Canada has 'no reason' to support U.S. plan to import prescription drugs, expert says

Guest: Kim Hanson, Andre Picard

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: It was pretty scary as a mom to know that your son felt that he was a burden to you. And we know as parents that we would do anything in the world for our children. I would live in a box. I would sacrifice everything I had to keep my child alive, but yet my son, to no fault of his own, his pancreas doesn't work. And because his pancreas doesn't work, he has to have this lifesaving insulin.

LL: Kathy Sego bought her son Hunter his lifesaving insulin at a pharmacy in Windsor, Ontario last weekend. Part of a caravan of Americans who crossed the U.S. Canada border to buy cheaper Canadian drugs. Ms. Sego paid $1000 for 25 vials of insulin. The same purchase back home in Madison, Indiana would have cost her $11,000. Cross-border drug pill pilgrimages have been happening for two decades, but their frequency has been on the rise in recent years. U.S. political leaders, including President Donald Trump even trumpet importing cheaper medications from Canada as a solution to the drug affordability crisis in the United States. Several states have passed legislation allowing for large scale imports, though none had yet received the necessary federal approval. That could change after the White House unveiled its own plan yesterday, but America's fix could mean big problems for Canadians. Rob Modestino is a pharmacist in LaSalle, Ontario.

SOUNDCLIP

VOICE: You can't expect a country like Canada to supply country like the US, which is 10 times our size and it just put our patients in a situation that wasn't good. We're already in a position where the Canadian market has many drug shortages. I spent half my day yesterday going through back ordered medication trying to find alternatives. So I mean the problem's already here. It's not because of the supplying to the US, but if we do start to supply the US, it's just going to escalate that to levels that we're not going to be able to handle.

LL: And Mr. Modestino isn't the only one worried about the U.S. rating our medicine cabinet. A coalition of 15 concerned organizations, including the Canadian Pharmacists Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute have written a letter urging the federal government to protect Canada's drug supply. Kim Hanson is the executive director of federal affairs for Diabetes Canada, another signatory. She also has type 1 diabetes. Kim Hanson joins us from our Ottawa studio. Hello.

KIM HANSON: Good morning.

LL: Kim Hanson, why did your organization sign on to this letter asking the government to protect the drug supply?

KIM HANSON: Well we're concerned to ensure that Canadians continue to have full faith in the supply of medications for their diabetes, such as insulin. We have tremendous empathy for the situation that many people are facing in the United States with exorbitant costs of insulin, but we also have to ensure that none of these caravans or more worryingly large scale importation of drugs from Canada disrupt the supply of this life giving medication.

LL: Yeah because that letter was actually drafted when these were still state level discussions. So I'm wondering what your reaction was to the news that the Trump administration is looking at this as a national level solution.

KIM HANSON: I think that yesterday's announcement came as a surprise to many in the government in Canada and has really made a theoretical distant problem kind of clear and present. So we were worried to hear that this legislation may pass this quickly and we're concerned watching for shortages, both at the local and sort of at a more national level and this definitely raises the risk.

LL: Now there's one basic question I think we need to answer here. Why are drugs so much less expensive in Canada?

KIM HANSON: There's a complex number of reasons, but briefly, our regulatory system that governs pricing of medication is different than that in the States. And the way that things like health insurance are structured in the United States has contributed to the list price of medications being, which is the over counter price that someone without insurance or with only high deductible insurance would pay, being artificially high. So the difference is not a difference that every person in the United States would would experience, but for those who do have no insurance or that kind of insurance, drug costs can be ten times what they are here.

LL: Now, President Trump isn't the only one pushing for drug imports from Canada. U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was onboard the cross border insulin caravan we heard about the beginning of the interview. How do these caravans impact Canadians?

KIM HANSON: Well these caravans are really doing a great job of raising awareness of a problem that frankly exists here in Canada as well. Too many Canadians are paying high out-of-pocket costs for the medications devices and supplies that they need to manage their diabetes so we mustn't sort of think that this is a problem that doesn't apply to us, but the cost of insulin is disproportionately high in the States. These caravans have been extremely conscientious about calling ahead to the pharmacies they plan to visit so that the pharmacies have time to get in. Additional insulin supply so that they won't disrupt the supply that their local customers count on. But yet we are hearing now of temporary localized shortages that may have occurred in the immediate aftermath of a caravan. So there is starting to be signs that these caravans may have disrupted on a limited and temporary basis availability.

LL: I understand you did hear from a Canadian diabetic who couldn't get his insulin after a caravan came to his local pharmacy.

KIM HANSON: That's right. He was able to get it the following day, but that could have been a very very serious situation requiring emergency medical attention on his part had he been completely out of insulin and so it's really a concern for us okay.

