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 2021

The AIH Transcript for February 5, 2021

Hosts: Carol Off and Chris Howden

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

CHRIS HOWDEN: Good evening. I'm Chris Howden. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

CH: Tonight:

CO: Rory, thworts. As anxieties mount over Canada's vaccine supply, the federal procurement minister tells us she'll make sure drug companies get us the shots as promised.

CH: Visiting hours are never. A researcher in Calgary has been interviewing families affected by pandemic restrictions on hospital visits and says there may be a better way.

CO: The snub of the issue. A writer for the much maligned Netflix series 'Emily in Paris' is surprised that her show got a Golden Globe nod and absolutely outraged that the innovative 'I May Destroy You' did not.

CH: Master class. The late Christopher Plummer was wise enough to know he always had more to learn in the wake of his death. We revisit the great Canadian actor's 2010 conversation with Carol.

CO: From scratching out a living, to well scratching out a living. A Charlottetown coffee shop owner was struggling through the pandemic until he got lucky, very lucky with a scratch and win lottery ticket.

CH: And he has no business in show business. The American Actor's Union was set to kick out one member after a long career specialising in outlandish roles, but in a petulant letter, character actor and former president Donald Trump quit before anyone could say you're fired. As It Happens, the Friday edition, radio that guesses he's finally helped achieve a more perfect union.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: Canada 'will stop at nothing' to bring in vaccines: procurement minister

Anita Anand

Guest: Anita Anand

CH: Justin Trudeau doesn't want you to worry, more and more Canadians have been expressing doubts about Canada's vaccine rollout. Doubts fuelled by delayed deliveries of both of the vaccines that have been approved so far. But when the prime minister spoke to reporters in Ottawa this morning, he did his best to ease those fears.

JUSTIN TRUDEAU: I know how tired we all are. I know how anxious we are to see our loved ones safe, to see life returning to normal. We feel it, too. That's why we are working every single day to make sure that as many vaccines as possible come into Canada as quickly as possible. And yes, the turbulence week over week that we're seeing is of concern and we're watching it closely and we're staying on it. But let me reassure people, we are still very much on track, as promised, to get those six million doses by the end of March, because that's what the vaccine company CEOs keep telling me.

CH: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaking to reporters in Ottawa. Anita Anand is the federal procurement minister. We reached her in Oakville, Ontario.

CO: Minister Anand, do you understand why Canadians might worry that when they watch the flow of vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna reduced to a trickle, that they are in a bit of a panic about this?

ANITA ANAND: I do understand, and I am also disappointed about the temporary reduction that we experienced last week. But I want to assure Canadians that the shipments of vaccines did return. Over the past week, we had 79,000 from Pfizer arriving in Canada, 180,000 vaccines arising from Moderna in Canada. And we have another shipment of Pfizer that has left Europe today. And so we are continuing to ramp up with our vaccine delivery and we will see a steep incline come the middle of February through to the end of March and then into the spring. By the end of Q1, we will see six million vaccines in this country. By the end of Q2, we will see 26 million in aggregate and by the end of Q3, over 70 million vaccines in aggregate so that every Canadian who wishes to be vaccinated will have access to a vaccine. That's our commitment to Canadians and that's what we're working on every single day.

CO: Right. If I go back to the beginning of January, the commitment that was there was that there was going to be... We're absolutely assured that the vaccinations were going to happen much more quickly, that the promises were.... We actually had weekly numbers, weekly numbers that were going to arrive in February of considerably more than we're getting 366,000 Pfizer doses per week in February, your government promised. I'm not saying that you're at fault for this, but do you think that your government set up expectations that you simply could not deliver on?

AA: So one of the things that I want to make sure everyone realises is that our vaccine contracts specify quarterly delivery timelines and they have from the very beginning of the contract, we always knew that we would be entitled to six million doses per quarter. The delivery schedules that we provided are provided in order to allow provinces and territories to plan. They are for planning purposes only. And so the commitment for six million vaccines by the end of the quarter remains. And we are simply trying to deal with slowdown in the production facilities in Europe. of these vaccine manufacturers. And once we deal with these temporary reductions, we will then be back on track to ensure we meet our quarterly delivery timelines.

CO: I just want to point out that the reason why the Prime Minister made that statement is because it's quite obvious that Canadians are losing faith. They're losing faith in your ability to deliver because of the commitments you made. I know you're saying the quarterly contracts. You've always been saying that, but you gave specific numbers that were going to arrive and those numbers have not happened. And in fact, with the Moderna, they are now saying we don't know how many were going to get each week. At one point you were giving numbers, specific numbers. Do you think that you should not have, in retrospect, given those kinds of commitments, set up those kinds of expectations that you were unable to deliver on?

AA: We are in a global environment that is extremely competitive, where production is being ramped up around the world. And the reason why we provided those numbers is because that is what the vaccine manufacturers told us. And we want to be transparent with Canadians and certainly with the provinces and territories who are seeking to plan. We were surprised and we were disappointed when the vaccine manufacturers revised the estimate that they provided to us on a week to week basis. By the same token, we sought assurances that they would not renege on their quarterly deliveries, and that's exactly what we were able to receive from them. And we will continue to press them to provide increasing deliveries on a week to week basis. We have 1.4 Million Canadians vaccinated now, and we have deliveries from Moderna and Pfizer occurring every week from here on in. And we will ensure and prep the vaccine corporations to meet their quarterly commitments. And as a result, that is why we are saying, six million by the end of March, 20 more million by the end of Q2 and over 70 by the end of Q3.

CO: So here's the problem, though. You were surprised and disappointed because they told you those numbers and you told us those numbers and now you're telling us numbers that they have told you again. And so why should you trust them and why should we trust you?

AA: I rely on our legal agreements with the vaccine manufacturers, and those contracts specify six million in aggregate for the first quarter of 2021. And whether it is good or bad news, we come to Canadians with the information that we have that's very important to me as a minister and that's important to our government. And again, it's unfortunate. It's extremely disappointing that we went through this temporary reduction of vaccines over the past week. But as I said, we have been assured by the vaccine manufacturers that these shipments are increasing and that is the information that we are providing to Canadians.

CO: And you trust them. You trust that information, you trust it?

AA: What I am referring to each and every time is our quarterly delivery schedule that has been provided to us by the Vaccine Corporations, and I will say that each conversation I'm not only enforcing our contracts and the provisions in our contract, but I am also aggressively pushing the vaccine manufacturers to move up their delivery from Q3 to Q2 and indeed within the quarter so that we can have the earliest possible deliveries of vaccines into this country. And, Carol, I just want to make sure that I clarify that we have 1.4 Million vaccines which have arrived in this country. So that, that is clear for your audience.

CO: Minister Anand, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

AA: Thank you so much, Carol.

CH: Anita Anand is Canada's minister of procurement. We reached her in Oakville, Ontario. And you can find more on that story on our web page at CBC.ca/AIH.

[Music: piano instrumental]

Emily in Paris Writer

Guest: Deborah Copaken

CH: The big award shows always snub, but this snub felt different, more than a few people on Twitter this week said, "I may destroy the Golden Globes". It was a reference to the fact that one of the best shows of 2020, HBO's 'I May Destroy You' didn't get a single nod at the upcoming awards show. The limited series is about a young black London woman whose life has turned upside down by sexual assault. It was daring, tender, funny, devastating and the brainchild of one person, creator and star Michaela Coel. Deborah Copaken thought the snub was outrageous, too, which is something, considering she was a writer on the Netflix show Emily in Paris, which wasn't exactly a critical darling and did get a Golden Globe nomination. We reached Ms. Copaken in New York City.

CO: Deborah, you said in a Guardian piece this week that you feel rage over the Golden Globes snubbing I May Destroy You, the series and lots of people would share that with you. But what makes you so furious?

DEBORAH COPAKEN: I get very upset when really good work gets overlooked. I May Destroy You, was by every measure a work of genius. It was beautifully acted. It was so cleverly conceived. The structure was amazing. But moreover, it just showed a world that we don't usually see. It showed a type of woman that we are. A lot of us are that woman, but never gets depicted. You know, this is a strong, cool woman. And I just was incredibly upset that this, clearly a show that was by an auteur. Right. We don't have a lot of those, this woman wrote it every episode she acted in, every episode, she directed. This was her show. And it was a wild success. And I just was upset that it didn't get a single Golden Globe nod.

CO: And we'll mention this. Michaela Coel is that woman's name. And you called it your favourite show since the dawn of TV. Pretty big. Why did it have that profound effect on you?

DC: I grew up in the era of Brady Bunch and The Partridge Family, you know, I'm 54 years old, so TV was always kind of, it didn't hold a mirror up to life. Michaela Coel's show, I May Destroy You, not only held a mirror up to society, it held a mirror up to ourselves. And it also took a very difficult topic to deconstruct, which is rape. And having been a sexual assault victim myself, it's something I think about all the time. How do you depict this hard thing? And what she did was, she took this horrible thing, she digested it and she gave it back to us as art. And that is so difficult to do. And she really succeeded at that.

CO: The Netflix comedy Emily in Paris did get nominated for a Golden Globe. And you were a writer on that show. So how would you describe Emily in Paris?

DC: To be fair, Emily in Paris was not in the same category as I May Destroy You. So I'm not saying, oh, she should have gotten it over us. Now, Emily in Paris, I was surprised that we got one because. The criticism of the show had been pretty harsh. But it also made me feel as if, well, we did this thing. We put on the show, we wrote it. We had a great time doing it. We knew what we were working on. We were working on something that was supposed to be light and funny and sort of this kind of Moliere type humour, an overexaggeration. You know, I'm proud of what we did, but I did not think just based on what I'd read and based on the critical reaction to it in the press, I did not think that we were going to get any sort of Golden Globe, not except for, you know, Lily Collins did a great job.

CO: You yourself, you write about Emily in Paris. You said, I could definitely see how a show about a white American selling luxury, whiteness and a pre pandemic Paris scrubbed free of its vibrant African and Muslim communities, might rankle. Do you think part of that rankling is the time we're in this past year, especially with what we have seen on the streets with people who have been protesting and saying about whiteness?

DC: Oh, 100 percent. You have to understand the context in which we were sitting in that writer's room working on Emily in Paris. Right. We were in that writer's room in Los Angeles at the end of January, February, March and April of 2019. What was going on in the world at that time? Well, you know, capitalism was going full force. Trump was in office. We were in some ways trying to make commentary on that. Right. You know, here's this girl pushing products. You know, that's her job. We were writing this pre pandemic, pre Black Lives Matter. Not that that should matter, but context matters. This show goes on the air a few months after, you know, I was marching in the street with my kids for Black Lives Matter after we're all making a giant societal reckoning with how we have failed black people in our society. We have failed them. We have so much work to do. And part of that work is recognising hiring and making sure we see television and books and films about the black experience.

CO: You did write in your Guardian piece that the snub of I May Destroy You is an oversight that symbolises a larger issue. So what's on your mind when you say that?

DC: The issues are many, there are many prongs to the issues, and the issue is one of race at the top and underneath that sort of larger issue of race is accessibility to power and accessibility to storytelling. And so. For example, a black Organization did a study of writers rooms in Hollywood in 2017 and found that 80 percent of writers room of the show runners were male and 91 percent of writers rooms were white. Now those are statistics that cannot hold, that centre cannot hold. We need to hire more black writers to get more black writer experience. We had one black writer in Emily in Paris. We need to have equity and fairness in how we hire and who we allow to tell stories.

CO: Will you? Is it fair to say that you might have mixed feelings if Emily in Paris should win?

DC: I...I don't even know how to answer that question. I've never been nominated or had a show that I've worked on. Let's let's be clear. I was the lowest rung in that room. I was a staff writer on that show. You know, I am, I'm a hired hand. Right. I've never had anything I've worked on be nominated for an award of this prestige. Then again, this is really my first job in a writer's room. So I'm not even sure how to react to any of this other than to say, you know, it's Golden Globes, we are in the pandemic. I'll be in my pajamas and I'll be watching and cheering it on.

CO: Deborah, thank you.

DC: Thank you so much. It was great talking to you.

CO: Take care.

CH: Deborah Copaken was a writer on the Netflix series Emily in Paris. She's also the author of a forthcoming memoir called Lady Parts. We reached her in New York City.

[Music: pop music]

From Our Archives: Remembering Christopher Plummer

CH: It took Christopher Plummer the better part of his life to win an Academy Award, finally taking home that coveted golden statue in 2012 for his work in Beginners, a film about life and death and finding new life in old age, and a fitting outcome for a Canadian actor who always insisted that he'd never stop learning. Christopher Plummer died today at his home in Connecticut. He was 91 years old. He may have fancied himself a lifelong beginner, but he's been a household name for 60 years, ever since Captain von Trapp summoned his children with a whistle in The Sound of Music. But there were few things Mr. Plummer disliked more than the sound of a question about the role for which he remained best known. So when Carol spoke with him in 2010, she managed to avoid bringing it up and focussed instead on the news of his first Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of author Leo Tolstoy in The Last Station from our archives. Here's that conversation with the late, great Christopher Plummer.

CO: Christopher Plummer, congratulations.

CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER: Oh, thank you.

CO: How did you react when you heard?

CP: Well, I don't know, really, I didn't have a camera on me.

CO: I know how you act. I'm not sure how you react.

CP: No, I was very pleased indeed, of course, particularly as both Helen and I are nominated for the same picture. Just wonderful.

CO: Helen Mirren.

CP: Yeah.

CO: Well, it's long overdue, I have to say.

CP: Oh, thank you.

CO: You've had some great film roles, but your role as Mike Wallace in The Insider was one that many of us thought you should have won an Oscar for that, at least had the nomination.

CP: Well, that's nice. I think a lot of that was slightly due to a kind of reticence to publicise the picture as the tobacco companies were gathering fuel, as they say, for lawsuits and things. And there was a slight sort of arrest in the kind of flow of the publicity in that film, which didn't help.

CO: Do you think... [interrupted]

CP: It's a shame because it was a very good picture, it was a very truthful picture.

CO: When you were performing in this movie, did Leo Tolstoy, playing that role, did that feel like an Oscar performance to you?

CP: I don't know what an Oscar performance is.

CO: You just had an Oscar nominated one.

CP: Yes. But I mean, it could be anything, couldn't it? I mean, I played Hamlet on the screen, and I got an Emmy nomination, but I wouldn't have called that an Emmy performance. It's just a great role and sometimes great roles have been ignored. So it's, I don't know quite what an Oscar performance is supposed to be. We just do our very best with what we have.

CO: Besides reading a lot. How did you prepare? How did you get into that role of Leo Tolstoy?

CP: Well, I think mostly instinctively, because there isn't very much on the personal end of him that the films that I watched of him and his family are all silent, of course. So you can't tell what they sounded like. I was helped most by his letters. I got quite inside the man there. And of course, his writings, which I had read years and years before, are still stick in your mind. They tell you much about the man.

CO: What did you find in the letters?

CP: Mostly his extraordinary dedication and to saving humanity and equalising it. That was what was astonishing about it. I suppose he could be called one of the world's first communists.

CO: And did you go back and read much of the canon?

CP: No, no, I had waited. Thank you very much. Endlessly through, [inaudible] and Anna Karenina many years before. And of course, I remember them. And I remember the wonderful Russian movie of War and Peace, which Bondarchuk directed and also played Pierre in it. And that was a wonderful, wonderful film.

CO: Also, of course, as you mentioned, playing against Helen Mirren must have been an extraordinary, dare I say, a help in that role. She is... The two of you together, it's just electric.

CP: Oh, she's such fun to be with because she's so good. You know, there's no, you can just relax. One can relax with her. We had a marvellous time together. I've known her before but I've never worked with her. And it's not like work at all. It's just like having a conversation with an old friend.

CO: You're amongst a handful of actors who can pass seamlessly from film, to the stage, playing the live stage, especially classical theatre and King Lear. My view was, was one of your best roles. Julius Caesar.

CP: Thank you.

CO: If you had to choose between the stage or film, if you had to choose, which one would it be?

CP: Well, if I had to choose if I could have only one of the two, it would be the theatre. Simply because it's the live reaction. You know, it can't be replaced no matter how exciting a film can be. And I love the movie medium. And one learns all the time in front of the camera how to actually relax in front of the camera. It takes years, but the stage is my home territory. I spent more time on it than anywhere else.

CO: You are returning to Stratford in the summer, aren’t you?

CP: Yeah.

CO: What role will you play?

CP: Well, Prospero, in The Tempest, which Des McAnuff is going to direct, and I'm looking forward immensely to that, it's a fascinating piece.

CO: What is it that brings you back to Stratford? What do you like about playing there?

CP: Well, first of all, I like it because it's close to home. I live in Connecticut, so it isn't that far away. And I think it's a marvellous place to put on experimental things and do daring things and then take them somewhere else, which I did with King Lear and which I did with Barrymore years before that.

CO: You worked mostly in the United States, you always remained a Canadian citizen. Do you feel an affinity for Canada is at home in some way?

CP: Yes, I do. And the more other countries seem to sort of get themselves in hot water, Canada keeps looking better all the time. I stayed a Canadian because my family were perhaps a minor, but certainly a part of the country's history. And although I adore the United States and they've been very good to me over the years and I've lived there for a long time, Canada really has a sort of nostalgia for me.

CO: Now, you say your family has a history here. Of course, your great grandfather on your mother's side was a prime minister of Canada. You've played a prime minister on TV, John A. Macdonald. So, why don't you just come back and run for office then?

CP: [laughter] Could you think of anything worse? No, I think it's hard enough what I do.

CO: Well, before I go, I just wanted to note that we did get through this entire interview. And I didn't ask you anything about The Sound of Music.

CP: No, you deserve a medal, but you're going to cut this part out, aren't you.

CO: [laughter] No. Once again, big congratulations.

CP: Thank you so much.

CO: Thank you.

CH: Christopher Plummer speaking with Carol on As It Happens in 2010, Mr. Plumber died today. He was 91 years old. Not long after that interview, Mr. Plumber did indeed return to Stratford to star in The Tempest, leaving us with another in a long list of unforgettable performances. Here's Christopher Plummer once again as Prospero.

CP: At this rough. Magic. I here abjure.. And when I have required some heavenly music, which even now I do, to work mine end upon their senses, that this airy charm is for. I'll break my staff. Bury it certain fathoms in the earth. And deeper than did ever plummet sound. I'll drown my book.

CH: Christopher Plummer playing the role of Prospero in a 2011 production of The Tempest at the Stratford Festival, where he remained a fixture no matter how many film studios came knocking.

[Music: guitar instrumental]

Part 2: Calgary ICU Visits

Calgary ICU Visits

Guest: Kirsten Fiest

CH: The symptoms of covid-19 are plentiful and some of them are less measurable than others. For instance, the feeling that comes from being separated from your loved ones while you're in hospital or being stuck at home on FaceTime while your relative is in the intensive care unit struggling to breathe. The problem of separation emerged early on in the pandemic as hospitals necessarily clamped down on visitors to limit the spread of the virus. And University of Calgary researcher Kirsten Fiest says it's an issue we need to be looking at more closely. Ms. Fiest Has spent the past number of months talking to families about their experiences of visiting or not visiting ICUs during the pandemic. Now she's hoping to prescribe a better approach. We reached her in Calgary.

CO: Kirsten, why did you think it was important to document the experiences of people in the ICU?

KIRSTEN FIEST: Well, I had heard anecdotally from some colleagues about the distress that they were feeling on having families not be able to be in the ICU anymore. And I started to think also about the impact that this might have on patients and families themselves. So we decided to explore in a little bit more depth the effect that visitor restrictions were having on those who provide care in the ICU and who are getting care in the ICU.

CO: Let's start with those who are getting care. What were some of the stories that really stand out for you?

KF: So for those patients that were receiving care in the ICU and didn't have their family presence, it was really a discussion about loneliness, about uncertainty, about not having their family there to provide information to the care team. Now, these are things that people said after the fact, they really had these memories of being alone.

CO: And what about the families of those people? Because they were the ones also not allowed to have access, right?

KF: That's right. So for the families, it was quite a distressing event for them to not be there. They described feeling anxiety about not being there, to advocate for their loved one, not knowing their health care status, not being there to see them. And then for those patients who were quite sick and potentially at the end of their life, it was also very distressing for the family to not all be able to be there during that time.

CO: Just awful. Any particular story that stands out for you, that you remember.

KF: Yeah, I think the story that stands out for me the most, and it's probably because of having elderly grandparents as well, but of an older person who had dementia and didn't understand why their family wasn't there, didn't understand why they were alone. That really struck a chord for me because the family felt so guilty and so upset. And then the distress that that would have caused the patient as well that one has really stuck with me.

CO: So sad. And so and the health care workers themselves. There have been studies about how families or anecdotes about the families, but not so much about what the health care workers go through. What are some of the impacts that you found there?

KF: Yeah, so we found that not having families present in the ICU caused some quite a bit of moral distress for health care providers. They're used to having the family at their side to help make care decisions. And so, oftentimes the health care providers were having to have these conversations over the phone. And, you know, it's such an intimate, difficult topic. To have to do that in that way can be quite hard. And then sometimes the health care providers were the only person that was there at the end of a patient's life. So just seeing the effect that it had on patients and family members was also very distressing.

CO: And they became intermediaries then between the families who couldn't come in and someone who was in serious medical distress.

KF: That's absolutely right. So they were maybe the ones holding their own iPhone for someone so that they could talk to their family members so they could have that communication, which is obviously quite a different role than they're used to playing. But, you know, in addition to being very busy providing medical care, they're also providing other types of care and supporting patients and families as well.

CO: But often families who are there with loved ones, they're not just there for moral support or just to be together. They are part of the team, aren't they? They're part of the caregivers. So what happens when that element isn't there?

KF: Absolutely. So in the ICU, family members are advocating for patients. When patients are mechanically ventilated, as many ICU patients are, they're the voice of the patient. They're speaking for them and they're making care decisions if the patient is unable to. They're also there, you know, helping the patients, you know, when they come off of it, out of a coma, for example, or different things like that. So when the family isn't there, it can increase the amount of time that someone might be in the ICU because they don't have that family support there to be their voice and to be that person who is part of the team.

CO: How does this compare with other hospitals across the country? Because I know you looked into that. What did you find in comparing them to other institutions?

KF: Across the country visitor restrictions were highly variable. It differed within cities even, not in Alberta because we have one health system, but say in other cities across the country, if a patient was transferred between hospitals, their family might lose the ability to visit them. So people spoke about how distressing that was. There was a lot of difference in the restrictions, but the experiences that were reported were universal.

CO: So after doing this review, what do you recommend?

KF: So what what we're actually doing is we're trying to come up with recommendations for health care authorities, for administrators across the country and potentially beyond that. About, you know, using technology, being innovative, providing support to families and potentially even considering allowing more people into ICU's then they had been in the past. ICU's are a unique environment and a hospital wide policy applying in an ICU might not be the most appropriate. And so specific ICU policies might need to be made that take into account really this highly complex and difficult situation, including, for example, allowing children those under the age of 18 to be in the hospital. Some hospitals don't allow that in accordance with their policies. There's always a risk that someone could get infected, say with covid or with something else if they visit the hospital or I think the bigger concern is bringing in covid to the hospital and leading to outbreaks. And so we do have to really find out what the best balance is. But I think for the ICU, having family there has been so instrumental to care in the past and ICU's have become really holistic environments that include the family in the care process that not having that can be quite a detriment.

CO: Well, Kirsten, it is very important what you're doing. And I think lots of people listening to this are identifying with what you're describing. I really appreciate speaking with you. Thank you.

KF: Thank you.

CH: Kirsten Feist is an epidemiologist and the director of research and innovation in the Calgary Critical Care Research Network. She was in Calgary.

[Music: Jazz music]

B.C. Healthcare Racism

CH: The experience you have in BC's health care system depends on who you are. That's what former judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond reaffirmed yesterday as she released her final report into indigenous specific racism in health care in B.C. The report looked at access to primary care for indigenous patients and also found that they're 75 percent more likely to end up in the emergency room. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond shared her findings with reporters yesterday.

MARY ELLEN TURPEL-LAFOND: What the totality of the evidence here in the data shows in general is that indigenous people in British Columbia are receiving services in a health care environment that is skewed away from primary preventative care and pushes them into secondary and tertiary care and treatment. The inadequacy at this time of B.C.'s primary care system is evident. There's a high burden of disease amongst indigenous peoples in British Columbia and First Nations People in particular of all ages, have comparatively lower attachment rates to GP's, general practitioners and nurse practitioners. And in particular, when we look at that very vulnerable population of indigenous people and First Nations people. 65 years and older who often need the most routine care, these elders are not attached to primary care at a rate 89 percent higher than non First Nations people in British Columbia. And that, in fact, is quite a staggering finding of this data report. Poor access to primary care may be driving the lower screening rates for treatable cancers for indigenous people. For example, pap screening amongst indigenous women is about 68 percent of that of non First Nations women. Yet, cervical cancer amongst first nations women is 1.6 times higher than non First Nations women. Similar differences appear in other parts of cancer screening as well. First Nations women clearly are experiencing lower access to health services from the prenatal period. And this is a major concern to me. We are seeing in British Columbia cases where First Nations mums show up to deliver infants without having had prenatal care or have less prenatal care than other women in the province. Fewer First Nations women are accessing speciality maternal and child health services such as obstetricians and paediatricians, despite the evidence that's also recorded here that speaks to higher rates of preterm and very preterm birth. And in the child and youth population, increased rates of asthma, depression, mood and anxiety disorder, epilepsy and poor oral health conditions, which would suggest a stronger attachment, for instance, to paediatricians and childhood care. Our reports recommend indicators and provide baseline data for the Ministry of Health to assess progress in achieving substantive equality in health care and outcomes for indigenous people. There will need to be substantial work done to come close to achieving equality, but we must measure and demonstrate whether or not progress is happening.

CH: That was, former judge and B.C. Child and Youth Representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond.

[Music: percussion instrumental]

PEI Lottery Winner

Guest: Seyedazim Sharif

CH: The pandemic has been tough on PEI coffee shop owner Seyedazim Sharif, it got so he'd started worrying about starting from scratch, but fortunately he started with scratching instead. And now he's had a huge windfall thanks to a scratch and win lottery ticket. We reached Seyedazim Sharif in Charlottetown.

CO: Azim first of all, big congratulations.

SEYEDAZIM SHARIF: Thank you so much.

CO: Why did you decide to buy that ticket? Was there any reason?

SS: I have a small business after work. I went to a superstore for shopping for my business. Before I went to the superstore. One small store has for a smoke shop. I went there, but I bought this ticket 20 dollars a scratch ticket.

CO: And when you scratched it, did you know right away you had won?

SS: I saw on the pictures I saw an amount. Yes.

CO: Yes. amount.

SS: But, the amount I saw, two million. But at first, I thought twenty thousand, maybe two hundred thousand. After that, I counted the zeros, one zero, two zero three, four, five, six. Oh my gosh, I mean two million!

CO: OK, so were you still in the store when you realised you'd won two million dollars?

SS: Yes. Yes.

CO: How did you react?

SS: Oh I didn't believe now, but after 14 days I didn't believe that because nobody in Charlottetown win two million with a scratch ticket.

CO: Wow. And so you left the store, you got in the car. Your wife said to you, she was in the car. You were shaking when you got in.

SS: Yes, yes, yes. Because I was stressed. Because when these guys in the lotto machine check for me, my ticket. He said, congratulations, you win 2 million! I asked, are you sure? He told me to stay. Stay. I called my manager, I was thinking about maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe ticket twenty thousand, maybe two hundred thousand. After fifteen minutes the manager came. She told me yes, you win two million.

CO: Azim did you think you were asleep? Did you think you were dreaming?

SS: Yes, I last week I in the dream I saw, I buy big house I invite all family into my house. All all people happy.

CO: But, that dream will come true now.

SS: Yes.

CO: OK, just just to go back to that moment, how did your wife respond when you told her, when you got in the car and told her you'd won 2 million dollars?

SS: Yeah, my wife was in the car. I told she I my wife. I win. I win. I won. She told me how much? One hundred, four thousand. Fifty thousand. I get told she, No. Two million. She didn't believe that. Are you sure 2 million? yes. I'm shaking, shaking, shaking. Because fifteen minutes I was stressed in you know.

CO: I understand totally. But now just can I ask you, you have a business right? A small cafe.

SS: Yes, a small coffee shop.

CO: Linda's coffee shop. And you were struggling because of the pandemic, right?

SS: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

CO: So what does this money mean for you and your business?

SS: Maybe I will buy another big business in Charlottetown or I will buy. Whole building apartment in Charlottetown for rent, people rent.

CO: That is such a great story, I must say, and everyone and everyone in Charlottetown must be very happy for you.

SS: Yes. Yes, everybody. I am very happy. I am very happy I live in Charlottetown.

CO: That's great. Azim it is super to talk to you. Thank you so much.

SS: Thank you so much too.

CO: Bye.

CH: Azim Sharif won two million dollars from a lottery scratch ticket. We reached him in Charlottetown, PEI.

[Music: Circus music]

Trump Quits Acting Union

HOME ALONE 2: Excuse me, where's the lobby? [Kevin] Down the hall to the left. [Donald Trump] Thanks.[Kevin].

CH: That was his stirring turn in the 1992 film Home Alone 2.

DONALD TRUMP: Without Derek Zoolander, male modelling wouldn't be what it is today. [Movie Quote]

CH: That was his pivotal role in Zoolander in 2001.

How's life? Life is fine, especially with a hot new hedge fund joined my Exile in London Hot new hedge fund. Are you kidding? The economy's terrible, but you know what? Send me the details. [Film clip]

CH: And that was his heartbreaking performance in the 2010 film Wall Street Money Never Sleeps. So we know character actor Donald Trump has range, but like many gifted thespians, he also has a dark side. And the American Actors Union could no longer accept his troublesome blurring of fiction and reality. Last month SAG-AFTRA president, Gabrielle Carteris, announced plans to expel Donald Trump from the union because of the role he played in the attack on the U.S. Capitol this week, Mr. Trump responded with a letter. It begins, "Ms. Carteris. I write to you today regarding the so-called disciplinary committee hearing aimed at revoking my union membership. Who cares?". He goes on to express pride in his many nuanced onscreen performances and to accuse SAG-AFTRA of promoting dangerously un-American policies and ideas. He concludes, "I no longer wish to be associated with your union as such. This letter is to inform you of my immediate resignation from SAG-AFTRA you have done nothing for me, regards President Donald J. Trump." Oh, right I forgot, he played the president for a while before that show got cancelled. Well guess he won't be back on screen anytime soon, but we'll always have his fully realised past work. Brief appearances. Yes, but you know what they say. There are no small parts, only small minded actors.

[Music: upbeat Piano/violin]

Winnipeg Care Home

Guest: Eddie Calisto-Tavares

CH: Last November, Eddie Calisto-Tavares father died after testing positive for covid-19, the 88 year old lived at Winnipeg's Maple's long term care home and he was amongst more than 50 people who died during an outbreak there that lasted months before her father's death. Ms. Calisto-Tavares was given special permission to care for her dad at the home, and she spoke out about what she'd witnessed. She's still doing that today. Dr. Lynn Stevenson has now released the findings of her review of the outbreak. And Eddie Calisto-Tavares is not satisfied. She spoke to the CBC yesterday sharing her criticisms of Dr. Stevenson and Manitoba Health Minister Heather Stefanson.

EDDIE CALISTO-TAVARES: I'm angry of the lack of transparency and honesty in this report. I'm angry of the lack of accountability from the [inaudible] government, from the Winnipeg health regional [inaudible], from Rivera, from the [inaudible]. No one is being held responsible for what happened to 56 residents that passed away, plus so many that are in such acute care needs still at a home, even though they survived covid. I'm angry.

FAITH FUNDAL: There is a lot in this report. So I want to focus on what you experienced yourself while you were caring for your dad. The report says there was pandemic planning in place, but the home wasn't prepared for staff shortages. What do you think of that?

EDDIE CALISTO-TAVARES: How do you have pandemic planning in place without staff in a personal care home? How does a pandemic plan not include the lessons learnt from Ontario? No, they had no pandemic plan, and let me tell you, I was part of that discussion with Dr. Stevenson and at the top of her agenda, she said plan and preparedness. And, you know, after an hour and 15 minutes, that question was never asked. And I told her before I get the call, you're wrapping up teams and you never even asked. And I was there. Unlike these other people on that call, you never asked me once what I saw, what I observed while I was in there.

FF: Did you get an answer when you said that?

EDDIE CALISTO-TAVARES: No, she had no answer for me. And let me tell you, Heather Stefanson today talked to families. She didn't call me. She does not want to hear what the real truth is. They just want to pacify us. 56 families that lost their loved ones. That's what they wanted to do. They wanted to change the page.

CH: That was Eddie Callisto-Tavares speaking with CBC host Faith Fundal yesterday. In a statement, the company that owns the care home, Rivera said it looks forward to reviewing the report in detail and working with officials to implement the recommendations in its homes.

[Music: soft instrumental]

Part 3: Vancouver Environmental Grant

Vancouver Environmental Grant

Guest: Nicole Rycroft

CH: It's nice to be called a visionary. I mean, it's even nicer when that compliment comes with a grant worth 3.8 Million dollars. Nicole Rycroft is the founder of the Canadian non-profit Canopy. She's been chosen as a recipient of an environmental prize called the Climate Breakthrough Award. Over the years, Ms. Rycroft's Organization has worked to reduce forest destruction, specifically focussing on supply chains in the fashion and publishing industries. We reached Nicole Rycroft in Vancouver.

CO: Nicole, first of all, big congratulations.

NICOLE RYCROFT: Thank you so much. Yes, it's been a very exciting week.

CO: Have you had time to let the soak in that you have received a grant for 3.8 million dollars Canadian?

NR: Given that I started a Canopy with an eight hundred dollar budget literally at my kitchen table, albeit 20 years ago, that number still seems like a big number. So I'll take a couple of weeks to relax into it.

CO: I think as you point out, you started this Organization 20 years ago in Tofino, B.C., with a very small operating budget. And so just tell us, what accomplishment does this particular prize the Climate Breakthrough Award? What does it reward you for?

NR: Well, I think it obviously recognises a body of work. Over the last 20 years, Canopy, we've been working to transform unsustainable supply chains and in doing so to help conserve the world's ancient and endangered forests at scale. So I think it's a recognition of that work, as well as an acknowledgement of our ability to have bold and sometimes crazy ideas and to actually make them happen.

CO: Some of the sort of really fascinating things that you have done were, one of them in the publishing industry. And can you tell us how you managed to green one part of the Harry Potter series?

NR: We were looking to transform the impact that book publishing had on forest ecosystems around the world. We were doing that work right in the middle of the Harry Potter storm. And so we were working with Raincoast books, the Canadian publisher of Harry Potter and Allan MacDougall, who was the CEO of Raincoast Books at the time, jumped in with both feet committed to printing the fifth edition of Harry Potter on ancient forest friendly paper. We then speed dated them with a paper mill that could actually produce a paper that was 100 percent recycled for that book. We reached out jointly to J.K. Rowling. She lent her support with a personalised note in the front of that book. And then that became the inspiration for other publishers in the subsequent editions of Harry Potter that came out. And so by the time the last book in the series came out, it was printed on environmental papers in more than 24 countries, and it triggered a sea change in the way that book publishing was done globally. And now, as a result, most publishers, big publishers globally are consistently printing on papers that are completely free of ancient forest [inaudible].

CO: There's one industry that you've been able to have such an impact on. But you've also been working with fashion and fashion brands to try to persuade them to use recyclables. What success have you had there?

NR: Yes, I work in the fashion industry. You know, we were actually surprised about eight years ago, we discovered that there was a link between forest ecosystems and trees that can give you a splinter. And that soft, silky fabric that's next to your skin, viscose and rayon, and that, in fact, there are 200 million trees disappearing to our clothing every year. So we started off working with brands so big brands like H&M and Zara and Levi's, luxury designers like Stella McCartney and helped them to develop cutting edge environmental policies that committed them to stop sourcing from ancient and endangered forests, these really high carbon, biodiverse forests, and to help kickstart commercial scale production of these next generation solutions. So to use waste clothing and keep it out of the landfill to have that make next season's styles, rather than for us to chop down caribou habitat or carbon rich forests. That's been remarkably successful, our Canopy Style Initiative. We now have more than 320 brand partners. As part of that, and now more than 52 percent of the global viscose supply chain is verified as being at low risk of being sourced from ancient and endangered forests. So in the last five years, literally, this global supply chain has passed the halfway mark of transformation and they're now starting to use and transition away from using wood fiber altogether to starting to use recycled clothing or agricultural residues.

CO: How did you persuade them to do that? Because these companies are watching the bottom line, right? It's the price point that matters. And we know one of the greatest things you're up against or we're up against is that using virgin materials is cheaper than using recycled materials. That's how it's been traditionally. So how could you persuade them that they should do this?

NR: Well, I think for many business leaders now, they are looking at what is the stability and the projection of their businesses over the course of the next 10 and 20 years and an increasingly resource constrained world where climate change is impacting businesses and their ability to access raw materials. So for a lot of the CEOs and senior leadership within these global brands, it's a business priority for them to be shifting their supply chain to ensure that they're not contributing to the destruction of the world's natural ecosystems, because that fundamentally undermines their ability to be vibrant in another 20 or 30 years.

CO: This award you receive from the Climate Breakthrough Project calls your work visionary. What does it say to you that you've been doing this, as you say, for 20 years, that these arguments, what you're saying, have been around for that long, at least, that trying to convince others? What does it say to you that it's still considered to be a breakthrough and a visionary to be making these arguments?

NR: Well, sometimes I think being in the environmental movement, it's kind of like comedy. It's all about timing. You know, 10, 15 years ago when we started talking and working on a commercial scale production of next generation solutions. So diversifying the fiber basket that's used for paper and packaging and closing production, it was seen as a crazy idea. So sometimes it's all about timing. And obviously, over those 15 years, awareness around the severity of the climate crisis and the biodiversity crisis that we're facing has become much more in focus.

CO: Well, Nicole, once again, congratulations for the award and congratulations for your sense of timing.

NR: Yeah, well, thank you, Carol. And very nice to have this conversation with you, too.

CO: Bye bye.

CH: Nicole Roycroft is the executive director of the non-profit Canopy in Vancouver. That's where we reached her.

[Music: Techno]

Charan Gill Obit

CH: Charan Gill spent his career working to make the lives of British Columbians better. That's how he's being remembered by people in the province this week following the news of his death at 84. Mr. Gill co-founded the Canadian Farm Workers Union and also the Progressive Intercultural Community Services Society, known as PICS. In 2007, Mr. Gill spoke with the CBC about the challenges new immigrants face, transferring their credentials to Canada and called on the government to do more.

CHARAN GILL: Immigrants come here and they feel they are being dumped. They're being ignored, they're being left out on their own. So they go. There are very few programmes coming up to the local immigrant serving agencies or colleges, that institution. Now there's a portal, there's an IMM program, skills connect, [inaudible] programs coming in and many immigrants, like a couple of hundred, are being helped. But there are much more to do to make sure we use their skills. And rather than giving them minimum wage, they're working at twenty dollar, twenty five dollars an hour. It means they are putting into the economy much more money and it recirculate the money. Help everybody. Now we are losing a hell of a lot as a society.

CH: That was Charan Gill speaking in 2007. B.C.'s former attorney general, Wally Oppal also spoke with the CBC about Mr. Gill's career.

WALLY OPPAL: Well, everybody in the community knew him. It was tough not to know him because, you know, when he wanted something done, you know, he got in your face. A classic example of that was he became a social worker after coming here, working in a sawmill for a while. And then he became, he and Raj Chouhan established the Canadian Farm Workers Union. He saw the plight of the farm workers and the way they were being treated by their employers and he organised them. And that's the type of work that he did. Then he organised and established a number of anti-racist Organizations concerned with human rights. He would organise and go into the South Asian communities to talk to young kids about self-esteem. And those are the things that he did. He went out of his way to do those things. The thing about Charan is that he worked across party lines. It didn't matter which government was in power in Victoria. He had the ear of the government because he was an activist who was well-meaning and concerned about human rights and all the right things. So people respected him. People in government respected him. He was a highly accomplished person who really cared a true humanitarian.

CH: That was former B.C. attorney general and provincial Supreme Court Justice Wally Oppal speaking with the CBC's Stephen Quinn about Charan Gill. Mr. Gill has died at the age of 84.

[Music: slow guitar and drums].

Tewin land development

CH: Ottawa's mayor is billing a pending land deal as a win for indigenous reconciliation. The agreement would include nearly 450 hectares of land owned by the Algonquians of Ontario in a development called Tewin, which would expand the city's boundaries, according to members of that community. It's a win win. Wendy Jocko is the chief of the Algonquians of Pikwakahnagan First Nation. She spoke with CBC's Ottawa Morning today.

WENDY JOCKO: To witness a generational opportunity to create one of Canada's most innovative and sustainable new communities, founded on Algonquian values, built on the land owned by the Algonquins Ontario. And it demonstrates that the Algonquians' are not just people of the past contained to reserves, but rather that we are a key partner in fostering social, environmental and economic sustainability in the future and in urban areas.

CH: Wendy Jocko is the chief of the Algonquians of Pikwakanagan and supports Ottawa's proposed Tewin land development in partnership with the Algonquians of Ontario. But not all members of the Algonquian community see the agreement as a step towards reconciliation. An elder Claudette Commanda says she was shocked to hear Mayor Jim Watson characterise it as one.

CLAUDETTE COMMANDA: Well, first of all, it's not reconciliation, that is not reconciliation, and it's very unfortunate that Mayor Watson and even city council believe that this is reconciliation because it's not. Reconciliation is a process that is from nation to nation, reconciliation is not between. A government and a corporation, reconciliation is not between a municipality and Organization. It's not, in the words of Chief Lance Haymond, it's rec- conciliation. It is really. Reconciliation is not just about nice words, because all these words are just fancy words, feel good words, warm, fuzzy. It's action. It's what you do. So this action here of engaging in this discussion, even talking about giving away 447 hectares to this Organization, that's not reconciliation. That is to me. And I believe that it is the continuance of colonial dominance, number one, and it's a genocide of the inherent rights, of the inherent people, the Algonquian nation. You should not be standing up there and saying, I recognise that we are on the traditional ancestral and seated territory of the Algonquian nation. But you turn around and then you're going to give our land away to a group of people. That it's worse than contradictory.

CH: Algonquin elder Claudette Commanda says a proposed urban expansion involving Algonquin owned land outside Ottawa is not an act of reconciliation. Ottawa City Council is expected to vote on the land agreement on Wednesday.

[Music: electronic sound]

US Reuniting Families

Guest: Cathleen Caron

CH: It was slammed as unimaginably cruel, the Trump administration, so-called zero tolerance policy, which separated thousands of children from their parents at the U.S. Mexico border, 611 children are still without their parents. But now the Biden administration has set up a task force to reunite those families. It's work that advocacy groups like Justice in Motion have already been doing for months. Cathleen Caron is the executive director of Justice in Motion. We reached her in Greene County, New York.

CO: Cathleen, first of all, can you tell us a bit about the conditions of these 611 children who are still without their parents?

CATHLEEN CARON: So part of those 611 kids, some of them are in the United States and some of them could be back in their countries of origin. So we are charged with looking for the parents who have been sent back and making sure that they know where their children are.

CO: Some of the kids, were they forcibly removed from the United States or did they go back there? What do you know about the ones who did return but haven't been reunited with their parents?

CC: The children that have returned to the country of origin either did it on their own before we even knew about the expanded class. What happened was the government was turning over information in dribs and drabs. So we didn't know the scope of the issue of how many families suffered this terrible separation until January of 2019. And we weren't searching for these parents for six months later because the government just didn't want to turn over the records. So a lot of time has passed. And the lawsuit, the ACLU lawsuit applied to the children who initially were in immigration detention when the injunction came down in June of 2018. And it wasn't till later that we found out that many children had already been released from detention and tracking those parents down was much more difficult.

CO: Good heavens. And now OK, now moving to what President Biden has done, signing these executive orders to undo Trump era immigration policies, one of them being establishing this task force, that's to identify all the families of the kids who are still separated. So what do you make of that? Do you think that a task force is a good idea?

CC: The task force is a great idea. Well, we're pleased that President Biden has taken this step so quickly in his administration. What we're concerned about is the scope of the executive order because there were over 5000 families affected by this policy. But the order on its face seems to apply to families that are still separated. And we're down to just hundreds of those families, but 5000 were actually affected.

CO: The 5000 number that you're giving. What does that represent?

CC: It's all the families that were affected by, separated under that policy. So we didn't know about the full scope for much time. So initially it was 2700 and there was another 1500. So I don't even know honestly, Carol, if we know the scope of the issue until the Biden team kind of goes through all of the records and hopefully that's the full scope. But it would be a terrible thing if we actually uncovered that there were more separations that we didn't even know about.

CO: Because the records were so badly kept. Is that why, or not kept at all?

CC: That's right. And the pilot project before the ACLU sued was under the wraps. Nobody knew about it until it was an internal Department of Homeland Security investigation that revealed that there was a pilot project that actually had to separate an additional one thousand five hundred families between August 2017 and June 2018. And the government had not been forthcoming about that.

CO: OK, so now if you're able to get the kids reunited and to find out the parents who were separated from the kids, what do you want to become of them?

CC: All the families should get permanent legal status because if they do not, they have the spectre of re separation. If they're individual immigration claims don't go through. So we owe it to these families. They suffered a terrible atrocity. We owe it to them that they have protection and legal status so they can start healing.

CO: And these people have applied for asylum or applied for, made immigration applications to the United States.

CC: That's right. The majority that were separated remained in the United States. They were separated. So the adults were in adult immigration detention. The children were detained in shelters run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement. And eventually those families were reunited, but all of them have immigration claims that are pending in immigration courts.

CO: And so is that your sense from this executive order of President Biden that, that is what he intends?

CC: It is not clear, and that's the concern. You know, President Trump stopped the policy because of public outcry. So I hope it doesn't resort to that. But it may need to be that people really stand up and say, no, no, no, it's all the families. It's not just a small amount of families who are still not together. Obviously, that's a key group. We have to get those families reunited. But there were many other families affected that deserve that protection as well, and we just got to bring it all the way home.

CO: Right, but the secretary of Homeland Security is saying, well, we have to look at these family reunifications on a case by case basis, that there's no one solution fits all. Is that good news or bad news?

CC: I think it needs to be a blanket policy that the tendency is for reunification and permanent status in the United States. Of course, if someone has, you know, deep criminal problems in their past, issues that under our regular laws would disqualify them from being with a child, that should be considered on a case by case basis for sure. But the overall tendency should be that these families are reunited and protected and have a sped up and expedited process to receive that protection in the United States.

CO: What will signal to you that the Biden administration is intending meaningful change and not just symbolic?

CC: Action. These families are deeply distrustful of the United States government, and they should be. The newest U.S. government took away their children. So unless they see things happening to them in a positive way, very quickly, they're going to be disheartened. So if a task force is stretched out and studying and consulting for six months, that would be super discouraging. If they're taking actions within the first 100 days and maybe bringing up families, it's not that complicated to bring up the families from the countries of origin back to the United States. When you're talking about a whole government mechanism to be able to do that, they can do it. They have the power to do it. We just need the political will behind the wonderful political speech.

CO: It's not just the families themselves who should be and are outraged at this separation. Many Americans are, too, and wanted the Biden administration to do this. Do you think that there is that political pressure, that public pressure on the Biden administration to act on this in a meaningful way?

CC: I think it would be really good for people to keep on pushing the president. And there's going to be some bills in Congress as well, that are about this. But it would be great if President Biden could take care of it himself. I mean, he has a real mandate. The U.S. public is demanding that he moves on this. He needs to deliver. He talked about it on the presidential debate stage. He's made promises to these families and he's just got to follow through. Other things are more complicated. This one is not.

CO: Cathleen, we will be following this story. And I appreciate speaking with you today. Thank you.

CC: Thank you so much, Carol. Thank you.

CO: Bye.

CC: Bye.

CH: Cathleen Caron is with Justice in Motion, an American group that's working to reunite parents and children separated at the border. We reached her in Greene County, New York.

[Music: electronic music]

Superbowl Canadian connections

CH: Two things we know about the Super Bowl, it's American and it's football. Two things you might not know about this Sunday's Super Bowl. It has a baseball connection and it's Canadian. It turns out, as reported by the National Post today, both starting quarterbacks are linked to the late lamented Montreal Expos. Let's start with Tampa Bay's, Tom Brady, maybe the greatest quarterback of all time, and yet somehow he's the worst. Anyway, in 1995, when he was 17 years old, the Expos picked him in the 18th round of that year's MLB draft. Kevin Malone was the Expos general manager that year. He said Tom Brady had all the tools to be an all star in baseball. He also said, "we did everything we could to sign him, but football was in his eyes and that's what he wanted to do", in the end Mr. Brady opted to play quarterback at the University of Michigan in 1995. That was also the year that Kansas City's quarterback Patrick Mahomes was born, and he's connected to the Expos through his father. Pat Mahomes Senior was a Major League Baseball player, and in 2004 he played for the Expos farm team, the Edmonton Trappers. 17 years later, Patrick Mahomes Jr. is hoping to lead his team to another Super Bowl victory. And there's another Canadian connexion to Super Bowl 55. The Weekend will play the halftime show despite no known links to the Expos. He's just the third Canadian to do so.

February 5, 2021 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode