Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2023

The Current Transcript for March 17, 2023

Host: Matt Galloway

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

MALE SPEAKER: Housing, mental health, creating safe spaces for everyone. The library needs to be a safe space for workers, but it also needs to be accessible for everyone.

MATT GALLOWAY: Public libraries these days are much more than a place to borrow a book. An increase in violence in some branches across Canada has led to the installation of metal detectors, security personnel and anti-sleeping bylaws. Critics say the moves target the homeless. Supporters say they're keeping staff and patrons safe. In 30 minutes, whether a public library for all is truly possible. Also this morning, Ukraine used to welcome thousands of international medical students. Last year, they had to flee when Russia invaded that country. Now, those students say they're being ordered to return to a war zone to write their final exams or their diplomas will be withheld. We'll hear from a student and the exam administrators. And later.

SOUNDCLIP

FEMALE SPEAKER: If another judge was hearing this case, it probably would not see the light of day. This is a very conservative judge, and I think that's why we're having this discussion now is because potentially, he will try and do something which is unprecedented upon the FDA approval of this drug.

MG: More than 20 years after it was approved, access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, could be revoked across the United States. Coming up, the latest stage in that country's fight for legal abortion access. We start, though, with a crisis in confidence in the bank. Good morning. I'm Matt Galloway and this is The Current.

[Music: Theme]

CREDIT SUISSE

Guests: Eric Reguly, Kenneth Rogoff

MG: The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, appeared before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday to reassure Americans about the state of that country's banking system.

SOUNDCLIP

JANET YELLEN: I can reassure the members of the committee that our banking system is sound and that Americans can feel confident that their deposits will be there when they need them. This week's actions demonstrate our resolute commitment to ensure that our financial system remains strong and that depositors’ savings remain safe.

MG: The actions that she is speaking about were necessary because two banks collapsed in less than a week and a third collapse was narrowly avoided. Meanwhile, one of Europe's most prestigious investment banks, Credit Suisse, teetered on the brink of failure before Switzerland's central bank stepped in with a $74 billion loan. Eric Reguly is the European bureau chief for the Globe and Mail. Eric, good morning.

ERIC REGULY: Good morning, Matt.

MG: Why is this happening at Credit Suisse now? It seemed to be on the verge, as I say, of failure before the central bank in that country stepped in.

ERIC REGULY: Well, Credit Suisse has been a basket case for many years. It's been a classic story of mismanagement, deterioration, scandals. And that all accelerated in the last 10 days or so with the near bank failures in the United States and the bank failures, we're talking about Silicon Valley Bank, which no longer exists. And that rattled the entire sector. But I mean, what happened at Silicon Valley Bank, SVB and Credit Suisse, they're not directly related. Credit Suisse is a different story.

MG: But what's going on? I mean, if, as you say, there were problems in the past, why now? Why is this bank in such dire straits?

ERIC REGULY: It's because the whole sector around the rural banking sector did get rattled by the SVB failure in the United States and the near one at first republic yesterday. That one got saved. Matt, herd mentality set in and it sent down banking shares all over the world by, you know, 10, 20, 30%. I just think it was the herd mentality. Also, this Credit Suisse restructuring has gone nowhere. It was announced, you know, a couple of years ago. And it's this bank which is huge and global. And it's also a private bank, an investment bank, a normal bank. And it's restructuring has gone nowhere. And it was losing confidence. Investors were losing confidence in the bank and that's why the Swiss National Bank had to, in effect, rescue it the other day.

MG: And so they injected, as I say, $74 billion through a loan. The shares rebounded. They're down a little bit this morning, 5% this morning. But is this buying Credit Suisse some time I suppose?

ERIC REGULY: Yeah, but not much. I mean, The Swiss National Bank loan, it's called emergency liquidity assistance, ELA. This is nothing new. This has been used dozens of times during the financial crisis in 2007, 2008, 2009, during the Greek banking crisis 10, 11 years ago. Most banks who get this emergency liquidity injection do not survive. So it looks to me that we're going to have some big news on Credit Suisse probably within a week, because as you mentioned, the shares popped up yesterday. They're falling again today. They're down 96, 97% from their peak a few years ago. This company is not insolvent. It still has a balance sheet and it still has some good assets. But confidence in the bank is collapsing.

MG: This started with a small bank in Silicon Valley. And now in the United States, but also, as we say, in Europe, you have this crisis in confidence in some ways in the banking system. What does that feel like? What does that look like where you are sitting from right now?

ERIC REGULY: Well, it looks different in the United States than it does in Europe. I mean, I found Silicon Valley Bank fascinating, but it seemed to me a unique proposition in the sense it was a tech bros play thing in Silicon Valley, California. I mean, so it really wasn't diversified. And, you know, banks to succeed over the long term have to be diversified. If you loan to a car company and the car company goes bankrupt, you have, you know, 100 other companies that are not going bankrupt. So it was a strange case in that way. Also, it was a very interesting funding problem. It was taking deposits from the tech bros, and then the bank was using that money to buy long term bonds at fixed rate. Now, what's happened in the last year is central banks around the world have been raising rates. And when interest rates go up, the value of long bonds go down. It's like a teeter totter. So it was like a precision bomb on this bank. That's not to say, though, Matt, that all the rest of the banks in the United States are in a similar position. They're not. I mean, this bank was really, I think, fairly unique in its problems. Credit Suisse is a different story. But still, it is a confidence matter. And it's a huge, huge bank globally. And, you know, it owns CS First Boston. You may remember that name in the United States. If this bank went down, if it were allowed to collapse, it would trigger a global financial crisis.

MG: I mean, you're in Rome. Do people in Europe feel confident in the banking system that's around them right now?

ERIC REGULY: Yes. In the sense that one, we've gone through two serious banking crises here since the great financial crisis of 2007 2008. So the banks in general in Europe are better regulated. They're better capitalized over the last 15 years. There's been a lot of mergers. Yes, there is the odd failure and bailouts still, but for the most part, it's a pretty healthy industry here because they learned their lesson 15 years ago not to take such huge risks.

MG: And so you say just finally that there will be some big news coming when it comes to the future of Credit Suisse. What do you expect to happen with that that substantial bank.

ERIC REGULY: Yeah. No. I think it's going to be broken up and sold. The rumour is, and I wrote about this today, that Union Bank of Switzerland, UBS, which is even bigger, will buy the Swiss unit of Credit Suisse. Even the Canadian banks have been mentioned as possible suitors. This is unconfirmed, but just the rumour is possible suitors for the Credit Suisse First Boston franchise, the investment banking franchise in the United States. And so I think that it's end game. I think in the next week or so, we're going to find that this bank is going to be broken up and sold in pieces.

MG: Eric, thank you very much.

ERIC REGULY: Thank you, Matt. Ciao.

MG: Eric Reguly is the European bureau chief for the Globe and Mail. He was in Rome. Kenneth Rogoff is a professor of economics at Harvard University, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund and the co-author of “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Follies”. Kenneth, good morning to you.

KENNETH ROGOFF: Good morning.

MG: Let me ask you the same question that I asked Eric Reguly. And this is from where you sit, where you've seen in the last couple of weeks, two American banks collapse, these extraordinary steps taken yesterday to prevent the collapse of a third, and First Republic, a European bank, as we're saying, is on pretty shaky ground right now. How worried should we be? From where you sit, how worried should we be about the state of the global banking system?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Well, I think the core of the global banking system is pretty sound basically because after 2008, they put in tougher capital requirements, meaning how much money you have to hold against your deposits, and even what they call liquidity, meaning if you're holding money, you better be able to get at it fast to cover if there's a run on deposits, and a number of other steps. On the other hand, there are deeper problems in some ways in the global economy than there were in 2008. We didn't have the inflation back then. Interest rates had collapsed. So it was really cheap and easy to bail everything out. Now they're very high. We didn't have war going on in Europe. So I'm not surprised that there are problems in some sectors, the banking sector and others in the world somewhere. I don't think we should be so shocked. I suspect from a broader perspective, there's probably worse to come.

MG: Not suggesting that you were predicting such a thing, but you did warn in a column that we might see financial shocks. What is it that was making you nervous particularly? Is it interest rates? The fact that we've had low interest rates for so long that banks like many other institutions and individuals in some ways became addicted to those low rates?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Well, I think that's the big one. Whenever interest rates rise really fast, especially after everybody had gotten used to just free money that it just didn't cost anything, inevitably, somebody is cut out. I mean, the tech sector was benefiting enormously from these very low interest rates, doing these very long term investments, being able to fund all these start-ups. And it was a great ride. But with interest rates rising, all the things they had going for them, that they're doing things that pay off way out in the future and they need to borrow long term are going against them. So it's just not surprising that it's happening somewhere when you see this kind of stress. I was surprised it hadn't happened sooner.

MG: What do you make of how governments have responded to this? I mean, it's a bailout, but not perhaps by the textbook definition of a bailout.

KENNETH ROGOFF: I mean, you have to get into semantics to say that wasn't a bailout. I understand that politically in the U.S., that's very sensitive. They did the right thing I think. There was just wholesale panic. I was in New York the weekend that the Silicon Valley Bank was going under. And everyone was coming up to me, you know, anywhere I went about, oh, they're going to take all their money out of this and all their money out of that, lawyer's, business people. So it wasn't just contained to Silicon Valley. They had to do something. They had to sort of overshoot in a way. And it was very traumatic what they did. They basically, to me, insured everything in the U.S. banking system way beyond anything they ever said they would do. But they felt cornered.

MG: The criticism that you will hear, and that is why governments are reluctant to use that word bailout, is that it ends up being taxpayers. It ends up being the average citizen who has to shoulder the bad bets that bankers made, that they bet on low interest rates, they got caught behind the eight ball when those interest rates went up, and it’s the rest of us who have to carry that. Do you think that's a fair criticism?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Oh, absolutely. I mean, the problem with doing these kinds of bailouts, and I want to be clear, I think they did the right thing. I mean, it would just be much worse if they didn't. The mistakes were made earlier, not here. But, you know, it only is going to make people do bigger bets and have bigger problems in the future. And, you know, there aren't always losses, but there are often losses when we look around the long history of these kinds of bailouts. A lot of times they do cost money. A lot of times the taxpayer shoulders the burden.

MG: Could you talk just a little bit about confidence and how the banking system floats on that idea of confidence, that we need to have that at its heart or else the system itself sinks?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Well, that's particularly true for deposits, because the whole business of banking is they borrow money from creditors, us the depositors, who if they get scared or feel like it, can just take it out right away. But they loan out to everything from hardware stores to autos, mortgages, governments that they can't get their money back quickly. And what happens in a panic, when there is a broader panic is people start taking their money out. One bank gets forced to sell its assets or try to sell them. They start selling at discounts. That drives down the price of assets at other banks. People hear that, they go take their money out and you get in this vicious cycle. That's what happened in 2008. That's what happened during the European debt crisis. And I think a lesson learned was, you know, if you have to do more than you said you would do, if you have to guarantee people you think you shouldn’t and then they really did not want to pay for some of these big depositors who were getting high interest rates and taking risky stuff. They didn't want to do that. But the lesson was don't let it blow up.

MG: After the 2008 financial crisis, regulators crowed that they had brought in tighter regulations. Politicians were delighted with this as well. Weren't those regulations supposed to prevent a situation like the one we're talking about now from happening?

KENNETH ROGOFF: So the thing is if you look at the long history of financial crises, inevitably after one happens, they come in whatever country, whatever the legal system, whatever regulation system with something they say is better and it's going to work. Inevitably, first, there are political pressures to relax them. Maybe not after a year, but after a while. And second, the financial sector, the business sector, they're very creative. And eventually, they figure ways around them. And so between those two things, you get another crisis. For example, we've regulated the banks much more. The regulated banks I mentioned, the core of the financial system. But money is migrating to less regulated bank-like entities that have the name the shadow banking system that have gotten very big because they're not regulated. In a way, Silicon Valley Bank was an example of this. It was less regulated. It was doing riskier stuff. I have to say just we do have to recognize that Europe may have regulated much more heavily than the United States. Silicon Valley may look embarrassing, but the U.S. tech sector is the powerhouse of the economy. Europe has no tech sector by comparison because their banks are very hesitant to make those loans. So you don't want to put the financial system into a coma with your regulatory system and your supervision. And it's a tough balance to strike. And I don't think you want to be in a situation where there's just never, ever, ever, ever going to be a crisis. It means, you know, you were just hiding, you know, with your head in the, you know, trying to hide it in a closet and not letting things happen.