LL: OK, we asked to speak with the Health Minister, Ginette Petitpas Taylor and she wasn't available, but her office did send us a statement and it reads in part, "ensuring that Canadians have access to the medicines they need is one of our top priorities. We constantly monitor Canada's drug supply. We'll be working closely with health experts to better understand the implications for Canadians and will ensure there are no adverse effects to the supply or cost of prescription drugs in Canada. We're in touch with U.S. officials and look forward to discussing Wednesday's announcement with them." Kim Hanson you're in regular contact with the Health Minister's office. What is the latest you've heard?

KIM HANSON: I heard that they are very very closely attuned to this situation. They are also concerned to ensure the safety of Canada's drug supply insulin supply and yet I think that they are surprised a little by the timing of this announcement and so I think that there are probably a lot of people over at Health Canada that were up late last night determining the best response. We have written another letter to the Minister last night urging her to take decisive and proactive action to ensure that this new announcement about bulk importation by U.S. states is not allowed to disrupt the supply of key medications in Canada.

LL: I guess that's the question. What does that mean, proactive action? What do you want the government to do exactly?

KIM HANSON: I think that there are people far more expert in pharmaceutical regulation than I will ever be who can best answer that question, but it's clear to us that whatever measures need to be put in place to prevent for example large scale importation by online pharmacies or large scale importation by large U.S. states, has to be put in place because Canada is not structured to produce an amount of medications required for a population that size.

LL: I guess one of the things you're talking about because you've already said you have empathy for the Americans who need their insulin how do you balance universal access with protecting the Canadian supply?

KIM HANSON: It's a real conundrum I think. It's one that we've been talking a lot about internally and with our colleagues at the Pharmacists Association and that I don't think anyone has a full answer too yet because we know that you know we have tremendous empathy for the situation that is being faced by some Americans struggling to afford insulin. We have to understand that any measures we might take to limit the exportation of insulin could potentially disrupt the availability of that insulin to people in Canada, which it can't. So we have to think very carefully about what response won't create further unintended consequences and risks for patients.

LL: Alright. Thank you very much for your time.

KIM HANSON: My pleasure.

LL: Kim Hanson is the executive director of federal affairs for Diabetes Canada. She joined us from our Ottawa studio. Well my next guest says U.S. politicians may talk about importing cheaper drugs at large scale from Canada, but actually figuring out how to do it is another thing altogether. Andre Picard is a health reporter and columnist with The Globe and Mail. He's in Montreal today. Hello.

ANDRE PICARD: Good morning.

LL: What was your reaction to the Trump administration's announcement that it plans to allow imports of some Canadian drugs?

ANDRE PICARD: Well it wasn't unexpected. Trump has been talking about this and it provided a little bit of detail, but not a lot. So not surprising, but still not a realistic plan in any way.

LL: OK. You wrote in a recent column before this announcement that this is a "ridiculously simplistic idea that is untenable both politically and practically. It needs to be killed and buried and quickly." So Andre, what makes drug imports from Canada untenable practically?

ANDRE PICARD: Well it's really it's the equivalent of Trump saying we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. It's exactly the same thing. It's we're going to have cheaper drugs and Canada is going to pay for that. That's what he's saying. And there's no reason for Canada to go along with this. A lot of these laws I think will be struck down in the U.S. There'll be opposition from the pharma companies there. There's no reason that pharma companies in Canada, which tend to be subsidiaries of larger American and European firms, there's no reason for them to ship to the U.S.. So there's a thousand practical reasons why this won't happen, but it's a good populist soundbite to say we're going to get you cheap drugs from Canada.

LL: Now the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. has already come out against the plan. Stephen Ubl, the CEO of Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America says that and this is a quote, it said "importing failed policies from single payer countries is a bad idea." How strong of a voice are they in this issue?

ANDRE PICARD: Well the pharma industry is very very powerful in the U.S.. They spend a lot of money lobbying both Republicans and Democrats. So they're going to have a big say in this. Now they're opposed to it. I think for the wrong reasons, but I think they should talk more about the practicalities. And the practicalities are that we don't really manufacture a lot of drugs in Canada. We tend to import them largely from the U.S.. So what we're talking about is importing more drugs to Canada and then re exporting them to the market at a cheaper price. And what what is the interests of any company in doing that either in their Canadian plant or in the American headquarters. There's no, it makes no sense.

LL: Now as you heard our last guest say, many are concerned that this policy, if it's put into effect would create drug shortages in Canada. What do you think?

ANDRE PICARD: Well we have drug shortages now for a variety of complex global reasons and this would probably exacerbate it, if it happened. So if you have large scale importation, it's going to hurt. The U.S. spends $450 billion a year on prescription drugs, Canada spends $30 billion. So you know supplying 10-15 times the amount we have now, it's just not possible. So it would result, if it happened, on any scale in dramatic shortages.

LL: Do you see any self-interest at playing Canada from drug companies concerned about shortages here?

