tweet saying Quebec is not an all inclusive when it comes to the refugee crisis. Do you think that language is appropriate when you're talking about people who are fleeing? We just heard from Lovejoyce, who says he's fleeing persecution.

ABD: You know, people who I'm working with, you know, working with those asylum seekers understood exactly what we meant. It was aimed to the New York authorities and the federal government who try to sell something that is not true to people, to human beings who want to get a better life, a better future. So even the person who we are working with the migrants, understood the message, you know, they always try, the Liberal's always try to divert our message when it comes to the bloc. [cross talk]

MG: [Cross talk] I was just asking whether you think that language is appropriate when people are fleeing persecution to compare a place of refuge to an all inclusive hotel in Cuba or something that we might go to stay at?

ABD: No, because it's not. It's not. It's a dream that they have been selled by, you know, criminal smugglers, human traffickers. And when they arrived here, what they found is you have to be on healthcare for 14 months before getting a work permit. You have difficulties to find a place to stay because there's a crisis in Montreal. So, it's the dream that have been selled to them. You understand what we mean, I hope. It's the same when I ask Marco Mendicino in the House, if he was aware of human traffickers, right now who are exploiting those people and getting money from them to bring them to Roxham Road. He said it was dangerous to say that all asylum seekers are criminals. I wasn't saying that at all. I wasn't. I was saying that those people are getting exploited by criminals on the wrong side of the border.

MG: Just. Just, just before I let you go, we are out of time. But we heard from a number of those migrants like Lovejoyce, who, who are French speaking, they would like to stay in Quebec because they feel as though they would be better integrated, that perhaps they would have a better opportunity to get a job. Do you see a path where those people could be properly supported in your province?

ABD: Well, of course, they have to enter by the big door, by the main entrance. And for that we have to suspend the agreement because for now, if they go by the main entrance, a regular country post, they will be, they will be, they will have to go back to the U.S. that's not what we want. We have responsibility when people are seeking for help and are refugees, we have to help them and we have to welcome them. Now, for the moment, we are, we have criminals who are bringing them to the frontier, and we have police who are welcoming them. I don't think it's the G7 country should welcome refugees right now.

MG: Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

ABD: Thank you so much.

MG: Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe is the immigration and human rights critic for the Bloc Québécois. Warda Shazadi Meighen is an immigration and refugee lawyer, adjunct professor of refugee law at the University of Toronto. Warda, good morning to you.

WARDA SHAZADI MEIGHEN: Good morning, Matt.

MG: You just heard the Bloc's immigration and human rights critics say that the safe third country agreement should be suspended and that those who are seeking refuge should go, in his words, though, through the main door. What do you make of that? What would that do, do you think, to what we're seeing right now in Quebec?

WSM: I agree with what he's saying. What that would do is it would diffuse the pressure point at Roxham Road. You know, up until 2004 Matt, asylum seekers would have entered in an orderly manner and they would present themselves at an official port of entry at the Canada and U.S. border. Since then, the U.S. Safe third Country agreement has been put into place, and the reason people are crossing at Roxham Road is because it is not a port of entry. And so there, it's a loophole in the agreement in that those individuals crossing at Roxham Road are not caught by the agreement. So, I agree with Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, that if we suspended the safe third agreement, which we can do under Article 10, then that pressure on Quebec will be alleviated and it will restore the orderly migration we had pre 2004.

MG: Do you agree that the situation as it stands right now is untenable? I mean, you hear from Quebec Social services, we've talked to them on this program, that they are overloaded. The situation in Windsor, Ontario, where many of those seeking refuge have now been bussed. The counsellors there say that they can't cope. Is what's happening right now untenable?

WSM: There are two answers to that. First is let's look at the actual numbers of people crossing at Roxham Road. It's about 37 to 39 thousand people last year in the context of our global refugee numbers and immigration numbers. It's a drop in the bucket, so it's not that much. But when we concentrate all of those entries into specific areas, it does become difficult for settlement services in those provinces. So, I mean, they do get federal numbers allocated to them. And Quebec, for instance, has a lot more allocation for newcomers than do the other provinces. But there is, we have to take the word of the people on the ground where they're saying, I want to help, but I cannot help everyone. And I actually, you know, suspending the U.S./Canada agreement will restore that order and will allow, you know, provinces like New Brunswick, P.E.I. and other parts of Ontario to be able to shoulder some of that responsibility for meeting our international obligations.

MG: The other issue, though, is the average wait time for people who are waiting to be processed for refugee status can be upwards of two years or more. And so what does that do to a person if they live in that limbo, having taken all of the steps to get to Canada in the first place, and now they're here and they can't get work, they can't figure out a way to meaningfully integrate themselves into the society that they're in.

WSM: It's very demoralizing. It's you know, it's, it's, there's data that shows the faster people integrate into the economy, the faster they had their agency back, the better their outcomes are in terms of how they integrate within Canada and the next, in the ten years that follow. So, it's really important that we give people that agency back specifically when they've gone through so much trauma to get, before they even get to Canada. And so, those wait times absolutely need to be reduced. And we had a period of time where people we're getting work permits right away while the refugee claim was in process. It's really important that we emphasize resources or direct resources back to that point where someone should have a work permit right away. There's no need to have a refugee claimant dependent on social assistance. Not only is it bad for our economic line, but it's also bad for the mental health and the ability for refugees to be productive, which is what most of them want to be doing.

MG: We just have a minute or so left and the absence of real movement on this, whether it's suspending the agreement, whether it's accelerating those processing times. What are you most worried about when it comes to how this story is playing out?

WSM: There are two things I'm particularly concerned about. One is, you know, comments like the ones we're getting out of some people in Quebec and Poilievre which say, you know, let's close Roxham Road. What does that actually look like? It's, it's an oversimplification to say, let's plug that hole, because if we do that, we're going to see a lot of very desperate people who, mind you, Matt, are being found to be genuine refugee claimants. The Independent Refugee Board is hearing these claims and a lot of these people, over half of them or around half of them are legitimate refugee claimants. So, we're going to have a lot of these people in incredibly precarious situations, you know, turn to human smugglers, as they do in Europe, who exploit that individual desperation. And it's really important that we don't oversimplify the issue by saying, let's just plug Roxham Road, because what does that mean? Where to go? What does that mean for our international obligations? Are we trying to create an industry for human smugglers? So that's my first concern. My second concern.

MG: Just briefly, yeah.

WSM: Yeah. When we say, you know, people crossing at Roxham Road are queue jumping or are not lining up, we have to be mindful that there actually is no queue for those people. So, there's no place that they could go to in the United States that would give them a proper adjudication of their refugee claim.

MG: This is a complicated issue. I appreciate you being part of our conversation and we will certainly come back to it. In the meantime, thank you very much.

WSM: Thank you, Matt.

MG: Warda Shazadi Meighen is an immigration and refugee lawyer, adjunct professor of refugee law at the University of Toronto. We did ask to speak with Sean Fraser, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. He declined. Well, coming up after your CBC News, blurring the line between fact and fiction and talking about the opioid crisis through fiction, the author, Dr. Vincent Lam, is here in 6 minutes. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Stay with us.

New novel explores substance abuse

Guest: Vincent Lam

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, the federal government's crackdown on TikTok. Is the app truly a security threat? We will discuss coming up in just under 30 minutes. Plus, very little rain and snow. Along with warmer temperatures have created drought like conditions in parts of Europe. We'll hear what this means as spring approaches. But first, examining the complexities of the opioid crisis through fiction.

[Music: Theme]

MG: Claire is a promising young violin player dealing with the aftermath of a shoulder injury. She handles it by taking painkillers properly prescribed at first. Then she buys from a friend. And then someone suggests you can get more for your money if you try heroin. Claire's life spirals from there, and she ends up in the office of Dr. Chen, an addictions doctor at a clinic in Toronto. Their doctor patient relationship is at the core of a new novel from Scotiabank Giller Prize winner Dr. Vincent Lam. The book is called "On the Ravine", and Vincent Lam is with me in our Toronto studio. Vincent, good morning.

VINCENT LAM: Good morning, Matt.

MG: It's great to see you.

VL: Great to see you, too.

MG: How does Claire end up in the clinic of Dr. Chen?

VL: Claire ends up in the clinic of Dr. Chen. Through a series of reasonable decisions. She wants what most of us want. She wants to practice her art, to make beautiful music. And she wants to be free of pain. And she discovers that these pills, they help her to be free of pain. And more than that, she believes they make her a better musician. And so, of course, that's very much what she wants, because that is her passion and her calling. So through a series of reasonable decisions, a few more pills so that they'll keep on working, trying something else to get more for her money, she ends up switching from the role of being able to use the pills as a tool to a situation in which the pills are using her and controlling her.

MG: Why did you use that word reasonably twice, that these are reasonable decisions?

VL: I think it's incredibly important that people understand that most of the decisions that we make and certainly I believe the decisions that the characters in "On the Ravine" are making are reasonable decisions. And I think this is really important because we're trying to grapple with a difficult issue in terms of the opioid crisis. And sometimes it's really only in exploring lives, and in my view, there's no better place to explore lives than through fiction, that we can really understand the human characteristics and the human dimensions of these problems. People often make reasonable decisions that seem like the right decisions at the time, but nonetheless can have many unintended consequences and maybe in the long run don't help them the way they hoped they would.

MG: Dr. Chen is interesting because people who have read your work will know that this is a character that has appeared before in "Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures", book that won the Scotiabank Giller Prize. Tell me about going back to him and tell me about how he ends up in the world of substance use and helping people who, like Claire, find themselves making those decisions that would lead them to his office?

VL: Yes. So, there are two doctors who appeared previously in "Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" who appear in "On the Ravine". And they are Dr. Chen and Dr. Fitzgerald, who are close friends and have a deep bond, and who also have a very different approach in terms of how they address life, how they try to care for patients. And Chen is someone who's always trying to make things better. And so, he has a firm belief that evidence is important, that you need the science to back up what you do. And at the same time, he also has this personal belief that if he just tries a little bit harder, if he just goes one step further somehow, hopefully for the person in front of him, that will make all the difference. Fitzgerald is much more intuitive. Fitzgerald responds to the moment. If people want something, he's inclined to do it because that's what they want. And so, both of these characters have come back from "Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" and into "On the Ravine", I think because both of the characters have matured in my mind, this is the next step in their journey. And in terms of the narrative, what's happened is they've gone from emergency medicine, which is driven by situations and response to the moment, and they've moved into a place where they see a crisis. They see a problem. They see the opioid crisis. And they've brought everything that they are as human beings to this moment.

MG: It sounds familiar.

VL: This is a world which I know intimately.

MG: Well, you, I mean, we've spoken a number of times. You were working in emergency medicine; you're now working in the world of addictions. Why did you make that switch?

VL: For me I spent a decade and a few years in emergency medicine, loving it, cherishing the practice, and the sense that every time I opened up the curtains to see a new patient, there would be potentially a new story and a new person to meet. And so that was tremendously invigorating. But there was also a sense in which I began to feel a bit fragmented. I really wanted ongoing relationships with patients, and I began to understand that I wanted to have what we call continuity of care. I wanted to take care of people over time, and I still wanted to be working in a field that I found was urgent and incredibly important at this moment. This is what drew me from one field to the other, I think is very much what drew Chen and Fitzgerald in this direction in "On the Ravine" as well.

MG: How would you describe the way that Chen treats his patients and treats their addictions?

VL: I would say that Chen is someone who is very much trying to walk a tightrope. So, Chen is someone who believes in evidence. And so, he, he wants to hold to what he can substantiate. At the same time, he's deeply compassionate. He wants to help the person in front of him. The place where this becomes a tension for Chen is that sometimes people make a specific request, a short-term request. Which he doesn't feel and doesn't know to be supported by the evidence. And so that's the tension that he's always carrying inside with him and navigating, inhabiting.

MG: It also comes out in the structure of this novel where there are these, these asides kind of letters to students of medicine in which you talk, it's almost like philosophy in some ways about, about an approach to medicine. And it comes out in understanding addiction that there is a line that talks about, you know, allow room for silence, pay attention, ask how you're doing. What is that, why does that matter in addictions medicine? And I ask this from the perspective of Dr. Chen, but also from the perspective of Dr. Vincent Lam.

VL: Sure. Well, I'll answer from the perspective of a nebulous doctor who may or may not be in this room or on these pages.

MG: We're kind of moving back and forth. I mean, fiction is not memoir, and memoir is not fiction, but there's a lot that moves between those two worlds. So, answer as you want.

VL: Sure. Absolutely. The approach that Chen takes is to become engaged in story. And so, yes, he's writing these, these passages, these letters to someone, a student whom he once knew and whom he still cares deeply about, but whom he hasn't seen in a long time. And there's a lot of things going on there. There's regret, there's loss. There's that which we wish to have said and perhaps did not say at the time. And then the other thing that I think is incredibly important is that those passages where Chen is ruminating about medicine and reflecting on medicine are the actual stuff of doing it, they're the actual stuff of caring. So, if I showed you a treatment protocol in addiction medicine, you would look at it and you would say, Oh, well, that's pretty simple. We can do that. Why do you even need to go to medical school to do that? You know, ABC bing, bang, boom, done. Yes, it looks so simple in terms of the protocol, in terms of what the indications are, what we prescribe, the complexities of doing it are tremendously important because those complexities are human.

MG: Can I ask you to read something from the book? This is a passage from when Claire has been getting treatment but is thinking about getting back in touch with her dealer.

VL: Sure.

VL: Instead of sleep, she tossed in bed, longing for oxy, heroin, fentanyl, anything. The phone dinged with a schedule reminder rehearsal coming up. She could not screw up the trio. It was her chance, but there was no way she could rehearse as she was jonesing off the drugs that Dr. Chen had prescribed. So, what was the difference, really, she thought ruefully between him and Scooter, whether she was withdrawing on fentanyl or his little pill. One difference was that his pills took a few days to work properly, and even if she went today, she would not be better in time for her rehearsal. Just one little shot, Clare thought, and she could probably get through the rehearsal without her arm feeling as it did now, like it was being torn from her body. And then following an episode of cramping and emptying herself on the toilet, it wasn't as if it was a decision. It was more that she stopped resisting, stopped pushing against something. She would buy only what she needed. She began to feel relief as she tapped into her phone. Hey. You around. Already thinking she might dip into the rent a little, since Scooter was coming anyways, earn it back later.

MG: This is Vincent Lam reading from his new novel "On the Ravine". What does that passage, do you think, tell the reader about what life is like for people like Claire?

VL: I think that passage tells people that someone who's suffering from an opioid use disorder is faced with a ticking clock. There's always a clock ticking down until the next time they're going to experience really, really horrible physical discomfort, the discomfort of withdrawal as the dimensions of time change. And there's no question that in all addiction and in opioid use disorder, there are decisions, there are choices. But it's incredibly important to understand that when someone is in withdrawal, it's not as if they're making a simple, fair, intellectual, calibrated decision. There's a terrible suffering and a terrible physical discomfort which is animating that decision. And I think it's really important for us to understand that both as readers, if we're going to understand Claire and as people who are interested in what's going on with our fellow Canadians who may be experiencing this really difficult problem.

MG: You mentioned Fitzgerald, who's the other doctor in this book. This is a fascinating character who owns some sort of mansion on the side of a ravine, and people come through the mansion and it's run down from where it used to be. But he sees his role in some ways as to provide "clean" in quotation marks, drugs at kind of a cut rate price. Why is he doing that, do you think?

VL: Well, Fitzgerald is an intuitive and compassionate person. So, where Chen is a, an intellectual and compassionate person Fitzgerald is that sort of immediate response impulse, and that's why he makes the choices he makes. Some of those also have personal costs to him, and he is also someone who struggles with his own demons. So, he has a drinking problem and that is something which animates him, and his character and I think perhaps which gives him a sense of time being short of decisions, really being best informed by what happens in the very short term.

MG: And he sees himself as providing a lifeline in many ways to the people who are coming through, through his mansion.

VL: Absolutely. Yeah.

MG: It sounds like safe supply.

VL: Yeah. You know, it's an interesting thing because this novel was in the works long before this concept of safe supply. So, I've been working on this novel for about eight years now. I feel more comfortable with the term PSAD, public supply of addictive drugs. But I think really what this allows us to understand is that the notion of providing people what they want in the short term is inherent to the dynamic of this issue. So, it's really interesting that people, of course, you know, and it's understandable, would see the parallel between this novel and PSAD. This is not a novel about PSAD. But that dynamic, the dynamic that we are as compassionate human beings in some moments drawn to give people exactly what they want in that moment. And that's a natural response is very, very core to this issue.

MG: Why do you use that phrase? Is that because you don't believe that, that the supply is safe? Is there something about the word safe that is not appropriate for you?

VL: So, now hold on. I have to take off the writer hat for a moment and put on the doctor hat. Right. And at this point, although we have been practising PSAD for six years, there hasn't been any evidence to demonstrate that it reduces deaths or overdoses. And so, without any evidence, we're left with a lot of questions. And I certainly wish as a doctor that there were more answers to those questions. But one of the important questions is whether it's beneficial and whether it's safe.

MG: Is that true that there is no evidence, I've spoken with any number of people in harm reduction, whether it's harm reduction workers, whether it's. [Change of thought] I mean, I was in Victoria, I spoke with the coroner of British Columbia just a few weeks ago who talked about how, whether you want to call it safe supply or use a different phrase, that that has saved people's lives, that this is a toxic drugs crisis. And that if people are being poisoned and you can provide a safer supply of those drugs, "safer supply", again in those quotation marks, that that's going to save people's lives. Is there really, is there no evidence to show that safe supply is working?

VL: I would say that those are compassionate people who are very deeply driven to want to help patients, just as are the characters in this novel in "On the Ravine". But if you ask me whether there's evidence, then I would have to say there's no published evidence that it does actually save lives. And so, there's a hope. That there could be evidence at some point. And I certainly think that would be really helpful if there is. But we have been engaged in this for six years now and there have been trials published, but they don't show a reduction in overdoses or deaths.

MG: You've said that this causes you moral distress.

VL: I think when we talk about PSAD we're inherently talking about something that people are uncomfortable with, and people are uncomfortable because people are aware of the legacy of harm that arises from there being an increase in the supply of opioids in distribution. And we know that from our very, very unfortunate and well-documented history with oxycodone, which I should add was deceptive on the part of Purdue and their marketing, but was absolutely well-meaning and compassionate and well-intended on the part of physicians who were writing prescriptions. And people who were trying to solve problems in the moment. So, we have a big picture lesson there. We have a lesson which took 2 to 3 decades to play out and is still playing out. So, the biggest problem with Purdue is that they knew, and they didn't talk about these dangers. They didn't ask questions. In fact, they concealed the information that they had that the practice of having lots of opioid pills out in the world was actually really dangerous and harmful. So, I know those lessons, and it's really hard for me to not ask the questions that arise from those lessons.

MG: How difficult is it for you to speak out against something like this when there is a cultural conversation that is happening, saying the way to, to save lives, the way to best protect people is through this approach. Safe supply, which you say there isn't evidence that shows that it works. How difficult is it for you to talk about this?

VL: It's really very hard for me to discuss this topic at several levels. So, it's really hard for me as someone who writes novels because "On the Ravine" is a novel about people, and it wouldn't be the first novel which people may read and may slot into a certain cultural category. And in fact, it might even be a novel that people don't read and still slot into a certain cultural category. And so that to me feels sad as a writer because "On the Ravine" is a novel which is intended to help people ask deeper questions, more fulsome questions, and I really hope that it has that potential. One of my advanced readers who has been involved in substance use policy for many years, emailed me and said it was helping him do that. It was helping him to ask better questions, questions in which he understood the issues in a more deep way. And so, the notion that it could become some sort of culturally polarizing book with or without people having read it feels sad to me as a writer. As a doctor. I think one of the really, really hard things about the current moment is that I think that everyone involved in the conversation wants the best for their patients. And so, as someone who wants the best for my patients, it's really hard to hear people questioning my questions in a way that suggests that maybe I don't want the best for my patients.

MG: You suggested to the National Post that this is a moment in an environment where people could be punished if they ask the wrong questions. People could, do you believe that people could be punished for asking the wrong questions in this moment?

VL: Well, certainly in my personal network of contacts, I see that.

MG: What do you mean?

VL: In multiple instances. So, I've heard of people who have been asked to destroy databases on this issue. I've heard of people who have been asked to not use their academic titles when speaking their minds on this issue. And that to me is deeply problematic. Academia, as well as public policy, should be founded upon open discourse. And so that's, that's really problematic. And it's also really problematic, I think, because a big part of the way that we got here was by not asking tough questions.

MG: And so, what, I mean, this is a really compelling novel, aside from what we've just been spending some time talking about. It's a novel and a story with fascinating characters, it's really compelling. What's the question that you hope readers who actually read the book will ask?

VL: So, I really hope that readers will recognize some of their own questions in the questions that the characters confront. And so, running through the novel and running through many of our lives, there is this tension between desire and its fulfilment. Fulfilment is usually brief. And we spend a lot of time trying to act upon our desires again to achieve fulfilment again. We all experience this really profound tension between the past and the future. We're in the present making the choice we have to make right now, but we're driven by a sense of loss, regret, sadness sometimes in the past, and we have hopes and aspirations. But we're very anxious, we're very concerned that those will not come to pass in the future. And then we're constantly struggling with this question of what makes sense right now and what makes sense in the long term. And so, I hope people will be able to see those questions as questions that they have in common. Maybe they'll ask themselves those questions in a bit of a different way, and maybe they'll understand how other people around them are also asking those questions.

MG: Vincent Lam. I'm glad to have the chance to talk to you again. Thank you very much.

VL: Great to be here, Matt. Thanks for having me.

MG: Dr. Vincent Lam's new novel is "On the Ravine". Well, coming up after your regional update, the federal government has followed other countries and banned the use of TikTok on government devices, effective today. The reason is potential security risks. Some argue this move could, in fact, be a political game against Beijing. Plus, Europe is in the midst of a winter drought. It's raising concerns about what all of this means for the summer. We'll talk about that coming up. I'm Matt Galloway. This is The Current. We're back in 90 seconds. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

Ottawa bans TikTok on federal devices, Europe suffers winter drought

Guests: Vass Bednar, Clothilde Goujard, Andrea Toreti

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made its social media official, his government is breaking up with TikTok.

SOUNDCLIP

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: Like many countries around the world, were looking carefully at how to ensure Canadians are kept safe online. And we're making the decision that for government employees, for government equipment, it is better to not have them access TikTok.

MG: The highly popular app will be removed and blocked on all government devices effective immediately. This move follows similar action taken by lawmakers in the United States and the European Union. The White House is giving government agencies until the end of March to get rid of TikTok. The main concern cited in all of these bans is an allegation of potential security risks and ties between TikTok's parent company, Bytedance, and the Chinese government. Vass Bednar is executive director of the Master of Public Policy and Digital Society Program at McMaster University. Vass, good morning to you.

VASS BEDNAR: Good morning.

MG: Why this ban now, do you think?

VB: I have to put it in that broader geopolitical moment where we have new concerns that were leaked from CSIS that China may have sought to subvert our electoral processes in 2019 and 2021. And don't forget, our deputy prime minister recently raised national security concerns about the founders of a Canadian bank with suspected ties to China. So, this is a bit of a bandwagon approach, as you noted, following the E.U. And the U.S., and I wonder if we can be sharing more information with Canadians and maybe even doing more so that it's actually a stronger policy response.

MG: Well, after the prime minister made the announcement, the President of the Treasury Board, Mona Fortier, said yesterday that she has no evidence at this point that government information has been compromised. And so if there's no evidence, what is, I mean, you kind of hinted at this being part of a larger geopolitical move, but is there any real reason to take this step, to as of today say, if you are a government employee, if you have a government device, you can't have this app on your phone?

VB: Well, you know, they're saying two things. They're saying that there's an unacceptable level of risk that has recently been determined by the chief information officer. I'd like to know why now, why is the chief information officer investigating TikTok now? And Prime Minister Trudeau has said, you know, he's a fan of giving Canadians the information they need to make their own decisions about how to use apps and which ones, so give us the information. Right. And I don't understand what the new information is here, which is why I see it as kind of a frustrating, almost theatric response. Last year, we spent 1.7 million dollars, not a tonne of money, but a dollar's a dollar seems like a lot of money to me, advertising on this platform using tax dollars. Are we going to continue to push messages out to Canadians on this platform but then sort of penalize and single out government officials for this kind of very vague risk? I'm not sure. I'd like to understand our position a little bit more.

MG: What do we know about the links, such as they may be between the parent company of TikTok, Bytedance, and the Chinese government?

VB: I mean, people have raised concerns in in the past that the firm will be compelled to sort of align itself with the ambitions of the government. There was a 2021 report from the Citizen Lab that sort of looked into data sharing practices, privacy, security, and found that, you know, TikTok collects similar types of data to track user behaviour and serve targeted ads. And the research concluded there wasn't overt data transmission to the Chinese government by TikTok, of course. That could have changed over time or might need further, further research. But that seems to be the core of the concern. And, you know, there are geopolitical implications when we target large technology firms that are based in the U.S. as well. Right. We've seen that there have been trade implications or that it sort of comes up in conversations with the U.S. when we're seeking to rein in or, you know, bring in new policies on other big tech platforms. So, this is the one that's the largest and foreign-owned, and again, it goes back to that geopolitical context or moment that I think is really important here.

MG: But when it comes to privacy concerns, how is TikTok any different from other platforms like Instagram or Facebook?

VB: I mean, it's not that different, right?

MG: I mean, the assumption is I think because these things are free, that, you know, if the, if the product is free, you are the product, as people say that that data is being hoovered up and sold to advertisers because that's the nature of applications. Is that accurate? And does that square with all of those different platforms?

VB: Well, typically, data isn't sold in an external marketplace. We sell access to that marketplace because of, you know, how much information that platform has about us in terms of our, our preferences. Right. TikTok collects information about our device. It may collect information about our location, an IP address or search history, the content of messages that we sent and what we're viewing and for how long. And I suppose the firm would argue that they're leveraging this information to improve our quote unquote experience map and, you know, tailor our algorithm. I suppose the argument would be if you stretch it, that if I were to get access to spy on you through, through TikTok and I'm sorry that I'm stretching and I don't mean to make light of this, but, you know, could I use information that I learn to exploit you or, you know, blackmail you or learn more about, you know, an upcoming story at the CBC? Again, people need better information from the government to understand and appreciate how quickly the government moving. I like to see government moving quickly on digital policy, but I don't appreciate something that can seem empty, you know, a gesture that doesn't have enough behind it, frankly.

MG: How wary do you think Canadians should be of TikTok? TikTok has a billion users worldwide. Millions of people here in Canada use this every single day. Should people be concerned about this app?

VB: I mean, I think we should be concerned about all kinds of apps, right. We're having this moment of reckoning where we have major privacy legislation before the House, federally. We have a newish cybersecurity bill. We're trying to improve the tools and the teeth that we have to deal with these digital issues. And we're also coming to terms with how these platforms are designed to be addictive and suck up our time and our attention. So, as part of a bigger, broader conversation. I think it's really important to ask questions about cybersecurity and privacy of all kinds of apps. Our Privacy Commissioner found last year that Tim Hortons, you know, was too greedy with the data was collecting. I'm pretty sure civil servants can still get a double double. And earlier this year, we found that Home Depot wasn't getting proper consent before it was sharing information with meta with Facebook. You know, we're not banning people from going to Home Depot. So, is there a proportionality element to how we're responding and using the tools, the very limited tools that we have, actually?

MG: Do you think users care?

VB: I can't tell. I mean, I don't think this gesture from the government certainly doesn't hurt TikTok's bottom line today. But if we see advertizers follow the government of Canada and sort of have a, have a chilling effect on the platform, that's important. The risk on the other side is that there's a bit more of a Streisand effect where it seems more popular or countercultural to be on the platform and people are curious and want to go see it more for themselves and understand. Is there myths and disinformation there? You know what, what's it all about? In which case we're driving users to the platform instead of keeping them away from it in a more kind of prudent manner.

MG: What's also interesting, I guess, just finally, is to your point. Governments have, whether it's just through advertising or actually being on the platform, have used this to try to reach audiences, younger audiences in particular. And in a statement, TikTok says all this ban is going to do is prevent officials from reaching the public. How important has TikTok been for politicians for governments, government officials to try to get to an audience that perhaps they have not been able to reach otherwise?

VB: You know, I think it's important for our government officials to meet audiences where they are. I think there's some separation between, you know, political campaigns that aim for a bit of virality or seeking to get a message to certain audiences compared to pushing out official government information. Government can be on these platforms and share official government information without investing on them. Again, that's why I sort of call out that incongruity. We're going to, we're going to block public servants from using this tool. By the way, we have no idea how many public servants use it, if any. The number could be zero or ten. And, you know, should we commit to not advertising and acknowledge what we lose when we do that, that we may not be able to share some important information about tax season or a new youth employment program because we're not on the platform. Those are very real trade-offs that are worth acknowledging when we're, when we're making new kind of value based or cybersecurity based decisions.

MG: Vass, thank you very much.

VB: Thank you.

MG: Vass Bednar is executive director of the Master of Public Policy in Digital Society Program at McMaster University. As we mentioned, the European Commission has also made a move in banning TikTok from its staff devices. Clothilde Goujard is a technology reporter for Politico E.U., hello to you.

CLOTHILDE GOUJARD: Good morning.

MG: We've been hearing about what has happened here in Canada. As of today, as I say, government officials and on government devices, you cannot have TikTok. How far does it go in Europe?

CG: Well in Europe. The European Commission decided last week that their officials would have until March 15 to uninstall the TikTok app from both their work devices but also their personal devices. If they have any form of official work apps such as email or Skype for business on there. So, apps that could potentially interact with the TikTok app. So, you also have the Council of the E.U. Where you have the different governments that are being represented in Brussels that also decided to follow similar measures.

MG: The questions that Vass was just asking are about why this was done here in Canada. What's the evidence to show that this app is a security threat? Has there been evidence presented to the European Commission or has the European Commission made public why it's making this decision?

CG: No, not really. Actually, they declined to provide any information about what sort of evidence, or they found or any threat analysis. The European commissioner that was actually in charge of the department that made that decision, the IT department said there had been no immediate threat, but they were monitoring the application. So as for now, it's still a bit unclear what exactly they saw, they witnessed that was alarming enough for them to decide to ban it entirely for their own officials.

MG: This is part of a larger conversation that the European Union has been having around TikTok, particularly in in Ireland. Can you explain what's going on with Irish Data protection Regulation and TikTok?

CG: Yeah, absolutely. So, the European Union has this landmark data protection bill that's called, the General Data Protection Regulation, the GDPR. And so, under this regulation, the Irish regulator is the main privacy regulator for TikTok, because this is where TikTok is based in the E.U., its legal base is. And so, the Irish Data Protection Authority has been investigating TikTok under two different cases. One is about children's privacy or alleged infringement of children's privacy, and then the other one is about potentially illegal data transfer to China. And these investigations are currently ongoing, and we'll have the results sometime before the, the summer.

MG: When you say illegal data transfer to China, tell me more about that and what's being alleged.

CG: Sure, that would be data transfers that would be illegal under the GDPR. So under, in Europe at the moment, there is no sort of agreement between Europe and China to have the free flow of personal data because Europe and the European Union considered that China doesn't have the same sort of democratic protection for the data of its citizens. So the idea is that Brussels worries that if there's personal data of Europeans that end up in the hands of Chinese officials, you know, they would not be afforded the same, the same, you know, rule of law procedures that they would have here in the European Union. So, in that sense, that's what they're worried about. And the thing that didn't, didn't do anything to sort of calm their fears is that TikTok in November said that they indeed have and process and store some of European users’ data in China. So, the already admitted to some extent that some of the data were actually processed in China. So, this is something that certainly has brought a lot of scrutiny in Europe on the companies’ actions and use of data.

MG: People around the world pay close attention to European data laws in particular because they seem in many ways more advanced, ahead of the curve than perhaps where the rest of the world is at? What else is being done to control social media companies more broadly, not just TikTok? Because to Vass Bednar's point, TikTok, aside from the fact that it's a Chinese company, may be no different than other social media companies. So, what's happening in Europe to help rein those companies in?

CG: Yeah, that's absolutely true. It's definitely, I mean, TikTok is under investigation, but Instagram, lots of other social media companies are also being investigated by the Irish protection authorities. But more broadly, the European Union adopted its big sort of content law last year, and that's coming into force in the next few months. It's called the DSA, the Digital Services Act. And basically, the idea of this law is that it requires social media and online platform to handle content on their platforms just faster and better. Any content that's sort of illegal would have to be taken down swifter, more swiftly, and then any sort of other types of information that's not illegal, but that's more toxic, you know, sort of cyber bullying or potentially disinformation. They will have to just organize their interfaces and the algorithms better just to ensure that these, these types of contents are not being or are not, don't go viral, you know, and this will be done under the oversight of the European Commission. So, that will be more of the enforcement arm, not the legislative arm, but the enforcement department that will be trying to ensure that these companies are making sure that, you know, kids are not getting addicted, for example, on these, on the social media and the sanctions are quite high because if they don't respect these rules, they could be slapped with fines of up to six per cent of their global annual turnover.

MG: As somebody who reports on this, do you see a change now in how these companies operate and the freedoms perhaps that we have, as users have given social media companies being more broadly pulled back in?

CG: Yeah, we're starting to see some changes. These companies are aware that these laws are coming their way, and the E.U. has long been known for setting some of the first rule books to regulate online. You know, through these privacy laws. They also have big cybersecurity laws. And we're seeing them try to sort of change their design and make sure that they're respecting these laws because, like I was mentioning, they could face heavy sanctions if they don't do so.

MG: What about users? Do users pay any attention to this or are they continuing to use these apps knowing that information may be used to help, you know, shape advertising campaigns, what have you?

CG: Yeah, I think European users are not so different from Canadian users. I don't think they necessarily realize the potential risks they're facing. So, I don't. So, so far it's not like users have refrained from using this app. This is mostly a political discussion and a policy focused discussion that we're seeing happening in the capitals in Brussels and Dublin and Paris and Berlin.

MG: Just finally, you're seeing in the United States murmurings of, you know, should they ban, should the company be banned entirely from the United States. In India, TikTok has outright been banned. Is that something that's being at all contemplated in Europe?

CG: Not really. I mean, like I was mentioning under this, this content moderation bill that's coming into force, the Digital Services Act, that there is this possibility for the commission to potentially ban the app entirely for the whole of the European Union. But that would have, they would have to prove that the app has severely infringed on all of the rules. So, that would be really hard. And it doesn't look like there's an appetite to really do it for the whole of the European Union. I would say that talking to some officials here in Brussels, it did mention that it would be easier to cut off TikTok, which is mostly used by teenagers across Europe, then a company like YouTube that has over 400 million users. So almost all of the E.U. is on YouTube, for example.

MG: Clothilde, thank you very much.

CG: Thank you.

MG: Clothilde Goujard is a technology reporter for Politico E.U. she was in Brussels.

[Music: drumbeats]

MG: This is The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. My name is Matt Galloway.

SOUNDCLIP

BBC REPORTER: Large parts of France. Eastern Spain, large parts of northern Italy as well are under drought warning and in some parts of France and Spain especially, that drought is already so bad, the vegetation plants are already under stress. It is going to stay persistently dry over the months ahead, which is not what we'd want to hear.

MG: Not what you'd want to hear. But after experiencing the worst drought conditions in 500 years this past summer, parts of Europe are indeed in the midst of a winter drought. Andrea Toreti is senior researcher at the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and the coordinator at the European Drought Observatory. And we've reached him just outside of Milan. Andrea, hello to you.

ANDREA TORETI: Hi. Good morning.

MG: Do you remember the last time the rain fell where you are?

AT: I was like, I mean, it rained a bit yesterday, but the real rain came, just I think it was four weeks ago, four to five weeks ago.

MG: And so, what does it look like? I mean, if people talk about this being in some ways a generational drought, what does that look like on the ground there?

AT: Yeah, at the moment the situation is really very concerning because as you said, it hasn't rain in the last four to five weeks in several parts of Western Europe, as you said, France, Spain, and Northern Italy. And this is, of course, really worrying. We see already critical conditions in terms of water content in the soil. And having seen what happened last year, of course, we know the risk, especially for sectors such as agriculture.

MG: Tell me more about that and which sectors in particular are being hardest hit?

AT: Yeah, all the main socioeconomic sectors can be affected by extreme events. Such as, such as, I mean, such as drought. And also, there could be cascade effects. The main ones also that we have seen last year being affected are clearly the agricultural sector that is highly dependent on water, the energy sector, but also river transport. And we shouldn't forget the impacts on ecosystems. That is really important because they can be really long term impacts.

MG: What are you hearing from people specifically in the agricultural sector, especially after last summer when, as I said in the introduction, parts of Europe had the worst drought conditions in 500 years. What does that mean for farmers?

AT: Well, basically, it's time to rethink and redesign some of our approaches to agriculture. I participated just a month ago to a meeting that was involving the rice producers, and they we, because there have been some test to develop and to apply new water management strategies to avoid the peak of the water request from the rice sector when there is also the water, the highest demand from grain maize. And these new management techniques that may indeed, you know, help to avoid water competition, especially in the critical part of the year. Of course, having such a drought right now makes also the, the applicability of such approaches, let's say difficult but, not easy. So, of course, in the agricultural sector, the drought is really a concern because last year we, the sector experienced really remarkable losses.

MG: So, the head of Italy's Department for Civil Protection said that Italy needs in some ways to start thinking about a rationing plan. What would that be? Mean, it would it mean that certain sectors in farming, as you've been hinting at, perhaps don't get the water that they've been getting in past because there's just so little water?

AT: Yeah, there might be different, you know, approaches to these kind of restrictions. At the moment there is, we are kind of in an alert situation. There are already some restrictions in other countries. For instance, in some of the French department that are currently at drought condition they restrict the water usage, for instance, You cannot water, you cannot use water for your garden or for washing your car or to feed your swimming pool. This is already in some of the most affected French departments already in place, this kind of restriction. And something similar is already happening in Spain. So, there are some measures that can be applied, of course. Then as soon, I mean, if you want rain. So, if you want rain, we will need to think a more, a different more severe measures to really save, save water and use in the optimal way the one that we have currently in the water reservoirs.

MG: Has it affected drinking water at all?

AT: Well, as we have seen last year. When did this extreme drought affected the most of Europe, the drinking water was an issue for some, for some villages and towns. But in, let's say, at a regional and national level, that was not the main issue. So, the main issue was indeed the, was the lack of water for the agricultural sector, for the energy. The entire energy sector, actually, not just the hydro power, but also the thermal and the nuclear power plant. And finally, the lack of water for river transport.

MG: You study this as, as I said, the coordinator for the European Drought Observatory. How alarmed are you by this? And do you see a direct line between a changing climate and what's unfolding right now in Europe?

AT: Yeah, of course. I mean, as a scientist I'm trying to be as objective as possible when looking at and analyzing these kind of events, it's difficult to say and to say that, and to attribute this event that is now at its own onset to say that, okay, this is entirely due to climate change because I mean, we will need to perform a dedicated study and it's really complex. So, we are now developing this technique to really say, okay, this event has been indeed mainly caused by human induced climate change. Well, of course it is, it is true that it is in line with the expected effects of climate change, meaning an intensification of extremes and also the occurrence pattern of these extreme, of these extreme by looking up at the future projections using models simulations, we indeed estimated also this kind of increase in the frequency of extreme drought.

MG: And so, what we're seeing right now could be, you know, a preview of what's to come in many ways?

AT: Exactly. So, this could be, you know, a look into the future. It is kind of showing us how the future could look like, because if we do nothing in terms of mitigating climate change, then basically we could have these kind of events almost every year. And having seen the impacts of last year's drought, you can imagine, and all can understand what this means if such a drought is going to happen every year.

MG: Andrea Toreti, we'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

AT: Thank you.

MG: Andrea Toreti is the coordinator at the European Drought Observatory, talking about the lack of rain and the historic drought conditions in Europe. He was just outside of Milan. That is The Current for this Tuesday. Tom Power and Q up next on CBC Radio One. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current and we'll see you tomorrow.

[Music: Theme]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Tuesday February 28, 2023 Episode Transcript

More Stories Like This