The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Picking Up The Pieces

Episode Date: September 26, 2022

Some comments about the destruction of Fiona on Canada's east coast.  Plus a new study from Mainstreet Research with results that suggest almost half of Canadians don't trust their media.  And then, a feature interview to mark this week's National Day of Truth and Reconciliation on Friday.

And hello there, Peter Mans another week on the bridge. Your Monday show features a special interview, a feature interview of the week, and we'll get to that in a few moments time. One of the leading voices in the indigenous movement in Canada and one of the leading voices in Canada's medical community as well. A two in one on this interview coming up a little later. But first, a couple of notes. One, those images over the weekend, those images of the storm Fiona in Atlanta, Canada, were devastating. Especially the images from Portobasque and Newfoundland. Those pictures, which went around the world,

have made people once again think about the power of weather and the power of climate change. There's no question that we are seeing a different world has developed in the last what five ten years in terms of our weather the systems that go through it the impacts on varying parts of the climate whether it's heat whether it's cold whether it's forest fires whether it's forest fires, whether it's floods, you name it. We're seeing this constantly now. And we saw it again just in the last couple of days in Atlantic Canada. So to the people who were affected, our thoughts

are with you. And it's clear that there are efforts coming from all across the country, including the armed forces, in trying to help people put their lives back together again. Quite the story. Second, as a flag of the beginning, the very beginning of today's broadcast, there was a new study out, came out over the weekend, from Main Street Research. It's a significant poll.

It's more than 1,000 people. It's done by phone, automated phone systems. Therefore, it does have a margin of error. There are more than 1,000 people contacted, which is seen in the polling industry as a significant enough number to warrant discussion over the results. Margin of error of plus or minus 3%, I believe, 19 times out of 20. Now, the main focus of this poll, I mean, it did the normal stuff about party preferences, and we're seeing this kind of consistent pattern in favor of the conservatives, significantly in favor of the conservatives.

But the main part of this poll was about the trust in media. We've discussed this a lot on the bridge, and clearly we're going to keep discussing it because it's an issue. So I want to go through some of these results because I know from what I hear from you that this is an issue that concerns you. And the ability of the media to seek trust among its readers and listeners and viewers is clearly important. Because if you don't have that trust, it's a pillar of democracy, the media, journalism. If you don't have it, what does that say about the state we're in? So let me run through some of these questions and the results they gathered. One of the main questions, what is your level of trust in traditional Canadian media? So we're talking, you know, like CBC, CTV, Global, Toronto Star, National Post,

Globe and Mail, etc, etc. Here are the results. 55% of Canadians either strongly trust or somewhat trust the media. 55%. 38% either somewhat distrust or strongly distrust the media. So you say, oh, well, you know, most people trust the media. 55%? That's pathetic. That's basically saying that half Canadians don't trust the traditional media they have. 55% is not a number to celebrate.

It's a number to be extremely worried about. Next question. And I don't know how some of you feel about this. Do you think traditional media in Canada has or have, depending on whether you want to make it a collective noun, a political bias towards the left, right, or no bias at all? That's right. You guessed it.

It's 41% believe there's a bias to the left. Only 13% believe there's a bias to the right. But the biggest number, 46%, say there's no bias at all. It's almost half. Say we don't see a bias. But 41% do see a bias, and they see it to the left. Here's an issue that, you know, has been around for years, if not decades, but has gathered steam over these last five, ten years.

No question about it, and it was a major plank in Pierre Palliev's leadership campaign. The issue is defunding the CBC. Here's the question. Do you support defunding the CBC? 46%. A total of 46%, either strongly support that idea or somewhat support it. 37%, either somewhat oppose it or strongly oppose it.

But once again, here we are. Almost half of those contacted support the idea of defunding the CBC. Now, if you'd asked that question 10 years ago, 20 years ago, that is not the result you'd get. But it has built up over the last decade or so. And you can ask, well, why is that? CBC costs more than a billion dollars a year to Canadian taxpayers.

Is that worth it? Or is it not worth it? I spent 50 years at the CBC. Obviously, I'm biased on this issue. I think CBC is a very important national institution. But I concede that the CBC has also suffered from a number of self-inflicted wounds. And it's clearly lost support of Canadians

in big numbers. If you've got half saying you should defund it. And defunding the CBC basically means that's it for the CBC. CBC can't operate with the mandate it has on its own because it can't earn enough money from revenue just doing Canadian programming. It's not going to happen. That's why the private networks, certainly in prime time, it's almost exclusively content from south of the border.

And they make money, lots of money on it. I'm not saying that's bad. I'm saying that the CBC does what it does, and it couldn't do it alone. It needs the support of the Canadian people. And if it doesn't have it, that support, well, it's not going to exist. All right, moving on. Next question. all right moving on next question and this addresses what we've talked a lot about recently this issue of going to war against the media does it work or does it not work this would suggest it probably doesn't work. Would a candidate attacking media they view as unfavorable

to them make you more or less likely to support them in a general auction? Well, the results on this seem to indicate that well, they do indicate that a total of 30% either support that, would support that candidate,

or would somewhat be more likely to support that candidate. 30%. 37% say the opposite. And 32%, well, they don't really think it would have an impact one way or the other on them. So attacking the media certainly works for some people,

but it doesn't work for the majority. And here's the final question. This is interesting, especially when you consider some of the other results. Which media outlet do you consume the most news from? Well, it's kind of a runaway winner here, and guess who? It's the CBC.

Now, the CBC is a huge media organization it kind of owns a first place in the online area and it's championed its online online coverage was early out of the gate on making it work and is constantly updating the way it does its online journalism, the look of its journalism, the way it's organized. 35% of those surveyed say the CBC is the media outlet from where they consume the most news. Second is CTV. it's actually let me get this right here it's actually tied

yeah this is interesting ctv is second. Then you have a block, which is, well, for lack of a better term, we tend to call, let me get this right here. Yeah, no, okay. All right, I got it. 31%, a total of 31%, either get their news from alternative media or YouTube and social media. So it's actually 16% alternative media, same as CTV, 15% YouTube. So you combine those two things, which I sort of tend to do

because that's like new media if you wish is 31 cbc is at 35 this has all happened in the last few years now a lot of people say oh i watch american i do you know i i watch cnn i watch you know fox news abc nbc c Well, apparently not so much, at least on those people surveyed here. All of those things I just mentioned, all of them, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, all of them totaled are only 8% from where you consume your news. So that's interesting.

Remember what we're saying in terms of consuming. We're not saying just watching a network. We're saying where do you get your news from? So it could be overall, online, radio, television, all of it. I don't see any print organizations in that question. I don't know, maybe they didn't ask for print, but they certainly didn't get answers on print. So that's the big picture on trust

in terms of Canadians' views on the media. And as I said at the beginning, it's not encouraging. When almost half of those surveyed say they don't trust what they see in Canadian media, that's not a good thing. All right. Enough on that subject. You know I love talking about that,

and I can tell from your mail at the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com that you are interested in that topic as well, and you have strong views on it in some cases. Okay, we're going to take a quick break and then we're going to come back with our feature interview for today. Mondays, we try to have a feature interview each Monday.

And today's is a special one. I'll explain why right after this. and welcome back you're listening to the bridge on series xm channel 167 canada talks or on your favorite podcast platform this is an important week in terms of the Canadian story. Friday is the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation. And it's a holiday, a federal holiday across the country. And in some provinces, it's a holiday as well, not all. But it is a day of reflection for all of us to think about where we are on this relationship between Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous

Canadians. It's a day to think of history. It's a day to think of successes and a day to think of failures. So I wanted to talk to somebody as this week begins about this issue. And you know, there are a number of people

we could have gone to, leading voices on this issue. And this is who I decided on. Alika LaFontaine. Do you know who that is? He's a doctor. He's a doctor in Grand Prairie, Alberta. He was born and raised in Treaty 4 territory,

that's southern Saskatchewan. He has Métis, Oji-Cree and Pacific Islander ancestry. He's served in medical leadership positions in our country for almost two decades at the Alberta Medical Association, at the Canadian Medical Association, at the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Currently, he's the president of the Canadian Medical Association. And as they like to proclaim, and as the media has reported, he is the first indigenous president of the Canadian Medical Association. So that's who I wanted to talk to. So here he is.

Dr. Alika Lafontaine, president of the Canadian Medical Association. Dr. Lafontaine, let me start with this question. I mean, Murray Sinclair came down with his report seven years, more than seven years ago now in 2015. And I'm wondering from your perspective, as one of the leading Indigenous people in the country. From your perspective, has the relationship in those seven years between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians changed in any significant way? You know, I think that's the real question. When we have reports released anywhere i think we sometimes think that that that's the end of the road or that somehow that's that's an important milestone when in reality it's not

the report it's the action that comes after and if we're going to sit back and just be really honest with ourselves i think a lot of the action has been lacking. But that doesn't mean that we haven't moved forward. I think that there's a general sense within the country that things have shifted as far as the conversation. I think there's a willingness to explore things that we just didn't explore as a country before. You know, and residential schools and their impacts go far beyond what we focused on when the report was first published. You know, Volume 4 talked about unmarked burials, and we're finally leaning into uncovering those. You know, there'll be other places that we'll go to. I mean. I don't know how many Canadians know about the history of Indian hospitals

and the terrible things that happened in those institutions or medical experimentation that happened on Indigenous people. It's a process that we're all walking down together, but if we're going to look at outcomes and the impact that it's had on people, I think we still have a far ways to go as far as the action part. Well, on the positive side, because you raise hints of that, can you put your finger on something that you've been directly involved with where you've seen that difference in terms of the interaction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous? You know, I can look back to my day-to-day work.

You know, in interactions with First Nation and Métis patients where I work in northern Alberta, I've seen a change in the tone of people as they come to know the history of Canada and their place in it. You know, we often talk about systemic change and we get really focused on that. You know, when I talk about action, I think it's that broad systemic action that we still need a long ways to go. But that individual action, you know, people make up systems and we can choose to change today if we wanted to. I do see those changes person to person, you know,

people take time to reflect on, you know, the actual history of Canada. You know, there is some thoughtful discussion that happens related to residential schools. And I see people connecting in ways that just didn't happen before the release of the TRC. And that filters down to the way that people work together and the way that people talk together and, you know, the connections that they make with each other. And so that is hopeful.

People are changing. You know, when people talk about you and including the press releases that the CMA puts out, they talk about first Indigenous head of the CMA. And I look at that and I think back to a conversation I had with somebody you probably know, Dr. Nadine Caron in Prince George, British Columbia. And she was also regarded as a first in terms of her role in a particular area of surgery, that she was looked upon as the first female who had had that role in Canada. And she was always uncomfortable with that use, the expression of first, because on the one hand, she felt it put a degree of pressure on her. You're first, you've got to deliver, right? Because all those who will come after you will be looked upon as, well, you know, it wasn't successful the first time.

And so we've got to be careful about this. She was uncomfortable in that sense. She was also uncomfortable in the sense that, well, being first means there was a lot of people passed over before me and a lot of decisions made before me that weren't fair. So I'm wondering how you feel about the, about that expression of being first as the first indigenous head of the Canadian medical association.

You know, first I, Nadine's always been a very thoughtful person. You know, she's someone that I look up to and someone that i talk to from time to time to bounce ideas off of or unpack things that i'm trying to work through so i'm not surprised that she gave a very thoughtful answer when i think about those two parts you know the the pressure of being the first and then you know the the reality that if you are the first, it means that other people didn't get the opportunity to fill these positions. I think Nadine was in a different position than I am now.

You know, when Nadine was the first, she was truly the first, but first and often alone. You know, I have the enormous benefit of being a part of a community of hundreds of indigenous physicians across the country and thousands across the world you know we we recently gathered over the summer at the pacific regional indigenous doctors conference you know pride doc and i'll tell you it was an amazing moment to look out across the crowd and see people like myself just pack a room and present their own experiences and hear myself in their stories you know and see myself um in in their eyes and i i think for myself being the first you know i i'm a part of a community now you know there are a lot of us who are working moving forward and i think of being the first less as the aspects that Nadine talked about and more about, I have a specific role that I can fill, but I shouldn't forget that to a great degree, there are many Indigenous physicians that can fill that role.

And moving forward, I think my biggest challenge is ensuring that I'm not the last and that there's not too long of a wait before there's another. And the environment that I'm in and the quality of the people that are currently in the space who could be amazing leaders, both at the Canadian Medical Association and elsewhere, I think it's a very different position than I think nadine found herself in when when she was the first and you know that's really that's really encouraging shows progress right in not a long period of time she's been there for a while but not a long time i want to read you something uh that came in in mur Murray Sinclair's report. It was action number 22. I'm sure you're very familiar with it, but let me read it so our listeners understand it as well. We call upon those who can affect change within the Canadian health care system to recognize the value of Aboriginal healing practices and use them in the treatment of aboriginal patients in collaboration with aboriginal healers and elders where requested by aboriginal patients

now you're the head of the cma now if there was anyone who can affect change within the canadian health care system it may well be you so how top of mind is is call to action number 22 for you and and more importantly i guess what have you done about it i i think when the average canadian reads the 22nd call to action they they often get fixated on just the integration of traditional medicine into you know the way that we practice medicine canada but it's it's more than that it's giving people choice you know it's giving people autonomy it's making sure that they when they come into that health care encounter they bring their full selves and i i think my background as an anesthesiologist it probably helps me quite a bit in this area

because you know anesthesiologists care about the beginning and we care about the end the middle it's flexible you know as long as you wake up and you have your problem solved i mean that's the most important thing to us and when you look at traditional medicine it's important for us to recognize that there's there's a history behind that, that maybe we misunderstand. When settlers first came to Canada, they brought medicines that were focused on humors and the techniques of bleeding people out if they had symptoms. Indigenous people were using poultices. They were harvesting medicines at the peak of their potency at different times of the year. use, there's an enormous amount of drugs that were derived from natural sources.

And what were those natural sources? It was indigenous knowledge. And so it should be no surprise that traditional medicine functions in a way that is quite effective in a lot of cases. And I've seen a shift in the discussion. You know, I've been a part of discussions in making sure that when people discuss traditional medicines with patients,

they focus more on efficacy than philosophy. And that it's not a discussion that migrates into either or, but does it help or does it not? And I think personally, in my own life, I've had amazing opportunities to be a part of that. I think as head of the Canadian Medical Association, you know, validating that history, you know, validating people's choices, I think goes a long way. Leaders' words carry weight. And just like any leader, my words carry weight as well. So when I say things like this, I do think people to some degree do maybe listen a little bit differently. And moving forward with the CMA, it's been an

institution that's been around for 155 years. It know, it's been a part of the ups and downs of Canadian history, same way as other institutions that have been around. And there is a path of reconciliation that it's walking down. And part of that is going to be acknowledging the role of Indigenous medicines. But there's going to be a much broader conversation that that encompasses all the different calls to action. And so I do think that, uh, I do think that that that is an area that can have major impact in the lives of indigenous people. You've talked quite often actually about the need for political will to affect some of these changes, um, that are needed in a system,

an overall system that seems to be in some degree of breakdown right now, the Canadian healthcare system. Do you see real political will yet to fix these issues? I think political will has to be balanced against the necessity of action. You know, when I walk into a room and there's a code, right, the will to manage that code is somewhat irrelevant because the crisis is happening. You have to do something. in the midst of concurrent crises that are accelerating and getting broader, I realize more and more that the impetus for change is going to become obligatory at some point. When people are waiting 20 hours to be seen by someone in an emergency room,

when you have a patient who tries to go to a walking clinic and then tries again the next day and then tries to go to a family medicine clinic then go to emerge and then calls whomever they might have and then puts a puts a notice in the paper that you know i'll provide five thousand dollars you know if uh if someone can help me find a family doc like happened in that news story out of bc you know we're in a crisis where things have to happen and political will i i think will give way to just the necessity of action and one of the things that i strongly believe in in this environment is you know this crisis is so much bigger than ideology. You know, we are actually at a point in time where if we don't act, our health care system will become something that we won't be able to easily undo. they're rebuilt and then they collapse again you know every time that that breaking happens

it it wears away at the resiliency of the people inside that system until they get to the point where they start to think things can't change and once people become hopeless once patients become hopeless about whether or not the system can get better once the people in the system start to believe that things can't get better that that's a very very different problem than what we're facing right now and i think that that's what politicians have to consider when when they're thinking about whether or not they want to want to move forward with different types of action when you're sitting in the room with some of these political leaders and bureaucratic leaders i imagine as well

how frustrating does it get to make the argument that the cma makes about the need for change and improvement does it get like frustrating writing i've been a part of system change for a really long time and i i now have a feel for the cadence of what it feels like you know i think people who haven't been a part of change in the room when change is happening they sometimes don't realize realize that the reason why things stay the same is because people have these strong beliefs that are linked to the way that things are. And when we talk about changes in the healthcare system, I mean, that's an enormous part of the identity of a lot of Canadians. That's an enormous part of identity for a lot of our political leaders. And those beliefs, they reshape the way that people see themselves and so it's no easy

feat to have someone re-explore who they are you know their position relative to the other people in the world and there's ups and downs and and you know when we have crises like these there are enormous opportunities to have people have that introspection to realize that what they believed in the past isn't going to take them into the future. The Medicare that we built back in the 1960s was good for the 1960s, but it's not good for today. It doesn't address our problems. And that's a process that we have to work through. And I think my frustration is mitigated by that reality that people have to work through, you know, how they see themselves and how they see the world around them in making decisions. And then the other part is just there's a lot of priorities out there. You know, health is not the only system in Canada that's collapsing right now.

It's not the only system in canada that's collapsing right now it's not the only system in the world that's collapsing right now and advocacy groups like the canadian medical association one of the reasons why us being at the table is so important is making sure that it doesn't get pushed down on the priority level you know leaders have to have to solve all these problems but they also have to figure out in what order they solve them as well and i i personally believe and i think anyone that works in health or anyone that's received health care and in in recent times realizes that that our health systems and the crises that they're facing, they have to be dealt with right now. Friday is the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation,

and this becomes then a week where we're all trying to focus on that element of the Canadian identity and the Canadian issues. And healthcare for Indigenous patients is clearly one of them. You've seen firsthand the healthcare system's treatment of Indigenous patients. What's the first thing or the major thing, the concrete thing, that you would change about the experiences for Indigenous people in that system you know i i think this really is the question you know what what do people want out of their

interactions when when they come for health care and i i think we use different words that are sometimes not easily understood by all canadians you word like racism, if you've never experienced racism, it's hard to wrap your head around how that feels as an experience. I think Indigenous peoples, they don't want hostility when they come for healthcare. They want to be able to walk into the room and they want to be seen as complete people. They don't want to be pocketed into these categories without you know objective evidence that that they belong there you know there's an enormous frustration i think for all patients if you walk into a room with a

provider and they look at you and say well this is this is who you are. This is the problem you have. And that's just it. You're caught within that diagnostic pathway and you just can't get off. If we can create environments where we get rid of that tension, we get rid of that feeling of hostility, I think it impacts so many parts of the the patient experience it opens up the ability to have clear communication you know we we all know that relational aspects of of medical care are actually the most important parts of you coming in you trusting the person across from you them trusting you you being able to communicate in a way that that moves us quickly towards figuring out what actually is going on and getting you back to your life you know and i i think that that's that's the most transformational thing for indigenous patients but that's actually

the most transformational thing for everyone when you talk about racism within the healthcare system. I think most of us assume we're talking about patients who feel they are being treated unfairly and in a racist way by either doctors, nurses, healthcare workers, hospital administrators, hospital staff. And we rarely look at it kind of the other way, which is how healthcare workers are treated by some of those same people, including patients. I'm wondering, in your situation, have you experienced that within the healthcare system yourself? I have. I have. I've experienced it from patients. I've experienced it at times from people that it's expressed is, you know, either talking past me or being put into a role that, that I'm not really in. I mean,

it's very common for me to be seen as security, you know, I come by and, you know, people expect that I'm on the person quartering their beds or I'm responding to some sort of event because I'm, I'm the security officer. And I think as people who experience that, we develop certain behavioral responses. You know, one of the very common things that you see with First Nation, Métis and Inuit patients and their families is we use humor as a way to break the tension and position our negative experiences in a way that we can process. And I think that when you look at the experiences of people who work in the system and experience racialization,

I mean, it's just as pernicious as any of the other isms, whether it's sexism or ageism or class of the other isms, you know, whether it's sexism or ageism or classism or whatever ism you're looking at. It cuts off people from fully engaging within the system. It puts them into a place where they don't feel heard, but then you also can't hear them. And we've never needed a health system that was inclusive like we need today. You know, we need everybody present in order to get through the crises we're at. We can't afford, actually, to exclude people anymore because we need everybody. And recognizing that, I think, changes the frame for how we look at the utility of racism,

because any time that the status quo stays the same, it's because people think that it works for them, and the reality is it's not working for anyone right now. I think on that point, we're going to close off this discussion, which kind of launches us into a week of reflection on all our parts. And I really appreciate that you've taken the time to have a conversation, which is not only professional, but personal, clearly, to you. So thank you for this. Thanks for having me. Dr. Alika LaFontaine, the president of the Canadian Medical Association.

And I think on that last point, it does help launch us into a week of reflection, all of us, to think about where our own minds are at on some of these issues that surround a day like Friday, which is the National Day of Truth and Reconciliation. So I implore you all to do just that. Before we go, a few notes on the rest of the week. Tomorrow, Tuesdays since February have been big days. Been certainly big days for me because I get to talk to one of my great friends, one of my longtime colleagues in this business of journalism, and that is the great Brian Stewart.

And he's great because of his work as a journalist both domestically and overseas. His work as a journalist, both domestically and overseas, his work as a war correspondent, and his understanding and his study, long since his retirement date, of things, of a world in conflict, and where it's in conflict. And so he has been a guiding force for us on the issue of Ukraine, since February, since the Russians invaded. Last week's, every week has been illuminating because Brian tends to bring you to the action in a way that gives you some insight into what's happening and perhaps some thoughts

that hadn't been expressed before elsewhere. Last week was a classic last tuesday's brian stewart moment if you want to call it that was explaining to us that putin had his back to the wall to the degree he was going to have to call up new troops, lots of them, hundreds of thousands of them. He also talked about this issue of nuclear weapons and whether or not Putin would be bluffing if he threatened nuclear weapons again. Within 24 hours of Brian's comments being registered,

and I'm not suggesting that Putin was listening, although who knows what he's listening to these days, but within 24 hours of Brian's comments, two things happened. Putin gave a speech where he announced the call-up of 300,000 new troops. And he said, I'm not bluffing when the issue was about nuclear. So, either Brian has enormous influence or he has enormous insight. And that I know for sure he does.

So of course tomorrow Brian will be back. And we'll try and put into perspective where we are now after a tumultuous week on that issue. And I'm sure he's going to have new things for us to think about. Maybe even new things for Putin and Zelensky to think about

We'll see, won't we? That's tomorrow on The Bridge Wednesday is Smoke Mirrors and the Truth With Bruce Anderson Thursday is your turn So don't be shy Whatever comments you may have Send them along

To the Mansbridge Podcast At gmail.com And of course Thursday is also the Random Ranter. I love your reactions to the Random Ranter. They're running about, I don't know, 85, 90% positive. There are a few people, and we heard from one

or two last week, who aren't so keen. But that's the whole idea. He throws out his opinion and you get to challenge it. And on Friday, good talk. With Chantelle Hebert and Bruce Anderson. So that's the week ahead. Looking forward to being here for you. I'm Peter Mansbridge.

Thanks so much for listening on this day, and we'll talk to you again in 24 hours.