ANDRE PICARD: Well of course there's self-interest in everyone who's talking into this, but self-interest is not always a bad thing. So the Canadian drug companies want to protect their their market, but their headquarters want to protect it even more. So the U.S. drug sales are much more profitable than Canadian ones, for the simple reason that we have price controls. So to me, this ultimate solution to this if the U.S. wants lower drug prices, they have to introduce price controls like every other western country has done.

LL: And what about pharmacies? Are they also have a self-interest in all of this?

ANDRE PICARD: Well pharmacy, you know in theory they could make more money. They could import more drugs and they could sell them, but the pharmacies in Canada I think have an interest in catering to their clients who are here now and who are going to be here for a long time. This if it happens it's going to be a a blip. So I think that Canadian pharmacies are being very thoughtful and forward looking and saying listen we have to take care of our customer base. There's nothing except bad that can happen from this.

LL: Has this been tried before?

ANDRE PICARD: This had been talked about for at least 20 years. I remember Bernie Sanders bringing up a bus load of seniors to Montreal in 1999, but it's never been done on any scale. So you can import or you can purchase drugs if you're American in Canada a 90 days supply and you can carry them back. You can buy drugs online and there was a huge crackdown on that in the U.S. in the early 2000s because it was. happening on too large a scale and now the president is talking about doing it legally. So it's happened on different levels, but never on a large scale legal level.

LL: Weren't there are also issues with the online sales of drugs not being what they were supposed to be. The quality wasn't there or it was just outright fraud.

ANDRE PICARD: Yeah, so there is a problem. There is fraud and there is what was happening as they were importing drugs from third countries, India and places in the Bahamas et cetera, dubious sources and then repackaging them as Canadian. So there are legitimate online pharmacies, of which there are a few in Canada and then there are a lot of illegitimate pharmacies online that say they're in Canada, but they're who knows where? They're in Uzbekistan or something and that's the problem, it's not clear what a Canadian online pharmacy is online.

LL: Now this proposal has had the amazing effect of actually putting Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on the same side of an issue. So this has political appeal for Republicans and Democrats. You talked about the populist soundbite, but what is the draw?

ANDRE PICARD: Well you know they're not exactly. Trump and Bernie Sanders are on very different pages on this issue. Bernie Sanders was talking about insulin and people being able to purchase it and that's a very different issue. It's a non-prescription drug in Canada. On prescription drugs, Bernie Sanders wants a Canadian system. He wants price controls. He wants, currently in the U.S. it's against the law for U.S. Medicare to negotiate drug prices. He wants that law struck down. So what he wants is a Canadian style price control system. Donald Trump is not talking about that in any way shape or form. In fact, he's using this importation issue to avoid talking about that, which is the real solution.

LL: And so the Republicans are not onboard with Bernie Sanders' idea at all then?

ANDRE PICARD: No not at all.

LL: OK. How do you think the Canadian government should respond to this?

ANDRE PICARD: Well I think the Canadian government in the ideal world should be denouncing this far and wide and very loudly, but I think practically what they're doing is they don't want to wave a red flag in front of the bold Donald Trump. So I think this is why they're being quiet about it. I think they're taking a position that this is going to die. This is practically not going to work. So let's just sort of not draw more attention to it. Let's not pick a fight where it's not going to be helpful. This is just rhetoric and we can let him have his rhetoric, much like I think Mexico was about the wall early on. It's eventually changed positions and started denouncing Trump, but at first they just laughed it off.

LL: Now Kim Hanson from Diabetes Canada, she expressed a lot of sympathy for American diabetics who are struggling to pay for insulin. If cheaper drugs from Canada aren't the long term solution, what can they do?

ANDRE PICARD: Well I think we should be very sympathetic and as Kim said, those caravans of parents have been very thoughtful. They've called ahead. They're careful. They don't want to disrupt the Canadian supply. They know that this isn't a long term solution. I don't have a problem with parents driving over the border and buying insulin. I think Canada can handle that. It's having large states like Florida importing millions of doses. That's what would affect our system and very badly. That would result in major shortages. So I think the solution is that the U.S. should be looking at how can they control prices. It doesn't have to be the Canadian system. Canada's price control system is far from ideal. We have among the highest drug prices in the world. We don't control prices very firmly like some other countries like New Zealand, but we do better than the U.S., where it's essentially just a capitalist free for all.

LL: I did want to say that you mentioned that Florida, some other states are actually trying to move further ahead with this. Even if those states actually managed to start doing it and they wanted to start importing Canadian drugs, what could Canada do to stop it?

ANDRE PICARD: Well Canada can very simply just refuse. There's no obligation for pharmacies or companies to do this. So that's the first one. In 2005 when this issue had, one of the many times in the past it's come up, Canada brought forward legislation barring large scale exportation or re-exportation. So we don't want to stop our Canadian companies from exporting to other markets, but what we want to stop is re-exportation. So bring something in and then resell it to the same country. That's I think the implied deal that we have in Canada, we control prices and as a result we're not going to undercut you in other markets. That's our deal with pharma companies. So I think we have to possibly bring in legislation to say that. There's a federal election coming up, so I can see that kind of legislation being put forward again, as happened before the election in 2006.

LL: Now you mentioned Canada has relatively high prices. What does Canada need to do to improve its own pricing system? You spoke about New Zealand.

ANDRE PICARD: Yeah. So I think Canada now uses this formula. We have a body called the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the PMPRP. And they say they have to ensure that we don't have excessive drug prices. And the way they do it roughly is we use a formula of seven comparator countries and we list price of our drugs as the median. So we're about the fourth highest drug price in the world for brand name drugs and that's what we do. So what Canada's talking about and there's legislation and regulation put forward on this currently, is to change that to a comparator of 20 countries. So if you bring in countries with lower drug prices then obviously the median price will fall considerably. So that's one way to, a quick way to reduce drug prices. The other thing we have to remember is list prices are very rarely what people pay. So you have to negotiate bulk purchases, which is done all over the world. You know your previous guest talked about this. Very few people pay the list price for insulin or for any other drug. They pray whatever their pharmacy or their insurer negotiates. So it's a whole bunch of ways to lower drug prices and this has been obviously a big discussion in Canada as we talk about pharmacare.

LL: Alright Andre, thank you very much for the primer on all of this.

ANDRE PICARD: Thank you.

Someone Knows Something: Season 5, Episode 4

[Music: Theme]

LL: This summer we're playing some of the best of CBC podcasts. This week and next, we're bringing you the latest season of Someone Knows Something. In season 5, David Ridgen travels to Thompson, Manitoba to investigate the 1986 murder of Kerrie Brown. In this episode, a local teenager witnessed two vehicles leaving the crime scene the night Kerrie was murdered. What did he see that night and more importantly, who? This is Episode 4, Graveyard Road.

SOUNDCLIP

TB: Go down, I'll go down. You go up, I'll go up.

DR: OK. So we're just walking along here into the courthouse. We're walking into a busybrown and concrete building off the main street. Patrick Sumner at age 22 was arrested on October 23rd, 1986 for Kerrie's murder, about a week after her body was discovered at the hydro line off Mystery Lake Road. But the case was thrown out in February 1987 before it could even go to trial. I want to know exactly why. The RCMP said they would try to find the transcripts of Sumner's prelim for me, but we'll look here too. First we have to get inside. Trevor's got his arm looped through my left arm as I record our progress. We find the counter were supposed to be at and are approached by a pleasant dark haired woman. Hi. How are you?

VOICE: Not bad, you?

DR: I'm good. I think we've been in touch or someone in my office has been to touch. I'm David, I work at CBC in Toronto and I'm working on the Kerrie Ann Brown case, which there was a prelim for that case i.

VOICE: Long time ago, right?

TB: 87.

DR: February 1987.

VOICE: Yeah.

DR: And we were interested in getting the documents. If there's any way to find them.

VOICE: If it's been created once already and most likely if it went to the prelim stage, it has been. So we don't have access. We only keep 10 years worth of stuff here and so this would be a situation where we'd be seeking requests from Winnipeg to mail stuff back and forth. What exactly are you looking for, just the transcript of the proceeding?

DR: It would be the preliminary trial for Patrick Sumner. We leave our request with the clerk. Thanks so much.

v: OK. Cya.

DR: Sorry dude. OK let's go. Grab my arm.

TB: Trying to get out of here.

[Footsteps]

TB: Yeah this place is a lot bigger than I remember. I never really came out here in the daytime. I didn't really know anybody that was out here when I was a kid.

DR: I'm here at the Thompson graveyard at the end of Cemetery Road with Trevor. Part of the tour of the case. It's just across Mystery Lake Road and the hydro clearing where Kerry was murdered. I can hear one of the mines working in the background and Trevor's moved off on his own trying to navigate around the stones. I catch up to him. Where's Kerrie Ann buried?

TB: She's not. She's cremated. She's in an urn out on the West Coast right now and she's been passed around family. People take turns with her ashes and my mom's ashes. Kerrie's in a beautiful white marble urn for her ashes.

DR: When do you think you'll spread the ashes?

TB: Ashes for Kerrie? That's a good question. Maybe after we get some answers. Yeah. I would think.

MANITOBA ARCHIVIST: I've done some searching both with the Thompson staff as well as in the Winnipeg and I see no indication that a transcript was ever created because normally what happens it would have been court reporters.

MANITOBA ARCHIVIST: And there's no indication that a transcript was ever ordered in this particular case. So there is no transcript. And then the records like the code of shorthand or anything else associated with this file have since been destroyed because it is as old as this.

TB: Thank you.

MANITOBA ARCHIVIST: Bye.

TB: I need to look at the fuckers that did this. I need to look them in the eyes and know that they're .. they're not going to walk free anymore because they have no business walking free. They haven’t for the last 30 years. I'm assuming they've walked free all this time and ...as far as I'm concerned, they're cancers that need to be excised from humanity. Just put them in a fucking jail cell and throw away the key.

CME RECEPTIONIST: Okay, let me just put the last name. How do you spell the last name?

TB: Where do I fax a letter to?

DR: We sit in graveyard, sullen and frustrated. We’re both anxious to find some kind of tangible evidence.

DR: Let’s go...uh...take a break here.

[Sound: DR starts up the car]

DR: Here in Northern Saskatchewan looking for Sean Simmans.

[Sound: A GPS issues commands]

DR: Just approaching Sean Simmans’s place here in the small northern Saskatchewan town.

[Sound: A car door opens and closes. There is a dog barking in the distance]

SEAN SIMMANS: Hey!

SS: Good. How are you?

DR: Sean leads me past his dog named Dunna, into his kitchen. He’s mid-40s in brown work overalls, short brown hair and trimmed beard.

SS: So yeah. I just started grade eleven. That works. Because this was October, I think. So ... to go back to the night of. I had just got my driver's license, and my parents I believe they went to Selkirk because my father was looking at transferring to there with Manitoba Hydro. And he’d left me the family truck. I think they took the work truck, and left me the red Ford truck. Which was amazing. It was supposed to be my time to shine and prove what a responsible young man I was. And I just drove the balls off of it. [LAUGH] I remember… oh my gawd I'm ... I'm .... I put hundreds of miles on that truck in like one or two days. You know driving down forest roads. Just driving everywhere because I have the truck. And it was...a school and work night. I can't be 100 per cent sure in that. You know this is where things become weird. We were out, me and three buddies were out playing ...four buddies...We're out playing vehicle tag. And I had the red truck, and I don't remember what the other car was. But I think it was this kid Rene's car. And he had a car, and then Tom Henderson had his truck, and Curtis Beaver was riding with Tom Henderson, and Larry Leepart was riding with me. And we had a football, and now you basically drove all the hell around Thompson. Graveyard, train station, just every back road trying to find each other hit the other vehicle with the football. I hadn't actually heard of the game before this night that we played it, but fine. It was great. And we went for coffee two or three times over the night. We went to the radio station and took them a Black Sabbath album we wanted them to play. Lots of trips up to the cemetery. A couple trips down the horse stable road. We’d go for coffee again. And then somewhere around midnight me and Larry did a loop of the graveyard — the cemetery. Just did all these things. And it was one of those nights where time seems to just stretch on forever. And then at some point, and I'm not going to say the time because I don't really know the time anymore. But it was late. I’m going to say it was midnight-ish. Let's just use that as a pinpoint.

SS: Yeah. He was a .... like a scrawny little guy with .... with a mustache and straggly hair. Anyway, he speeds around us, takes off on the bridge and does, I don't know, eighty miles an hour into town and disappears. Burning rubber. The van behind us we're expecting similar shenanigans. The van just slows down, slows down, slows down. Drops out of sight. And I would say looking in the rearview mirror, looking at my mirrors, it drops out of sight and disappears pretty much in the vicinity of McCreedy park. Which would be a quarter of a mile behind us.

SS: No. I never. It was just the diminishing headlights. It was .... he wasn't driving at the same speed as everyone else. And then he never did come along. You know what I mean?

SS: In my present memory, no. But I mean that's one of those really muddy areas. If they show me, you know a statement where I said that that's probably true. But in my present memory, I mean it's gone. It's just been edited out. I just remember the diminishing headlights of the van, and then not being there anymore. And that's that story, you know? We just these fucking idiots blah blah blah. We went for coffee again. I know I got breathalyzed once or twice that night. I think I still have a little breathalyzer things ‘cause it was my first breathalyzer test, and I passed because we were just smoking cigarettes. So that's all for that night.

SS: And I was...after school, I was working at Hillcrest car wash. You know, this is where times and dates get fuzzy. I don't know that it was the next day or the day after that that I'm talking to Craig Jordan at the radio station. He called me, or maybe I called him for some unrelated reason, but I think maybe he called me. And he was saying that he was...concerned or he was about to do a ... a bulletin about Kerrie Brown being missing. And, you know, oh that's creepy. That's weird, and that's creepy. But there was nothing more to that. She was just missing. But that night, I was at Santa Maria Pizza after work. That's a place. You know, it was a 24-hour joint. It's a place where a lot of the kids went for coffee after hours. And I was there. And I don't know ... can't remember who I was with. And Ian Brown came in, and he might have been with somebody. I mean that table seems full in my memory. And he repeated that his sister's missing...So he had me drive him all around Thompson...he was knocking on doors, we were driving down roads, we were driving down the ...[snaps fingers]...I can't even remember what we used to call that. But it was behind Riverside Drive. We just drove down roads and knocked on doors, and he went to houses.

DR: To clarify, Kerrie was not found at the horse stables, rather, on a hydro line offshoot of the same road that passes by the horse stables. So, as the raven flies, almost a kilometre away from the stables.

SS: The gas pumps that Hillcrest car wash. That's where I work. So a car pulls up, and I recognized the car. That's the idiot that passed us on the shoulder of the road. And so then the news starts to break that Kerrie Brown's been found...and they think the murder occurred this night, which was the night she went missing. And then I started thinking 'wait a minute, we saw guys leaving the horse stables on that night. And technically earlier in the evening, we'd been at the horse stables.' So we saw guys leaving the horse stables. I just called the cops because I'm like this might be something. So I called the police...they had me stop by the station on my way home from work. We talked about what I'd seen the night in question. The night of the vehicular football game. People leavin’ the stables. And then I said 'Well Larry Leepart was with me.' And so they interviewed Larry Leepart, I believe. Now one thing that would come to pass was that I got the colour of the vehicle wrong. So in my initial interview, I called the vehicle an old boat kind of greenish [in colour]….It turned out to be an old boat kind of brownish in colour.

DR: This discrepancy in colour, from green to brownish — actually what some I’ve interviewed call a goldish colour — makes me wonder about other similar cars that may have been in the area. Something to look into.

DR: Wrote a warrant for it.

SS: No, no. He just got gas. Most people just came for fuel. And it should be noted here that the family, the Sumner family, lived at the dump. Like they managed and maintained it. But, you know, it all gets so much weirder because once the name was out there, and once he was taken in, and especially once the arrest was made, the people in that family, the Sumner family, started tailgating the red truck. Our red truck all the time. Like my mother could not go to the grocery store without having the Sumner father following her. And he'd follow her around town. And ...

SS: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Because I can't remember his name myself, but....

SS: Yeah. Following her. And sometimes it would be Patrick. So it’d be Patrick's father driving his truck following my mother driving the truck. Because like I said, the red truck that I was driving was actually the family truck. I got to use it to go to work and school sometimes. But you know it was also for groceries and mom's errands. And she would be followed by either the father or Patrick Sumner himself. And the woman that I was living with later on — because I mean there's a whole, you know, cycle of things that happened after this. But then when I'm living with the woman, and she's driving the red truck sometimes the same things happening to her. She being followed around. And this went on for like two years or more.

SS: Uhhh, some of it was before the prelim started.

SS: The father.

SS: I don't think so. But I know that in the later years, we're talking 10 years later when I'm mining, he'd come into the same restaurant where everybody had coffee. And there was one time where I was sitting with some people, you know, that he happened to know perhaps and it's a longer table. And he set out the other end, and I got up and left.

SS: What do you take in your coffee? Do you want anything in your coffee?

DR: Here, we pause for a coffee break. I resume by switching back to Sean’s story for more detail.

SS: Yeah.

SS: There was a pause. I don't know how long a pause it was. I can't tell you. There was a pause. I turned my lights on. They turned their lights on. And if we look back in time — we had like some time device — and it turned out that they turned their lights on and I turned my lights on. You know, I can't say that's not the way it didn't play out.

SS: Yeah. My lights were off. Their lights were off.

DR: And then it came to be that both lights were on?

DR: At some point before the turn happened. So they turn ... or you turn first.

SS: I'm left going into town, and they turn right going into town behind me.

SS: Right. No. Lights. The car is right behind me.

SS: And the second set of lights behind the car. We knew what the vehicle looked like because we'd seen them when we put our lights on at the road.

SS: Can I describe it in detail. It's like a shitty old rusty old muscle car-y kind of thing. You know, there was, you know, it turns out I mean it was a pukey brown, and there was, you know, some primer spots, some rust spots. I mean beyond that describe the car to you. I don't know.

SS: But I didn't know Sumner owned a car before this. I didn't know Sumner.

SS: Okay. So on that night I would have called it, and this would be from the bridge moment later on. From the bridge moment later on it was like a ..... like a greenish colour. But we're talking about you know orange street lamps on the bridge. We're talking ... so I said I called it like a greenish colour. When the car pulled up to the pump, you know, when I identify it later. That's the car. That's the guy. It was brownish, but it still had that greenish, you know, hue to it.

SS: Yeah.

SS: I don't know.

SS: You know. We didn't discuss things like that. I mean there's a .... there's an interesting side note anecdote I can tell. [laugh] At some point before the preliminary... when they’re building, you know, whatever their case it's going to be. At some point, Larry and I are flown to Winnipeg for deep hypnosis by the RCMP. So the police came to my house as I assume they did to Larry's house. They said to my mother 'you know we want to take Sean to Winnipeg. We're going to hypnotize him.' Botta bing botta boom. Can you sign here? And it was a big moment for me. It was exciting. My mom gave me $200 to buy leather jacket in Winnipeg. I'm like right on. We flew on ..... we flew down on Twin Otter, got to ride with a corpse. We stopped at a .... it was Cross Lake. And they body bag this guy, and they sat him up, and seat belted him in the seat behind me. It was great. You know to a teenage kid it's the greatest thing! [LAUGH]

SS: And then we went to this hypnosis thing where you know they put you in this deep state of relaxation.

SS: I don't know. It's a little more elaborate than the shit you see on TV. So it's like 'Hi, Sean. How are you? We're going to achieve a deep state of whatever.' I don't really remember it all that well. I thought it was horseshit. Even as a 17-year-old, I thought hypnosis was horseshit. And it's only in recent years that I realized that Larry was probably right, and the hypnosis thing was probably just a story, you know. We just went and did that because they really did want to see it with these two kids would talk about when they're in the room. If these two kids were killers, they'd talked about the crime they did. If these two kids were making shit up, they talk about the shit they were making up. You know, it makes a lot of sense. I think it was a good move. And I hope all that shit's on record somewhere because I'd like to know what we were talking in that room.

SS: Oh, you know, nothing that I recall. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but nothing that stands out. I recall things like 'boy, do you remember that ... remember when the guy passed us on the shoulder? That was crazy, right. Fuck yeah! That was crazy.' And I can't remember if Larry was more of a car guy and was able to give them information. I have no idea what information or how Larry's information plays out versus mine. I do think ... I do think that if the two things are here and this is my information, and this is Larry's information, I think you should go with mine. That's what I think. Larry was usually pretty high.

SS: I wasn't.

SS: He's always been smoking. I mean .. [LAUGH] Yeah. No. I've ... I've always had a problem with marijuana. Like any time I did smoke marijuana, say we're at a party, it just made me nauseous and sick. Still does to this day.

SS: No I don't know.

DR: Nine out of ten is a very certain number. If Sean was as confident then as he is now, I can only think that police must’ve been fairly confident in their witnesses, even with Leepart being high as Simmans suggests.

DR: Tell me about the prelim? Tell me what happened and tell me about how the RCMP dealt with you?

SS: I know that the the defence attorney was getting lippy with me like they do on TV, and I do recall a point where I asserted myself and said 'No. I just said what I said.' Whatever it was. I don't recall the line. I just know that I don't like this guy. He's always the little bastard. [LAUGH] And I know that I identified Patrick Sumner in court. Which is what you do. He's sitting right there.

SS: I don't think so.

SS: I mean, I don't think that. You know, 17-year-olds are pretty fucking stupid really. You know. So back when I was 17, I probably thought I was smart. Of course, I was not smart. But .... I don't think so. I think he was pretty vague about things he needed to be vague about. So he was not, you know, feeding me stuff.

SS: No.

SS: Because I mean as a 17-year-old, and maybe even now, I mean I'd be trying to get that information. But no, no. [LAUGH] I would try to get info. I like getting info even to this day.

SS: I felt like the house shattered. It felt like a murderer... had gotten away with something and everything all the emotions and energy that people invested in this was for nothing. Cause that's what it felt like. And it felt like the bottom falling out. Yeah, it just felt like absolute failure on every level. Failure of the justice system, failure of the police, failure even of myself. Like I had just ... if I just noticed one more thing... Like I can't recall what make and model the van was. You know, I knew it was white. And I have thought, and I say nine out of 10 ... nine out of 10 certainty that Patrick Sumner was involved. I don't think we can say he did it because we're pretty sure there were more than one people there...nine out of 10. Me talking in my opinion. But I mean that one of 10, you know, I've laid awake at nights and wondered if, you know, this stupid 17-year-old steered everything wrong. You know. I don't think so, but it's a possibility, and it has kept me up at night. But then I think, well they're the police. They're supposed to have their eggs in many baskets. They're not supposed to put all their eggs in one basket. Because a girl was murdered. You know. Viciously.

SS: Yeah. 1999. I want to say 1999. Could have been '98. 1999 they were trying to reopen the case and the police came to my door and asked for blood and DNA samples, and I gave them. And that's the last I've heard. That was the first and last I've heard of from them at all.

DR: Simmans said this in the prelim, right?

DR: I haven’t yet been able to connect with Larry Leepart.

DR: Ok. Let’s see if we’re in the right place here.

DR: Hello, Mrs. Simmans.

DR: Nice to see you. I've got Trevor with me here. Trevor Brown.

TB: Thank you.

TB: You sure?

TB: Okay.

DR: I had a great conversation with your son Sean...And that went really well. What I'm interested in finding out from you, apart from what you want to tell me, is .... you went to the prelim.

DR: The Sumner prelim.

DR: Did you go every day?

DR: Great. I'm interested in hearing from you what you heard, what you remember, what stands out from the Sumner prelim. And also, what you can remember about Larry Leepart's testimony?

MS: That's right.

MS: He watched two vehicles pull out onto the highway behind him. But then one of them turned off towards McCreedy Park.

MS: No. I don't have any recollection. Sorry.

MS: No.

MS: The next morning, Tuesday morning, it was Sean. And it was against Wolson.

MS: And he ... he actually tried to say 'this car is not the one that really was there.' You know. And he had pictures of Patrick Sumner's car in a ... in this photo album.

DR: Sumner's lawyer had pictures of. the car?

MS: Oh yeah. And so then he would [snap fingers] he ... he said 'well, is this the car?' And eventually, Sean literally stood up and said "I already told you.’ Everybody in the courtroom clapped because Wolson had been hammering at these kids. They weren't adults. They were young kids. And it was terrible. And they told me at that time that Sean was their star witness. That everything was being placed on Sean. And I just thought this is terrible to put on one teenager’s shoulders. I said why did you get involved.' And he said 'because it's the right thing to do.' I said 'But you're going to be tied up with this now for months.' And he said 'but mom, that's ... you have to.' Then Sunday, the police went out to see Patrick Sumner. I don't know whether they arrested him that day or what? But they took him into custody, talked to him, and everything.

MS: Saturday they found her. Sean then saw that car. Then Sean went to the RCMP. K?

MS: On the same Saturday. I'm trying to remember, but I think that's when the cops eventually checked, "okay, that car belongs to Patrick Sumner.' Sunday, I think they went out to see him, and they confiscated his car. Maybe they didn't. But at some point, that car got totally got cleaned up by the... you know, they went over it. Kerrie, this also came out in the hearing, she was taking a medication that would cause her to lose hair. Faster than we would normally. And so they found hairs in his car that matched up. I'm trying to think of how many points. Was it 16 out of 20 points or whatever? Because back then the DNA was different. Which that was considered a very very good match.

MS: Very close.

MS: Yes.

MS: That's right.

DR: Who did?

DR: There's no way to verify if or when Patrick Sumner or anyone else followed Sean Simmans home.

DR: Would he have been driving the truck? The red truck?

DR: Okay.

DR: The same truck that he had the other time.

(crosstalk)

DR: But who was following you?

DR: And you're sure it was him?

DR: Not his father?

DR: Oh! Well, that's a big difference. between him and

(crosstalk) ...

DR: A Sumner.

DR: [laughing] You got to be sure because Patrick was arrested on the Thursday, right?

(crosstalk)

DR: Okay.

DR: Did you ever call the RCMP and tell them that you believe someone in the Sumner family was following you?

DR: Why no?

DR: I don't think until the prelim Sumner would have been told that Simmans...that your son...Sean was the witness.

DR: I don't think Sumner would have found out ....

(crosstalk)

DR: So you think Sumner may have recognized from...

(crosstalk)

DR: From that night?

DR: The radio station closes at one.

DR: You think that's the timing. That's good. I need to know that.

MS: The police checked that out and that song played at a particular time. At that particular time.

MS: We all knew he was guilty. And I .. I don't even know whether I should say [pause] this. We were down in the cafeteria, and Judge Charles Newcombe was there...He had already made the ruling. This was more or less like within half an hour of the whole thing. We were down for coffee...And he and I were talking and .... and I said 'how can you let him go?' And he said 'we all know he's guilty, but we just don't have enough for the.... jury to unanimously say he’s guilty at this moment.' And he said 'this way at least it can. go back to trial.'

[crosstalk]

DR: The judge at the prelim said Patrick Sumner was guilty?

DR: He's passed away?

DR: Trevor and I finish up with Merilyn and say our goodbyes. According to Sean and his mother, Sumner appears at or near the gas station where Sean works on a few occasions at times after Kerrie disappears. And that leads Sean to identify Patrick as the person he saw coming out of the stable road the night Kerrie disappeared. Sean is nine out of 10 it was Sumner. But who else might have had a car like the one Sumner owned. And what did Sumner own? And what about the van that pulled out after the car, according to Sean, and drifted back in his mirror until its lights, disappeared from view.

LL: We've been listening to the CBC podcast, Someone Knows Something. It's hosted, written and produced by David Ridgen and we will hear more of the podcast throughout this week. I'm Laura Lynch. Thanks for listening to the summer edition of The Current.

The Current Transcript for August 1, 2019

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

Canada has 'no reason' to support U.S. plan to import prescription drugs, expert says

Someone Knows Something: Season 5, Episode 4

Aug. 1, 2019 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode