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 2024

N:xr6bB; 1:WyIjdGhyZWFkLWE6cjc0OTk1NTU1OTk2OTExMzM4MTAiXQ..; 4:WyIjbXNnLWE6ci01ODI5NDQ1NzA1Njc5Nzc3NDU2Il0.">

The Current Transcript for May 16, 2024

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: This new BYD, Build Your Dream Seagull might be China's transformative automotive nameplate. This car is kind of a big deal.

MATT GALLOWAY: It certainly is. BYD is the largest automaker for electric vehicles in the world. Its Seagull model sells for around $10,000 U.S., a whole lot less than just about every other EV, which is why automakers here and in the U.S. are on high alert. At a time when you might think environmental concerns should be driving as many of us as possible into EVs, the U.S. is trying to keep those cheap Chinese cars out. Those in the auto sector here in Canada wants this country to follow suit. We'll explain why coming up in 30 minutes. Also this morning: admittedly, it is a problem not many of us have had to confront. What do you do with 12 million pounds of excess potatoes?

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: It's about collaboration and communication. So, if one area is seeing surplus, they know who to call. You know what I mean? It's less Batman, more Ghostbusters.

MG: Coming up, the amazing story of how a food rescue company in New York connected with farmers in Manitoba to ensure a shocking amount of potatoes ended up helping clients of food banks from Ottawa to San Diego. But on the verge of a long weekend in many parts of this country, we begin with new approaches to tackle an old problem: impaired driving. Good morning, I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

Cracking the problem of impaired driving

Guests: Steve Sullivan, Thomas Brown

SOUNDCLIP

PRABMEET SARKARIA: There is no excuse for driving drunk. And there's always a choice. A choice to plan ahead, phone a friend, call a cab, or take public transit. We're past the time for making excuses. That is why I'm announcing that our government is introducing legislation that, if passed, would impose tougher penalties for those who drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

MG: That's Ontario's Transportation Minister, Prabmeet Sarkaria. Those tougher penalties he's talking about would include immediate roadside license suspensions and a lifetime suspension for drivers convicted of impaired driving causing death. Last year, more than 40 people in the province of Ontario died from alcohol or drug related crashes. And the Ontario Provincial Police recorded a 16 per cent jump in charges for impaired driving. These changes follow other provinces. New Brunswick has introduced tougher laws against impaired driving. Those were introduced last month and follow suit in terms of similar measures in British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba. Steve Sullivan is the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving or MADD Canada. He is in our Ottawa studio. Steve, good morning.

STEVE SULLIVAN: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

MG: Thanks for being here. Let's walk through some of these proposed changes. One is the immediate roadside suspension of your license if you end up testing, blowing over, I suppose, or testing positive when it comes to the amount of alcohol or drugs in your system. I think a lot of people would be surprised that that's not already in place.

STEVE SULLIVAN: Well, I think the provision you're speaking to actually is. I think what the minister announced yesterday was an increase in those immediate sanctions. So, I think currently it's three days for your first offence, seven for your second, and they're increasing those from seven days to 14 days.

MG: Okay. That makes sense. Let's talk a little bit about this other policy of, anyone convicted of impaired driving being required to have an interlock system installed under the vehicle. What is that?

STEVE SULLIVAN: So, basically an interlock ignition device is something that someone has been convicted of impaired driving will have to install in their car and they pay for the installation. There's a monthly fee. To start your car, you have to blow into it. And if you're above the range, then it won't start. And then as you're driving at different interments, it prompts you to pull over safely and to blow into it again. So, you can't, for example, have someone blow to get your car started, and then you're going to drive and go out and consume alcohol or drugs. These devices have been shown to be quite effective, and Ontario actually has a program. What the minister's announced yesterday, I think was, and we haven't seen the legislation, but what I think he was speaking to was, there's a little loophole in Ontario that you can get an ignition interlock order, which everybody does, but in Ontario, you can just wait that period out without installing the device and then still get your license back. So, I think the minister's looking to close that loophole.

MG: Your sense is, though, that these things work?

STEVE SULLIVAN: They do. We know that they A) allow people who may need their car-- I mean, you know, people who drive impaired often don't have any criminal history. And, you know, they're like many of their fathers, their mothers, their whatever, you know, they have to work. And so, it's important that-- because it gives them a chance to drive. But it makes sure they're driving legally. Right? So, they're driving with their license and they're driving safely. It separates the act of alcohol consumption from driving. So, there's research that shows that it can be quite effective in reducing recidivism.

MG: In our introduction, I mentioned the proposal would also lengthen some of the suspensions, the most extreme one being a lifetime suspension for driving if you are convicted of impaired driving causing death. Is there evidence that a penalty like that would deter somebody from getting behind the wheel if they are drunk or high?

STEVE SULLIVAN: I think one of the things we know is that the sentence really has less deterrent effect than we might assume it will. You know, people who drive impaired and we've done surveys, other organizations have, and you ask them why. It's, 'I didn't have far to go.' 'I didn't think, I didn't feel that impaired.' 'I didn't think I'd see a police officer.' No one ever expects they're going to get into a crash and kill somebody. I mean, the research shows that half of those people who were killed in impaired driving crashes are the drivers themselves. So, the sentence has less impact than A) the perception of getting caught, which is really important. And the swiftness of the sanctions. So, those are immediate sanctions like the roadside prohibitions and the ignition interlock, those things actually have probably more of an impact on people who've been caught impaired driving than what potentially might happen if they're ever going to crash and they kill someone. Because they don't see themselves in that scenario.

MG: There's a story out of Abbotsford, British Columbia last year of a guy who was convicted for drunk driving, something like, it was the 21st time that he had been convicted of drunk driving. Which suggests that, it doesn't matter, you can have those sorts of threats of penalties and the perception that you're going to get caught, but if somebody wants to do this, they're going to do this.

STEVE SULLIVAN: Yeah. And I think fortunately, I think cases like that are quite rare. I do think that most people who are caught driving impaired--and keep in mind the difference between someone who just drives impaired and gets caught and someone who drives impaired and kill somebody, it might be because a police officer pulled you over. It might be because you had dumb luck getting home. The act is the same. But I think most people, and there's always going to be people who recidivate, but most people, I think when they have these sanctions and they can be quite effective, will change their behaviour. It's a wakeup call because A) the sanctions increase every time, but B) hopefully it's a reminder to people of what the potential impact could have been.

MG: There are concerns that are being raised when it comes to civil liberties issues and protecting our civil liberties in the face of these new laws. Noa Mendelsohn Aviv is executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Have a listen to what she says about this:

SOUNDCLIP

NOA MENDELSOHN AVIV: We feel very strongly that every death from an impaired driving situation is a tragedy. Everything that can be done should be done to prevent it. But we also need to look at the other impacts that they are having, especially where they may not be effective and may not be adding anything to preventing those kinds of tragic losses. The impact on people who have the ability to become rehabilitated, who may have recovered from an addiction, as well as the ability of people to be fully reintegrated when so many jobs require and depend upon being able to get a driver's license eventually.

MG: Do you have sympathy for those other impacts?

STEVE SULLIVAN: That's where I think ignition interlocks play a good role because it is a balance. You're being held accountable for what you did. You're being given measures that reduce the chance you're going to do this again. But you're also allowed to drive your car and drive it safely and legally. I mean, what happens, we know is people who have prohibitions, many of them, not all of them, but some of them will drive anyway.

MG: Without a license.

STEVE SULLIVAN: Without a license, they're driving illegally, has insurance impacts. And then of course, nothing stops them from driving impaired. So, I think there are measures that--the measures that we adopt should be aimed at A) holding people accountable, but also reducing the chances that they're going to hurt somebody in the future.

MG: Earlier this month, the Ontario Provincial Police announced that they would be implementing mandatory breathalyzer tests at all routine traffic stops in the Greater Toronto Area. It doesn't matter what you're stopped for. You could be speeding, you could be on your phone, you could have no seatbelt on, you could turn red when you're not supposed to turn red, and you will have to blow into the breathalyzer. What do you make of that decision?

STEVE SULLIVAN: We're quite pleased to see that. The law has been in place since 2018. You know, it was, took a while to implement it. And then, of course COVID hit. So, I don't think police were doing a lot of that kind of proactive enforcement. So...

MG: Does it actually work? Do we know whether that works?

STEVE SULLIVAN: Yeah. We've seen in other countries, Ireland, you know, Australia, a number of countries have used it. And what they've shown is that when it's used effectively, when it's proactively used and when it's publicized, so people know, that it can have an impact on reducing deaths and injuries. So, about, you know, if we can test about one third of all drivers annually, that has a deterring effect. So, it's not about increasing arrests and seeing more people charged. It eventually will have the ability to change people's behaviour. And that's ultimately what I think we all want to see.

MG: CCLA also criticize that policy. It says that charter rights protecting Canadians from unreasonable search and seizure might be violated by the idea that you would have to do a breathalyzer, no matter whether there's a suspicion whether you've been drinking or whether you're high. What do you make of that?

STEVE SULLIVAN: Well, so far, over a dozen courts have disagreed. It's been challenged, been upheld. We know we haven't seen it make its way to the higher courts, but certainly the consistent approach by the courts has been to recognize the dangers and risks of impaired driving-- this isn't a new problem, as you mentioned in your introduction. It's an old problem. We're still dealing with hundreds of people being killed every year and thousands more injured. So, I think the courts have traditionally looked at impaired driving as a very serious public safety issue. We're seeing that in increase in sentencing, because of frustration in the courts, and I think they balance the fact that, you know, if you're stopped for, as you mentioned, running a stop sign or a red light, the breathalyzer will take you maybe 90 seconds to two minutes. Right? And for most of us, that's it. We're on our way. But we know that detecting impaired driving, impaired drivers is not as easy as people think it is. If someone's really drunk, it's kind of easy to spot. But if you're not, if you're on that sort of, that levels.

MG: It's not just drinking, it's drug use, [STEVE: Not just drinking.] as well.

STEVE SULLIVAN: Yeah. The thing about mandatory alcohol screening though, is for police to test for drugs, they have to have reasonable suspicion. So, it's a bit of a different standard. But detecting someone who's impaired isn't as easy. And I've talked to police officers who've used the tool [unclear] screening more, you know, at different stops they normally wouldn't have. And they're finding people that they never would have tested before. It's really important, I think, from a public safety point of view. And the courts are weighing that against any potential infractions.

MG: Just two quick things before I let you go. One is, do you think that society thinks differently about impairment when it comes to cannabis versus alcohol?

STEVE SULLIVAN: I think there's still a lot of misinformation and misrepresentation of the risks that cannabis or other drug impaired driving takes. People recognize, I think now in society there's been a shift in alcohol impaired driving. There's just still a lot of, I think, misunderstanding about the impacts of cannabis and other drugs on your driving. No one's a better driver when they're on drugs.

MG: We're going to talk more about why people do this, why people still drive impaired. But as you understand it, why is this still a thing?

STEVE SULLIVAN: I think there's just still so many people who, you know, when we do the survey, as I mentioned, they just don't think that there's going to be anything that happens. They don't think it's going to be them who gets in that crash and who's on the front page of the newspaper. But I work with people who believe that, too. All the families we work with, of the people who've been injured never thought it would happen to their loved one or happened to them. And it is hundreds of Canadians every year and thousands more who are injured. So, it's happening to somebody. And if you're driving impaired, it could well be you.

MG: Steve, thank you.

STEVE SULLIVAN: Thank you for your time.

MG: Steve Sullivan is the CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers or MADD Canada. Thomas Brown is a clinical psychologist, adjunct professor at the University of Sherbrooke, who's done research on the psychology of impaired driving. Thomas, hello to you.

THOMAS BROWN: Hello.

MG: Let's jump right in there. You studied the psychology of people who engage in risky driving behaviour, including impaired driving. What specifically were you looking at?

THOMAS BROWN: Well, we're trying to understand what motivates some people to engage in impaired driving. And particularly the people who, even after a first arrest and having been exposed to the punishments, sanctions and so forth, continued to engage in impaired driving. So, there's something going on in the brains, if I can say that, of some drivers that make them rather impervious to some of the prevention remedial measures we have in place.

MG: What did you learn? Why is it that people do this? In the face of not just, you know, the punishments and sanctions, and we can talk more about that, but also just knowing that this could lead to your death, could lead to your injury or somebody else being hurt or killed. Why do people keep doing this?

THOMAS BROWN: Well, some people have, let's say, a disorder that is really defined by a loss of control. So, despite their best intentions, and your previous speaker alluded to this, despite their best intentions, no one intends to engage in impaired driving for the most part. Their inability to control their alcohol and possibly drug use is impaired, so that they end up drinking too much. Once they've drank or used drugs, to a certain degree, their judgement becomes impaired, their perception of intoxication becomes impaired. And they make the potentially fatal decision to drive impaired.

MG: Do we, do these people see themselves as risk takers?

THOMAS BROWN: Well, in fact, there's some people who do and some people who don't. And some people are risk takers, and some people are not. And some of our other research beyond alcohol use disorder has looked at different kinds of clinically significant subgroups that increases or potentially decreases the risk for recidivism. For example, you have the person who has an impaired, who engages impaired driving because they have an alcohol use disorder. Let's talk about alcohol. And they have loss of control. But there are other types who have different types of profiles which we've investigated. One being those who engage in not only impaired driving but also other reckless driving behaviours like speeding, cell phone use and so on. And if they do that repetitively, we found that they fit the bill of what we call fearlessness. That is, sanctions, punishments, and their ability to look at the consequences of their behaviour is different than for most people. If they are arrested, I think for most of us, an arrest for impaired driving would be a catastrophe. They are not quite as affected emotionally as most of us would be. And so, their recollection of the event, the psychological cost of that event is not so strong. And so, they are apt to re-engage because they just don't have that feeling that this is something that I should really avoid because it hurts too much.

MG: Part of this is also, I mean, just for the average person, the impact of alcohol on impulsive behaviour. Right?

THOMAS BROWN: That's right. And we also found differences in people who are more prone to engage in recidivism. For example-- or impaired driving right from the beginning. In other words, some people have what is called a impaired subjective response to alcohol. That is, they could be very intoxicated if anyone's looking at them, but as far as they're concerned, their sensations within themselves suggest that they're not so impaired. And that's a risk factor for addiction to alcohol. But it is also a risk factor for engagement in impaired driving and recidivism.

MG: What does this tell us about how difficult it is to change people's behaviour? In the context of new rules coming into place that, as we were hearing earlier, may not be strictly about punishment, but might be about diversion and deterrence.

THOMAS BROWN: It becomes tricky. I think for a person who has an alcohol use disorder, it's fairly straightforward. If they're screened effectively, their disorder is detected, they can be referred to treatment. And treatment does work. But for the people who have more of these personality tendencies that motivate them to engage in risk taking behaviour generally, they're more impervious to remediation. They don't respond as well to the treatments we have available. So, this is a, remains a dilemma. A certain percentage of individuals will fit this kind of profile. And these are the ones who are, we're most concerned about for recidivism and how to derive or to orchestrate effective interventions for these people. And it's a subject of ongoing research.

MG: There are a couple of specific interventions I just wanted to briefly ask about. One is those interlock devices. If they're meant to interrupt the process, create some friction between you being able to get in the car and, you know, drive the car, how well do you think those would work given what you've just said?

THOMAS BROWN: Well, I think, as your speaker alluded to before, they work as long as they're installed in the car. And for a lot of people, the experience of an impaired driving charge and conviction and the interlock and so on, it is a prelude for them never engaging in the behaviour again. But for others, not so much. For those individuals, a longer-term installation of interlock is beneficial because we don't find that the therapeutic effect of interlock installation is very enduring. That is when, once the device is taken out of the vehicle, people tend to return to the same level of risk they had prior to installation of the interlock. So, some jurisdictions have started to increase the use of interlock for prolonged periods of time, even lifetime bans, for those individuals who seem to be intractable in their impaired driving.

MG: The other issue is, again, those mandatory breathalyzers if you're stopped for any of number of other things. How, from a psychological point of view, how well is that do you think going to work in terms of a deterrence? Will that dissuade people from drinking and driving because they know that they might be stopped if they roll through a stop sign?

THOMAS BROWN: Absolutely. And this was a point that's been brought up by your previous speaker, and I totally agree. Basically, deterrence in place, punishment, sanctions and so on are not really effective unless you actually detect an individual and expose them to these determined. And ongoing visibility and vigorous enforcement is key to that. In some jurisdictions like Australia, you can't really drive for very long before you're stopped at a checkpoint. These are random stops. People are stopped systematically. And that exposure has really made a difference in terms of their impaired driving rates. And it's quite a success story. We have difficulty implementing that type of policy. It requires a lot of police resources, but it's one of the most effective deterrents we have.

MG: Just before I let you go, we just have a minute or so, is there one thing that you would like to see implemented to better tackle impaired driving? This is an old problem.

THOMAS BROWN: Well, I really think that the policy changes in Ontario and elsewhere making the sanctions more severe is something-- like the rest of Canadians I think are--generally, I'm very favourable towards. And I'd like to see more efforts at things like checkpoints where people really can expect to be stopped at any time. And I suspect that will really have an impact on our impaired driving rates.

MG: Thomas, thank you very much.

THOMAS BROWN: Right.

MG: Thomas Brown is a clinical psychologist and adjunct professor at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec. Your thoughts on this? Why is this still an issue? Do you support the idea of a mandatory breathalyzer if you're stopped for any number of other things? Maybe you're speeding, maybe you don't have your seatbelt on, maybe you're on the phone while you're driving, and when you're pulled over by police, you have to blow into the breathalyzer as well to prove that you haven't been drinking. You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. Your CBC News is coming up next. And then:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: Today we are finally taking a look at the BYD Seagull. This is such a cool vehicle. Such a small vehicle, as well. This has taken over the Chinese small hatchback market.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: The BYD Seagull is an electric car about the size of a mini-Cooper. It has a starting price tag of about $10,000 U.S. Might sound great. But this week, U.S. President Joe Biden announced new tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles like The Seagull, in an effort to protect American carmakers. We'll talk about what this means to North American consumers hoping to buy more affordable electric vehicles. It's coming up in six minutes. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Stick around.

[Music fades up]

Should Canada impose tariffs on Chinese EVs?

N:xr6bB; 1:WyIjdGhyZWFkLWE6ci0zOTM5MTc1Njk5NDU1NzU5NjM4Il0.; 4:WyIjbXNnLWE6ci01Mzk2MzgxMjUzMDk1NDMxNTAwIl0.">

Guests: Matt Lundy, Flavio Volpe, Nate Wallace

MG: Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: This right here is the BYD Seagull, and with a starting price of around $10,000, this thing could be the automotive bargain of the millennium. And you might actually be able to buy one of these cars in the U.S. sooner than later. Possibly. Maybe. Potentially.

MG: That's a big maybe now. This week, the U.S. announced hefty tariffs on electric vehicles imported from China. Vehicles like the Seagull made by BYD or Build Your Dreams. These cars are proving very popular in countries like Australia, Singapore and Thailand. But part of the reason is the low price tag. Not so low now in the U.S. with tariffs of 100 per cent, a move that some are calling for Canada to mirror. Matt Lundy is a business reporter with The Globe and Mail. He's written about BYD and driven one of their vehicles. He's with me. Matt, good morning.

MATT LUNDY: Thanks for having me.

MG: You drove one of these cars. It wasn't the Seagull, but it was a higher end vehicle. Tell me what it was like.

MATT LUNDY: Yeah, it was called the ATTO 3. It's like a crossover SUV type of vehicle. I was in Germany at the time, and there was just a lot of hype around this company, so I figured, hey, why don't I rent this thing and put it through its paces? I was driving on the Autobahn. As a lot of people know, big stretches of it do not have a speed limit. So, it was going, you know, a pretty decent pace. And you could have told me it was a Volkswagen; you could have told me it was a Toyota if I hadn't known otherwise. It seemed like a totally suitable, safe, good vehicle.

MG: Are they visible in Germany? Like, do you see a lot of these cars around there, or?

MATT LUNDY: You don't. I mean, they were pretty early in the sales process there. They'd only recently started to roll it out. I mean, in a given month, they might register a couple hundred or 150 of these vehicles, which is nothing compared to Tesla or the domestic brands. So, they are not that common on the streets.

MG: But somebody in the piece that you wrote said they're coming, and they believe they're coming.

MATT LUNDY: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think they're going off the experience that you see in other countries. Like, if you look at Australia, for instance, the model that I drove, the ATTO 3, that was the number three selling EV in 2023. That was their first full year in the country, as well. So, they ramped up very quickly.

MG: Tell me about this company, BYD. I mean, there are a lot of people who've never heard of it, but from the headlines. How big is it and what's going on with it?

MATT LUNDY: Yeah. So, they were started in the mid 90s as a rechargeable battery company making like, you know, cell phone batteries, basically. Early 2000s, their CEO decided, we want to get into the electric vehicle game. We think this is a huge growth area. Investors were not too happy about that. I mean, it seemed kind of laughable that a company making batteries for phones would get into, you know, big vehicles. But this coincided with the Chinese government really identifying EVs as this huge growth area for them. They've done a lot to support the industry, things like lower corporate tax rates for EV makers. And there's been a huge amount of competition, and they've sort of risen above everyone else. They've been the company to beat.

MG: How are they selling-- the Seagull model sells for $10,000 U.S. I don't make cars, but that seems like a whole lot less than people would pay for a car just about anywhere else. How are you selling a car that cheap?

MATT LUNDY: Yeah. So, one thing I would mention, that's about $10,000 U.S. in China. They've introduced it under a different name, but it's basically the Seagull, in some other markets for about, like, $20,000 U.S. Still quite cheap. I would say, you know, a few things. One is that there are, in China, lower labour costs. They have, they've been in this game for a while, for over a couple decades now, making batteries for vehicles. They have developed their supply chains way earlier than a lot of traditional automakers. And yeah, they are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government as well. I think you throw a lot of--they also use some cheaper materials, or less expensive, they'd probably want you to say than, than some other batteries. So, I think you throw a lot of these things together, economies of scale, and you get them able to drive down costs pretty substantially.

MG: We mentioned Australia. Where else are these cars becoming popular?

MATT LUNDY: Yeah. So, they've done, you know, seemingly pretty well in Israel, Singapore. But, you know, it's... not every market is necessarily good for them. Like Norway, which is a pretty mature market, they've struggled to sell there. They often do pretty well in these, I would say, emerging markets, places where there aren't necessarily a lot of tariffs. So, Australia would be an example of this. Where they can go in and really undercut the competition.

MG: And is the key goal to try and offer an affordable alternative to other car manufacturers when you're looking at EVs?

MATT LUNDY: Well, yeah. I mean, I would think so. I mean, EVs can be pretty expensive. It's an early area for a lot of auto manufacturers. So, those prices are a bit high. And yeah, for them, they're playing a volume game. Right? Like they outsell in China, VW, Volkswagen, which was the number one car seller in China for at least 15 years. So, BYD has surpassed them. They're selling more electric vehicles than Tesla. For them, it's a volume game.

MG: Why haven't we seen them in North America? I mean, I mentioned the tariffs that were introduced earlier this week. But before that, why haven't we seen these vehicles here?

MATT LUNDY: We--so, interestingly enough, BYD does make electric buses in New Market just north of here. They make them as well in California. So, they do get these municipal contracts for buses. But in the consumer segment, no, they've not been here. One, their manufacturing base is in China. So it's, you know, it's a lot of transportation costs that would be involved.

MG: Although that looks like it's changing.

MATT LUNDY: Yeah. Yeah.

MG: Maybe they've talked about opening a manufacturing plant in Mexico.

MATT LUNDY: They are knocking on the door, I would say. Yeah. I mean, they're creeping closer and closer. They seem more focused right now on Latin American markets, Brazil as well. Those are bigger countries. You know, even prior to this week, there were pretty substantial tariffs in the U.S. that would make... you know, as well as, you know, a car produced in China, people are not going to be able to get consumer subsidies from the government there as a result of that. It was not a hospitable environment, the U.S., and even less so now.

MG: I s it just because, is that just because they're from China?

MATT LUNDY: Well, I mean, there's an industrial policy from the Biden administration where they're trying to pump up the industry there. And they, yeah. They're taking a more protectionist stance. Is it because it's from China or just an outsider? I can't say.

MG: If they start manufacturing these cars in Mexico, what would that mean for an entrance into the North American market? They're closer. Does that suggest that they could arrive here at some point in time?

MATT LUNDY: Potentially. Yeah, I mean I...

MG: That's a big pause before the potentially.

MATT LUNDY: Well, I guess you could say they are in North America if they are in Mexico. Right? And they're bringing in, they're introducing new models. Like, they're bringing in a truck that would be a first of its kind in that market. So, they are definitely tailoring what they're doing for Mexico. They're identifying a plant that they want to build in Mexico. Not sure--I think your next guest would know about sort of content rules and that sort of thing. But if they are building in Mexico, I mean, that... would that help them get around certain tariff rules? Possibly. I'm not sure. I guess it depends sort of how much goes into those things. But yeah, they are knocking on the door.

MG: Just last point, is your sense that there is any interest or rumbling from Canadian officials to match those American tariffs?

MATT LUNDY: There's an interesting story that my colleague wrote yesterday, because as part of this tariff, the announcements this week, they also targeted, the U.S., some aluminium and steel products from China, as well. And yesterday, Chrystia Freeland's office was saying that, we don't want China to become a dumping ground for steel and aluminium. Or, we don't want Canada to become a dumping ground for these products from China. So, is that a bit of a tell? Does that mean that we could be seeing something on the EV side as well? We've, I mean, our governments here have definitely, they've invested, or they've subsidised to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, the EV industry here as well. Right? So, I can't imagine they want China to come in.

MG: Matt, thank you very much.

MATT LUNDY: Thank you.

MG: Matt Landry is a business reporter with The Globe and Mail. You could imagine that the thought of a low-priced electric car would be enticing for many consumers. Tim Golding lives in Ottawa. He bought his EV two years ago.

SOUNDCLIP

TIM GOLDING: As an EV owner, it doesn't matter to me where it's made. Ideally, I would want something that was made down the street for me because the carbon footprint of that manufacturing has, is not as big as they would have manufacturing in a foreign country. Throwing it on a boat, you know, shipping it around the world to unload it. But if the vehicle meets the safety requirements and it has the features that I want at a reasonable cost, I would buy it. Competition is good. If you have true competition, you don't have to worry about people overcharging like we see in the grocery stores.

MG: Flavio Volpe is the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association. He's also with me in studio. Good morning to you.

FLAVIO VOLPE: Thanks for having me on.

MG: What did you think of Joe Biden's announcement on the tariffs this week when it came to Chinese made EVs?

FLAVIO VOLPE: Well, we went down and met with White House officials in November. Treasury, Economy, Energy and said, Look, the Chinese--and I think Matt put it real well--I mean, they make global quality cars. And, you know, and we talked about price points that are, you know, in some cases half of the local ones here. We said, understand why they're half. Understand what the Chinese are after. They're looking for market share. They want to, they want to be able to push their advanced manufacturing products just like anybody else around the world. But this is about balance of power. And, beware. You're spending $330 billion to green the auto sector, and you're pushing or regulating the market to buy electric by 2035. If you're not ready, and the Chinese are ready, then you're spending money that will go in the toilet, while consumers like the one we just heard of go after the cheapest option.

MG: What should Canada do?

FLAVIO VOLPE: Canada should match.

MG: Should match.

FLAVIO VOLPE: Yeah. That's right.

MG: So, what would you say to Tim Golding? Who says, it doesn't matter where the car is built. And he says that competition is good.

FLAVIO VOLPE: I think Tim is the typical consumer. You know, I think all of us think that way. You know, especially in tough times, you try to find the cheapest, best option for you and your disposable income. It's not up to Tim to figure out what the balance of power means for Canada and the U.S. What we're missing here is, the Chinese aren't in the EV business because, you know, they're there for environmental reasons. They're there because...

MG: How do you know that?

FLAVIO VOLPE: Well, this is the world's worst polluters. Both from an industrial base. The, how they set up-- I'll give you a quick story. Elon Musk turned to the Chinese to build a factory in Shanghai. You know, saved the Tesla, probably in 2018, 2019. Widely reported. They put up a factory for him within a year. Why can't you put up a factory within a year in Canada and the U.S.? Well, you've got permitting concerns. You know, you-- from an environmental point of view, from the real estate development point of view, it starts there. In China, it's a: look, can we build our industrial capacity to help grow the world's second biggest economy? Happy to do it by any means necessary.

MG: Are we building EVs for environmental reasons, or are we building them to save jobs?

FLAVIO VOLPE: Well, the we is global automakers.

MG: In Canada who have subsidized-- I mean there's, what, almost $29 billion that have gone at the door between Ontario and the federal government already for battery plants. Are we doing this because we want to save the planet, or we want to save jobs?

FLAVIO VOLPE: Well, both governments have said that they want to make real progress on our climate objectives. In a, in what they call a climate crisis. And we make cars here. We make two million of them a year. And they've turned around and say, look. The best investment is to turn around, say, look, the people who are making those cars should be the ones that make the cleaner cars. So, they're investing in them.

MG: In that climate crisis, ostensibly, we want as many people as possible to be in electric vehicles. There was a survey that was done by the Electric Vehicle Council that found in the U.S., 83 per cent of EV drivers had a household income of 75,000. Fifty-seven per cent had incomes above $100,000. Why shouldn't Canadian consumers have access to cheaper cars? Isn't that going to help those environmental concerns?

FLAVIO VOLPE: I think Canadian consumers do have access to cheaper cars. They can buy any car that meets federal crash safety standards that can be sold here. Canadian consumers and Canadian governments don't make the decisions for foreign companies, whether they sell them here or not.

MG: But Canadians don't have access to a $10,000 car. Or what-- it might be a $20,000 electric vehicle. The electric vehicles that people are paying for, I mean, essentially these are still luxury purchases for many Canadians. Would that not spur the environmental goals, if people had access to those cheaper cars? More people are going to be driving electric vehicles.

FLAVIO VOLPE: No one's blocking BYD from selling the car in Canada right now. They have the same rules for everybody else. There's a federal crash safety--crash and safety standards. And you can sell them here. Why aren't they here yet? In part because those products are made for consumers in different markets that have lower disposable income. And those markets have different standards. Both for safety of the vehicles, but also for the chemistry of the batteries. And so, they can sell them here. And I think what's important to note is that they've put a... the Americans said, Look, we're going to put a 100 per cent tariff on vehicles. They didn't say, You're not going to sell them here. So, if you have a $10,000 car or a $15,000 car, it's now 20 or 30,000. It's already cheaper than anything the Americans make there.

MG: But you know that people will not buy--if you have a 100 per cent tariff, I mean, that just increases the price. It takes away the incentive to buy those cars.

FLAVIO VOLPE: Sure. But it's all relative. So, if you turn around and you say, if the average purchase price of a vehicle in the U.S. is $40,000, and these Chinese imports are 10 to 15,000, they're still cheaper with the tariff.

MG: How is this different than in the 80s when there was great concern about Japanese carmakers introducing their vehicles here? And what happened was the prices went down and people generally believe that automakers were forced to innovate and create better cars in North America. How is this different? Is it because of China?

FLAVIO VOLPE: The Japanese were market driven. You could invest in the Japanese company. The Japanese played by the same rules as us. They were better than us. The-- Toyota's investment, Honda's investment in Canada made everybody here make things different and better. The Chinese are not the same. It's not, it's a centrally planned economy. They're vertically integrated. They dispense of the rules that we share with the Japanese. And what we've said to them, we've courted them for years. You know, there was a, you know, before we arrested the CFO Huawei, we were talking to companies like Shanghai Auto, the biggest Chinese automaker, to say, Look, by the way, invest here. Put a factory down, buy supplies here. Employ Canadians. Well, that all fell apart in that episode. But that's a lot different than flooding our markets with the kind of stuff they make with cheap or forced labour in a place where the environmental concerns are much... they dispense of them. And that's why these cars are that cheap.

MG: If BYD were to open that manufacturing plant in Mexico, as they've been speculating, would that change your mind in terms of those cars being available here in Canada?

FLAVIO VOLPE: Yeah. Because we're not talking about imports. We're talking about manufacturing within North America. And if they manufacture in North America and they play by the USMCA rules that we all agree to, then they have access to the market without that tariff. That's not what's being contemplated. And BYD is a great example of a powerful Chinese enterprise with good product. But they're just one. There are dozens. And they don't play by those rules. They don't have Warren Buffett as their--and Berkshire Hathaway as their godfather. They have the Chinese federal government as their godfather.

MG: You see this as a real threat, though?

FLAVIO VOLPE: Well, I think it's a real threat for North America to turn around and say, look, what's--is it important that we make things? Is it important that we employ people to make those things? And then use that to create the value proposition for the raw materials, the steel industry, aluminium, the all the mining that we talked about? Yeah. Look, if the other guys aren't going to play by the rules and they can undercut us, then you've got to, you've got to decide whether you're in the big leagues or not. If you are, you've got to pitch inside.

MG: Flavio, thank you.

FLAVIO VOLPE: Thank you.

MG: Flavio Volpe is the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association. He was with me here in Toronto. Nate Wallace is the Program Manager of Clean Transportation for the environmental organization, Environmental Defence. He's in our Ottawa studio. Nate, hello to you.

NATE WALLACE: Hello. Thanks for having me.

MG: What do you make of those U.S. tariffs that have just been imposed on Chinese made electric vehicles?

NATE WALLACE: So, I think we need to be making clean technologies cheaper for consumers, not more expensive, period. And that these tariffs ultimately take us in the wrong direction.

MG: Flavio Volpe made a very strong defence of those tariffs, in part protecting the investments that we have, protecting the environmental concerns, the crash standards that are in place. What do you make of the objections that he has raised to those manufacturers being able to arrive in this market?

NATE WALLACE: Well, I think it's pretty clear that nobody actually wants the, you know, Chinese automakers to take over our entire market. I think what the real question is, is what's a healthy amount of competition? We've seen affordable EVs from China coming into markets like Europe. And it's actually created the pressure that we want to see for other automakers, Western automakers like Renault and Stellantis to respond by announcing new budget models that are going to be in offer there. And I think it's really important that, you know, when we see that the biggest barrier to EV adoption is actually the prices of these vehicles. And you have auto industry lobbyists like Flavio, asking for bigger consumer purchase incentives for luxury models that, you know, we actually allow the kind of competition that encourages them to bring forward more budget models.

MG: But the context of this is that Canada is spending billions of dollars to expand those EV supply chain lines. Almost $30 billion from the federal government and Ontario alone. Why shouldn't those governments protect those investments? And to Flavio's point, you know, protect those investments or it's money that, in his words, goes into the toilet.

NATE WALLACE: I mean, sure. I think that, you know, the tariffs should exist on some level. Particularly on the wage front. I think we should be calibrating them towards protecting workers’ wages from being undermined. But in terms of what's important is, I think that we need to be-- with those subsidies that we're giving, the automakers shouldn't just sort of be able to double down on what their worst habits are. Which is, use it to create more luxury EV models and then keep them to a relatively niche market and double down on making ever larger, gas guzzling pickup trucks. Because that's what we've seen in the past. So, I think that we need to be orienting our carrots and our sticks policy wise at encouraging those automakers to actually be using those subsidies to offer more affordable models to Canadian consumers.

MG: Why do you think BYD has been so successful? Is it really just about the price?

NATE WALLACE: Well, I think there's that. I think that, I mean, Flavio brought up a lot about the subsidies from the Chinese government. But I think... Canada is doing the exact same thing. So is the U.S. with the Inflation Reduction Act. We've doled out over $40 billion worth of subsidies.

MG: Although he says that this, he says this is not about the environment. This is geopolitics.

NATE WALLACE: Yeah, it is. I think it certainly is about geopolitics. I think the diplomatic tensions with China continue to rise. And that is, I think the-- and the fact that we have a presidential election in November is one of the driving forces behind decisions like this. But I think it's important to remember that, you know, the tariffs are going up from the point that Trump left them. And when he was in office, a bit over 25 per cent, which was already very high, to over 100 per cent. And I think we need to sort of sit back and think about, what's a balanced approach to this where we can say, Okay, let's make sure we're not being undercut on the wage side of things, but also encourage innovation. And also have that incentive for other automakers, Western automakers, to actually bring more affordable models to market. Otherwise, you know, we need that competitive stick.

MG: What is that balance when you are competing against companies that have the backing of the Chinese state? Where labour costs are so much lower, where the environmental practices may not meet North American standards. How do you create any sense of balance there?

NATE WALLACE: Well, I think we could be looking at things like, for example, the French government has put into their consumer purchase subsidies, they've calibrated it to essentially be more generous for the lower upstream production emissions that those EVs have. And that has put French and would put our own EVs at a competitive advantage because we have much cleaner electricity grids. And obviously, Chinese EV is at a disadvantage. But that's the thing that I think we need to be focusing. Is, rather than deliberately raising the price of clean technologies, we should be focusing on helping other automakers compete. And ultimately, what we want is for every automaker to have their own budget-friendly electric vehicle available for Canadian consumers. Have their own Seagull.

MG: And is that-- just in the last minute or so that we have-- is that really at the heart of this? That if there is a lower cost EV available, we will see a significant uptick? Do you believe that right now they're still looked at as luxury purchases for many people?

NATE WALLACE: Well, I think it's very true that they are looked at as a luxury purchase, because they are. And if we really want to drive the transition, it needs to be significantly cheaper. And there's a number of policies that we can be pursuing to help drive that. And I think one of them is fostering a healthy amount of competition.

MG: Nate, thank you very much for this.

NATE WALLACE: Thanks.

MG: Nate Wallace is the Program Manager for Clean Transportation at Environmental Defence. What do you make of this? Should Canada follow suit and implement tariffs? I mean, the tariffs in the United States are 100 per cent on Chinese electric vehicles. Would you line up for one of these cars? Do you find that cost is a disincentive, is steering you away from purchasing an electric vehicle? And would you be more inclined to make that switch if you could get one of those-- I mean, they're $10,000 U.S. in China. So, maybe $20,000 elsewhere. Would you, if you could buy a $20,000 electric vehicle, would that be the kind of thing that might get you switching toward an electric vehicle? Let us know. You can email us: thcurrent@cbc.ca.

[Music: Instrumental]

MG: There's a lot of money that is at play in this story, and much of it is taxpayer dollars in terms of the subsidies that are going to battery manufacturers. Coming up after your regional update, a very different story. It's a great story. It's about the potato. North American potato farmers had an exceptional year. A bumper crop, in fact. So much so that two Manitoba farmers had a surplus of-- how much? Twelve million pounds of potatoes. What do you do if you have an extra 12 million pounds of potatoes? We will tell you in 90 seconds. An incredible story of how-- there was like a mountain of potatoes--ended up in the hands of people who needed them the most. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current. How could you turn the radio off knowing that a story about 12 million pounds of potatoes is coming your way in a minute and a half? Stick around...

[Music: Fades up]

N:xr6bB; 1:WyIjdGhyZWFkLWE6cjYzNzk1ODk1NjgwMzUyMzUwMzQiXQ..; 4:WyIjbXNnLWE6cjI0ODUyMTc2ODA5NzY3MDczMDciXQ..">

The great potato giveaway

Guests: Isaiah Hofer, Wendy Leung, Kate Nelson

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current. Take a listen to this:

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: What's that? No, no. It's okay, I just. I just need to make sure I don't hit the canopy.

[Sounds: Beeping]

SPEAKER: Well, just line up so I can grab it with a forklift. Thank you.

MG: That is the sound of 40,000--yes, he said 40,000-- pounds of potatoes being delivered to Foodsharing Ottawa earlier this month. They were just a small portion of a donation of surplus potatoes that were delivered across North America over these past few weeks from two Manitoba farms combined. Those two farms donated 12 million pounds of potatoes to food charities. How this all came together is an amazing story of connections and logistics and volunteerism and community support. And here to tell us the story, I'm joined first by Isaiah Hofer, manager of Acadia Colony Farms in Carberry, Manitoba. Isaiah, good morning.

ISAIAH HOFER: Good morning.

MG: Tell me a little bit about your farm.

ISAIAH HOFER: So, we are located around Carbery, Manitoba. We farm approximately, 1400 acres of potatoes. That's basically what we do.

MG: And last year was a good year for potatoes.

ISAIAH HOFER: Last year was an exceptional year for potatoes. Yes.

MG: How exceptional? How big was your surplus of potatoes?

ISAIAH HOFER: Just to put it into perspective, you know, you can speak to people that have been in this industry for the last 40 years. They've never seen something like this. You know, I also have to say that everything has changed to, you know, the way our farming practices, you know, and more precision farming has also helped with increasing some of the yields. But I think the weather that we had last year must have been just... Well, it was. It was just a suitable year for growing potatoes. We had at least, you know, almost 100,000 bags of surplus potatoes, which, you know, in potato language, a bag is 100 pounds.

MG: That's a lot of potatoes.

ISAIAH HOFER: Yes. It was just the growing season. It was just the way it was. And it's not only us that saw that. It's, everybody saw that in the industry in Manitoba.

MG: So, what were you thinking of doing with those extra six million pounds of potatoes?

ISAIAH HOFER: Typically, you know, if you have some extra potatoes, there's always a little bit of room in the industry where those potatoes would be used in different jurisdictions. And, but this year, it seemed like everybody had an abundance. Usually, the processors would find a way to use them. But this year everybody had a good crop. And it wasn't just us. It was all the farms around us. And it just created a huge surplus of potatoes, which meant that the processors just, they just could not use those potatoes. And it was either we haul them to the feedlots, or we haul them back out to the field.

MG: So, where did the idea of donating them come from? How did that end up on your radar?

ISAIAH HOFER: We work with Keystone Potato Producers. It's an association that all Manitoba farmers work with. So, they sent out this opportunity, they sent an email out of this opportunity to work with Farmlink. So, as soon as I saw that, I actually reached out to them and got some contact information and made contact with a gentleman by the name of Mike Myers from Farmlink. From there, it just went straight ahead. And, you know, within two weeks we were potatoes all over North America.

MG: Alright, so let's bring somebody. Well, let's bring somebody from Farmlink in to pick up the story as--stay on the line with us. Kate Nelson is the chief marketing officer for Farmlink. She is in Brooklyn, New York. Kate, hello to you.

KATE NELSON: Hey, how's it going?

MG: Well, I'm okay. What is Farmlink? And tell us a little bit about this project.

KATE NELSON: The Farmlink project is a non-profit that we founded in 2020 in response to, you know, we were all college students having been sent home from our various universities. And we were seeing on the news these really dramatic lines at food banks. At the same time, we saw really intense food having to be thrown away due to supply chains being shut down. And so, in 2020, we thought, Huh, this feels like one problem can solve the other. So, what we did is we basically rented a U-Haul and we called a bunch of farms, and eventually one said, If you can take our surplus, you can have it. We delivered that surplus of eggs to a local community food bank, and we just kind of rinsed and repeated that model. And now, four years later, here we are. We've moved 200 million pounds of food across the United States, Canada and Mexico. We're seeing surplus kind of all over the place. We grow enough food in the United States, at least to everyone in the country two times over. And just due to supply chains, we see a lot of that go to waste. So, I kind of see it all over the place. We're anticipating a pretty large surplus of apples coming up in the fall. Last year we rescued 13 million pounds of apples. And we deliver this produce to hunger fighting charities and food banks and really, anyone who will take it. I mean, it kind of gets complicated because not every food bank wants 40,000 pounds of potatoes.

MG: So, how do you learn that farmers have excess produce? I mean like, is there some sort of bat signal that goes up that you notice, and you say, We're heading there to pick up the apples. We're heading here to pick up corn. We're heading here to pick up potatoes.

KATE NELSON: Yeah. It's not so much a bat signal as much as it is, we have kind of a team of experts who've been in the agriculture industry for so long that they can kind of anticipate, you know, where the surplus might be. And also, you know, I think the reason that we have seen so much success is just due to relationships. So, you know, our head of farmer advocacy created a really awesome relationship last year with the executive director of Keystone Potato. And I think it really is just like, it's about collaboration and communication. So if, you know, an area is seeing surplus, they know who to call, you know what I mean? It's less Batman and more Ghostbusters.

MG: I love that. How did you find out that there were 12 million pounds of excess potatoes from these two farms in Manitoba?

KATE NELSON: Last June, our head of formal advocacy, Mike Meyer, met Susan Ainsworth, at a potato convention, which they have, and apparently are pretty awesome. And yeah, I think that she kind of just understood that there was this surplus that was happening. And so, she reached out to us, and we were able to really activate. And luckily, we got all the packaging for the potatoes donated to us by Simplot. So, we really couldn't have done it without them. But it was just really like, we got a call and then we thought, Let's just try to do this. Another thing that's really a catastrophe when food goes to waste is it releases a really harmful emission. Not only are we helping feed people with, you know, delivering these potatoes, but we're reducing the amount of methane that's going into the atmosphere. So, it's kind of like the biggest win of all time.

MG: How does that, in terms of scale, how does 12 million pounds of potatoes compare in size to the other donations that Farmlink has received?

KATE NELSON: It's huge. I mean, it's huge. We've never really-- we're just now kind of like working on these really large-scale rescues. Because I don't really think, there's not really infrastructure for rescues that are at this scale right now. This is definitely our largest. I mean, like I said, we were founded in 2020. So, most of what we're working with is, you know, 40,000 pounds here or there. And in total we've moved 200 million. But that kind of all adds up. So, this potato surplus was really huge for us.

MG: What do you need to do? I mean, it's huge in terms of scale and size, as well. What do you need to do to move 12 million pounds of potatoes?

KATE NELSON: That's a good question. Yeah. I mean, a lot of it, like I said, comes down to collaboration. And there's a lot of pieces that I mean, I didn't really know before I started doing all this that, like, you wouldn't really think of. Like, you know, if you're moving a bunch of potatoes, like, you're going to probably need bins to put them in, you're going to need good trucks to put them in. You're going to need kind of a bunch of, you know, stuff. And so, luckily Isaiah was able to cover the harvest of it. And we had Simplot covering, you know, the packaging, which was fantastic. And then us at Farmlink, we just covered the freight of it. We have a pretty awesome, you know, network of charities that we can deliver these potatoes to. So, they were going all over Canada and all over the United States. But there's a lot of steps and it definitely is, you know, it hinges on collaboration.

MG: Isaiah, on your end, what did you have to do to get ready for trucks to come and pick up your potatoes?

ISAIAH HOFER: Well, I think, you know, it all sounds--and I've been approached quite a few times by, you know, people hearing the story and hearing what we're doing. And it all sounds so glorious and which, it's just wonderful that we were able to do that. But there's a lot of behind-the-scenes work. There's a lot of labour that went into it. So, you know, we start off with, how do I ship potatoes across the border? You know, and it's getting the information from your broker. What do I need? And getting set up that we're able to export potatoes into the U.S. And you know, then it's, how do we-- what's the best way, the most efficient way to pack, to send them? You know, and, you know, looking at the labour aspect of it. We sent 115 trucks. So, we actually went on a, looking for donations, too. You know, we approached Simplot Canada. They came to the table. We approached McCains. They came to the table. We've got a local charity here that actually sent, that actually told us that they would, they would help out, too, with some of the pallets. But it's, at the end of the day, it was a decision that we made, even if they didn't come to the table, we would, we would spend the extra money to get it done. You see a lot of hunger throughout the world. And we made a decision to donate them.

MG: One of the places that took them was Foodsharing Ottawa. Wendy Leung is the volunteer executive director of Foodsharing Ottawa and is in our Ottawa studio. Wendy, good morning to you.

WENDY LEUNG: Good morning.

MG: When you heard that you could have access to part of a 12-million-pound donation of potatoes, what went through your mind?

WENDY LEUNG: I couldn't believe my eyes, if you ask me. When we first got the email, it was short and sweet, but I think the stats were very striking and that really caught my eyes.

MG: What did the email say?

WENDY LEUNG: Oh, it was just mentioning we had over 100 loads of potatoes. Each loads were about 40,000 pounds. So, doing quick math, it was adding up to four million pounds, from... That's a lot.

MG: And is that, is that what you took? You took about four million pounds?

WENDY LEUNG: No, we only took one per cent of that.

MG: Okay. That's still a lot of potatoes.

WENDY LEUNG: It is. Right?

MG: So, how do you go about figuring out how to receive all of these potatoes?

WENDY LEUNG: That took about a solid six weeks of figuring out logistics. I mean, we are, after all, a small local organization. It's a volunteer run organization, that rescues food. We've been rescuing food since 2015, but in the small scale. We have cars running around, driving around the city to rescue food. But nothing to this scale. Right? So, that took a while. Well, we made it happen.

MG: What did you have to do to put together the logistics to be able to receive a donation like this?

WENDY LEUNG: So, thanks to the Farmlink project, I think they were really clear on what was needed to have those potatoes unloaded. We were talking about getting a forklift, [unclear] a loading dock to start. And then I thought, How hard would that be to find a forklift? And yes, it was actually one of the hardest tasks. [MG: Okay.] Surprisingly. I mean, we're really small scale, so it was a very steep learning curve for us. Trying to understand how to even, eventually down the line, sort potatoes to what is needed. It's a lot of thinking and understanding how we could make sure that we could get the potatoes here, and we could sort them out before they go bad. Right? There is a risk to it.

MG: You have to have somewhere to put them. You have to have somewhere to, some people to unload them.

WENDY LEUNG: Yes, yes.

MG: And that was--was that easy to put together? Or?

WENDY LEUNG: No. Well, I was looking around when I was driving in Ottawa like, there's so much green space. It's, it would seem to be impossible for, to say that I can't find a space. And that's why I pursued, that's why I reached out to all our community partners. I think that's how it started. To my own surprise, there wasn't a lot of people with that much space. But I heard a lot of feedback that there was a demand for it. And that really pushes me to keep looking to find the right partners to make this happen.

MG: Is this a good donation? Like when you have an offer, that's one thing. But taking on that number of potatoes, that amount of potatoes, that's something that people would be looking for?

WENDY LEUNG: Oh, absolutely. I mean, we all know potatoes is an essential pantry ingredient, right? So, every culture, everyone could make use of a potato. So, at some point I was telling myself if we could rescue one per cent of this, so one load out of this 100 plus that was available, we could easily feed at least 40,000 people. Averaging about one potato per person, let's say... Individual.

MG: That's amazing.

WENDY LEUNG: It is, it is.

MG: What did you have to do to make sure once you got the potatoes, that you could get them out the door before they go bad? Potatoes aren't going to last forever.

WENDY LEUNG: Right. So, eventually, all our stars aligned. We were very thankful to be partnering with three additional organizations. Namely, Care Centre Ottawa, Lionhearts, Deep Roots Food Hub, to find that space, the forklift and also-- the point is, the temperature that is required to make sure... the storage temperature. I think it was about 45 Fahrenheit that was, it was, well, not required but was suggested. So, for the potatoes to last for about a month. So, we worked around with these criterias and each of these partners had something to give us to support us on this project.

MG: Do you know who ended up with the potatoes in their grocery bag or on their plate?

WENDY LEUNG: Together, I think we actually gave back to over 50 local organizations across the city with countless numbers of individuals and households. And all these potatoes were claimed actually within eight to nine days.

MG: Eight to nine days. [WENDY: Yeah.] You got rid of all those potatoes [WENDY: Yes.] in just over a week?

WENDY LEUNG: Right. Yes.

MG: What does that tell you?

WENDY LEUNG: People love potatoes!

MG: And there's a lot of need out there. Yeah?

WENDY LEUNG: There is. And one thing we also believe in is, yes, there's a need to it. But with Foodsharing Ottawa, we want to make sure we work with a community that can make use of potatoes. So, we were able to also provide potatoes to schools. And they actually used the opportunity to educate their students, what is surplus food? Teach them new culinary skills out of this and redistribute that food that they cook back to the school, which is a fantastic story at the end.

MG: Have you met Isaiah before?

WENDY LEUNG: No. I'm so happy that you found him.

MG: So, he's on the line. What would you say to him about--you're on the receiving end of this--what would you say to him?

WENDY LEUNG: Oh, thank you. Oh, you have no idea. You have no idea what this means to--It's not even about Foodsharing Ottawa. It's the community. We heard so much great feedback about this potato initiative. I don't know how to call it. We call it the Ottawa great potato rescue.

MG: The great potato rescue? [WENDY: Yes.] Isaiah, what would you say to Wendy? I mean, she, this came from your field.

ISAIAH HOFER: Hey, I guess, for us it's, you know, when you're blessed with so much, it's just good to give back. You know, you want to bless others, too. And I'm just glad we could do that. And, you know, a lot of times I feel, I've felt we're a little bit disconnected. So, I actually walked into Winnipeg Harvest just to see what they're actually doing with our potatoes. And it actually opened up, it opens up something within you that's of compassion when you see actually how people are waiting for your potatoes. They had a board on the wall that 1100 bags of our potatoes of ten-pound bags are going out that Monday. And, you know, it just makes you, you know, whatever decision we made, it just secured in that this was the right decision to do. And I'm glad we were able to do that.

MG: Kate, you helped facilitate all of this through your organization. What is this story about, do you think?

KATE NELSON: I think the story is about just kind of being brave and trusting the process. And, like you said, Isaiah, like, really just trying to support one another with what it is that we have. You know, we could do the tracks and Isaiah could do the potatoes and Wendy could figure out where to put them. So, it really is collaboration at the end of the day and just trust in the process.

MG: There's a lot of nastiness in the news these days. And this is kind of the opposite of that. This is people actually working together for something larger than what they could do on their own.

KATE NELSON: Yeah. I think the one thing I'd say is, let's do it again. Let's keep going.

MG: Isaiah, you have a receptive audience for your potatoes.

ISAIAH HOFER: Absolutely. We would do it in a heartbeat. And, you know, we're, we finished this project. And you know if there's opportunity for us to do it again, we will do it again. The one thing that amazed us is due to networking through Farmlink. And where the potatoes went to. Is it San Diego? Is it? New Mexico? Is a New York? Is a Connecticut? Toronto? Okanagan? Vancouver? It's just, you know, just a brand in Manitoba. Winnipeg, Manitoba. You know, Grand Forks. And the power is networking. It was just, it was tremendous.

MG: Power of networking but the power of people who put themselves into this, as well. I'm glad to talk to you all about this. This is some story. Thank you very much for what you've done. And thanks for telling us about it.

ISAIAH HOFER: For everybody who's, everybody who's listening, eat more potatoes.

MG: Said like the farmer who makes, who raises lots of things and grows the potatoes. Thank you very much.

ISAIAH HOFER: I've got to advertise our industry.

MG: All the best to you. Thank you very much.

WENDY LEUNG: Thank you.

KATE NELSON: Thank you.

ISAIAH HOFER: Thank you.

MG: Isaiah Hofer is the manager of Acadia Colony Farms in Carbery, Manitoba. Wendy Leung is the volunteer executive director of Foodsharing Ottawa. Kate Nelson, the chief marketing officer for the Farmlink project. Never have I said the word potato more in my life than in that interview. This is The Current on CBC Radio. My name is Matt Galloway. Yesterday on this program, we talked about an increasing number of cancer diagnoses being made in hospital emergency departments, and we asked for your stories. We were inundated with them. Thanks to everybody who wrote in. And I say thank you just generally, but also because these aren't easy stories to share. Our senior producer, Karin Marley, is here with just a little bit of your mail. Karin, good morning.

KARIN MARLEY: Good morning, Matt. So, Patricia Lett wrote: "This story brought tears to my eyes. This happened to our daughter-in-law two years ago. After complaining to her family doctor who refused to see her because of COVID for months about several symptoms, she went to the emergency department. There, she was diagnosed with stage four breast cancer that had spread to her liver and bones. How cruel and inhumane to receive this diagnosis from a stranger. I've never been so angry. This has to change."

MG: Monica Foley shared this story: "My husband Brian was a person who was excellent about seeing his family doctor. He had a persistent cough, which he was told was a post nasal drip. It turned out it was actually a symptom of oesophageal cancer. We went to the emerge when he wasn't feeling well, and there he was, diagnosed with stage four cancer, and in four days I left without him. My family and I are still struggling with the question, how was this possible?"

KARIN MARLEY: So, this story comes from a listener who didn't give their name. They wrote: "I went to the emergency room and had a CT scan related to diverticulitis. While sitting alone in a cubicle waiting for results, I overheard a discussion that mentioned kidney cancer and then the diverticulitis details. I realized that it was my scan they were discussing. I was extremely fortunate as the tumour was very small and successfully treated, but it was still quite a shock at the time."

MG: This listener also did not leave a name but shared this story: "I, too, went to the ER for a lump in my thigh that had been getting larger. I got my diagnosis by email through the hospital portal at the start of the civic holiday weekend. No one called. I had to wait a week or so to see a doctor. I have to say that once I got into the system after I got my diagnosis, the care that I received was first rate. It's getting into the system that was a challenge, and I am so glad that I went to the ER that day rather than wait for another ultrasound, which had previously diagnosed me with a cyst."

KARIN MARLEY: So, Louise sent this note: "In January 2010, I was diagnosed with breast cancer and had a lumpectomy and 27 rounds of radiation in British Columbia. Fast forward to April 19th, 2024 in Ontario, where I do not have a family doctor. I had a severe rash on my left breast which had been there for a while and was spreading. I had to go to the hospital emergency. Immediately, I was taken for an ultrasound exam which reported two masses, a larger one in the breast and a smaller one in the lymph node. Results to date are inflammatory breast cancer, which spreads extremely rapidly and a suspicious mass on the spine. I am awaiting a consultation booked for later this month. I'm walking around in a zombie state and constantly fatigued. What I thought was a skin rash has sent my life into depths of despair caused by the darkness of waiting periods and the unknown."

MG: Finally, we got this note from Tracey Stewart in Richmond, British Columbia: "I was diagnosed with breast cancer at the age of 36, and it happened because I took the initiative on my own to go to emergency. I had a gut feeling that something was really wrong. I had gone to my primary care provider with a lump in my right breast, and asked her to send me for a mammogram. Her response was that I was too young to have breast cancer, and that I just had fibro cystic breasts. I believed her for about a minute. Who wants to hear that they have cancer? Over the next week. That lump was getting increasingly sore and I was getting increasingly stressed about it. I decided to go to hospital. The doctor I saw was incredibly caring and supportive. He was clearly dismayed that my primary care doctor had dismissed me. It turned out that my tumour was five centimetres and I had four positive lymph nodes in my armpit. My cancer was already stage three. All I can say for others out there who may suspect something is amiss with their health: be your own advocate. If a health care professional gives you the brush off but you know in your gut it's not right, don't wait. Get a second opinion." Thanks to everybody who took the time and the care to write to us. And thank you, Karin.

KARIN MARLEY: You're welcome.

MG: Karin Marley, senior producer on this program. We wish you all the very best of health and the people who wrote to us and the people whose letters we did not read on air. If there's anything that you hear on this program that you want to comment on, do get in touch. The listeners are remarkable and people will share the most incredible stories with us. You can email us: thecurrent@cbc.ca. That is The Current for this Thursday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. It's the 16th of May. On this day in 1966, The Beach Boys released 'Pet Sounds.' Critically acclaimed album, one of the greatest albums of all time, certainly one of the most influential records of all time. Composed and produced almost entirely by Brian Wilson. Brian Wilson is 81. He's been struggling with a major neurocognitive disorder that has worsened since the death of his wife in January. A California judge recently placed the musician under a conservatorship to oversee his personal and medical affairs. There's a new documentary called The Beach Boys, which is coming out later on this month. Described as a celebration of the legendary band that revolutionized pop music. I said earlier that 'Pet Sounds' is one of the greatest albums of all time. This is a song from 'Pet Sounds,' which captures that, explains why he is so celebrated and why that record inspired so many other musicians. It's the Beach Boys and 'God Only Knows.' I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. I'll see you tomorrow.

[Music: 'God Only Knows' by The Beach Boys]

Back To Top »

Provide Transcript Feedback

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

Thursday May 16, 2024 Full Transcript

More Stories Like This