MG: In the last couple of minutes, go back to the issue of confidence. People who are listening right now will wonder for them, in the midst of a cost of living crisis where mortgage rates are going up, rents are going up, the cost of everything seems to be going up. What does a crisis, if we can call it that, in the banking sector mean not just for mortgages but for deposits? What does it mean for them? What would you tell them?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Well, first off, there's no way the Bank of Canada is going to allow a major default on deposits. Your money is safe. Whatever Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said to the American people, we can say this. Your officials can say the same thing to the Canadian people. There's nothing to worry about there. On the other hand, when there are stresses in the banking system, it gets harder to make loans. The interest rate you have to pay goes up, little tighter conditions on getting mortgages. And we're probably going to see that.

MG: In what regard? Would it be that banks would be less willing, less likely to advance the risk on a mortgage that they perhaps would have done six months ago or a year ago?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Yeah. Just, you know, ask a little bigger down payment, ask you to pay a little higher interest rate. They're trying to take some risk off the table because probably they have less money to play with because regulations are going to tighten up and they're a little more nervous about lending it out. I don't think there's any question that we're going to see some of that. I don't want to be hysterical about it, but I mean to say at a minimum, we're going to get conditions being a little harder when you want to borrow. No need to worry about your deposits.

MG: Okay. So just finally, you said earlier on that worse was to come. What's coming still?

KENNETH ROGOFF: Well, I mean, with interest rates rising like this, there are going to be problems around the world that may echo back. Not necessarily in the US and Canada, but Japan, for example. Talk about a place that's not used to having positive interest rates. They don't just have a generation of traders that have never seen inflation and higher interest rates, they have two or three generations of traders who've never seen it. And there are pressures in Japan. When things rise, the interest rates rise as they will. They're going to have problems. Italy may have problems. So emerging markets. There's much more to come with these rising interest rates. Hopefully we’ll contain it.

MG: Fasten your seatbelt.

KENNETH ROGOFF: Fasten your seatbelt.

MG: Kenneth, thank you.

KENNETH ROGOFF: My pleasure.

MG: Kenneth Rogoff is a professor of economics at Harvard University, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and the co-author of “This Time is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Follies”. Your CBC News is on its way. And then.

SOUNDCLIP

FEMALE SPEAKER: I feel like a big problem is that it's all reactive. But what can we do to support our libraries to stop the violence from happening in the beginning? How can we get in on the ground level and help our communities reduce the level of violence from getting to where it is right now?

MG: The local library is often a cornerstone of the community. And yet, a growing number of librarians in this country say they feel unsafe at work. In six minutes, the fine balance of providing a public and safe space for patrons and staff in the local library. I'm Matt Galloway. You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

LIBRARY SAFETY

Guests: Pilar Martinez, Pam Ryan, Paul Burry

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

[Music: Theme]

MG: Still to come, a judge in Texas is considering banning access to a commonly used abortion pill 20 years after it was approved. In half an hour, why that decision could have implications across the United States. But first, finding a safe space at your local library.

[Music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

TANIA CAYER: You know, the day of the murder, he was simply at the library like any other library patron.

MG: Tania Cayer is talking about an attack on her son at the Millennium Library in Winnipeg.

SOUNDCLIP

TANIA CAYER: He goes there all the time to use the wifi like anybody else, to use the computers. He was talking to his friends no more than 45 minutes prior to the incident, planning to go watch Sunday football.

MG: It was an afternoon in December. Tyree Cayer was 28 and he died after being stabbed. That library, the city's main branch, was closed for weeks after as the city wrestled with how to reopen it safely.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL JACK: You see the walk-through metal detector behind me, so that's in place ready to go. You will see some security guards manning that device and the table. There will be two uniformed Winnipeg police service officers present. They'll be stationed somewhere close to the entrance. Beyond that, this is the library you know and this is what it looks like. We know there's a real division of opinion about these measures. Some would like us to go further, some didn't want us to have to come this far.

MG: Michael Jack is describing the new security measures in place when the library reopened. He is chief administrative officer for the city of Winnipeg. There are now two full time police officers, increased security, bag checks and an airport style metal detector in the library. In the lobby, a community program that connected people with social supports was closed. While outside safety audits are completed, the city is spending close to $8,000 a week on enhanced security. And as Michael Jack said, the setup has been controversial. People going to the Millennium Library in Winnipeg have mixed reactions to these re-enforced security measures.

SOUNDCLIP

FIRST MALE SPEAKER: I was here the day that guy was murdered actually, before it happened. In the last few weeks or months beforehand, I noticed more and more kind of those kind of dangerous looking people. There was people sleeping under the books and things. And now that security is back, I still don't really like it where you have to take your keys and your phone and your metal stuff and you just go through and they scan you with a wand. The first time I went through, I had a belt on and I had to like, so I make sure I don't wear a belt or anything. I don't want to be there all day like dumping stuff out. I don't like seeing the police there, but I’m kind of glad they are. It's a shame they have to be here.

SECOND MALE SPEAKER: I used to come here every day and be on the internet and read the books. But like, you know, I get like, because I feel like they're invading, invading on all the things that I have. Like you know what I mean? It's like they want to dig through my pockets and everything because like there's so much security everywhere now. You know, I feel like I'm in prison.

THIRD MALE SPEAKER: Like because I come here and I do my research and I basically come here all the time. It's a good thing that we have security here and police because if they weren't here, then there would be a lot of incidents.

FEMALE SPEAKER: So do you think they should keep this type of security at the library?

THIRD MALE SPEAKER: Of course. Absolutely. Of course.

FOURTH MALE SPEAKER: It really doesn't feel like you're going to the library anymore. It's like you're boarding an international flight. Metal detectors and police, it's too much. I just want to go in the library and read a book and relax.

MG: Winnipeg is not the only library in Canada grappling with how to handle security. And while millions of Canadians visit their local library without incidents, concerns about safety and library culture such as it is are very much on the minds of my next guests. Pilar Martinez is the CEO of the Edmonton Public Library and chair of the Canadian Urban Libraries Council. This is a new working group on safety and security. Pam Ryan is director of Service, Development and Innovation at the Toronto Public Library. And Paul Burry is library director at Prince George Public Library in Prince George, British Columbia. Good morning, everyone.

ALL GUESTS: Good morning.

MG: Pilar, let me start with you. As I mentioned, you're the chair of this working group. What are you seeing across the country when it comes to safety concerns in public libraries?

PILAR MARTINEZ: I think we are seeing an unprecedented increase in the frequency and intensity of incidents in our spaces. And I would characterize this as a phenomenon that's happening across North America, equally applicable to our colleagues south of the border. And this has been happening, I think, for a decade or more. And it's just gotten increasingly intense and more frequent post-pandemic.

MG: And so describe that intensity that you see at your library right now.

PILAR MARTINEZ: Well, I don't want to minimize the intensity and increase. I also want to put this into context. The number of incidents that we experienced at Edmonton Public Library, for example, comprised less than 0.1% of our visits. That doesn't mean that it isn't taking a toll on our staff and it's something that we still have to address. So I just want to put that into context. We are seeing an increase in folks who are needing more attention in terms of first aid, or medical assistance increased in terms of folks who are intoxicated or using alcohol and drugs, increase in terms of folks who are experiencing opioid poisonings. Those are some of the things that we are facing at Edmonton Public Library.

MG: And so when I say that in some branches there are metal detectors, there are police, I mean, how common is that across this country as far as you understand it?

PILAR MARTINEZ: I think that's very uncommon. And I think it's such a tragic situation in Winnipeg. And yeah, that is not a common phenomenon. We've had security contract personnel, though, for decades. And that is a common practice across libraries. And I think there's a balance of approaches that libraries use to address these situations.

MG: We'll talk more about those approaches in a moment. Pam Ryan, what are you seeing from and hearing from your librarians in the Toronto Public Library Service?

PAM RYAN: I would echo what Pilar has said. At TPL, you know, we have more than nine million visits a year to our hundred branches. And over 99% of those visits are without any incident. That said, incidents are concerning. And the increase over the last few years in disruptive or harassing or even violent behaviour at our branches, about 20% of the branches, particularly in the downtown core, we are seeing that increase.

MG: What do you think that's about? I mean, libraries are very visible public spaces. What are we really talking about here?

PAM RYAN: What we're talking about is that public libraries are a safe and welcoming environment for everyone. You know, I always say that the best thing about public libraries is that we are open to everyone. And the hardest thing about public libraries is that we are open to everyone. And the people who work here are helpers and passionate about providing public library service. And the range of services and supports that we are increasingly required to provide are vast. And, you know, public libraries are not going to solve the root cause of these issues. And, you know, the issues are much larger than public library services. But we are responding in a practical and responsible way.

MG: Paul Burry, last year, some of your staff refused to come to work and there was a WorkSafe B.C. inspection of the library. What was the incident that led to some staff saying that they didn't feel safe in coming to work?

PAUL BURRY: Yeah. We had our security staff members exercise their right to refuse unsafe work, and it was around possible exposure to an inhalable substance in the confined space of our public washroom. And so that was the incident that led to the refusal of work.

MG: What did that tell you about what life is like on the front lines, if I can put it that way, in those branches?

PAUL BURRY: We know that and we've known for some time that we were facing those issues and we were working to address the safety concerns. And, you know, you never want to hear that your staff don't feel safe at work when you're working so hard to make sure you're doing everything you can to make the library a safe space for everyone. And so we knew that we needed to work together with our staff and with WorkSafe to address the issues and introduce new safety measures and improve the situation by reducing the risks.

MG: Many of the staff members across the country, frontline librarians don't actually have permission to speak with the media. We did speak though, with a retired librarian, Camlin Vinayagamoorthy. She worked at the Toronto Public Library for 18 years, is now on the executive Committee of its Workers Union. Have a listen.

SOUNDCLIP

CAMLIN VINAYAGAMOORTHY: I myself have personally witnessed stabbings. I have witnessed mob beatings outside and inside of the library. I have personally been a victim of assault, sexual assault in the library. We constantly get harassed verbally by customers. It's very stressful. I'm no longer just a supervisor. I have to now be a protector of the people in my branch. I have to know how to protect myself, my community. And I think that's very dangerous because we've now gotten to a point where we've accepted that this type of violence is just something that we have to deal with in the roles that we're in. And when I started 18 years ago, I absolutely did not think that I would be doing this type of work.

MG: Pam Ryan, what goes through your mind when you hear a librarian say that she needs to be a protector and that that type of violence that she's describing is just part of the job?

PAM RYAN: Well, that is, you know, where we are right now. And the training supports that we put in place for staff are vast and are designed to help reduce violence, help to de-escalate first and foremost, help keep staff themselves safe. You know, the unfortunate situation is that despite our best efforts, there are incidents that take place. And we do our best to help staff respond and give them the supports that they need to recover from them.

MG: What specifically are you doing? I mean, what has been put into place to create the environment that people feel safe? You mentioned de-escalation. That's part of it. Are there other steps that have been taken? Are there security measures? Just describe what it's like when somebody walks into the Toronto Reference Library in downtown Toronto.

PAM RYAN: Well, I can speak to last year. In 2022, our Toronto Public Library Board put together a discussion table on alternate approaches to safety and security. So we had 15 people who were representing the library board, the Library Union, library management, the city of Toronto, and a number of leaders from different community-based organizations all working to try and solve these same problems. And we came up with four areas for action, which we are currently implementing. And they were around preparing for incidents, preventing incidents, responding to incidents when they occur and then recovering and learning from incidents. So we have actions designed around all of those. Training in particular, we've always had training, but we have further increased and amplified our training supported by a social worker that Toronto Public Library has on staff to help us find and implement the best training from that social work perspective as well. So training includes incident management response, harm reduction, violence prevention and de-escalation, mental health supports, opioid awareness and response. So we have a wide range of training in place to try and address these issues.

MG: Have you had to put in security measures like bag checks, like a metal detector?

PAM RYAN: No.

MG: no.

PAM RYAN: No. We have long had security guards, security guards in a percentage of our branches. I think around 40 of them have them now and we have 100 branches. But no, we don't have bag checks or metal detectors.

MG: Paul Burry, what about for you? I mean, we mentioned earlier that some of your staff didn't feel safe in coming in to branches. So what are you doing in Prince George to make sure that those staff feel safe?

PAUL BURRY: Well, one of the things if I can build on what Pam said is that we looked at a change of approach in the way our security staff approach incidents. And, you know, we realized that probably the biggest single thing we could do to reduce the risk is reduce the likelihood and frequency of confrontational interactions between staff and patrons. And so we do a number of things including, you know, focusing on relationship building with patrons, getting to know who our regular visitors are, understanding the issues that they're facing and trying to relate to them and treat them with respect. And we feel like they're more likely to comply when we ask them to do something if there's that understanding between staff, frontline staff and patrons.

MG: You had security guards and then you stopped having security guards in libraries?

PAUL BURRY: No. I think what that may be referring to is we had gone back and forth between having in-house security staff as part of the library staff and using, you know, a security contract, guards to come from an outside organization. And we find that it's been easier and better for us to deal with the situation when the security staff is part of the library staff so that we can focus on, you know, making sure there's a values alignment with what the library is trying to do and that we can train and coach the staff who are part of the library staff as a whole to adopt the same kind of approach that we have library wide.

MG: Is this correct? You provided stab proof vests?

PAUL BURRY: For the security staff, we do have protective vests available for them to wear.

MG: Why did you feel that that was a step that was necessary to take?

PAUL BURRY: I think some of the security staff felt like there was a risk of being poked with something by a patron who was acting aggressively and they wanted that safety. So we added that as a measure to improve safety.

MG: Pilar Martinez, in Edmonton, what have you done to try to make the library as welcoming as possible and as safe as possible for everybody?

PILAR MARTINEZ: I mean, I think Pam and Paul have described many of the same things that Edmonton Public Library has done. We have mental health first aid management of aggressive behaviour training. We also have three social workers, outreach workers we've had since 2011 to help those who are in need and at risk and help mitigate some of those incidents. work very closely with a number of community agencies. I think all of us have librarians and staff who are embedded in the community. We work with the city of Edmonton, for example, who's providing support and funding to help. We have washroom attendants in some of our branches that are experiencing higher incidents. And they monitor the washrooms, they have lived experience and help proactively connect folks who have addictions with supports. We have an opioid overdose prevention team that has medically trained staff that walk through the spaces and again, proactively look to help folks who are in need. You know, we have security, we have staff training, we have outreach and social agency support within our spaces. Agencies work out of our spaces like the Homeward Trust, Boyle and Bissell are social agencies in our communities, the family centre to provide counselling. Public libraries, we as Pam mentioned I think so articulately, really are here to help and to serve. We have such a passion to help make a difference in people's lives. And I think we are going above and beyond in terms of trying to help a humungous, wicked societal issue that really is beyond our scope and capacity.

MG: You have a no sleeping rule in your branches?

PILAR MARTINEZ: We have a no sleeping provision in our customer conduct policy. Yes.

MG: What does that mean?

PILAR MARTINEZ: It means that you can't sleep in our spaces. And we did for a short period, about a year, remove that provision. And that turned into a really difficult situation in terms of basically a sea of sleeping men sleeping in our spaces. So that was not a characterization that is welcoming to everybody in our community. So we reverted back to the original provision, which is no sleeping in our spaces.

MG: The accusation from people who are critical of this say that it targets the homeless.

PILAR MARTINEZ: Well, I mean, that's their perception. I think we are not a day shelter as our mayor so articulately presented when we were facing this issue. So I think this is part of the working group's mandate is to reveal some of these challenges that we're facing. And there are better other agencies and organizations or government entities that are more well positioned to tackle these issues. And I think we have to remember what the public library mandate is all about.

MG: People in talking about this have used the phrase security theatre to talk about what's happening in libraries across this country. You said earlier that less than 1% of visits can be violent, aggressive, problematic, if that's the right word.

PILAR MARTINEZ: It's actually less than 0.1%.

MG: Less than 0.1%. Right. I mean, that's a very, very small amount. And then we're talking about steps that are taken. And again, I get that, you know, the metal detectors and the bag checks are uncommon. But when you hear that phrase security theatre applied when that number is so low, do you think that that's a fair characterization, that people worry about an overreaction in some ways if the number is that low to those incidents?

PILAR MARTINEZ: You know, Matt, I can't speak to what's happening in Winnipeg. I certainly don't think that's happening across Canada. Our security are trained in terms of our customer service values. They approach things in a way in terms of being welcoming. We want people to feel dignity. And I think that is why people come to our spaces, because there's a sense of connection, there's a sense of belonging, there's a sense of unconditional positive regard. And we want our security guards to emulate those values as well. So I don't see that applying to the majority of libraries across Canada.

MG: And we’ll spend the last few minutes that we have just talking about that, that idea that I mean, at its heart, the library is a welcoming public space. That's what we all remember as kids. That's what we use as adults, is you go to the library because it is that public space where you can go and yes, borrow books, but you can do a lot more as well. Do you worry that steps like this, even just having a security guard there, could threaten that if people feel as though they're being targeted, if people feel like not everybody is welcome?

PILAR MARTINEZ: No, I don't. I think we've had security for decades. And they perform a number of roles like unlocking and locking doors. So I don't think that. And I just mentioned that they are trained to emulate the public library customer service excellence values. And it's that balance, Matt. We want everybody to feel welcome and safe in our spaces. And one of the preventative measures and proactive measures we need to take is to have some things in place that help that occur.

MG: Paul, how do you go about striking that balance to make sure that your staff and patrons feel safe, which is obviously incredibly important, but also that people feel welcome in what is a very, we keep using this phrase, but a very visible public space?

PAUL BURRY: I think it's about just striking the balance and working hard to make sure people do feel comfortable. We feel that, you know, recruiting staff who have that values alignment with what you're trying to do is really important. And, you know, we feel that libraries are providing access to resources and supports that, you know, might not otherwise be available to some of the most vulnerable members in our societies. And so we're providing access to learning opportunities, internet and computer access. And we want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to make that accessible to everyone in our communities.

MG: Pam Ryan, what about for you? How do you strike that balance knowing, as you said earlier, that, I mean, these are wicked issues and there are larger societal issues at play, root causes that would lead to some of the issues that you see playing out in some of your branches. So how do you strike that balance?

PAM RYAN: Well, we are a safe and welcoming space. That is without question. I mean, we just actually this week got the results of a recent survey we did with Torontonians around library services and off the chart satisfaction with library staff.

MG: Although, we heard from one of the staff members saying that she feels like violence is part of her job.

PAM RYAN: Well, the point of this conversation today is to talk about this vexing problem that we have and how libraries are responsibly ensuring we have the supports in place to make sure that our staff have the resources they need to address those issues.

MG: And that everybody feels welcome. Is it easy to do that while everybody in society feels welcome in that space?

PAM RYAN: No, it's not easy to do. I think I said that the hardest thing about public library services is that we are open to all. And we need to have a lot of tools in our bag to be able to respond effectively for all sorts of situations, including these very vexing ones.

MG: This matters because libraries matter, and it's really interesting to talk to you all about what you're doing and what you're trying to do to strike that balance. Thank you very much for being here.

PILAR MARTINEZ: Thank you.

PAM RYAN: Thank you.

PAUL BURRY: Thank you.

MG: Paul Burry is the director of the Prince George Public Library in Prince George, British Columbia. Pam Ryan, director of services, development and innovation at the Toronto Public Library. And Pilar Martinez is CEO of the Edmonton Public Library and the chair of the Canadian Urban Libraries Council Safety and Security Working Group. We would love to hear from you if you work at a library or if you use your public library. How much do these safety issues weigh on you? How far would you like to see the security measures go? What's that balance that needs to be struck to ensure that people feel welcome but also feel safe in those public spaces? You can email us, thecurrent@cbc.ca. Well, coming up after your regional update.

SOUNDCLIP

FEMALE SPEAKER: We're not happy. We're confused. It's like they're throwing six years down the drain. Like what are we supposed to do now if we don't get diplomas? We should go back and repeat medical school from the start somewhere else?

MG: International medical students who fled Ukraine at the start of the war say they have to return to that war zone to write their final exams or risk losing their degree. We will hear from one of the students. We'll also hear from the administrator for those exams. That's coming up in about 90 seconds. My name is Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. Stay with us.

[Music: Theme]

ABORTION PILL

Guest: Pam Belluck

MG: Hello again. I'm Matt Galloway and you're listening to The Current. A decision coming in a Texas courtroom could be felt right across the United States. It's a lawsuit seeking to overturn the FDA’s approval of a commonly used and prescribed abortion pill. Mifepristone was approved in 2000. Anti-abortion groups filed a lawsuit arguing the drug safety was not properly evaluated and they want the drug to be pulled off of store shelves and off of pharmacy shelves. Now, pro-choice advocates say this will be the most important decision since Roe v Wade was overturned. Pam Belluck is a health and science writer for The New York Times. She's been writing about reproductive health for over a decade. Pam, good morning.

PAM BELLUCK: Good morning.

MG: You were in Amarillo, Texas, covering the hearing. What was the atmosphere like there?

PAM BELLUCK: Yeah. It was a really interesting hearing. It was small. They limited attendance for the public and for the media. And each side had two hours to present their arguments. And the judge asked a lot of very detailed questions, especially about different aspects of regulations that the plaintiffs are claiming weren't properly followed. Yeah. There's a whole sort of list of claims that the plaintiffs are making and that the U.S. government, the Food and Drug Administration, which is represented in this case by the Department of Justice, is strongly disputing.

MG: Just walk through some of those claims. I mean, as I mentioned, women have been taking this pill for more than 20 years. What are the grounds for this lawsuit now?

PAM BELLUCK: Yeah. So the plaintiffs say, and by the way, the plaintiffs are a consortium of antiabortion medical groups and for doctors who are also against abortion. And they claim that they have standing to sue in this case because they say that they have treated women who have had complications from taking abortion pills and therefore, they have experienced, you know, some harm because they've had to treat these patients. And sometimes, that has taken, you know, resources away from other patients. There's a big question about whether they actually have a legal standing to sue, but that's their claim. So one of the things that they're saying is that mifepristone is unsafe and that the FDA did not properly evaluate the safety claims and also it didn't properly match the language of the regulation that it was approved under. And so the FDA is saying in response that this is actually an extremely safe drug. And in fact, it's been so carefully regulated and repeatedly re-evaluated because it's under a special regulatory program and that it's very, very safe And that fewer than 1% of patients end up with complications.

MG: You mentioned that the judge was asking a number of very detailed questions. Just briefly tell us about the judge.

PAM BELLUCK: So the judge is Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, and he was appointed by President Donald Trump. He previously worked for a Christian conservative legal organization. And before his appointment, he has written articles where he has expressed opposition to abortion rights and also supported other kind of Christian conservative issues. So I think, you know, people watching this case would go in with an expectation that he may have a goal to support the plaintiffs’ arguments. But I have to say in the courtroom, you would not have gotten that impression. His questioning was very specific and detailed on both sides. He joked with both sides. He praised both sides. And so I think he was certainly making an effort to explore the arguments on both sides. The one sort of element that the people representing the FDA found sort of concerning for their side is that the judge spent quite a bit of time talking about what kind of authority he might have to rule. This would be really an unprecedented ruling because there's never been a case where a court has ordered federal approval of a medication be revoked.

MG: Right.

PAM BELLUCK: So the judge was sort of exploring what options he had. And, you know, the amount of time that he spent kind of exploring that may suggest that he is going to take some action in favour of the plaintiffs rather than do nothing at this point.

MG: We just have a minute and a bit left. One of the things that the groups are requesting is this preliminary injunction to take the pill off the market temporarily during the proceedings. People see this as in some ways the next shoe to drop after Roe v Wade. Is that how you would characterize this in the long history, in the long fight for legal abortion access in the United States? Is this the thing that people sort of were thinking was going to happen after Roe v Wade was overturned?

PAM BELLUCK: Yeah. I don't know if people were expecting this, but they were certainly expecting a lot of legal actions. And it sort of makes sense that abortion pills are the target because people use abortion pills in more than half of abortions in the United States. And people do feel that if there is a ruling in favour of the plaintiffs, if the judge does order this drug revoked and it stands as it works up, you know, if it actually gets upheld, then yes, that would be possibly even more dramatic or more widespread in its effect than the Supreme Court ruling last year, because the Supreme Court ruling said states get to make their own rules. And, you know, as we know, about half of the states have decided to keep abortion legal and the other half have not. But this ruling would apply across the country. So every state would be subject to, you know, not having mifepristone available. So it could have a very significant effect.

MG: We'll be watching. Pam, thank you very much for this.

PAM BELLUCK: Thank you.

MG: Pam Belluck is a health and science writer for The New York Times.

[music]

UKRAINE MEDICAL STUDENTS

Guests: Amara, Kostyantyn Rybachuk

MG: You're listening to The Current on CBC Radio and the CBC Listen app. My name is Matt Galloway. Come back to Ukraine to take your final exam or risk losing your diploma. That's the message from Ukrainian universities to medical students who fled that country at the start of the war. A growing number of international students say they will not return because they don't believe it's safe to go back to Ukraine as the war continues. Amara is one of the students refusing to return to Ukraine to write what is known as the Krok 2 exam. We aren't using her real name because she fears for the future of her education. Amara, hello.

AMARA: Hello. Good afternoon.

MG: Until the war broke out, you had been studying medicine in Ukraine. How long had you been in that country?

AMARA: About five and a half years.

MG: And what was your time like studying in Ukraine?

AMARA: It was like every other university, I guess. You go to classes, you have your classes, your tests, your examinations. You move from one year to the next and just with the hope that by the time your study is over, you get your diploma and move on with your life.

MG: And so you were essentially done your studies by the time the war broke out?

AMARA: Almost. I was a year left to finish. I had a year left.

MG: And you had to leave the country. Do you mind me asking where you went?

AMARA: I went to several countries before settling in Poland.

MG: You're in Poland now?

AMARA: Yes.

MG: And so these exams, the Krok 2 exams, what are they exactly? I said that they were the final exams. But how would you describe them?

AMARA: They are specifically the licensing exam for Ukraine. Every final year student has to write the Krok 2 examination. It kind of gives you the ability to work in Ukraine. It's proof that you studied and you’re done with your studies in Ukraine and you can work there.

MG: So for you to be able to practice medicine, you have to sit for those exams.

AMARA: In Ukraine. Yes. But the exam has no bearing outside of Ukraine.

MG: It has no bearing outside of Ukraine.

AMARA: Yeah.

MG: Right. So how did you learn that you were being asked to come back to Ukraine to sit for this exam?

AMARA: A couple of months before the exam happened? We were constantly asking our universities when we're going to write the exams or if we're actually going to write the exam. We never got a response for about two months. A couple of weeks before, I think two weeks before the exam, we pretty much got a text message from our university telling us the location of the exam, which was in Ukraine, in our city, in the university itself.

MG: How did you respond to the request that you go back and sit those exams?

AMARA: We said that we're not going to be returning because it's a war zone and they can't guarantee our safety. There's so many possibilities. We could get to Ukraine and then something happens and we can't return. We could get there and there’s a possibility we could die, unfortunately, or get injured during the war. There was also the possibility that we could not even get to Ukraine, which is still the case for many students right now. So we all said that we will not be returning for the exam.

MG: What has the university told you about what happens if you don't go back to sit the exam?

AMARA: We get expelled. That's the short version. If we don't return for the exam, we get expelled because our status as a student of the university would have ended by then and we would not be in school, but we would also not have our diplomas. So we would be expelled.

MG: Is that the final word? Is there any wiggle room? Is there any room for negotiation on that given the circumstances that are unfolding right now in Ukraine, the fact that the country is at war?

AMARA: Well, they told us that we had to write a request to the university to extend for a couple of months. That way we would be able to return to Ukraine hopefully by the summer to write the exam. But at the same time, that's not our concern because no one knows if the war would still be happening by summer.

MG: The 14th, March 14th was the deadline to sit for these tests. That's come and gone. So I just wonder whether people have actually been expelled so far.

AMARA: The majority have not returned to Ukraine for the exam. And those of us who did not, we were told that we have to register for the exam in May.

MG: You said that one of the things that was a possibility was that you could write the exam online. Was that at all raised by students toward the university? Did people suggest that as an option here?

AMARA: It was. We suggested it before the exam happened. We started sending appeals a month before, two weeks before the exam, but we never got a response from the ministry until like two months later.

MG: And they said that that was not a possibility.

AMARA: They said they would consider it.

MG: One of the things is you're essentially done but for this exam. Could the credits that you have accumulated at that university in Ukraine, could they be transferred elsewhere?

AMARA: We've tried that. But other universities that we've spoken to, they will not be taking final year students from Ukraine at all. We would have to return and repeat maybe a year or two.

MG: We're going to speak with somebody from the Ministry of Health Department that oversees this exam in just a moment. What would you say to them about the situation that you and other students find themselves in?

AMARA: We would ask them respectfully to please cancel the examination. We would not like to put our lives in danger for a paper that could have been written online. First of all, they responded very late, two months late actually, and we could have taken the exam online if they had responded when we first requested. But now our semester is over. Our contracts are expired. We're just here. So it's inhumane, to say the least, to ask us to return to Ukraine, a country that unfortunately is going through a very horrible time right now. But I don't see why they would expect foreign students to return and experience that same thing when it took us so long and it was such a difficult time for us to leave. We sympathize with the people of Ukraine, but this request is highly inhumane, to say the least.

MG: You sound like you'd be a great doctor. I hope that that happens for you sooner rather than later. Amara, thank you for talking to us and good luck.

AMARA: Thank you.

MG: Amara is a Nigerian medical student at Sumy State University in Ukraine. The Ukrainian med school exams are organized by a testing board run by the Ministry of Health. Kostyantyn Rybachuk is with Ukraine's Ministry of Health in the department that oversees the exam. Hello to you.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Hello, everyone. Thank you for inviting me.

MG: Thank you for being here. You just heard that student, Amara, a student at Sumy University who's now living in Poland, say that it's unbelievable that students like her would be asked to go back to Ukraine in the midst of a war to write this exam. Why is the Ministry of Health saying that those students need to go back now?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Thank you for this question. And actually, I wanted to start from this question. I'd like to comment, first of all, that the Ministry of Health would never and never ask students to come back to Ukraine. That student, she was describing the situation and is not telling exact truth. First of all, the ministry is the agency which just oversees the policy. But she is particularly a student of Sumy National University. So the ministry cannot tell the students to come back to Ukraine or not to come back to Ukraine. There is a huge miscommunication between the student and the university.

MG: Who is telling her that she needs to come back to take this exam?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: I’m 100% sure this is the university.

MG: So it's the university that has told her to come back.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: The university only. And I would like to explain why, because they are autonomous in curriculum, in education, in science and many other fields like universities everywhere in the world. But if we come back to the Krok exam, the government has left a tool which is Krok exam. This is indeed a high stakes exam. This is an external independent assessment which is made by the government in order to make sure that all the students in the country graduating from the medical specialty, they reached by the end of the study minimum knowledge, competencies, skills and everything needed to go to the hospital to work. That's why the Krok exam is so important.

MG: Do you think it's safe for students to return to Ukraine in the midst of a war to write that exam?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: I would like to say that nobody is actually forcing students to come back to Ukraine. And we are communicating with a few agencies, world-known agencies which are trusted by bar associations, medical associations and other ministries of health of other countries to administrate the exam in the countries where the students are right now. So we are working and that will happen soon. The students will know about that, that they will have an opportunity to pass the exams in the country, either in their home country or in the country where they are physically right now. For example, the student from Nigeria, if she's still in Poland, she will be able to take the exam in Poland. That's why I would emphasize that the Ministry is not forcing students to come back to Ukraine, which is, you know, not true.

MG: I guess it's just important to say, I mean, whether it's the ministry or whether it's the university, that she and other students at the university have received messages from the university saying that they would be expelled if they didn't come back to take that exam.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Actually, I would not comment on what the university said, which is possible. I would say that that is possible. But on the other hand, I would say this. Very often, I want to emphasize, students are manipulating, you know, the situation and trying to get their advantage.

MG: What do you mean that they're manipulating the situation? You think that they're trying to avoid taking the exam?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Of course. I've been working in this position for almost three years. And several times a year before the war began, I had to meet with an enormous number of students who are trying to complain because of, you know, some kind of misunderstandings that they had with the universities. And every time, they either tried to do something to avoid taking the exam or to lower the score.

MG: I mean, I don't know about those instances. And I don't know how you, you know, would prove such a thing. But the student that we spoke to wants to write her exams. She wants to go off, You heard, and be a doctor.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: And let me tell you, not only the students. In Ukraine, there are international students who are going into the medical education, just medical education. Not all international students in all specialties, only in medical education. I have exact statistics. We have international students from 118 countries. So it means that 118 countries trust medical education in the Ukraine because we have schools over 100 and 200 years old, classical medical universities.

MG: But let me just stop you there. Just to be clear, the student that we spoke with wants to take her exam but does not want to travel back to a war zone to have to take it.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Like I said, she will have an opportunity to take the exams soon in the country where she is right now. It can be Poland, it can be Nigeria if she returns home. But there will be a test centre organized specifically for Ukrainian international students to have the exam abroad. I want to emphasize, the ministry and the testing board is doing everything possible and some things impossible to create comfortable and safe conditions for every student.

MG: Is there the possibility that they could do those exams online?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: They will not be online. They will be in specialized testing centres on the computers in a secure premises under the cameras where they will come with their id, their passport, government issued id like they do in Ukraine and sit at the computer and have the exam in comfortable, safe conditions which will be provided for them.

MG: The Kyiv Medical University told us that they raised safety concerns with the Ministry of Health when it came to these exams. Were those concerns ignored by the ministry?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: I am not aware of the concerns that they sent. Kyiv Medical University is a private university. And I don't know whom they contacted, when and what kind of safety issues they raised.

MG: It's just important in part because, as you heard, these students feel as though they are in limbo. They have spent a lot of money, but also a lot of time studying at these universities and are essentially done but for taking this exam. And I just wonder if you understand the situation that they find themselves in.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: I totally understand and I'm doing everything possible to help those students. I know what it's like to be an international student because I was an international student myself back in my student years. I know what it's like when you're a thousand kilometres away from home alone and you need to take care of yourself and your study and everything. I know. That's why I am one of the active helpers to these international students. And if we come back to the opportunity to have the exam, they will have that opportunity in very comfortable conditions, in very safe conditions, and moreover, in the place, in the location which will be very close to them.

MG: When will those exams be happening again? Those students have been waiting for a year and again, as we see the war unfold. But those students have been waiting for a year to move on with their lives. When will those exams be happening in the places where the students are now living?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: These exams will happen definitely either before the summer or during the first month of this summer at the latest. We will be hopefully able to tell them starting in a week time from today.

MG: But what about for the students who came back? For the students who came back in the midst of a war, perhaps they were not at their best because of the situation that they were in. Would they have a chance to redo their exam?

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Every student has two opportunities, two attempts. If you failed once, you have an opportunity to retake the exam within the next two months. However, if the student fails the exam after the second attempt, well, it means that the student has not studied well and he has to repeat at least a term or two terms and then next year come to the exam again and have two more opportunities.

MG: This has been the subject of great concern as you've heard from students. I just wonder what you say to people who feel as though their concerns in this have been dismissed.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Their concerns have not been dismissed. We are again doing everything possible to organize these exams for students all over the world. And we are almost ready with that. The students need to wait for another week when we will send information to the universities and the universities will deliver this information to the students about the exam.

MG: Kostyantyn Rybachuk, we will leave it there. Thank you very much.

KOSTYANTYN RYBACHUK: Thank you. Thank you for inviting me.

MG: Kostyantyn Rybachuk is the deputy head of the testing board that oversees the exams for medical students in Ukraine. That's The Current for this Friday. Q is up next on CBC Radio One. It is March 17^th. Of course, St. Patrick's Day. Perhaps you will mark this day with a pint this afternoon, maybe a little bit of Irish soda bread. In the spirit of St. Patrick's Day, a little bit of Irish music. Kind of the next generation of Irish music in some ways. This is a band called Inhalers. And the frontman is a guy named Elijah Hewson. His father is Paul Hewson, also known as Bono. The apple does not fall far from the tree. They have actually done very well on their own without any sort of, you know, influence of nepotism. Perhaps that helps them. I'm sure that they don't want to know the world talking about the fact that their singer's father is one of the big Irish rock stars. Can't hurt. But at the same time, they have done very well on their own. And they're actually going to be touring through Canada. Will be in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver later on this month. From Inhaler on this St. Patrick's Day, this is Love Will Get You There. I'm Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening to The Current. We'll see you on Monday.

[Song: “Love Will Get You There” by Inhaler]

Friday March 17, 2023 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing